EVOLUTION: what about this

[StAnastasia]

That about sums it up. People want to have their ears tickled rather than hear the truth.

Possibly. Pastors recognize that the money tree will wither if all people hear about is hell – congregants will vote with their feet right out the door. A return to fire and brimstone sermons would lead to a smaller – some would say “purer” – church. In any case, masochistic spirituality is not my cup of tea.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible is clear that Jesus loved and continues to love us. But God is a just God. He is described as slow to anger and quick to forgive. But there are numerous places in the Bible where God’s justice is described as well as the punishment. Finally, all Christians are warned about being lukewarm. Either we are in an active relationship with God or not (described as hot or cold).

Feel good homilies and getting money in collection baskets is not a balanced or whole view of the Gospel message. “Why do you say to me Lord, Lord but do not the things I tell you?” We have received the gift of eternal life but do not the things we are told. “If you love me keep my commandments.” This is the Son of God talking.

A theology that assigns to chance and necessity the development of life on earth and ignores the Creator God is an ideology outside of true divine revelation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Feel good homilies and getting money in collection baskets is not a balanced or whole view of the Gospel message. … “If you love me keep my commandments.” This is the Son of God talking. Peace, Ed

Many pastors prefer to emphasize the part about keeping the commandments, rather than extrapolating beyond that to some imagined horrific punishment. We have a lot of kids in our parish, and I don’t think they would react well to homilies that include Faustina’s ghastly nightmare.

 

[Orogeny]

Did I say that?

I am asking.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

First off, you claim you do not want to be a mindless adherent that cannot think for himself. .

Not that I’m opposed to it, but In which post did I claim this?

 

[ricmat]

Possibly. Pastors recognize that the money tree will wither **if all people hear about is hell **-- congregants will vote with their feet right out the door. A return to fire and brimstone sermons would lead to a smaller – some would say “purer” – church. In any case, masochistic spirituality is not my cup of tea.

Many pastors prefer to emphasize the part about keeping the commandments, rather than extrapolating beyond that to some imagined horrific punishment. We have a lot of kids in our parish, and I don’t think they would react well to homilies that include Faustina’s ghastly nightmare.

The imagined horrific punishment you refer to is a teaching of the Church, and has been since the beginning. That means that it is not just imagined, or a hallucination as you referred to in an earlier post.

You say in your first post above that “if all people hear about is hell…” I’ve seen nobody here suggest that. What I’ve seen people suggest is that hell actually exists, and is not just an imaginary place which can for all intents and purposes be ignored, as you seem to suggest.

You might enjoy (or not) reading “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis. It’s a modern (circa mid 1900’s) parable about heaven and hell. It’s quite good, and also quite short. You could probably finish it in an hour or two.

And you’ve previously made comments about “sex obsession…” I recommend that you read “Theology of the Body” by JP2. Or the short version by Christopher West. Sex is indeed very very important and not just from the Freudian “it explains everything and ties in very nicely with evolution and the need to procreate” perspective.

 

[edwest2]

Many pastors prefer to emphasize the part about keeping the commandments, rather than extrapolating beyond that to some imagined horrific punishment. We have a lot of kids in our parish, and I don’t think they would react well to homilies that include Faustina’s ghastly nightmare.

Faustina is a saint. As a kid who went to Catholic School, I understood that all of us would stand before God at the final judgement. It’s in the Bible. No modernist rephrasing is necessary. No revision is necessary. Yes, God is merciful but God is also just. And that is something all Catholics need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

You might enjoy (or not) reading “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis. It’s a modern (circa mid 1900’s) parable about heaven and hell. It’s quite good, and also quite short. You could probably finish it in an hour or two.

Yeah - I’ve read that one - good book.

 

[reggieM]

Possibly. Pastors recognize that the money tree will wither if all people hear about is hell –

I can’t imagine that you’re defending “Catholicism Lite” because to teach otherwise will affect income and revenue. It’s not supposed to be a popularity contest. I would hope that much would come through in Jesus’ own life.

But I will say that you’re prone to extremes. You say “if all people hear about is hell”.

This is in contrast to your pastors who “never preach” about hell or damnation.

There’s a big world between “all you ever hear” and “never hearing”.

Thankfully, our parish priests preach about hell frequently, since it is what Our Savior saved us from. But it’s not the “hellfire sermons” that you’re apparently afraid of (although we get those sometimes also) – and it’s not “all we hear”.

In any case, masochistic spirituality is not my cup of tea.

I guess not. You call Mel Gibson’s “Passion” a “snuff-film”.

Apparently, you have a very difficult time with things like:

The Stations of the Cross
The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary
The Seven Sorrows of Our Lady
and Good Friday.

I’m not at all surprised. We have a lot of Crossless Catholic parishes in my area. Those are places where they are afraid to talk about Jesus’ death – perhaps they think that such a meditation is “masochistic”. For them, it would have been far better if Our Lord left us a smiley face instead of a cross for the symbol of His Kingdom.

As for doing penance, mortifiying the senses (mortifying is such a masochistic word) and bringing one’s body into subjection lest we become enemies of the Cross – those concepts are scoffed as well.

I notice how they try to make Good Friday a “celebration for rejoicing” as well. That just seems blasphemous to me.

 

[StAnastasia]

Apparently, you have a very difficult time with things like:
The Stations of the Cross
The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary
The Seven Sorrows of Our Lady
and Good Friday…

How do you draw that conclusion?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[Americans Think Hell Exists, But No One Goes There (Americans Think Hell Exists, But No One Goes There)

…But now for the more astounding statistic: Of all those folks who still purport to believe in Hell, only one-half of 1% thinks that they could possibly be going there. That is to say, everyone is going to Heaven, and virtually no one will be in Hell. For all practical purposes, Hell might as well not exist.

more…

**There should be more sermons on God’s Wrath, & on Hell. People deserve Hell. Everyone does. And if some of us don’t watch our step, that is what is in store for us. **​

Here’s one, of Newman’s:

• ** newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse2.html**
  Why the Passion,** if there is no Hell ? If there is no Hell, what need of salvation is there ? Why all the NT mentions of the Wrath of God, if there is no punishment in store for those reject Him ? **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Was “humankind” the father of Cain, Abel, and Seth?

**That is one of the clues that two different authors were at work, the Priestly author & the Jahwist. **​

 

[reggieM]

How do you draw that conclusion?

How could I avoid it?

You refer to the film “The Passion of the Christ” as a “snuff film”.
You claim that sermons about hell are “masochistic spirituality”.
You want to “suggest some homilies on hell delivered in a more cheery vein”.
You’ve complained about “obsessions” with hell simply upon reading one brief reference to it.
You called Sister Faustina’s vision “like a bad acid trip”.
(They’re not different than the revelations of Hell given to the children of Fatima or to Sister Josepha Menendez or St. Teresa of Avila and many others).

In the Stations of the Cross, we meditate on the “ghastly” treatment Our Lord suffered.

I can’t see how you could appreciate that kind of devotion and be consistent with the remarks you’ve offered recently.

 

[StAnastasia]

I can’t see how you could appreciate that kind of devotion and be consistent with the remarks you’ve offered recently.

Not everyone has to wallow in the gruesomeness of a Gibsonian imagination, or follow a Faustinian imagination of the anger of God, to appreciate the seriousness of sin. Just because I don’t picture hell as peopled by horned guys in red suits armed with pitchforks doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Problem: Almost all the Fathers(except for Origen and possibly Augustine) of the Church took Genesis literally. Leo XIII and other Popes said the literal sense of scripture must be taken unless there is clear evidence in the text that suggests otherwise. There is simply nothing in Catholic tradition that has even the slightest suggestion as to what you are saying.

**A lot depends on what is meant by “literal sense”. It’s a phrase with more than one possible denotation. **​

**If the “plain sense” is what’s meant - what does that denote ? The “plain sense” of Genesis 6-8 is that the entire earth was flooded: but this is impossible, because of the ****problems that would arise if this what had happened. **

**This issue is badly out of focus, because the problems the Fathers were aware of are not those we are aware of. They dod not have to worry about how the Flood would cover Mount Everest, because they had no awareness of Mt. Everest. So mere quotation is neither here nor there - it’s pointless & useless, unless the problem under discussion is the same for them as for us. If problems are ignored, one is left with empty-headed superstition, & not with faith at all. **

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is what it really comes down to. Either you accept the science or reject it because the Church didn’t have the science at their disposal 1500 years ago. Your approach is clear - we are locked in our understanding of divine revelation to that which was accepted 1500 years ago. We cannot learn anything from scriptures and the Church cannot develope a deeper understanding over time. We truly are required to believe a literal 6 day creation 6,000 years ago and that the earth is the immovable center of the universe. We MUST reject science.

I reject your version of the faith. I will NOT deny the intelligence that God gave to us simply because some people are scared of the implications to THEIR faith. I will side with our Pope.

Peace

Tim

**You certainly know how to say briefly what needs to be said - TY If that sort of Fundamentalist tripe is Catholicism (& it is not), then the sooner everyone’s rid of it the better. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So the Holy Spirit takes the shift off anytime we speak of science? Hmmmm!!! God said to the Holy Spirit - Holy Spirit when science comes around you are to take a hands off. Geeshhh!

The Holy Spirit didn’t know we would begin to delve deeper into science. Have you ever thought that the Holy Spirit would inspire men to write things that would reaffirm truth despite our scientific forays?

**Like “The Origin of Species” & “The Descent of Man” ? Why not ? **​

---

**In their own department, those boks are at least valuable as anything by Fathers, Doctors & Co. They seem not to be simply because the idea that God can declare His truth through a 19th-century Victorian agnostic is on the face of it surprising to anyone who thinks that God can’t work outside a Holy Institution or a Holy Book. **

---

**Inspiration is not limited to the Bible - that’s too static an idea, & God is dynamic, is the Living God. IMO we need to develop - not falsify, develop - the notion of inspiration; otherwise, it is in some danger of being a merely churchy shibboleth with no bearing on real life. **

---

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t know that we can test for divine inspiration of scientists. Does God inspire them? Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Hutton, Lavoisier, Buffon, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, Wegener? Or does God pick and choose which scientists to inspire? Cassini and Sungenis would regard the supposed inspiration of Galileo as anathema.

You’ve forgotten Tycho Brahe & Johannes Kepler And van Leeuwenhoek, Cassini, Harvey, Steno, Cuvier, Volta, Simpson, Faraday, Edison, Fleming (but not Lysenko), etc.** Maybe scientists are like the Prophets - there may be some who are true, & others who are not, or who are less true. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer:

At what point in the evolutionary process did a human with an immortal soul, who would experience an afterlife after death, come about?

I have no idea, sorry ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why are you trying to argue that evolution violates a theological position when it has already been deemed to be non-contradictory? I figure if there was something shown to be contradictory the Pope would’ve said it.

**The text you quoted is not mine, but the poster’s to whom I was replying (I think ) Sorry for the confusion. **​