EVOLUTION: what about this

[rossum]

I didn’t mean babies who couldn’t even walk could commit crimes. Innocence goes a little deeper than that.

Your version of innocence differs from mine then. If someone has not comitted any crime then they are innocent.

If Hitler had children and he was indoctrinating them with hate for everyone non-Aryan then they would be able to inflict severe evil on the world by continuing his policies. The elimination of evil should include the seeds too.

Does a one week old embryo have enough indoctrination to warrant killing it? Does a one week old baby have enough indoctrination to warrant killing it? At what age do you suggest that the police sieze the indoctrinated children of race-hate parents in order to execute the children? You are not making a good argument here.

But, you and StA are missing the big one. The flood. Now that is mass murder. All the other stuff pales by comparison.

I was holding that one in reserve. Another good one is forty-two children being torn apart by bears for calling a prophet “baldy”: [2 Kings 2:23-24]. Overreaction or what. Another obvious example is Job, whom God allows to suffer at Satan’s hands despite not having done anything wrong.

Some things we don’t know - now God sent His only son to unlock the gates of heaven. This is a significant event for more than one reason. We ask - well what happened to all the people before they were opened? It poses some interesting possibilities. Perhaps God removed souls from this earth that were not capable of experiencing Him fully. Perhaps what we view through our modern lens as brutal and murderous was mercy. We do not know what became of those souls. Perhaps God exhibited love and mercy to them is some way unknown to us.

Irrelevant. The question in this subthread was about where God causes suffering to innocents:

Could you please share where it is in the Bible that God inflicts sufferring on the innocent?

Your point here is irrelevant to that question.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

Please answer the question I asked.

Well, I did. You asked my position and I told you. But to your specific question regarding entropy, my understanding is that the entropy of the universe is increasing. I don’t have the background to give a specific answer to that.

So I’ll turn it around. Is the entropy of the universe increasing or not? What do you base that on?

And what is your response to my original reply?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, do you doubt Clement Butel’s scientific credentials? Here they are:

“Clement Butel has a tertiary qualification in accountancy. He worked with an Australian government department from the middle of the Great Depression until his retirement in 1977. In the later years of his employment, he gained research and writing experience through having to investigate taxation disputes and to prepare precise statements of fact and law for use as briefs in taxation tribunals and court appeals.”

Yep, he is pretty impressive.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Scientists do it all the time. The journal Nature tells us most leading scientists reject God. And they use scientific evidence to do so. The Church specifically states that atheistic evolution is not acceptable.Peace,Ed

Atheistic plate tectonics, evolution, gravity and atomic theory do not exist.

 

[mpartyka]

The Church specifically states that atheistic evolution is not acceptable.

Okay, but what’s the difference between “theistic” and “atheistic” evolution? How does the process of the one differ from that of the other?

If an apple falls on my head, I can think gravity did it (i.e., a natural process – e.g., repeated wobbling from wind pressure caused the stem to weaken and break, thus making the apple fall) or I can think God did it (i.e., a supernatural process – e.g., God momentarily increased the pull of gravity on the apple to make the apple fall). How do I tell which one happened?

Seems to me, if you lay out the process of evolution and call it “atheistic”, then lay out as an alternative the same process of evolution and call it “theistic”, you haven’t really accomplished anything beyond a semantic victory.

–Mike

P.S.: Sorry if this has been addressed before. I’m new.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was holding that one in reserve. Another good one is forty-two children being torn apart by bears for calling a prophet “baldy”: [2 Kings 2:23-24]. Overreaction or what. .

Clearly God hated those children; perhaps they were over seven years of age.

 

[PEPCIS]

Am I wrong in this? What sins can a one week old embryo commit? What sins can a one week old baby commit? Be specific please.

That’s a wrong concept of humans and sin. We aren’t sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. If a baby hasn’t sinned yet, give him time.

 

[rossum]

With God’s chastisements, the good and the bad suffer. All creatures are subject to death, and that is God’s punishment on everyone - the innocent or the guilty.

God is omnipotent, so He is perfectly capable of using chastisements that affect only the bad and not the good; hell is an example of such. If He inflicts chastisements on both then it is because He wants to inflict chastisements on both.

For those who will live with God for eternity, death is a blessing and life on this earth is the Cross of Christ.

Cue a standard pro-abortion/pro-suicide/pro-murder argument. You can do better than this.

When using the term “punishment” with regards to God’s actions, you have to realize that all of God’s actions are for the good (both justice and mercy).

I am having difficulty in seeing the justice and mercy in killing pregnant women. As far as I am aware all countries that enforce the death penalty do not execute pregnant women. Even the Argentine Junta allowed pregnant women to give birth before the mother was killed and the child adopted. Is God less merciful than the Argentine Junta?

God chastizes those who He loves. God wipes out entire civilizations for His reasons – they were created to be temporary (temporal). The innocent who die because of the guilt of sinners will live forever with God – as every Catholic martyr has done.

So you agree with me that God inflicts suffering on the innocent. Excellent, it is good to establish areas of agreement.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

With God’s chastisements, the good and the bad suffer. All creatures are subject to death, and that is God’s punishment on everyone - the innocent or the guilty.

For those who will live with God for eternity, death is a blessing and life on this earth is the Cross of Christ.

When using the term “punishment” with regards to God’s actions, you have to realize that all of God’s actions are for the good (both justice and mercy).

God chastizes those who He loves. God wipes out entire civilizations for His reasons – they were created to be temporary (temporal). The innocent who die because of the guilt of sinners will live forever with God – as every Catholic martyr has done.

Nicely said Reggie.

I’d like to add that when God kills innocents, it is not “murder.” God is the author of all life and it is his to take as he sees fit. When humans preempt God’s prerogative with regard to taking innocent human life, that’s murder.

And being with God in heaven is hardly “inflicting suffering.”

 

[StAnastasia]

I’d like to add that when God kills innocents, it is not “murder.” God is the author of all life and it is his to take as he sees fit.

So your God is a raving psycho?

 

[edwest2]

Atheistic plate tectonics, evolution, gravity and atomic theory do not exist.

The things you mention do not deal with the origin of man, evolution does. As Pope Benedict wrote: “We are not haphazard mistakes.”

But Stephen Jay Gould did say if we could rewind the tape of evolution, things might have turned out differently. This denies God’s direct causal role. As a Catholic, the deposit of faith is another area of reason we still need.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mpartyka]

So your God is a raving psycho?

Wait a minute…are you arguing that God does not inflict suffering (or allow suffering to be inflicted) on innocents? You’re Catholic, right?

–Mike

 

[ricmat]

So your God is a raving psycho?

No.

Do you believe that God does not have the right to take life where he sees fit?

 

[rossum]

That’s a wrong concept of humans and sin. We aren’t sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. If a baby hasn’t sinned yet, give him time.

A person, and a baby is a person, is innocent until they have committed a crime. After the deed, then yes, they are no longer innocent. Before the deed they are innocent.

rossum

 

[mpartyka]

A person, and a baby is a person, is innocent until they have committed a crime. After the deed, then yes, they are no longer innocent. Before the deed they are innocent.

Can you think of no situation in which it is permissible to allow an innocent baby to die?

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Can you think of no situation in which it is permissible to allow an innocent baby to die?

–Mike

No.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That’s a wrong concept of humans and sin. We aren’t sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. If a baby hasn’t sinned yet, give him time.

A person, and a baby is a person, is innocent until they have committed a crime. After the deed, then yes, they are no longer innocent. Before the deed they are innocent.

rossum

This contradicts the teaching of the Church which is that all are born in original sin. They are born damned, and God’s wrath abides upon them. This is the lesson of John 3:16-18

The Bible says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

It also notes that “For as by one man sin entered into the world, and so death by sin passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12-19) Death (the result of sin) is passed to ALL MEN, and is inherited at conception. This is why David could say, “In sin was I conceived.”

 

[buffalo]

Tim, do you doubt Clement Butel’s scientific credentials? Here they are:

“Clement Butel has a tertiary qualification in accountancy. He worked with an Australian government department from the middle of the Great Depression until his retirement in 1977. In the later years of his employment, he gained research and writing experience through having to investigate taxation disputes and to prepare precise statements of fact and law for use as briefs in taxation tribunals and court appeals.”

You guys are hilarious. Always always attack the person, or his credentials. No one has reasoning skills except scientists, accepted through the self perpetuating peer review industry.

I think his point in the article is the disconnect between theistic evolution and continuous Catholic teaching. The article is not a scientific textbook.

And thank you - for one of his points is exactly what is demonstrated time and time again.

I guess if I write an article any truthfullness of the article will be disregarded because I am not a scientist.

 

[buffalo]

Rossum, I think buffalo’s argument is that they are going to grow up to commit crimes, so preemptive murder is justifiable.

Pretty much sums it up. However, we call it murder God may call it mercy.

We cannot understand what God knows. We look at it through our own lens.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I did. You asked my position and I told you. But to your specific question regarding entropy, my understanding is that the entropy of the universe is increasing. I don’t have the background to give a specific answer to that.

So I’ll turn it around. Is the entropy of the universe increasing or not? What do you base that on?

And what is your response to my original reply?

Peace

Tim

Yes, scientists believe the universe is a closed system and it is increasing.