A
abcdefg
Guest
Is Vern an Asian? He doesn’t even know how to hold chopsticksHey Vern.
You’re my hero. Honest.
I don’t know where you find the patience. Do you feel like your trying to drink water using only chopsticks yet??
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Where is that taught? Show me?
So you know better than all bishops, priests, Popes, and the Magesterium of the Church, and according to earlier posts you also know what Peter was thinking. I’m sorry but I thought only God knew everything or do you presume to know his mind as well??
A
abcdefg
Guest
I’ve shown you their thought through councils, catechism. and you can’t even refute them. and you just ask the same question again and again. I have to post the same answer again and again.
Can you deny past catechism and councils as heretical?
One thing I particularly like to know is “Is there a document explicitly states Catholics can believe in evolution without damaging faith” don’t bring me those ambiguous text. Theology isn’t about political correctness.
I do think St Peter believe in Creation as evolution “theory” is no where to be seen then.
T
thistle
Guest
Show me the document (page, chapter, etc) in which the Church specifically teaches that evolution is false?
Please do not refer me to the BC because I went through it the other day after you gave me the website and it makes no such statement.
A
abcdefg
Guest
You deny facts. I will not call you a liar since I don’t know if you did so on purpose or not. It’s in the Baltimore Catechism.
BC (baltimore3.doc) on my disk is 611,328/622,592 bytes how about yours?
Even if I don’t use BC. I still can use Roman Catechism and council decisions, what can you say?
M
MaggieOH
Guest
You will not get an answer to your question.
T
thistle
Guest
What do you mean what can I say?
I can say tell me where in any of these documents you refer to it specifically states that the Catholic Church teaches that evolution is false. You say I deny facts but you have not given me any. Tell me exactly where it says that and what the wording is. You keep skirting round the issue. Give me facts. Your comments above are generalisations and not specifics.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
I was taught about evolution at school back in the 60s. It has not harmed my faith in God, but it has enriched my understanding of how Creation took place.
Tell me how Creation Science is supposed to strengthen one’s faith.
A
abcdefg
Guest
catholic.net/rcc/Catechism/download/baltimore3.doc
I downloaded baltimore catechism again and Q. 241 still states the same. you must apologize for damaging my reputation.
A
abcdefg
Guest
I’ll put it here again
**Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal? **
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not
prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay
of the earth.
Tell me what this passage means?
**Q. 241. Could man’s body be developed from the body of an inferior animal? **
A. Man’s body could be developed from the body of an inferior animal if God so willed; but science does not
prove that man’s body was thus formed, while revelation teaches that it was formed directly by God from the clay
of the earth.
Tell me what this passage means?
A
abcdefg
Guest
According to creationism, every aspect of man (body and soul) are directly formed by God. this draw human’s relation to God much closer to God than evolution “theory” which states there’s at least God took no active part in the formation of human body
M
MaggieOH
Guest
The problem with your statement is that young earth Creationists view the creation of the world in terms of 6 twenty four hour periods. However, it is Scripture that does not support such an interpretation of the Story of Creation.no where in the bible or tradition say it’s 24h. and I’m OK with 1ms, 1h, 24h, 1000h. but it’s 6 days which is the church’s Tradition.
btw someone told me “science found a day is the past in shorter than a day now”
Also, we always have to keep in mind that the story of Creation was given to a people who were very primitive in thought and mind.
The six days do not represent 6 literal days, as we understand the meaning of day. The 6 days serve a purpose as God’s Truth, giving meaning as to why people are allowed to work 6 days but must rest on the seventh day, for even God rested from work on the seventh day.
The six days represent the order of Creation. The days could just as easily be stated as periods or ages, but since these are ages of no set length, some order has been given to how Creation came about.
Also, you are quite wrong when you equate Darwinism with theistic evolution. These are not the same thing as you seem to imply. Darwin was an atheist. In his system God is denied a role as Creator. Theistic evolution on the other hand gives us an insight in how God directed the orderly evolution of the world, as it went through a variety of ages or stages, including the ice age.
One of my biggest beefs against young earth creationists happens to be the claim that the ice age happened after the Flood. It is not the only beef that I have on the subject of the Flood and how it is to be understood, for I accept that Scripture does indeed record the flood that wiped out the Sumerian civilization (Abraham came from Ur, which is in the region of the ancient civilization of Sumeria). I even believe that there were other regional floods that wiped out other civilizations, and the flood that destroyed the Hopewell Indians in Ohio is an example of regional flooding. However, there is no evidence to support a “worldwide” flood in the way that we understand the world. Yet, I do not need to see the archaeological evidence of Noah’s Ark to believe that God made a covenant with Noah stating that the world would never be destroyed again.
So where is your proof that we should accept the Creation Account in a literal way?
T
thistle
Guest
The answer is in the CCC and is the teaching of the Church.
Specifically 362 below is the answer to your question.
337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. **Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically ** as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
A
abcdefg
Guest
Did I tell you I think the first 6 days have to be 24h? I simply don’t know how long each day was then.
Does Bible tell you the first 6 days is 24h 2000h or 1ms? Bible stands however long or short the first 6 days are
A
abcdefg
Guest
“symbolic” doesn’t exclude “literal” however “literal” exclude “unliteral symbolic”
symbolic = don’t have to be literal however can be literal
Unless you’re going to call all popes before Pius X heretics, there’s no problem with the CCC. It simply contains no decisive teaching
A
abcdefg
Guest
What research theism evolution is based on? the same as darwinism. what evidence do theist evolution claim? the same as darwinism.
There’s simply no evidence claimed by theism evolution that supports the evolvement of God.
How come the same procedure lead to different conclusions?
using your words “theism evolution is no science”
only darwinism takes the form of science.
There’s simply no evidence claimed by theism evolution that supports the evolvement of God.
How come the same procedure lead to different conclusions?
using your words “theism evolution is no science”
only darwinism takes the form of science.
T
thistle
Guest
abcdefg said:
Its a waste of time trying discuss with you. I can see why all the other posters are so frustrated.
I gave you the answer from the CCC. That is the Church’s teaching and you refuse to accept it. What more can I say?
I’m also dropping out now and leave you to talk to yourself.
A
abcdefg
Guest
Can you refute my words? No?
each of my enemy turns away disappointed, I praise God for supporting me during the debate
M
MaggieOH
Guest
please provide the evidence that darwinism and evolutionary theism are the same thing.What research theism evolution is based on? the same as darwinism. what evidence do theist evolution claim? the same as darwinism.
There’s simply no evidence claimed by theism evolution that supports the evolvement of God.
How come the same procedure lead to different conclusions?
using your words “theism evolution is no science”
only darwinism takes the form of science.
Darwinism is a theory. It is not science. So please provide evidence for your statements.
A
abcdefg
Guest
Hehe. Where’re other evolutionists?
since Darwinism is no science, why it can be taught in science class?
- Status