M
minkymurph
Guest
And your point is?
- Status
T
twinc
Guest
to update you on your link - go to the bottom of the article and insert that Fr.Coyne has been requested to step down - btw you have a strange notion that creationists are slanderers yet not a word about the pseudo/phoney evolutionists and their fakes,frauds,cons,hoaxes etc - btw Vatican 1 was binding before Vatican 2 and states as a binding Canon 1 clause 5 that to accept or teach evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - watch for my post re what real Evolutionists have to say about phony/pseudo Catholic evolutionists - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
no wonder there is a confusion, for you have jumped to Vatican 2 without considering Vatican1 Canon 1 clause 5 which makes accepting or teaching Evolution as forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
it certainly does not rise in the north,south or west - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
just because you say so or think so does not make it so - neither you nor Aquinas are infallible - the Church and the Kolbe center definately teach that and how the world was created in an instant complete and out of nothing in 6x24hr days and not via a big bang over millions of years - twinc
M
minkymurph
Guest
On that note, just because you say so, or think so, does not make it so. You are not infallible, the Kolbe center are not infallible. There may be priests there who agree with some of your opinions, but they are not recognized as an authoritative teaching office of the Church. In relation to Aquinas, you are free to disregard his science of theology if you wish. However, you cannot change the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the theology of Aquinas’ as more authoritative than the Koble center. In addition, you yourself have discredited the Kolbe center. You claim there was no big bang, the Kolbe center do not rule out the possibility of the big bang as a cosmological event. Are they wrong on this point?
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is recognized as an authoritative internet source in relation to the teachings of the Church. Here is what it has to say on the topic:
‘However, in what particular manner the plant and animal kingdoms received their existence: whether all species were created simultaneously or only a few which were destined to give life to others: whether only one fruitful seed was placed on mother earth, which under the influence of natural causes developed into the first plants, and another infused into the waters gave birth to the first animals — all this the Book of Genesis leaves to our own investigation and to the revelations of science, if indeed science is able at all to give a final and unquestionable decision.’
*'Whether, with St. Augustine and St. Thomas, one hold that only the primordial elements, endowed with dispositions and powers (rationes seminales) for development, were created in the strict sense of the term, and the rest of nature — plant and animal life — was gradually evolved according to a fixed order of natural operation under the supreme guidance of the Divine Administration (Harper, “Metaphysics of the School”, II, 746); or whether, with other Fathers and Doctors of the School, one hold that life and the classes of living beings — orders, families, genera, species — were each and all, or only some few, strictly and immediately created by God — whichever of these extreme views he may deem more rational and better motived, the Catholic thinker is left perfectly free by his faith to select.’ *
Therefore, the Church teaches God is the source of life, the Creator, and places certain restraints on Catholics concerning the origins of life and the Universe. The Church leaves you free to believe there was no big bang and each creative day was 24 hours long. However, in relation to the big bang as a cosmological event and the length of each creative days; on these are issues on Church says Catholics are free to choose. You and the Kolbe center are free to argue they can’t, and if you wish you can say New Advent is wrong and the Koble center is right; but we all know which internet site is the more authoritative source.
T
twinc
Guest
the problem is that you presume that you and you alone can correctly interpret what the Church says or New Advent says or anyone else says - can you just accept that the Kolbecenter as a group of experts and specialists are quite aware what the Church teaches and also what New Advent and other sources do or do not say - it is your personal interpretation that is in question - just as an example the Church and Kolbecenter realise that it is clearly stating and stated that there was no big bang and nothing blowing up and becoming something and everything over millions and billions of years - no molecules to man or goo to zoo to you and I and that the Catholic doctrine of creation is simul et ex nihilo which is that God created everything in an instant “in its whole substance” from nothing in the beginning,which means no evolution ever was or is necessary or possible and both clearly state "in the beginning God[not a big bang]created the heavens and the earth and everything not a big bang plus matter which science now says has been dematerialised and never ever was anyway - just simply accept that God knows better than humans and has told us how and why - btw here is a glimpse of man by A Pope “frail judge of truth,in endless error hurled - the glory,jest and riddle of the world”- btw the Church says the proper sense is 6 x 24hr days of creation and should be accepted,the improper sense is any other length of time and there is a very good reason for saying this,so why the urge or itch to accept the improper,way out,weird and wacky - all the Church Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation period was no longer than 6 x 24hr days - re the creation days and much else via your Google search box type in[Catholic doctrine of creation/video] and listen and absorb - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
it is often asked why then did Jesus speak in parables - those who ask it seems do not seem to realise that Jesus was asked this and gave His reply and His reply seems to clarify why those who ask this,ask this so to speak - twinc
M
minkymurph
Guest
The problem is you presume to know what I think, and presume you and you alone can interpret my meanings in a post. I believe I can state with confidence, very few people who read my post would draw the conclusion I am of the opinion I, and I alone, can correctly interpret what the Church or New Advent says. Nothing in my post even remotely suggested that.
If you think my summary of what is stated in New Advent is inaccurate, you are entitled to challenge that. However, in doing so it would be necessary to outline were how I have misrepresented what is actually written. You have chosen not to do that. What you have stated is merely a personal opinion of me as an individual based on nothing more than your own presumptions.
No I cannot, and I will explain why. Firstly, unless and internet site is a universally recognized source, it should be treated with suspicion. Internet sites are notoriously unreliable, open to abuse. In reality we don’t know who is really behind an internet site. Anyone could set up an internet site, and lay claim to an expert on all manner of things. It doesn’t mean they are.
Secondly, until now I had never heard of the Kolbecenter, and I would be pretty sure not many people in my part of the world would have. I would be very reluctant to take the word of a group of people neither I, nor anyone else has heard of. That does not in itself mean they are wrong; it means before I would accept anything anyone would say, I would want to know more about them. In addition, I fail to see the necessity of being guided in relation to faith and morals by this particular group of people.
Then outline were I have gone wrong, and illustrate this by means of the actual quote I used from New Advent. I would also like to ask why you think this interpretation is unique to me. What makes you think it’s my personal interpretation, and not an interpretation shared by many that someone else explained to me? Assumptions are notoriously unreliable and often far removed from the truth.
Again I will say telling someone to go and read something or listen to something is the easy way out. Anyone can say, ‘Go and read this, or listen to that and you’ll see I’m right.’ In addition, you have suggested I cannot be relied upon to interpret what I read or hear accurately.
Anyone can assert a particular understanding or interpretation of something that is written is wrong in response to statement they don’t agree with, and make allegations in relation to individual posters on an internet site who don’t share their opinions. If I have misrepresented what is stated in New Advent, illustrate this by using what is actually written in New Advent, and what I stated concerning what is written as opposed to resorting to the above.
M
minkymurph
Guest
On this occasion, your not talking to someone who didn’t realize this. Another assumption.
S
samiam1611
Guest
Twinc-
You have repeatedly stated what the Church teaches in regards to the Big Bang and evolution. You have stated things such as
"The Church says and has always said that Evolution [as origin of the world] is forbidden and anathema for Catholics to accept or teach as fact " (post # 71)
“Catholics are certainly not free to accept Evolution” (post #32)
"the Church does not accept or teach Theistic Evolution nor has it or can it or will it and not only for the fact that God cannot and did not participate in evolution that cannot and did not happen " (post #50)
" the Church and the Kolbe center definately teach that and how the world was created in an instant complete and out of nothing in 6x24hr days and not via a big bang over millions of years"
Could you provide a source from the Magisterium to confirm your statements? A statement from a pope within the last 100 years would be acceptable too.
I am not interested in the Kolbe Center bc the Kolbe Center does not speak for the Church, and I’m not interested in the Bible bc Church does not teach sola scriptura and do not tell me to google something. We have all gone to the trouble of finding relevent documents and quotes and links and provided them so I ask that you do the same.
No one disputes that the Church teaches creation ex nihilo.
Here are some links to help you out:
vatican.va
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home
You have repeatedly stated what the Church teaches in regards to the Big Bang and evolution. You have stated things such as
"The Church says and has always said that Evolution [as origin of the world] is forbidden and anathema for Catholics to accept or teach as fact " (post # 71)
“Catholics are certainly not free to accept Evolution” (post #32)
"the Church does not accept or teach Theistic Evolution nor has it or can it or will it and not only for the fact that God cannot and did not participate in evolution that cannot and did not happen " (post #50)
" the Church and the Kolbe center definately teach that and how the world was created in an instant complete and out of nothing in 6x24hr days and not via a big bang over millions of years"
Could you provide a source from the Magisterium to confirm your statements? A statement from a pope within the last 100 years would be acceptable too.
I am not interested in the Kolbe Center bc the Kolbe Center does not speak for the Church, and I’m not interested in the Bible bc Church does not teach sola scriptura and do not tell me to google something. We have all gone to the trouble of finding relevent documents and quotes and links and provided them so I ask that you do the same.
No one disputes that the Church teaches creation ex nihilo.
Here are some links to help you out:
vatican.va
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home
M
minkymurph
Guest
Not if your standing at the North Pole.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
The Church does NOT teach that the world was created “in 6x24 hour days.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (a higher authority than the Kolbe center), para. 337 – "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."
N
no2masters4life
Guest
Where does the Church say we must interpret the Bible as a cover-to-cover literalistic inerrant document! Where does the Church say Genesis MUST be interpreted as a Six Day Creation? Please site this.
N
no2masters4life
Guest
Flood Geology has been debunked by the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict and John Paul 2 defer to scientific understanding on the age of there earth andy the authenticity of the fossil record. Pope Benedict, himself, stated in the 2004 International Geological Commission that living organisms on earth are genetically related, and the Church has no issue with any of these salient points.
You do not use the proper geological terminology to convince me that you understand cosmology or geology.
M
Mar044
Guest
nothing can be created out of nothing, the big bang didnt turn a rock into a flower…noir did we come from a ape, and this is the danger of schools, they teach it as fact, and some catholics here talk like evolution is real, humans where always humans, maybe we changed as our environment but we were always human.
the church is the only thing that clincs history as far back as the first written works…science evolution is a bunch of people thinking about whatt happened…and dont have proof they have a theory, everyone else is crazy…and hypocrites thats that say show me god is there and then i will believe…thats bull…thou shall not test god…
i feel sad for people calling themselves Catholics and believe evolution real…i start to think some people on this board just to bring down the church teaching.
the church is the only thing that clincs history as far back as the first written works…science evolution is a bunch of people thinking about whatt happened…and dont have proof they have a theory, everyone else is crazy…and hypocrites thats that say show me god is there and then i will believe…thats bull…thou shall not test god…
i feel sad for people calling themselves Catholics and believe evolution real…i start to think some people on this board just to bring down the church teaching.
N
no2masters4life
Guest
And…?
Evolutionary Theory is sound science! You’ll get no argument from biologists, paleontologists, and geologists from anywhere in the world. Evolution has withstood 150 years of critic and is now considered central to the study of living things.
Creationism, on the other hand, is not considered science at all. It has been roundly debunked by NEARLY ALL the world’s scientists, the US Supreme Court, and most importantly, The Catholic Church!
What are you hoping to accomplish in our debates!
btw Vatican 1 was binding before Vatican 2 and states as a binding Canon 1 clause 5 that to accept or teach evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - watch for my post re what real Evolutionists have to say about phony/pseudo Catholic evolutionists - twinc
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t mention*the word evolution at all. And if this article even implies that evolutionary theory is anathema, why wasn’t “On The Origin Of Species” included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum!
Ironically, non-Darwinian books like Henri Bergson’s “Creative Evolution” WAS put into the Index Liborum Prohibitorum!
No true Scotsman fallacies are no way to win a debate.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Nothing can be created out of nothing? One of the arguments on this board is the Church teaches God created out of nothing, which no one has rejected. Therefore, if people on this board are saying life and the Universe were created out of nothing, how is that bringing Church teaching down?
No one has said the big bang turned a rock into a flower. No one is saying God had nothing to with creation, it all happened as a result of the big bang. The question posed was; did the cosmological happenings described in the big bang theory happen at all?
C
CatholicIllini
Guest
Ok, so I know I am not a theologian or a scientist, but I think I finally found a way to reconcile evolution with Genesis and Original Sin. Of course, it requires reading Genesis not as literal truth, but as being allegorical. My ideas may not be entirely original, but I want to know what you guys think of this interpretation:
Evolution and paleoanthropology have more or less proved that modern humans evolved over time from simpler organisms and that the first humanoids appeared hundreds-of-thousands of years ago. From a theological standpoint, this begs the question: When were humans first given a soul? When did original sin occur? Where did evil come from? Are those prehistoric humans in heaven?
From our faith we know that, at some point, God decided that man had evolved enough for a soul. After millions of years, an organism finally reached the evolutionary threshold at which God deemed it worthy of possessing an immortal soul. Perhaps this was 50,000 years ago, when modern scientists claim that behaviorally modern humans emerged; it may have been 200,000 years ago when the first homo sapiens appeared - we do not know. At first, he may have deemed only one human worthy of a soul (Adam), or he may have given souls to many humans containing certain genetic and behavioral characteristics.
However, evolution itself suggests that someone had to be the first human. If we accept the theory of gradual evolution, there still has to be a point at which an organism goes from non-human to human. Perhaps the parents of the first human were themselves non-human, but when their genetic material was combined the resulting offspring was a human. The genetic mutation that differentiated the first man from his parents might have been a small one, but that does not mean it was an insignificant one. It may have been that one mutation that made God see that man as fit to be the first true soul-possessing human-being. And if that man existed 50,000 – 200,000 years ago, it is plausible that we are all descendants of him.
But whether the first human was one man or a group of people, we know that these humans lived in a pristine natural world (the metaphorical Garden of Eden) and were able to hunt and gather from the abundance that God provided. Scientific research suggests that even early humans had a belief in God and the afterlife. From this we can assume that God made himself known to these humans, either through external revelation (God walking in the Garden), or through the internal yearning that they felt for him in their hearts.
However, even though humans now possessed souls and knew of the existence of God, they did not yet know the difference between right and wrong. They still lived according to their animalistic instincts. They had evolved from animals and therefore lived like animals. They acted selfishly for the benefit of their own survival. But since they did not know that their selfishness was wrong, they did not mortally sin. They lived their entire lives in spiritual childhood. Just as children cannot commit mortal sin because they cannot comprehend that their actions are wrong, neither could the early humans. My belief is that this is how God intended it to be. Man possessed free will, but since he did not know wrong, he could not willingly choose it. The only choice was God, because that is all that man knew. He may have still committed venial sin by following his animalistic desires, but this would not have prevented him from being saved. An all-loving God would not punish humans for ignorance that was no fault of their own. Presumably, these venal sins would be burned away in purgatory.
Then the devil intervened. It may have been during the lives of the very first humans, as Genesis suggests, or it may have been later. The devil’s goal was to show man the difference between right and wrong (the knowledge of the gods) in order to show them the true error of their ways. His goal was to destroy man’s spiritual childhood. Once humans knew that their actions were wrong and offensive to God, what were once venial sins now became mortal sins. Since humans still possessed their selfish animal instincts, it was very hard for them to avoid doing what they now knew was offensive to God. They continued to submit to their selfish instincts, and therefore committed mortal sin. So the Original Sin was not the first time humans sinned period, but the first time they mortally sinned, for they knowingly chose to do wrong instead of right. This created the need a Savior to redeem man.
Evolution and paleoanthropology have more or less proved that modern humans evolved over time from simpler organisms and that the first humanoids appeared hundreds-of-thousands of years ago. From a theological standpoint, this begs the question: When were humans first given a soul? When did original sin occur? Where did evil come from? Are those prehistoric humans in heaven?
From our faith we know that, at some point, God decided that man had evolved enough for a soul. After millions of years, an organism finally reached the evolutionary threshold at which God deemed it worthy of possessing an immortal soul. Perhaps this was 50,000 years ago, when modern scientists claim that behaviorally modern humans emerged; it may have been 200,000 years ago when the first homo sapiens appeared - we do not know. At first, he may have deemed only one human worthy of a soul (Adam), or he may have given souls to many humans containing certain genetic and behavioral characteristics.
However, evolution itself suggests that someone had to be the first human. If we accept the theory of gradual evolution, there still has to be a point at which an organism goes from non-human to human. Perhaps the parents of the first human were themselves non-human, but when their genetic material was combined the resulting offspring was a human. The genetic mutation that differentiated the first man from his parents might have been a small one, but that does not mean it was an insignificant one. It may have been that one mutation that made God see that man as fit to be the first true soul-possessing human-being. And if that man existed 50,000 – 200,000 years ago, it is plausible that we are all descendants of him.
But whether the first human was one man or a group of people, we know that these humans lived in a pristine natural world (the metaphorical Garden of Eden) and were able to hunt and gather from the abundance that God provided. Scientific research suggests that even early humans had a belief in God and the afterlife. From this we can assume that God made himself known to these humans, either through external revelation (God walking in the Garden), or through the internal yearning that they felt for him in their hearts.
However, even though humans now possessed souls and knew of the existence of God, they did not yet know the difference between right and wrong. They still lived according to their animalistic instincts. They had evolved from animals and therefore lived like animals. They acted selfishly for the benefit of their own survival. But since they did not know that their selfishness was wrong, they did not mortally sin. They lived their entire lives in spiritual childhood. Just as children cannot commit mortal sin because they cannot comprehend that their actions are wrong, neither could the early humans. My belief is that this is how God intended it to be. Man possessed free will, but since he did not know wrong, he could not willingly choose it. The only choice was God, because that is all that man knew. He may have still committed venial sin by following his animalistic desires, but this would not have prevented him from being saved. An all-loving God would not punish humans for ignorance that was no fault of their own. Presumably, these venal sins would be burned away in purgatory.
Then the devil intervened. It may have been during the lives of the very first humans, as Genesis suggests, or it may have been later. The devil’s goal was to show man the difference between right and wrong (the knowledge of the gods) in order to show them the true error of their ways. His goal was to destroy man’s spiritual childhood. Once humans knew that their actions were wrong and offensive to God, what were once venial sins now became mortal sins. Since humans still possessed their selfish animal instincts, it was very hard for them to avoid doing what they now knew was offensive to God. They continued to submit to their selfish instincts, and therefore committed mortal sin. So the Original Sin was not the first time humans sinned period, but the first time they mortally sinned, for they knowingly chose to do wrong instead of right. This created the need a Savior to redeem man.
N
no2masters4life
Guest
It does not say that at all! Nowhere in Canon 1 clause 5 is evolutionary theory mentioned. The Catholic church made no official stance on the Theory of Evolution during this Council.
post a link to this canon and clause and highlight the word evolution for me, please.
And then explain how every Catholic in the world missed what you seem to find written between the lines. And then explain why sitting Popes, including our present Pope, have written entreaties and encyclicals affirming the age of the earth and the evolutionary hypothesis.
You need to stop spreading misinformation. I’m getting tired of asking you to post links and other forms of objective support.
- Status