J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Granny!
…yeah, sorry about that… I see/hear the word “doctrine” and I think Catholic Church!
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status
…yeah, sorry about that… I see/hear the word “doctrine” and I think Catholic Church!
Maran atha!
Angel
G
grannymh
Guest
Apparently, from what you say – my guess is that you may not be familiar with the Catholic Church doctrine which touches evolution. If you want to compare the Science of Human Evolution, it is best to know Catholic stuff.
In order to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, one must know what sheep’s clothing looks like.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What I thought was very interesting is that when they did those DNA tests and found that we were all descended from one woman, 'way back when: mitochondrial Eve.Apparently, from what you say – my guess is that you may not be familiar with the Catholic Church doctrine which touches evolution. If you want to compare the Science of Human Evolution, it is best to know Catholic stuff.
In order to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, one must know what sheep’s clothing looks like.
And then a few years later, they found that we were all descended from one man, a man who lived some long time after mtEve. Obviously he was not Adam… clearly he was *Noah. *
At the time the news about mtEve came out, I asked someone how this could be, if there were other people at the same time? And she linked me to a chart that showed how if the descendants of the other women died out, and only mtEve’s were left, it would be possible, especially when you have the bottleneck of Noah and the Flood:
Noah, his wife, and his sons, and the wives of his sons were the only humans left.
Noah was therefore the most recent common male progenitor.
Noah’s wife and daughters-in-law could have all been descended from mEve, but if they all were, then those who are descended from Noah’s family would all show a further-back common ancestress, which is exactly what we have.
(Hereis an article which explains the math behind the size of our current world population’s being from about the time the Bible indicates the Flood occurred. I just think it is very interesting that all this new information aligns with what we read in the Bible, [except that apparently our current idea of the most recent common male ancestor has been pushed back to before mtEve].)
S
St_Francis
Guest
IOW, what I think is the wolves in sheep’s clothing is 1. the idea that we can *know *for certain what happened beyond a certain point, and 2. that evolution could have occurred *without God. *Why anyone would think that evolution could occur without a Designer, I do not know.
G
grannymh
Guest
When it comes to Catholicism, wolves in sheep’s clothing are real people. Here is one location – Center for Action and Contemplation where the director is a Catholic priest who is extremely popular with ordinary folk. Sheep’s clothing hiding dissent and opposition to a variety of Catholic teachings.
Please note
This thread respects all Catholic Clergy.
Think what you want…A Catholic priest is still an ordained priest via the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We respect the Sacramental power of this Holy Sacrament.
Please note
This thread respects all Catholic Clergy.
Think what you want…A Catholic priest is still an ordained priest via the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We respect the Sacramental power of this Holy Sacrament.
E
ericc
Guest
There are those who like to repackage religion so that it is more marketable to a select group of people. If you are the gaia type, choose the right words and phrases and costume and you will be good to belong to that community. We see often preachers focusing specific parts of a religion and ignore vital basic attributes of that religion. Prosperity gospel preachers have a package very different from another for example. In Singapore they target the recently graduated to 40s crowd where I used to work. I am not sure whether this profile is similar elsewhere.
Some omit OS. That is a tough topic to sell. You mean someone screw up thousands of years ago and I have to bear this XXXX? If I am a marketer and like any good salesman, let’s just focus on the good and easy sell of my product. Make sure those ugly bits don’t come up in the conversation. If they do, make sure the responses are solid and move on. Prosperity gospel hardly talk about OS if at all. The focus is “God want you to be happy” message over and over again. God want you to be successful. God wants you to do well in your career. Pray for his blessings. Thank you Lord. Alleluia! Let’s give the Lord a big round of applause! I sense this theme in the link.
However, we must NEVER forget our roots. We must NEVER forget our history lesson. I have gone back to Genesis many times to re-look at what happened then. How could good became bad? A solution was offered through our Lord Jesus Christ but His suffering was unnecessary if our parents were not so gullible, naive, stupid or so I thought. 1st lesson I learnt is Listen to our Daddy. 2nd lesson if some other than Daddy says Daddy is wrong, refer to Lesson #1. Any one that says these 2 rules are no longer valid because of blah , blah, blah, be very careful associating with folks like that. Very often that would be those who whisper in your ear that says that’s history, time to move on. I found each time we move away from our roots, our history, our foundation became weaker. A people with no memory of where we came from, why we are here will cease to exist in a few generations. Without tradition, Christianity would not have survived. Peoples over the world settled down in a country like USA. 2 generations down the road, often time, they have no knowledge of their own history, how they ended up there. Customs/beliefs and fashion and language are often the first to go. Food may be later. I think not many American Born Chinese do ancestor worship nor pay homage to Guang Gong god of War nor the Earth god. What would happen if the basics of our faith were forgotten? Where is our foundation other than Peter? What if we are no longer sensitive to Sin and every distorted behaviour becomes the norm? Don’t forget the older generation has a prudish worldview compared to the younger generation. A few generations later, will we be numb to “abominable” sexual behaviour? Will abortion and divorce be 2nd nature?
IMHO, Satan would like us to forget his history as well as ours. Then we are available for him to mould. That reminded me of a sci-fi story where Satan came as a ET in a spaceship with a time recorder that played back the history of our world except for the very first part. He never showed himself saying we were not ready. Many religions died out after reviewing those recordings except for the hardcore few, us I believe were in this group. After several generations only then he came out from his spaceship for the very first time, forked tails and all. Oh yes he was very popular and earth people treat him like the best thing after sliced bread. His history recorder was very useful indeed. Among the hundreds of sci-fi novels I read, this remained stuck in the head. Must have been 30 years ago or so.
Forgive me for my rambling if it doesn’t make any sense.
G
grannymh
Guest
It makes sense especially when it is read slowly and thoughtfully.
I recommend this post for tonight’s reading.
Thank you.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Granny!Apparently, from what you say – my guess is that you may not be familiar with the Catholic Church doctrine which touches evolution. If you want to compare the Science of Human Evolution, it is best to know Catholic stuff.
In order to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing, one must know what sheep’s clothing looks like.
I have not heard that there’s any official pronouncement about evolution; rather, as with the issue of Heliocentrism–where not having enough information, the Church, as the scholars of its times, did not simply embrace it as a rule but studied it and received it as a theory.
Once proven the Church relaxed the understanding that was previously held based on the interpretation of Scriptures.
There are components of the theory of evolution that are yet to mesh with reality; the Church cannot but stand firm on that it is a theory–how that incorporates Adam and Eve is still quite unclear.
Maran atha!
Angel
G
grannymh
Guest
Please understand that there is a valuable Catholic doctrine on Adam and Eve which is flat out denied in the Science of Human Evolution. This doctrine is so clear that one does not need glasses to read it. One does have to understand that a population in the hundreds is different from a population of two.
Many years ago, around the time of Darwin, evolution science incorporated the basic principle that a new species actually evolves, that is, moving forward in time, as a polygenesis population which is more than two.
The Catholic Church already knows the complete theory of the Science of Human Genesis. This silly business to mesh with reality is a simple attack on Catholicism.
By the way, Catholics who treasure Catholicism are already clear about Adam and Eve. I hope you meet one of these Catholics.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
This is exactly what bemuses me… how can “intelligent” people embrace the goldilocks effect (‘just right’) on top of eons and eons of happenstance?–I mean the millions of life forms… the thousands of eco systems… everything evolving from blind and dumb chaos without a single Intelligence to Design it… I mean, even when there are those natural monkey wrenches… like the horse-shoe crab, the platypus, the sea horse, and the wonderful deep-sea ‘nothing can exist there because there’s no sun light filtering down…’ and the various hyper eco system (‘nothing can survive in that cold, hot, deserted… environment’).
…then there is the balance in nature… vultures and other animals and plants specifically design to clean the eco system… gorillas, elephants, and great whales feeding themselves with nothing of great import… predators being outnumbered by prey… and for another loop… pigeons feeding their hatchlings with milk!
…yeah, no Design there!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Granny!
Could you expand on the issue of dissent and opposition? What is it that he is claiming/teaching?
Maran atha!
Angel
G
grannymh
Guest
There is the general claim that Christianity needs to be rebuilt.
I know you already know by reading your comment.
“There are components of the theory of evolution that are yet to mesh with reality; the Church cannot but stand firm on that it is a theory–how that incorporates Adam and Eve is still quite unclear.”
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Eric!
I concur with you; a history forgotten is the first blow to the identity of man; Satan has not stopped to pull the wool-over-the-eyes; he’s got “Christians” teaching that Original Sin is not found in Scriptures, in spite of God’s Revelation to the contrary:
13 Sin existed in the world long before the Law was given. There was no law and so no one could be accused of the sin of ‘law-breaking’, 14 yet **death reigned over all from Adam **to Moses, even though their sin, unlike that of Adam, was not a matter of breaking a law. Adam prefigured the One to come, 15 but the gift itself considerably outweighed the fall. If it is certain that through one man’s fall so many died, it is even more certain that divine grace, coming through the one man, Jesus Christ, came to so many as an abundant free gift. 16 The results of the gift also outweigh the results of one man’s sin: for after one single fall came judgement with a verdict of condemnation, now after many falls comes grace with its verdict of acquittal. 17 If it is certain that death reigned over everyone as the consequence of one man’s fall, it is even more certain that one man, Jesus Christ, will cause everyone to reign in life who receives the free gift that he does not deserve, of being made righteous. 18 Again, as one man’s fall brought condemnation on everyone, so the good act of one man brings everyone life and makes them justified. 19 As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. 20 When law came, it was to multiply the opportunities of failing, but however great the number of sins committed, grace was even greater; 21 and so, just as sin reigned wherever there was death, so grace will reign to bring eternal life thanks to the righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ our Lord.(Romans 5:12-21)
How can anyone miss that the Apostles Taught that Adam’s sin caused all to partake in his sin?
True, the term Original Sin is never used, but is that any proof that the Apostles did not Teach Original Sin? If it is, what about the Holy Trinity, should we chunk it out? What about the Bible? Should we stop reading it?
Satan is the agent of lies; he is out to remove Christianity from the world at all costs… why believe the creature that states, ‘surely, you will not die?’
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Granny!
I don’t think that we are on the same page.
Just because I speak on the science of things that does not make me a scientist.
Just because I do not know everything on everything that the Church Teaches does not make me anti-Doctrine; it only makes me slow or lazy or removed…
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Granny!
Truly, I know less than I seem to know.
What has been revealed by science/discovery is still far from reality (against the claims); it is the same scenario as with the Heliocentric system; the Church did not teach anything than what was understood at the time; yet her teaching was based upon interpretation of Scriptures… there was no actual Dogma declared.
In the case of evolution, as far as I know, the Church stance is that we must get more data!
Yet, she stands firm of the issue of God in Creation, which includes man.
Maran atha!
Angel
G
grannymh
Guest
I hope that CAF members and guests will continue to read the information in my posts.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Church already has the data. With the exception of Darwin, that information was in the public domain in 1950, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII.
From post 65
“Many years ago, around the time of Darwin, evolution science incorporated the basic principle that a new species actually evolves, that is, moving forward in time, as a polygenesis population which is more than two.”
The key data, in the hands of the Catholic Church, is that either Adam and Eve were actually a large hominin population or a population of two. The Catholic Church chose the data involving Adam and Eve as the population of two original fully-human founders of the human species.
E
ericc
Guest
The idea of Original Sin must involve 2 persons only and it must be a male/female procreation pair. If A and E involves tens of thousands of people, then ALL of them must sin in order for the inheritance of the sin effect to be able to past down the generations. As long as there are possibility of pockets of non-sinners the idea of OS for all mankind cannot be true because not all would have sinned the OS as per Paul. Occam’s Razor would point to 2 guilty persons rather than thousands.
Nevertheless, the science of evolution can not exist. At best it is a theory only because it is not a testable theory which makes it unscientific. How do you test evolution? There are serious serious hurdles that is seemingly impossible to overcome especially for macro-evolution. I am pro-science but I am not pro-fraud nor pro-omission. It is shameful to do science deceitfully. It is hypocritical of the pot to market non-science as real science by calling the kettle black.
P
Professor_Q
Guest
I think Chesterton makes an excellent point on this topic:
“If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an
ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is
stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well
do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he
were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is
no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to
change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best,
there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything.
This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot
think if there are no things to think about.”
In other words, if by “evolution” one simply means that allele frequencies in a population change over time, and that this is partially due to environmental pressures, then there is no overt conflict with the Catholic Church per se. But if we use it as a “theory of everything”, with all the materialistic and atheistic baggage that it inevitably carries in such a context, it collapses under its own absurdity.
“If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an
ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is
stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well
do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he
were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is
no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to
change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best,
there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything.
This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot
think if there are no things to think about.”
In other words, if by “evolution” one simply means that allele frequencies in a population change over time, and that this is partially due to environmental pressures, then there is no overt conflict with the Catholic Church per se. But if we use it as a “theory of everything”, with all the materialistic and atheistic baggage that it inevitably carries in such a context, it collapses under its own absurdity.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.
male/female procreation pair. If A and E involves tens of thousands of people,
then ALL of them must sin in order for the inheritance of the sin effect to be
able to past down the generations. As long as there are possibility of pockets
of non-sinners the idea of OS for all mankind cannot be true because not all
would have sinned the OS as per Paul. Occam’s Razor would point to 2 guilty
persons rather than thousands.
Nevertheless, the science of evolution can not exist. At best it is a theory
only because it is not a testable theory which makes it unscientific. How do you
test evolution? There are serious serious hurdles that is seemingly impossible
to overcome especially for macro-evolution. I am pro-science but I am not
pro-fraud nor pro-omission. It is shameful to do science deceitfully. It is
hypocritical of the pot to market non-science as real science by calling the
kettle black.
The idea of Original Sin must involve 2 persons only and it must be a
male/female procreation pair. If A and E involves tens of thousands of people,
then ALL of them must sin in order for the inheritance of the sin effect to be
able to past down the generations. As long as there are possibility of pockets
of non-sinners the idea of OS for all mankind cannot be true because not all
would have sinned the OS as per Paul. Occam’s Razor would point to 2 guilty
persons rather than thousands.
Nevertheless, the science of evolution can not exist. At best it is a theory
only because it is not a testable theory which makes it unscientific. How do you
test evolution? There are serious serious hurdles that is seemingly impossible
to overcome especially for macro-evolution. I am pro-science but I am not
pro-fraud nor pro-omission. It is shameful to do science deceitfully. It is
hypocritical of the pot to market non-science as real science by calling the
kettle black.
Last edited:
- Status