Is it time to see the wolf in sheep's clothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
Have you considered that you might not understand what it is that the theory of evolution affirms and what it, when divorced from a materialist narrative, has no comment on?
Click to expand...
You are right about my not understanding all that the theory of evolution affirms, etc. :o

Frankly, I am more interested in the basic rules of the evolution theory. One of those nitty-gritty rules directly and swiftly denies the possibility of Original Sin along with the possibility of Adam and Eve. It is a simple rule that a new species comes as a large population from a previous large random breeding, polygenesis source, population. In other words, according to this basic evolution rule, there cannot be a first Adam and Eve because their population is way too small.

Those diagrams, containing the hominin line from the Homo/Pan split,continually fascinate me. However not one species is a population of two.
It must be affirmed that there were two original humans who were endowed with a rational soul: one male and one female. The man sinned, forfeited the original holiness and justice given to man and woman, and this lack was transmitted to all their progeny, such that all true humans are born with original sin. Original Sin was not an act of multiple persons, nor are there humans aalive today who do not jave descent from Adam amd Eve.
Click to expand...
 
St_Francis said:
There at least ised to be a talk on the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (iirc) that said Genesis wouldn’t work with Creation since death did not exist before Adam and Eve sinned.

I dunno… maybe animals died and people didn’t?

My personal theory:
We cannot know how the world was created: in 6 literal days? In 6 “days” that were actually ages (back in my day…). However, we can know that God created everything, because despite theorizing to the contrary, nothing *is *no thing, and so for something to exist now, Someone must have done something.

Whether God did this in 6 literal days, or whether He planted a seed which grew and grew, and widened amd developed, all according to His plan, we will not know in this life. I can see the universe as a beautiful flower opening ever wider, or the almost instantaneous appearance of everything, and either, or something else as yet unconceived of, would be awe-full-ly marvelous.

However, material, a-theistic evolution seems absurd to me, impossible to a negative degree. Those trying to prove it make up stories and say, since it could possibly have happened this way, it must be true. ??? crazy…
Click to expand...
I appreciated your comment “Someone must have done something” because I am in awe of the marvelous beauty of “something.” Fall colors are a favorite and the night sky is beyond our human imagination. When we stand in the middle of beauty, there is only one possible source and that is a loving Divine Creator.
 
There can be a variety of wolves who have one thing in common. They like to tamper with foundational Catholic doctrines. Often a wolf is a good person, doing good works for the sheep in the flock. Because we have not learned how to read the spiritual soul of someone else, we respect all clergy and others.

For example. A popular priest writer/speaker has internet meditations with both good and bad parts. We have to evaluate the meditation at the same time we respect the author.

Here is some information from a sample meditation. (link below) It is known by Google as the "fly in the ointment " which states at the top, “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Here the “original curse or sin” refers to the Catholic teaching on Adam and Original Sin.

All of us would like to dump Original Sin into the trash. On the other hand, we see the mighty love of God in Genesis 3:15. It is Adam, the founder of our human species, who freely destroys the original friendship between our humanity and the Divine Creator God. It is God Who loves us so much that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumes our human nature in order to bring us back into that amazing relationship with God. John 3: 16-17

myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

The author appears to be following the early Matthew Fox who left the Catholic priesthood. We need to pray for our priests. Temptations are everywhere.
 
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

From the above article.
“That’s why I was thinking. I am a chemist by training, and as a Catholic I frequently write about evolution, which garners a critical response from people who want to set me straight about the “Darwinian crisis.” This opposition perplexes me, because I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.”

It should be obvious that chemistry belongs in the material realm of natural science. In addition, one must consider the modern approach to our species which is the Science of Human Evolution. If one is going to write about modern evolution, one cannot ignore the Science of Human Evolution in which there is a definite rule which conflicts with basic Catholic doctrines. Ignoring the Science of Human Evolution may sound like a happy thought; but, in reality, it can damage a person’s Faith.
 
grannymh said:
There can be a variety of wolves who have one thing in common. They like to tamper with foundational Catholic doctrines. Often a wolf is a good person, doing good works for the sheep in the flock. Because we have not learned how to read the spiritual soul of someone else, we respect all clergy and others.

For example. A popular priest writer/speaker has internet meditations with both good and bad parts. We have to evaluate the meditation at the same time we respect the author.

Here is some information from a sample meditation. (link below) It is known by Google as the "fly in the ointment " which states at the top, “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Here the “original curse or sin” refers to the Catholic teaching on Adam and Original Sin.

All of us would like to dump Original Sin into the trash. On the other hand, we see the mighty love of God in Genesis 3:15. It is Adam, the founder of our human species, who freely destroys the original friendship between our humanity and the Divine Creator God. It is God Who loves us so much that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumes our human nature in order to bring us back into that amazing relationship with God. John 3: 16-17

myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

The author appears to be following the early Matthew Fox who left the Catholic priesthood. We need to pray for our priests. Temptations are everywhere.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what is so very wrong with this line of thinking :

"We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.

If a human is baptised as a baby, then this human is made new in Christ, the old has passed (original sin).
 
simpleas said:
I don’t understand what is so very wrong with this line of thinking :

"We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.

If a human is baptised as a baby, then this human is made new in Christ, the old has passed (original sin).
Click to expand...
The line of thinking is that Original Sin is a fly in the ointment. Therefore, we should get rid of Original Sin. This means that there is no need for a complete Jesus Christ Who eventually establishes the Catholic Church. Bingo! Humans can now rebuild Catholicism so that everyone can choose their own happy doctrines of goodness.

The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation goes down the drain because when rebuilding Catholicism, free will is not necessary. No one can reject God.

The next obvious step is to deny Genesis 1: 27. Shall we skip the idea that each human person is worthy of profound respect?
 
grannymh said:
The line of thinking is that Original Sin is a fly in the ointment. Therefore, we should get rid of Original Sin. This means that there is no need for a complete Jesus Christ Who eventually establishes the Catholic Church. Bingo! Humans can now rebuild Catholicism so that everyone can choose their own happy doctrines of goodness.

The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation goes down the drain because when rebuilding Catholicism, free will is not necessary. No one can reject God.

The next obvious step is to deny Genesis 1: 27. Shall we skip the idea that each human person is worthy of profound respect?
Click to expand...
I don’t see where in the email article original sin should be gotten rid of, it seems to express the idea that much focus is on sin more than blessings.

You obviously read it differently from me.
 
From
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

“What You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution” Catholic Answers article by Dr. Stacy Trasancos, May 31, 2017

“If we can profess that Jesus Christ, our Lord, was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, was buried, descended to the dead, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead, then* we have nothing to fear* in any scientific theory about how matter and energy evolve over time. If God can resurrect the body and grant life everlasting, then he surely can design the material of the universe to become all it is meant to be. To believe anything less of him is heresy.”

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with the concept that God “can design the material of the universe to become all it is meant to be.” The material world of the universe exists and there are plenty of science papers about it.

The error here is one of omission. Where is the current Science of Human Evolution? If we are to absolutely understand evolution, then we cannot omit the Science of Human Evolution.
 
simpleas said:
I don’t see where in the email article original sin should be gotten rid of, it seems to express the idea that much focus is on sin more than blessings.

You obviously read it differently from me.
Click to expand...
The point that Original Sin should be gotten rid of is the Meditation heading. Please notice the word “not”
“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.”
Also, if the words “Original Sin” are not in Scripture, that is good reason to omit Original Sin.
“and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament.”

Here is a clear sentence. Please notice the words "not on a foundation of original curse or sin aka Original Sin.
“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin.”

​
 
Also from the email :

Philip Newell writes: “Eriugena, the ninth-century Irish teacher, says that if goodness were extracted from the universe, all things would cease to exist. For goodness is not simply a feature of life; it is the very essence of life. Goodness gives rise to being, just as evil leads to nonbeing or to a destruction and denial of life’s sacredness.” [1] According to Newell, Pelagius “stressed not only the essential goodness of creation–and our capacity to glimpse what he called ‘the shafts of divine light’ that penetrate the thin veil dividing heaven and earth–but, very specifically, the essential goodness of humanity. Pelagius maintained that the image of God can be seen in every newborn child and that, although obscured by sin, it exists at the heart of every person, waiting to be released through the grace of God.” [2]

I could be wrong, but you seem to focus on the comment about rebuilding on a foundation of goodness as being a bad thing, when being baptised is rebuilding on a foundation of goodness.
We as people have changed since original sin was proclaimed as a fact, and our views on what is sin and what isn’t has too (we see this from how most people live their lives)
Much doesn’t make sense to people who are now well educated and can think for themselves.
I haven’t got a clue.
 
simpleas said:
Also from the email :

Philip Newell writes: “Eriugena, the ninth-century Irish teacher, says that if goodness were extracted from the universe, all things would cease to exist. For goodness is not simply a feature of life; it is the very essence of life. Goodness gives rise to being, just as evil leads to nonbeing or to a destruction and denial of life’s sacredness.” [1] According to Newell, Pelagius “stressed not only the essential goodness of creation–and our capacity to glimpse what he called ‘the shafts of divine light’ that penetrate the thin veil dividing heaven and earth–but, very specifically, the essential goodness of humanity. Pelagius maintained that the image of God can be seen in every newborn child and that, although obscured by sin, it exists at the heart of every person, waiting to be released through the grace of God.” [2]

I could be wrong, but you seem to focus on the comment about rebuilding on a foundation of goodness as being a bad thing, when being baptised is rebuilding on a foundation of goodness.
We as people have changed since original sin was proclaimed as a fact, and our views on what is sin and what isn’t has too (we see this from how most people live their lives)
Much doesn’t make sense to people who are now well educated and can think for themselves.
I haven’t got a clue.
Click to expand...
I focus on “rebuilding” because many Catholics apparently do not understand that rebuilding means getting rid of basic Catholic doctrines. In my personal opinion, one of the notable Progressive Christians takes advantage of Catholics not knowing a lot. I immediately turned off his video when he insulted me as being dumb about the visible Catholic Church on earth. Definitely, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. However, I am fortunate to learn from the dead generation who learned common sense in regard to Catholic doctrines.

Please note that human nature was wounded as a result of Original Sin. Human nature does not continue to change after a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit which defined Original Sin.

And what do our well educated views, good and bad, have to do with Catholic doctrines? According to a notable Progressive Christian.

Views of sin have been changed by Progressive Christians and a few ordinary folk. That idea is another way of getting Catholics to leave the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

My advice is to stop following a notable Progressive Christian even when he says something very true and very important. That “truth” is simply the icing on a bad cake.

Better advice is to follow the words said at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The profession of the Creed is important. Listen to the Priest read from the book. Listen to the prayers said by the Priest.

Listen to you heart loving Jesus. He is our Good Shepherd holding us in His arms.
 
Originally Posted by grannymh
Click to expand...
And what do our well educated views, good and bad, have to do with Catholic doctrines? According to a notable Progressive Christian
Click to expand...
I think it renders them less important in some peoples lives.

Like I said, what was once seen as very sinful has become pretty much the norm for many peoples lives, even within Catholicism.
 
Wesrock said:
Have you considered that you might not understand what it is that the theory of evolution affirms and what it, when divorced from a materialist narrative, has no comment on? The science makes no comment on souls or original sin. It cannot deny them, but neither can it give any type of comment on them. The science is like a lampost in the dark, it can only shine light on what falls within its domain, but that doesn’t mean the area it shines light on is all that is…
Click to expand...
Hi, Wesrock!

I concur with you.

The problem lies not in what you have correctly pointed out; the problem lies in what is being translated (claimed). As a child I heard of the “theory of evolution.” Once I hit hs, it simply became “evolution;” yet, soon thereafter “Evolution According to…”

Some, by ignorance or design, forget the point highlighted as we are instructed that evolution is an actual fact and that what is known/understood is proof of “xyz”–to those who reject the existence of Yahweh God, it translates to no Creator… and they refuse to even engage in “intelligent design” because it would dissolve eons of happenstance and what I call the goldilocks effect (“just right”).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
St_Francis said:
There at least ised to be a talk on the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (iirc) that said Genesis wouldn’t work with Creation since death did not exist before Adam and Eve sinned.

I dunno… maybe animals died and people didn’t?

My personal theory:
We cannot know how the world was created: in 6 literal days? In 6 “days” that were actually ages (back in my day…). However, we can know that God created everything, because despite theorizing to the contrary, nothing *is *no thing, and so for something to exist now, Someone must have done something.

Whether God did this in 6 literal days, or whether He planted a seed which grew and grew, and widened amd developed, all according to His plan, we will not know in this life. I can see the universe as a beautiful flower opening ever wider, or the almost instantaneous appearance of everything, and either, or something else as yet unconceived of, would be awe-full-ly marvelous.

However, material, a-theistic evolution seems absurd to me, impossible to a negative degree. Those trying to prove it make up stories and say, since it could possibly have happened this way, it must be true. ??? crazy…
Click to expand...
Hi!

Part of the problem is man’s finite understanding of things and the need to box things into his intellectual range… all the while ignoring the progress (evolution) in man’s abilities and discoveries of preexisting systems, laws, and mathematics.

Genesis, while speaking on Creation, states ‘first day…’ yet, there’s that day four hint–how can the Creation Narrative be expressing a six-twenty-four-hour period since the sun and moon were not Created until the forth day? A reasonable person would accept that the Creation Narrative is offering a time schedule to facilitate man’s understanding of what took place and not subscribe to a 6-24 period.

Coincidentally, the Creation Narrative places man as the last in Creation–which is precisely what science has determined as it has charted “evolution.”

Then there’s the God-incidence of how man shares the building block with nature and how the human body is composed of an intricate system that incorporates minerals, electricity, chemistry, and the atmospheric air… how every Creature is designed specifically for its eco system… including those marvels that eluded man for thousands of years (hyper system creatures).

What I find extremely telling is how God has Revealed Himself through nature and how man has come to know and discover things that were not known to him; things that only through design and revelation could man have had acquired/understood/unfolded.

Let’s visit Newton’s first and second law of motion… could the Universe (all that exists: seen and unseen) have come into existence if nothing would have been applied to cause things to come into existence? …and, what is science still discovering but the second law?–Creation has stayed the Course and things that were Created and put into effect continue to move into their compelled state (remember when “scholars” were claiming that the Universe being so old was folding up unto itself? The Hubble Telescope soon demonstrated that it is still unfolding–it also brought into focus the comparison of the children of Abraham being as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore).

…then there’s this:
…because I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing. I’ve seen molecules self-organize, and I find it mind-blowing to think that even the tiniest organism is a profound orchestration of matter and energy. I don’t see how anyone can look at a periodic table and doubt there is a designer. (catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution
Click to expand...
)
Right from a petri dish science can recognize Creation’s built-in command at micro-levels. It takes a lot of faith not to Accept and Believe in God!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
grannymh said:
You are right about my not understanding all that the theory of evolution affirms, etc. :o

Frankly, I am more interested in the basic rules of the evolution theory. One of those nitty-gritty rules directly and swiftly denies the possibility of Original Sin along with the possibility of Adam and Eve. It is a simple rule that a new species comes as a large population from a previous large random breeding, polygenesis source, population. In other words, according to this basic evolution rule, there cannot be a first Adam and Eve because their population is way too small.

Those diagrams, containing the hominin line from the Homo/Pan split,continually fascinate me. However not one species is a population of two.
Click to expand...
Hi, Granny!

…not to mention the contradiction that, 'God could not have created Adam and Eve because the human genome could not have been contained in just two reps; all the while subscribing to the 'monkey-like" female that is the progenitor of primates and homo sapiens–how contrived is that? An all Omnipotent Being could not have Created Adam and Eve (given the complexity of the human genome); yet, blind and dumb “nature” orchestrated the evolution of all primates and homo lines by the enhancement/manipulation of one “monkey-like” female creature… yeah, not reaching at all! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel
 
grannymh said:
There can be a variety of wolves who have one thing in common. They like to tamper with foundational Catholic doctrines. Often a wolf is a good person, doing good works for the sheep in the flock. Because we have not learned how to read the spiritual soul of someone else, we respect all clergy and others.

For example. A popular priest writer/speaker has internet meditations with both good and bad parts. We have to evaluate the meditation at the same time we respect the author.

Here is some information from a sample meditation. (link below) It is known by Google as the "fly in the ointment " which states at the top, “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Here the “original curse or sin” refers to the Catholic teaching on Adam and Original Sin.

All of us would like to dump Original Sin into the trash. On the other hand, we see the mighty love of God in Genesis 3:15. It is Adam, the founder of our human species, who freely destroys the original friendship between our humanity and the Divine Creator God. It is God Who loves us so much that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumes our human nature in order to bring us back into that amazing relationship with God. John 3: 16-17

myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

The author appears to be following the early Matthew Fox who left the Catholic priesthood. We need to pray for our priests. Temptations are everywhere.
Click to expand...
Hi, Granny!

…yes, vanity is not only a piece of furniture that comes with a mirror attached to it!

…Luther was a Catholic Monk till he rearranged his priorities.

We must pray!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
grannymh said:
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

From the above article.
“That’s why I was thinking. I am a chemist by training, and as a Catholic I frequently write about evolution, which garners a critical response from people who want to set me straight about the “Darwinian crisis.” This opposition perplexes me, because I think of evolution as fundamentally nothing more than atoms and molecules, organized into physical systems, doing their thing.”

It should be obvious that chemistry belongs in the material realm of natural science. In addition, one must consider the modern approach to our species which is the Science of Human Evolution. If one is going to write about modern evolution, one cannot ignore the Science of Human Evolution in which there is a definite rule which conflicts with basic Catholic doctrines. Ignoring the Science of Human Evolution may sound like a happy thought; but, in reality, it can damage a person’s Faith.
Click to expand...
Hi, Granny!

…could the author not be intimating (as I have expressed) that there’s a built-in component to Creation that compels things to Unfold as they were Designed?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
simpleas said:
I don’t understand what is so very wrong with this line of thinking :

"We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.

If a human is baptised as a baby, then this human is made new in Christ, the old has passed (original sin).
Click to expand...
Hi!

(I did not read the article; just going on the excerpt that was presented.)

Yet, is the confusion not the intimation that the Catholic Church was wrong in her Teaching about Original Sin?:
grannymh said:
Here is some information from a sample meditation. (link below) It is known by Google as the "fly in the ointment " which states at the top, “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Here the “original curse or sin” refers to the Catholic teaching on Adam and Original Sin.
Click to expand...
Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top