Many Adams and Eves?

[LittleSoldier]

Well, here’s my answer.

Since I’m Catholic, and think that the Church teaches Truth, it’s obvious that the “sacred system” that should be taught EVERYWHERE is the Catholic Truth.

There is no need to be “fair.” There is no need to be sensitive to a “pluralistic culture”. That just leads to chaos, and “I’m OK, you’re OK, everybody is OK, everything is OK.”

God does not obligate us to teach alternative truths. Do you disagree? God wants us to teach truth. Do you disagree?

Now, if you (StA) have doubts about the truth of Catholic teaching, then I realize why you would be hesitant to actually teach it. Or why you might not want others to hear it.

Or perhaps you’re afraid of criticism from the “pluralistic culture such as you find in most ‘modern’ democracies.” You certainly would not want to be criticized for being “not modern.” Or “not democratic.”

To answer your objection in advance: No, I would not want my children to be taught truths in opposition to Catholic teaching. No, I would not want to teach them these alternate truths and then have them decide which is best for them. No, I would not want to have to skillfully guide them toward the real truth after purposely exposing them to the anti-truth. Or partial truth.

And no, I don’t know how to go about implementing this. But in terms of what should be taught - the answer is Catholic teaching!

You ***think *** that the Church teaches truth? You think? And on this thinking that the Church teaches truth (and by the word “think” you show you have some doubt) you believe that Church teaching should be forced onto everyone, with no need to be “fair” or to be sensitive to a “pluralistic culture”? All this because you ***think ***the Church teaches truth?

I’ve got news for you. I’m a scientist and I ***know ***the Church teaches truth. I have no doubt at all.

 

[ricmat]

You ***think *** that the Church teaches truth? You think? And on this ***thinking *** that the Church teaches truth (and by the word “think” you show you have some doubt) you believe that Church teaching should be forced onto everyone, with no need to be “fair” or to be sensitive to a “pluralistic culture”? All this because you ***think ***the Church teaches truth?

I’ve got news for you. I’m a scientist and I ***know ***the Church teaches truth. I have no doubt at all.

Sorry, I should have said know rather than think. You are correct, and I agree with you.

 

[grannymh]

I assumed that.

They do not support your case for a literal Adam and Eve, or a literal Noah. They do not support a one-couple bottleneck.

Noah is not part of my equation regarding the reality of Adam and Eve.

Regarding the diagrams in post 541, it is my humble observation that in themselves they are not intended to support any size bottleneck. They belong to methods in research similar to what Francisco J. Ayala has used. This area is known as Experimental Simulated Populations.

The post 541 diagrams are very useful as a demonstration of evaluating assumptions which pepper some scientific research.

Blessings,
Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ricmat, if I tried my hardest to put up with your put downs, I would be running in place!

Your neurons are betraying you this morning. I did not say sharia should be implemented.

You want a Catholic theocracy. Calvin tried to implement a theocracy in sixteenth-century Geneva, and it was a miserable failure.

Wow, StAnastasia, I am really shocked to see that some Catholics believe in concepts like this. Living under a system which literally forces people to adhere to any religion sounds like hell to me. I have a strong feeling that the Church would never condone such a system.

I mean, like granny said, isn’t there that free will thing? How should people who disagree with the Church be treated? Jailed? Flogged? Murdered? I was under the impression that, although salvation comes through the Catholic Church, that non-Catholics also went to heaven. Doesn’t the Church still teach that? Or does she teach that anyone who is not blessed with membership in the Church is damned to hell or flies off to some sort of limbo?

It sounds horrible.

 

[buffalo]

Wow, StAnastasia, I am really shocked to see that some Catholics believe in concepts like this. Living under a system which literally forces people to adhere to any religion sounds like hell to me. I have a strong feeling that the Church would never condone such a system.

I mean, like granny said, isn’t there that free will thing? How should people who disagree with the Church be treated? Jailed? Flogged? Murdered? I was under the impression that, although salvation comes through the Catholic Church, that non-Catholics also went to heaven. Doesn’t the Church still teach that? Or does she teach that anyone who is not blessed with membership in the Church is damned to hell or flies off to some sort of limbo?

It sounds horrible.

The difference is Catholicism being imposed or proposed.

 

[ALISANDRO]

Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000. Offiial Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?

Hi awatkins, scientific evidence would also have us beleive that we are descended from apes, and I’ll admit to correcting my children for displaying simian characteristics from time to time (the little monkies), but I beleive that scientists only make those sort of statements because to admit that they are made in the image of God would seriously cramp their style. Besides, we only have 98% of genes in common with chimps, and we also have 78% of genes in common with a banana, but I don’t think that it would be profitable to go down that path. Christian regards, ALISANDRO.

 

[ricmat]

Wow, StAnastasia, I am really shocked to see that some Catholics believe in concepts like this. Living under a system which literally forces people to adhere to any religion sounds like hell to me. I have a strong feeling that the Church would never condone such a system.

I mean, like granny said, isn’t there that free will thing? How should people who disagree with the Church be treated? Jailed? Flogged? Murdered? I was under the impression that, although salvation comes through the Catholic Church, that non-Catholics also went to heaven. Doesn’t the Church still teach that? Or does she teach that anyone who is not blessed with membership in the Church is damned to hell or flies off to some sort of limbo?

It sounds horrible.

Just to clear things up…

StA asked what should be taught. I responded that Catholic teaching should be taught.

And no, I don’t know how to go about implementing this. But in terms of what should be taught - the answer is Catholic teaching!

Despite the fact that I said above that I didn’t know how to implement…StA responded:

Short of forcing everyone in the United States to live according to Catholic beliefs, how would you implement teaching Catholic religion, history, science, and mathematics to children from non-Catholic backgrounds?

But I followed up with:

I would force everyone to live according to (or at least learn) Catholic teaching.
Is that bad? Why?

Note that I said “or at least learn.” In other words, this is the goal, the intent. Of course, we all have free will and no matter what we are taught, we often go in other directions. But remember, this sub thread started with “what should be taught.”

In terms of “forcing everyone to adhere to a particular religion” - that doesn’t mean death to offenders, any more than disobeying “STOP” signs means death. We all need laws (force) to live by. Why shouldn’t we have laws based on Catholic teaching, rather than “modern pluralistic democratic” ones?

I again offer up a previous post for consideration:

Tell me StA - what kind of “culture” is “The Kingdom of God?” A “modern, pluralistic culture?”

When we say “Thy Kingdom come” what is your vision of this Kingdom? One in which everyone has different beliefs, even opposite moral beliefs, but everyone lives in harmony because of their cultural sensitivity?

When we say “Thy Kingdom come” we make a commitment to change this world to be as much like God’s Kingdom as possible. Thy will be done - that’s not pluralistic either. Sorry.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The difference is Catholicism being imposed or proposed.

From post #570:

I would force everyone to live according to (or at least learn) Catholic teaching.

Is that bad? Why?

The implication is that Catholicism would be imposed. The phrase “to live according to” is given a prominent place in the sentence, whereas the phrase “or at least learn” is in parentheses, showing less emphasis.

I would also submit that using “force” goes against Catholic teaching and those that would enforce such a system would not be practicing Catholic teaching.

When someone is “forced” to live by Catholic teaching, his/her free will is removed and along with it, his/her choice to love God.

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you uncovered evidence someplace that Calvin was a Catholic? Please, present a paper to…whoever it is that you always recommend others submit papers to. This might be worth a Nobel prize in…something.

No, John Calvin (1509-1564) began his life as a Catholic, of course, since he was born before 1517. He initiated the reformation in Geneva, and thus is one of the progenitors of Reformed Christianity. He attempted to institute a theocracy in Geneva, including the banning of dancing, alcohol, and card playing. The manufacturers of playing cards were not happy with this. The experiment failed within a generation.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

The implication is that Catholicism would be imposed. The phrase “to live according to” is given a prominent place in the sentence, whereas the phrase “or at least learn” is in parentheses, showing less emphasis.

IMHO you engage too much in looking for hidden (true) meanings in other people’s sentences. “Think” versus “Know.” Now this. I admit to being sloppy in my choice of words. Given that fact, perhaps it would be best to ask me what I meant, rather than analyze it as though I wrote it 200 years ago, and was no longer around to clarify things.

I would also submit that using “force” goes against Catholic teaching and those that would enforce such a system would not be practicing Catholic teaching.

So tell me about the Kindgom of God. See post above.

When someone is “forced” to live by Catholic teaching, his/her free will is removed and along with it, his/her choice to love God.

Our free will is never taken away, or our choice to love God.

The best we can ever do it teach it, and have laws based on it.

 

[ricmat]

No, John Calvin (1509-1564) began his life as a Catholic, of course, since he was born before 1517. He initiated the reformation in Geneva, and thus is one of the progenitors of Reformed Christianity. He attempted to institute a theocracy in Geneva, including the banning of dancing, alcohol, and card playing. The manufacturers of playing cards were not happy with this. The experiment failed within a generation.

StAnastasia

So far as I know, dancing, alcohol, and card playing (all in moderation) are not against Catholic teaching. You offer up a non-Catholic experiment which failed as proof that Catholicism should not be tried.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow, StAnastasia, I am really shocked to see that some Catholics believe in concepts like this. Living under a system which literally forces people to adhere to any religion sounds like hell to me. I have a strong feeling that the Church would never condone such a system…

You’re right – the Church would not condone this. Even Italy does not impose Catholic life or teaching on all its inhabitants.

The public school system is paid for by the taxes of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I think public education should be religion neutral – not theist, atheist, or agnostic. We have chosen to pay for our sons to have a Catholic school education, but I am glad our Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist neighbors are not forced to send their children to that school. Some do, in fact – our school has kids who are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and Christians. All participate in religion classes, and all attend Mass; those who are not Catholics don’t communicate.

We will send our sons to a public high school because the Catholic high charges $17,000 per year, and we cannot afford eight years of that. I’m glad there are four Catholic high schools in town; I’m glad there is a public high school.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

You’re right – the Church would not condone this. Even Italy does not impose Catholic life or teaching on all its inhabitants.

The public school system is paid for by the taxes of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I think public education should be religion neutral – not theist, atheist, or agnostic. We have chosen to pay for our sons to have a Catholic school education, but I am glad our Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist neighbors are not forced to send their children to that school. Some do, in fact – our school has kids who are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and Christians. All participate in religion classes, and all attend Mass; those who are not Catholics don’t communicate.

We will send our sons to a public high school because the Catholic high charges $17,000 per year, and we cannot afford eight years of that. I’m glad there are four Catholic high schools in town; I’m glad there is a public high school.

StAnastasia

So they are all forced to attend Catholic Mass. LOL

So public education should be religion neutral? That’s worked so well so recently

 

[StAnastasia]

So they are all forced to attend Catholic Mass.

They are enrolled in a private, denominational school. When my Catholic son went to a Jewish preschool he attended synagogue services, and his life is the richer for that experience.

So public education should be religion neutral?

Yes, in a pluralistic society it should. In a town like Ave Maria perhaps the public school could have Catholic religion classes, although I don’t know Florida’s laws on that subject.

 

[StAnastasia]

So far as I know, dancing, alcohol, and card playing (all in moderation) are not against Catholic teaching. You offer up a non-Catholic experiment which failed as proof that Catholicism should not be tried.

Did I offer this as proof?

 

[StAnastasia]

Noah is not part of my equation regarding the reality of Adam and Eve.

What is your equation regarding the reality of Adam and Eve?

 

[ricmat]

Did I offer this as proof?

Yes, until I pointed out the absurdity of it.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, until I pointed out the absurdity of it.

No, you need a course in logic.

 

[ricmat]

You want a Catholic theocracy. Calvin tried to implement a theocracy in sixteenth-century Geneva, and it was a miserable failure.

No, John Calvin (1509-1564) began his life as a Catholic, of course, since he was born before 1517. He initiated the reformation in Geneva, and thus is one of the progenitors of Reformed Christianity. He attempted to institute a theocracy in Geneva, including the banning of dancing, alcohol, and card playing. The manufacturers of playing cards were not happy with this. The experiment failed within a generation.

StAnastasia

No, you need a course in logic.

Your logic above is that since Calvin tried and failed in a non-Catholic experiment, that Catholicism should not be implemented. I know you need a course in logic.

 

[StAnastasia]

Your logic above is that since Calvin tried and failed in a non-Catholic experiment, that Catholicism should not be implemented. I know you need a course in logic.

Not at all. An example is not a proof.