Religion and Science!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Nowhere does the Catechism suggest that Adam and Eve are a metaphor for 10,000 human beings who started the human race. But even if that metaphor were granted, there is no warrant to argue that more than one couple committed the first sin at the very same moment in time. Adam and Eve are the names given to that first offending couple by the author of Genesis. Should they have been given other names, like George and Martha? Or a mathematical number, like 10,000?
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that they be given names other than “Adam” and “Eve.” I am merely pointing out that there is no scientific evidence to warrant the conclusion that the human population ever dropped below 3,000 couples, much less to a single breeding pair. You may believe whatever you like from a religious point of view. Just don’t hold your breath expecting the world’s geneticists to abandon what they know from science because it contradicts the quaint creation story of one religious group.
And if the Devil is not a snake, how else might we better metaphorically describe him? The snake is universally treated as a threat to the well being of humans, a threat with one deadly strike.
Click to expand...
Genesis does not say that the serpent was a devil. Rather, the passage in Genesis 3 reflects the prescientific understanding of a nomadic desert people, who were ignorant of the important biological role snakes play in the ecosystems they inhabit.
 
StAnastasia said:
I am not suggesting that they be given names other than “Adam” and “Eve.” I am merely pointing out that there is no scientific evidence to warrant the conclusion that the human population ever dropped below 3,000 couples, much less to a single breeding pair. You may believe whatever you like from a religious point of view. Just don’t hold your breath expecting the world’s geneticists to abandon what they know from science because it contradicts the quaint creation story of one religious group.
Click to expand...
In other words, this is a flat out denial of basic Catholic Doctrines starting with the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally denying the purpose of Jesus Christ.

This type of denial can be expected from people who use the evolution model as their reference point for spiritual truth. This is a blatant misuse of science.
 
grannymh said:
In other words, this is a flat out denial of basic Catholic Doctrines starting with the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally denying the purpose of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
More Grannymh lies. Granny, you are an expert at putting false words in people mouths and claiming they say them. Lying is a blatant breach of the eighth commandment.
This type of denial can be expected from people who use the evolution model as their reference point for spiritual truth. This is a blatant misuse of science.
Click to expand...
More bearing false witness against Granny’s neighbor.
 
StAnastasia said:
More Grannymh lies. Granny, you are an expert at putting false words in people mouths and claiming they say them. Lying is a blatant breach of the eighth commandment.

More bearing false witness against Granny’s neighbor.
Click to expand...
There has been a recent trend here a CAF of certain posters calling other posters liars.

I am not seeing grannymh lie. She calls you on your cleverly worded posts and you are resorting to this nonsense. Shame on you and others that are doing the same thing.
 
StAnastasia said:
More Grannymh lies. Granny, you are an expert at putting false words in people mouths and claiming they say them. Lying is a blatant breach of the eighth commandment.
Click to expand...
I did not use your words. I said “In other words” which is proper.

Now if you wish, you certainly may explain your words “the quaint creation story of one religious group.”
 
buffalo said:
I am not seeing grannymh lie. She calls you on your cleverly worded posts and you are resorting to this nonsense. Shame on you and others that are doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
She does indeed post lies. She says that I flat out deny basic Catholic Doctrines starting with the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally denying the purpose of Jesus Christ.

I do nothing of the sort. This is a blatant lie, and libelous.
 
StAnastasia said:
She does indeed post lies. She says that I flat out deny basic Catholic Doctrines starting with the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally denying the purpose of Jesus Christ.

I do nothing of the sort. This is a blatant lie, and libelous.
Click to expand...
Would you be so kind as to clarify the Catholic doctrines concerning the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally the purpose of Jesus Christ. That way readers can compare the actual Catholic doctrines with your post 708.

A good source for Catholic doctrines regarding the above is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421. The Good News of Jesus Christ begins in paragraph 411. Continue reading.
 
grannymh said:
Would you be so kind as to clarify the Catholic doctrines concerning the creative power of God, human origin, human nature, original sin, spiritual soul, and finally the purpose of Jesus Christ. That way readers can compare the actual Catholic doctrines with your post 708.
Click to expand...
Nice try Granny! Remember, I don’t do the Spanish Inquisition or any other inquisition. Post # 708 was about genetics and snakes, not about doctrines.
 
  1. It seems reasonable to allow the **moderators **to decide whether an individual is denying Catholic doctrines.
  2. It is debatable whether **every **statement in the Catechism is infallible.
  3. Statements are often susceptible to different interpretations.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. It seems reasonable to allow the **moderators **to decide whether an individual is denying Catholic doctrines.
  2. It is debatable whether **every **statement in the Catechism is infallible.
  3. Statements are often susceptible to different interpretations.
Click to expand...
According to JPII the catechism is the sure norm for teaching.
 
StAnastasia said:
Nice try Granny! Remember, I don’t do the Spanish Inquisition.
Click to expand...
That is fine with me.

CAF members and guests are perfectly capable of intelligent reading.

A good source for Catholic doctrines mentioned in post 709 is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421. The Good News of Jesus Christ begins in paragraph 422. Enjoy! 😃

Link:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
​
 
tonyrey said:
  1. It seems reasonable to allow the **moderators **to decide whether an individual is denying Catholic doctrines.
  2. It is debatable whether **every **statement in the Catechism is infallible.
  3. Statements are often susceptible to different interpretations.
Click to expand...
If you will kindly check CAF policies, posters may present statements which do not agree with Catholic teaching. This is part of all kinds of discussions. How Catholic teaching is being disputed could be a different situation.
 
grannymh said:
*1. It seems reasonable to allow the **moderators ***
Click to expand...
I agree but the most charitable approach is to confine ourselves to objective discussion of the issues without making personal comments. I am not blameless but even when we are justified it is still unnecessary and unexemplary…
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
A norm is not equivalent to a set of infallible doctrines - like the Nicene Creed…
Click to expand...
The quote regarding “norm” is found on page 5 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. For the context of the quote, may I suggest reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which begins on page 1. In addition, one should also read the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere which begins on page xiii.

For information regarding specific points, one should check the footnotes. To understand the depth of research which went into this universal Catechism, please check the “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865 in the hard copy of the Catechism.
 
grannymh said:
The quote regarding “norm” is found on page 5 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. For the context of the quote, may I suggest reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum which begins on page 1. In addition, one should also read the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere which begins on page xiii.

For information regarding specific points, one should check the footnotes. To understand the depth of research which went into this universal Catechism, please check the “Index of Citations” which follows paragraph 2865 in the hard copy of the Catechism.
Click to expand...
I am not disputing the immense value of the Catechism for which I have great respect but I do not feel compelled to accept every sentence as an infallible dogma! If I am mistaken then I am undoubtedly a heretic - although consoled by the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our conscience…
 
tonyrey said:
I am not disputing the immense value of the Catechism for which I have great respect but I do not feel compelled to accept every sentence as an infallible dogma! If I am mistaken then I am undoubtedly a heretic - although consoled by the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our conscience…
Click to expand...
You would find paragraphs 18 - 22 very useful when it comes to “every sentence” and the reason for “small print”. Obviously, one should start with paragraph 1 to get a grasp on the structure of the Catechism.

Link:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 
tonyrey said:
I am not disputing the immense value of the Catechism for which I have great respect but I do not feel compelled to accept every sentence as an infallible dogma!
Click to expand...
Not sure what significance it would have whether something is infallible dogma or not, for you as a Catholic, tony.

Questioning whether something’s infallible is akin to the cheekiness of a child telling his parents, “Well, unless you really, really, mean it, I’m not going to pick up my toys!”
 
grannymh said:
You would find paragraphs 18 - 22 very useful when it comes to “every sentence” and the reason for “small print”. Obviously, one should start with paragraph 1 to get a grasp on the structure of the Catechism.

Link:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Click to expand...
For me the key words are “It should be seen therefore as a unified whole” - which implies that there is room for different interpretations of details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top