G
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I voted no more evolution threads. If you check all the 2004 threads, they are the same as the 2005 threads.
Everything that needed to be said about evolution and creation was said in 2004. We don’t need the 2006 threads repeating the 2004 threads again.
But we absolutely need plenty more geocentrism and flat earth and [anti-gravity (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm) threads since those scientific issues aren’t resolved yet in the 21st century!!!
Phil P
Gravity is a Protestant invention. It is a transparent attack upon the ministry of the angels, who are the sufficient causes of the phenomena ascribed to this Arian invention called “gravity”.
It is also unscriptural:- Psa 91:11 For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways.
- Psa 91:12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
There are many heavenly bodies - and many angels. Why would the angels be so numerous, if they did not perform the office of directing the heavenly bodies lest these should collide ? Since the heavens are perfectly circular, it is plain that appearances to the contrary are all delusive. As the angels direct the heavenly spheres and all the heavens and the bodies which these rule, there is again nothing for gravity to do.
To say that there is gravity, is to say that the Primum Mobile, that Heaven which is less glorious only than the Empyrean, has no task to perform. One might as well deny the existence of all the heavens, and of all the angelic choirs which rule them. Since these choirs are named in Scripture, it is plain that to embrace this “gravity” is to totter upon the brink of atheism. Belief that angels are the movers of the heavens is necessary to Christianity and the good order of society - take away the angelic hierarchies, and what becomes of the hierarchy of the Church, and of the hierarchical arrangement of civil society ? Complete ruin will ensue, if this pestiferous fantasy of gravity be allowed to spread its noxious influence.
As if the foregoing were not enough, it is abundantly clear that this heresy is an invention of satan: who else tempted our first parents with an apple ? This preposterous nonsense is said to have been conceived by its abandoned inventor when he beheld an apple fall from a tree - if this is not a clear warning from Heaven that this invention comes from the accursed author of the Fall of our first parents, who is confined at the centre of the earth (to whom moreover all evil must return), then nature does not obey the Will of her Divine Author, and we are ruled by caprice and luck. Since this is false, the fall of that apple was a sign for our benefit.
Who needs gravity ? Only those who have an interest in the utter destruction of all order, degree, and concord. Heretics, traitors, and rebels can alone have a reason to believe this foolery.
If the Fathers could live and die without this nonsense of gravity, so can we. The idea is wholly devoid of all merit ##
W
weddy
Guest
I find it interesting to see how many people think that they can explain evolution with absolutely nothing to stand on (or build on), then I ask them to “walk on water.”
Z
zian
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
D
Donald45
Guest
First, let me say that I in no way intended to insult you. Maybe you were put off by my use of the term “ignorant,” which does not mean “stupid,” but rather “uninformed, or perhaps ill-informed.” In any case, I apologize if it seemed that I was attacking you. My intent was to challenge you to continue thinking about these issues, and even to consider evidence that may not square with your present opinion.
When someone makes statements like “Nothing you can say will change my mind,” or “Since I already know what I believe, I don’t need to consider an opposing viewpoint,” the impression is given that the person has, in effect, stopped thinking regarding that subject. The position appears to be: “I’ve made up my mind, and now I don’t have to think about these issues any more (at least in any way that might threaten or contradict my preferred beliefs).” At that point, and to that extent, the person has essentially become unteachable. My point in the previous post was that, since we are not omniscient, nor infallible, and since we are called to seek the truth wherever we find it—and whether or not what we find makes us uncomfortable—we are never to “make up our minds” in the sense that we refuse to take seriously any arguments and ideas we may be presented with. We are never to “make up our minds” in the sense of “ceasing to think,” even if we may not like the conclusions to which we are ultimately led.
You ask “Do I need to continually listen to others who are against the Church in order to ‘prove’ what I already believe is true?” Your answer is “No.” My answer would be “absolutely,” if one intends to be intellectually honest in his pursuit of truth. In your question, you assume that those who hold a position contrary to yours (in this case, evolutionists) are necessarily “against the Church.” However, many Catholics—and many Catholics who are scientists—hold to organic evolution as the best scientific explanation for the development of life on earth. So, in this case, you wouldn’t be considering the views of those “against the Church,” but rather you’d be taking seriously the arguments of many who love the Church just as much as you do. “Evolutionist” does not equal “anti-Catholic.”
Well, this is my attempt to clarify my earlier post. It was meant as a friendly challenge, not as a personal attack. The observations apply to me as much (or more) as to anyone else.
Take care, and God bless,
Don
D
Donald45
Guest
Relax, Mel. Nobody was attacking anyone. Refer to Post #45 for clarification. (What are these ‘smilie faces’ for, if people are just going to ignore them?) Given that this forum allows for only short comments with little qualification, misunderstandings are somewhat inevitable, I suppose.Apparently agreeing with your views means loving the Lord with all of one’s mind.Why are you so sure of the Virgin birth? Aren’t you open to other possiblities? Why so narrow minded. Geez, Donald, seriously give it a rest and try to be a gentleman when addressing a lady.
Better yet perhaps you need to study the fathers more to understand that the overwhelming majority of them agree with Scout’s position. As it is you need to side with skeptic 20th century liberal scholars who allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis something that is completely novel in prior church history.
In any case, let me try to address your comments. No, agreeing with my views doesn’t mean “loving God with all of one’s mind,” and I never suggested any such thing. What does constitute loving God with one’s mind is continuing to seek truth, and to think about a particular issue, even when the information we need to consider goes against our preferred opinions of the present moment. It’s at least entertaining the possibility that we might be wrong (the fact that we’re finite demands this), and taking seriously any and all information available to us, even if we don’t “like” where it leads.
You use the Virgin Birth as an example, rhetorically asking whether or not I’m “open to other possibilities,” and implying that I’m not. This you then compare to Scout’s position on evolution. However, your assumption concerning my approach to the search for truth is incorrect. I would (and do) indeed consider other possibilities, though none has so far struck me as overwhelmingly plausible. I admit that I don’t see how any other viewpoint could be true, but this does not relieve me of the obligation to honestly think about arguments that may contradict my current beliefs. I am not free to simply stop thinking in a certain area of inquiry, merely because I happen to prefer the opinion I hold at present.
You label my comments as somehow “ungentlemanly.” Yet, I was simply taking Scout’s statements seriously, and replying with equal sobriety. The search for truth is not a frivolous matter, and to treat her ideas as silly or unimportant, or to simply dismiss them without comment, would be neither noble nor virtuous. To fail to address Scout’s comments with seriousness and honesty would be an insult in itself. And why should her ideas be treated with kid gloves? Because she’s a woman? Now, that’s an insult.
As far as the Fathers go, “the overwhelming majority of them” held to quite a few opinions that you, in the light of further and better information, would very likely avoid today. I’ll assume that you won’t argue for astrology, alchemy, geocentrism, vapors, a flat earth, bloodletting, and any number of other ideas embraced by various Church Fathers at any given time. And as for “allegorizing Genesis,” which you attribute to 20th-century scholars, you might want to study the 5th-century teaching of St. Augustine on the subject, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Perhaps, however, you’ve already “made up your mind,” and so have no need of further thought on these matters.
I trust that this clears up any misunderstanding.
God bless,
Don
D
Donald45
Guest
Naturally, any opposing viewpoint strikes you as “condescending.” The same could be said of “the creationists” (whatever that means, since Catholics who hold to evolution as a scientific view also hold to creation as a theological view). It could be equally said of your own posts (which appear to me to be woefully uninformed and naive), including the one I’m responding to here.
You indirectly (by quoting Scout’s reply) offer my post as an example of “evolutionists who are condescending.” Yet the post to which Scout was responding said nothing whatsoever about evolution. For all you know, at least from reading my post, I hold to the same opinion of evolution as Scout (indeed, at one time I did). My comments were not in any way directed at Young Earth Creationism, but at the Christian obligation to seek the truth. Nice try, though.
No doubt, there are Catholics who affirm evolution who would like to see a moratorium on the “typically condescending” anti-evolutionary claims of some who presume to offer their religious opinions as “science.” Or, we could instead engage in an honest mutual search for truth in these matters, and learn from one another. This seems unlikely, however, if many of those involved have already “made up their minds” to the point where genuine thought is impossible.
Truly,
Don
J
johnshelby
Guest
why can’t we just ignore the threads we don’t want to discuss?
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Thanks to all who have participated in this thread.
It is now closed.
It is now closed.
- Status