Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WileyC1949 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
But, love is never lost. Those moments of companionship exist within eternity. That our particular animal friends will be resurrected however, it’s a different story.
Click to expand...
I saw it pretty much that way myself, but the Biblical story of the “Peaceful Kingdom” in Isiah was always there suggesting a “What if?”. The experience I had convinced me.

It was the most vivid dream which I had ever had. A little background, my first pet when I was a kid through 2nd year in college was a dog called Renny whom everyone in the family really loved. After he died and my parents eventually moved from the house to an apartment and they got another dog whom they gave the same name. At the time I was teaching not far away and so I was able to get home and I was the one who trained the dog. Like the first, he was an incredible dog.

In the dream I had I saw the Renny 1 running towards me out of a tunnel of pure light on my right hand side. He was there in the room with me… I could feel him and he was jumping all over me with joy. He then ran off in front of me where he joyfully greeted Renny 2. They happily played together, jumping over each other, and then they both came to me. I could feel both of them. Then they both ran off together joyfully into the tunnel of light.

This was not like any other dream I had had where you forget the details as soon as you are awake. I remembered every detail as if it were a memory of a real event. In the morning I called my mother (my dad had passed by this time) to tell her of the incredible dream I had but she then told me that Renny 2 had been hit by a car that evening and he died during the night.

The reality of that experienced totally convinced me that the Church’s teaching that animal do not have souls is incorrect. I now feel convinced that any animal who learns to love in his own limited way will find his way to heaven as well.

I know that my experience is not any sort of proof for anyone else, but it certainly was for me.
Click to expand...
I have read many NDE of people seeing their pets or that of a relatives pet in Heaven.There are many secrets about Heaven that we don’t know .
 
edwest211 said:
Incorrect. Not Scriptural. Speculation only. We each get Original Sin because we are descended from Adam and Eve. Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–
Click to expand...
I gave the Scripture in the posts above. The Church teaches that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. His sins were his sins alone, our sins are our sins alone. So why would that be any different from the sin of the first human? The tree which according to the story he ate from was the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. In other words he was given a conscience. The “Original Sin” was not his disobedience in eating from that tree. According to the story he had no knowledge that disobeying God was evil, and knowledge is necessary for sin. The first sin came later when with full knowledge he tried to blame Eve for what he did. My point is though that what made him fully human was his conscience which gave him the ability to sin. So we did not inherit his sin. We inherited his ability to commit sin. So yes, through “Adam” sin did come into the world.

I do not accept that it was death itself that came as a result of sin. Pre-humans certainly died, but without a conscience they were still animistic and didn’t think of such matters. They only lived by the status quo, whatever that was at the present minute. What they gained from the conscience is an awareness of that death would come. So yes, awareness of death spread to everyone, and yes everyone has sinned.
edwest211 said:
Not Scriptural. Mary was without sin so the The Word could be made flesh. It was extremely special and important.
Click to expand...
If my thoughts here are logically correct and we inherited the ability to commit sin rather than the sin itself then Mary, even though she may have been without sin both before and after Jesus was born, she did possess the ability to sin. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in my mind mental gymnastics to try to work around the concept of Original Sin being a black mark on the soul and Mary giving birth to Christ. And so the concept of the Immaculate Conception was born even though it is not Scriptural. But if we are born not with the sin but with the ability to commit sin that whole concept of inheriting a black mark simply vanishes. We are all born good. It is arguable that Jesus Himself had the ability to commit sin but He always chose to do the will of God. He showed that His personal will differed from that of God when He prayed in the garden that His task be removed from Him. He was in such throes of anguish that He sweat blood! But again He gave Himself over to the will of God. If He did not have the ability to say “No” to what was to happen to Him then His suffering and death were the result of programming, not choice. And as a result His actions would NOT have been a sacrifice. This is why I am confident that He had to have the ability to commit sin but did not. If He had the ability to commit sin then so did Mary.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Metis1:
Secondly, the acceptance of the basic axiom of the evolution of life did not cause the Holocaust,
Click to expand...
“Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level.”

The hatred precedes the rationale to act but without the evolutionist’s rationale fewer would follow this madman.
Click to expand...
That’s as nonsensical as blaming Pythagorus if someone used his theorum to build a scaffold.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the world would be a much happier place if people could distinguish between individuals and universals.
 
Bradskii said:
That’s as nonsensical as blaming Pythagorus if someone used his theorum to build a scaffold.
Click to expand...
I suppose you mean Pythagoras but we’ve come to expect as little.

Critical thinkers see through the bunk. Get off the stilts and do some thinking instead of just drinking the Kool Aid. And catch up on your reading:

“The leading anthropologist Eugen Fischer and the geneticist Fritz Lenz, both influential figures in racial science during the Nazi period, embraced both Gobineau and Darwinism. Hans-Walter Schmuhl perceptively notes that despite some contradictions between Gobineau’s racism and social Darwinism, “Nonetheless toward the end of the nineteenth century formulations of Gobineauism and social Darwin- ism blended into syncretistic racial theories.” 16 Some leading antisemitic thinkers in early twentieth-century Germany, such as Theodor Fritsch and Willibald Hentschel, incorporated Darwinism into antisemitic ideology. 17 Thus, many Nazi racial theorists interpreted the opposition between the Nordic and Jewish race as an episode in the Darwinian struggle for existence.”
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, Richard Weikart
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
That’s as nonsensical as blaming Pythagorus if someone used his theorum to build a scaffold.
Click to expand...
I suppose you mean Pythagoras but we’ve come to expect as little.

Critical thinkers see through the bunk. Get off the stilts and do some thinking instead of just drinking the Kool Aid. And catch up on your reading:

“The leading anthropologist Eugen Fischer and the geneticist Fritz Lenz, both influential figures in racial science during the Nazi period, embraced both Gobineau and Darwinism. Hans-Walter Schmuhl perceptively notes that despite some contradictions between Gobineau’s racism and social Darwinism, “Nonetheless toward the end of the nineteenth century formulations of Gobineauism and social Darwin- ism blended into syncretistic racial theories.” 16 Some leading antisemitic thinkers in early twentieth-century Germany, such as Theodor Fritsch and Willibald Hentschel, incorporated Darwinism into antisemitic ideology. 17 Thus, many Nazi racial theorists interpreted the opposition between the Nordic and Jewish race as an episode in the Darwinian struggle for existence.”
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, Richard Weikart
Click to expand...
Well, as frequently happens, they perverted knowledge for evil purposes and they were wrong about their proposals and conclusions.
And at the same time…(key phrase for coherent thought) evolution of species is still well established scientific fact, and the Catholic Church is open to this legitimate scientific inquiry, and accepts the evolution of species as “more than an hypothesis” (St John Paul 2).
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
That’s as nonsensical as blaming Pythagorus if someone used his theorum to build a scaffold.
Click to expand...
I suppose you mean Pythagoras but we’ve come to expect as little.

Critical thinkers see through the bunk. Get off the stilts and do some thinking instead of just drinking the Kool Aid. And catch up on your reading:

“The leading anthropologist Eugen Fischer and the geneticist Fritz Lenz, both influential figures in racial science during the Nazi period, embraced both Gobineau and Darwinism. Hans-Walter Schmuhl perceptively notes that despite some contradictions between Gobineau’s racism and social Darwinism, “Nonetheless toward the end of the nineteenth century formulations of Gobineauism and social Darwin- ism blended into syncretistic racial theories.” 16 Some leading antisemitic thinkers in early twentieth-century Germany, such as Theodor Fritsch and Willibald Hentschel, incorporated Darwinism into antisemitic ideology. 17 Thus, many Nazi racial theorists interpreted the opposition between the Nordic and Jewish race as an episode in the Darwinian struggle for existence.”
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, Richard Weikart
Click to expand...
That’s as risible an argument against evolution as this is against Christianity:

‘Positive Christianity also rejected what it called “Jewish materialism", which gave an obvious [anti-Semite] slant to it. Rosenberg believed that Christ had actively fought against the “institutionalised Judaism" of the day and that this alone was enough to support why Positive Christianity should be anti-Semite. Rosenberg believed that Christ was an Aryan hero.’ https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/positive-christianity/

I guess that could be entitled: ‘The Role of Christianity in Nazi Racial Thought’.
 
Last edited:
WileyC1949 said:
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in my mind mental gymnastics to try to work around the concept of Original Sin being a black mark on the soul and Mary giving birth to Christ. And so the concept of the Immaculate Conception was born even though it is not Scriptural.
Click to expand...
That’s really getting into another topic. Again, I’ll recommend looking at the Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin and how it relates to Mary ( here’s a useful link: » Conception of the Theotokos ) I’d also recommend Tim Staples’ book Behold Your Mother. It has two chapters on The Immaculate Conception (from the Latin view.) If you make a new thread, please mention me as I think this is an interesting discussion overall, but I don’t want to hijack this thread.
 
I watched a German newsreel from the period. A sub-human was seated in a chair. Two scientists were measuring his head with calipers. Since this man lacked (or had) certain cranial/facial features, they were showing the average person the difference between a human and a sub-human. Ghastly.
 
Don’t quote a fragment of what Pope John Paul II said:

“And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.”

The final judgment is held by theology.
 
Rather, that it was in no way apparent how polygenism could be reconciled. With changes in the theory of evolution in regards to man, we’re now seeing ways that polygenism can be reconciled which were in no way apparent to Pope Pius XII due to his lacking knowledge of the scientific developments since then. And thr kind of polygenism proposed during his day is indeed still not reconcilable with Catholic theology. But the polygenism we see today is a different beast and priests like Fr. Spitzer and Dr. Austriaco can find ways to reconcile.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top