[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hi

I am a student of logic so stop the lecture about as hominem please, this fallacy is thought on day one of course 1 of logic 101, you're not impressing anyone with that.

You just fail to see that my arguments do not depend on personal attacks even though they may be there.....but hey, I guess I'm the one who needs to learn about fallacies!


The "initial population of humans" mentionned by ratzinger are HOMINIDS, that is what he is making a reference to. Ratzinger knows and believes that we humans have one single common pair of ancestors, whom it calls Adam and Eve. You're interested in fallacies? Check ou "Straw Man" maybe you'll learn something....

And I am not heathen, I am in the body of the very church that Christ established after the ressurection. You are the one rolling yourself in pagan mud and loving it here.

Benedict's document is here.

Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.”

Populations. Many persons. Ratzinger. No direct action of God. Indirect God in hiding.

It is good that you know logic. Then you can recognize your appeal to authority ("I am a student of logic"). What logic rarely discusses is the psychology of flawed beliefs. Confirmation bias. You dismiss the information that popes have changed their attitudes about evolution. That is the point, not evolution that we know to be false. From the acceptance of humans as separate creations, catholicism has yielded to acceptance. If we look at Ratzinger's text in an unbiased manner, it is all there. Monogenesis in a new secular form. One organism and we are all related. We are all descendants of bacteria. A chain of life for billions of years under natural laws. Deism. The role of God is to intervane in an obscure manner and plant a soul or something at an undetermined point.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution

Ratzinger. The pope. This is what he says. Monogenism of not Eve and Adam but a "first organism". Where is Genesis 1? Discarded.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Hi

"Spewing your catholic vitriol" sounds pretty angry too, Alvin.

Why not calm down a bit and try to get right with Jesus instead of spewing your protestant vitriol.

If we hated you, we would not let you come here. We will pray for your salvation, in the hope that you will give your heart to Jesus. Remember that the Lord sends those who worship idols and false gods to Hell; that is His word.

[kehei1]

Re: Hi

If we hated you, we would not let you come here. We will pray for your salvation, in the hope that you will give your heart to Jesus. Remember that the Lord sends those who worship idols and false gods to Hell; that is His word.

And I believe his word. That is why I chose to be faithful to the Church he himself established, IN PERSON, after the ressurection, and chose to stay away from people who have strayed away from the church and revel in paganism, deprived of the real body and blood of Christ.

May he have mercy on your soul.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Hi

I think I have mentioned having studied canon law and theology? I know very well what my church's claims are. And there are NO contradictions.

Friend, studying Catholic theology is like studying Santa and his reindeer. Being a specialist in flying Cervidae is of no value in the real world.

The CEO? JESUS made him CEO don't you get it? He gave Peter the KEYS. Read matthew 16 please. And you can read through the New Testament while you're at it, they do name a successor for Peter and he does have his authority, and this has been done up to today, and Pope Francis now has those KEYS.

The church is built upon Jesus Christ, not the corporation that claims Peter was the first CEO (1 Corinthians 3:11). Consider the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:6-29). The Jerusalem council provides absolutely no help to your church's claim for authority of Peter and the supremacy of the church at Rome. Peter was not the key note speaker, but one of four who are highlighted. The inspired letter that was sent out to other churches made no mention of Peter at all (Acts 15:23-29). If Peter was the Pope, there was no indication in the Jerusalem council of such authority. Why, it's almost as if your church has said, "anything that differs from our claim to superiority is a matter of misunderstanding Scripture, so it can't be true, regardless how it looks from an objective perspective."

Heliocentrism is NOT against the Bible. That is why in front of the very strong evidence of its truth, the church accepted it. THIS DOES NOT MATTER. The church is infallible ONLY in matters of FAITH and MORALS, as teaches the holy Council of Vatican (the first one).

Creationnism is compatible with evolution. It just means that god created things gradually and beautifully in time, he didn't just make everything we know of today pop out magically as is. Don't you see that the big bang and evolution are just God's tools to make the word? And how it does NOT deny God's great creative action that brought us into being?

It does matter because "matters of the faith" change according to popular social ethical standards.

[kehei1]

Re: Hi

Benedict's document is here.



Populations. Many persons. Ratzinger. No direct action of God. Indirect God in hiding.

It is good that you know logic. Then you can recognize your appeal to authority (I am a student of logic). What logic rarely discusses is the psychology of flawed beliefs. Confirmation bias. You dismiss the information that popes have changed their attitudes about evolution. That is the point, not evolution that we know to be false. From the acceptance of humans as separate creations, catholicism has yielded to acceptance. If we look at Ratzinger's text in an unbiased manner, it is all there. Monogenesis in a new secular form. One organism and we are all related. We are all descendants of bacteria. A chain of life for billions of years under natural laws. Deism. The role of God is to intervane in an obscure manner and plant a soul a something at an undetermined point.



Ratzinger. The pope. This is what he says. Monogenism of not Eve and Adam but a "first organism". Where is Genesis 1? Discarded.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

You are almost there Elmer.

The monogenism I am talking about pertains, of course, to the first HUMANS. The fact that we would all "descend from a single bacteria" or any other similar claim is not part of the Church's magisterium; because it is only infallible about FAITH and MORALS.

However, even though science and natural laws are not in the Church's jurisdiction, it happens that "things cross over". For example, it is an infallible catholic doctrine that there are 2 FIRST HUMANS, ADAM AND EVE. So even though the church has no authority on Biology, saying we have MANY "first parents" contradicts the faith, and therefore the Church's authority extends to this biological truth, even though at first glance it seems out of her magisterium.

And as I already mentionned, Ratzinger refers to populations of HOMINIDS. This is obvious, because he goes on to mention the direct infusion of the Soul by god into the human body; what he is referring to before that are Hominids, being who physically ressemble humans but that have not yet received the Immortal Soul. God infused Adam and Eve with a Soul, and from them all Humanity descended, and we have all inherited Original Sin for we have descended from them.

Is this clearer?

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Hi

... That is why I ... chose to stay away from people who have strayed away from the church and revel in paganism, deprived of the real body and blood of Christ.

May he have mercy on your soul.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Kevin, but if that is the case, what are you doing here?

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Hi

The "authentic tenets of evolution" in question here are the theory of POLYGENISM. THIS is what is being condemned in this encyclical.

The church teaches monogenism, i.e. that we all come for the first human couple and that eveyone can be traced back to it.

You didn't try that hard to read this encyclical did you?

Hello, Kehei/Keven/Kevin (?). I also grew up in the Catholic Church, and I was led to believe that Catholic Church embraced the theory of evolution. However, I was not familiar with the Humani Generis encyclical. Out of curiosity, I decided to google it. Here is a longer quote from it:

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such ficticious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

What the bolded out fragment of the encyclical says is that:
1) people who subscirbe to evolution in general are imprudent;
2) theory of evolution lacks evidence - which was not true, because Darwin obviously did not just scribble some random thoughts without giving supporting evidence;
3) the idea of continuous evolution is wrong;
4) people who support this idea are communists;
5) evolution = atheism;
6) the world is absolute, firm, and immutable - which is obviously contrary to not only biological evolution, but also basic geology, astronomy, and physics;
7) Plato's essentialism is the way to go - this idea is especially contrary to the theory of evolution, because essentialism assumes that a dog is a reflection of a perfect idea of a perfect dog in the world of perfect ideas, while the theory of evolution says that the dog as we see it now is just a temporary stage between the dogs of the past and the dogs of the future, and there is no "perfect dog," just a dog which is adapted to a specific environment.

Nothing here about the polygenism-monogenism dispute - a dispute which within science kept on going at least until 1960's, or whenever Earnest Hooton and Carleton Coon, who were the last open supporters of polygenism, died. Of course, now there is the dispute between multiregional and out-of-Africa folks, and whether our ancestors did interbreed with the Neanderthals or not, which basically boils down to the same polygenist-monogenist debate.

So much for the Catholic Church support for science!... Quite frankly, you have just shaken my faith even more, and I did come to this forum with the sole purpose of strenghtening it...!

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Hi

I am a student of logic...

Oh come on! You are trying to tell us you used logic and you think that a cracker literally turns into the body of Jesus?

If not, why not? Why is your pope wrong? How do you know he is wrong? He's supposed to be in touch with God, no? If you think it really does this for real... with logic?

I mean we know why he's wrong - it's because he's not a Christian and is more like some sort of weird pagan death cult leader.

Jesus is coming soon to throw people like you into the lake of fire so I strongly suggest you follow my example and ditch the papist nonsense, read the Bible properly and find out just how real God is.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hi

You are almost there Elmer.

The monogenism I am talking about pertains, of course, to the first HUMANS. The fact that we would all "descend from a single bacteria" or any other similar claim is not part of the Church's magisterium; because it is only infallible about FAITH and MORALS.

However, even though science and natural laws are not in the Church's jurisdiction, it happens that "things cross over". For example, it is an infallible catholic doctrine that there are 2 FIRST HUMANS, ADAM AND EVE. So even though the church has no authority on Biology, saying we have MANY "first parents" contradicts the faith, and therefore the Church's authority extends to this biological truth, even though at first glance it seems out of her magisterium.

And as I already mentionned, Ratzinger refers to populations of HOMINIDS. This is obvious, because he goes on to mention the direct infusion of the Soul by god into the human body; what he is referring to before that are Hominids, being who physically ressemble humans but that have not yet received the Immortal Soul. God infused Adam and Eve with a Soul, and from them all Humanity descended, and we have all inherited Original Sin for we have descended from them.

Is this clearer?

No, I'm afraid. It is not clear. It is cognitive dissociation. It is a desperate attempt to salvage authority while yielding to secular science. And it is a process of constantly changing doctrine. No, the faith and morals won't save the infallibility. Faith is BASED ON Creation theology. Morals are based on the Fall. Without them there would be no need for redemption. It all falls apart. Pius streched the unique position of humans as the image of God. You can stretch it only so far. Now it's broken.

Why! To keep up the facade. To keep the wealth and the power. Losing Creation theology to keep a bit longer the basic ethical core of decency, at least regarding abortions and contraception.

But it does not work. The common catholic does not care. He wears the condom, brings gifts to his gay friends when they marry, and all is forgiven with some Mary worship and paternoster. The game is actually over but the curia still does not see it. They keep up the appereance of moral teachings all the while knowing that the common catholic could not care less. Why? Because they gave up on Creation theology. No way back.

We care. We want to keep the whole Bible. And why mention the false Christian Calvinists or Lutherans? We know they are false Churches together with pentecostals, mormons and scientologists... We do not identify ourselves with them. We don't care if you mock them in an attempt to make your own bunch look less repulsive.

Confimation bias. I know why it is so.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[kehei1]

Re: Hi

Hello, Kehei/Keven/Kevin (?). I also grew up in the Catholic Church, and I was led to believe that Catholic Church embraced the theory of evolution. However, I was not familiar with the Humani Generis encyclical. Out of curiosity, I decided to google it. Here is a longer quote from it:



What the bolded out fragment of the encyclical says is that:
1) people who subscirbe to evolution in general are imprudent;
2) theory of evolution lacks evidence - which was not true, because Darwin obviously did not just scribble some random thoughts without giving supporting evidence;
3) the idea of continuous evolution is wrong;
4) people who support this idea are communists;
5) evolution = atheism;
6) the world is absolute, firm, and immutable - which is obviously contrary to not only biological evolution, but also basic geology, astronomy, and physics;
7) Plato's essentialism is the way to go - this idea is especially contrary to the theory of evolution, because essentialism assumes that a dog is a reflection of a perfect idea of a perfect dog in the world of perfect ideas, while the theory of evolution says that the dog as we see it now is just a temporary stage between the dogs of the past and the dogs of the future, and there is no "perfect dog," just a dog which is adapted to a specific environment.

Nothing here about the polygenism-monogenism dispute - a dispute which within science kept on going at least until 1960's, or whenever Earnest Hooton and Carleton Coon, who were the last open supporters of polygenism, died. Of course, now there is the dispute between multiregional and out-of-Africa folks, and whether our ancestors did interbreed with the Neanderthals or not, which basically boils down to the same polygenist-monogenist debate.

So much for the Catholic Church support for science!... Quite frankly, you have just shaken my faith even more, and I did come to this forum with the sole purpose of strenghtening it...!

At the time, evolution was very poorly supported and it was very imprudent to adhere to it, so the Pope was right on that.

So I will reply to your points:

1)already answered
2)it did lack evidence, especially on the questions of the possibility of life emerging from inanimate matter, it lacked hybrid fossils and a whole bunch of evidence that we have enough of today to safely assert that species did evolve into one another.
3)Saying wrong people use continuous evolution to justify paganism is different from saying continuous evolution is FALSE. Anyways, the Church is not infallible in matters of cosmology and evolution nor in anything relating to science. Its declarations on the matter are to be interpreted like any other text, in context and subject to change. Only when science affirms something contrary to the faith is the church entitled to speak with authority. Monogenism is an example of that.
4)Communists support this idea is not the same as everyone supporting this idea is a communist.
5)Evolution is used to support atheism does not mean everyone who believes in evolution must necessarily be atheist
6)Where does he say the world is immutable? He says that some people try to make what is immutable in it subject to CHANGE. That is NOT the same thing. The immutable things in the Universe are, for example, it's finality, it's purpose, God's action in infusing the human soul directly and such things.
7)Plato's essentialism was refuted by St-Thomas Aquinas. The Church says that the only way in which this is true is pertaining to Angels, which ressemble what Plato described as "Ideas", "Pure Forms".


You overinterpret the Pope's encyclical and fail to put it into context where it is not infallible.

[kehei1]

Re: Hi

No, I'm afraid. It is not clear. It is cognitive dissociation. It is a desperate attempt to salvage authority while yielding to secular science. And it is a process of constantly changing doctrine. No, the faith and morals won't save the infallibility. Faith is BASED ON Creation theology. Morals are based on the Fall. Without them there would be no need for redemption. It all falls apart. Pius streched the unique position of humans as the image of God. You can stretch it only so far. Now it's broken.

Why! To keep up the facade. To keep the wealth and the power. Losing Creation theology to keep a bit longer the basic ethical core of decency, at least regarding abortions and contraception.

But it does not work. The common catholic does not care. He wears the condom, brings gifts to his gay friends when they marry, and all is forgiven with some Mary worship and paternoster. The game is actually over but the curia still does not see it. They keep up the appereance of moral teachings all the while knowing that the common catholic could not care less. Why? Because they gave up on Creation theology. No way back.

We care. We want to keep the whole Bible. And why mention the false Christian Calvinists or Lutherans? We know they are false Churches together with pentecostals, mormons and scientologists... We do not identify ourselves with them. We don't care if you mock them in an attempt to make your own bunch look less repulsive.

Confimation bias. I know why it is so.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

The church's moral teachings say the use of any contraception is a GRAVE OFFENSE. So no, true catholics do not use condoms, do not have premarital sex. We believe it is wrong to masturbate, to lie, to steal.....we believe in the commandments of God.

Creation theology is in no way contradictory to evolution and the Big Bang. You think it is so because you read the Bible LITERALLY. But when confromted with John 6:55 you pathetically argue that it is "Symbolic". What a shame. THAT is cognitive dissonance.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Hi

One more thing, Kevin.

The "initial population of humans" mentionned by ratzinger are HOMINIDS, that is what he is making a reference to. Ratzinger knows and believes that we humans have one single common pair of ancestors, whom it calls Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, science disagrees with Ratzinger. Even the out-of-Africa model does not assume that it was a single pair of hominids who gave life to all humans. It was a population. In addition, it was a population which was interbreeding with other populations of hominids. In other words: science says that at any point in time we do not descend from a single couple. According to science, there never were an Adam and Eve.

By the way, Ratzinger cannot simultaneously "know and believe" that he is right. You either know or believe: you know based on facts, you believe based on your preconceived notions, prejudices, religion, whatever rocks your boat. As a student of logic you should have known that.

[kehei1]

Re: Hi

One more thing, Kevin.



Unfortunately, science disagrees with Ratzinger. Even the out-of-Africa model does not assume that it was a single pair of hominids who gave life to all humans. It was a population. In addition, it was a population which was interbreeding with other populations of hominids. In other words: science says that at any point in time we do not descend from a single couple. According to science, there never were an Adam and Eve.

By the way, Ratzinger cannot simultaneously "know and believe" that he is right. You either know or believe: you know based on facts, you believe based on your preconceived notions, prejudices, religion, whatever rocks your boat. As a student of logic you should have known that.

Science does not yet have it's official answer, so please let it continue it's investigation and see what it comes up with as a final thesis (if we see it while we're alive).

Monogenism is necessary to the doctrine of original sin, therefore the Church will always affirm it. And ultimately, it is the truth. Monogenism is also held by some modern biologists to be a very credible hypothesis. Anyways, not sure I see your point here.

Ratzinger cannot "know and believe"? What does that mean exactly? I "believe" my father when he tells me he played hockey as a kid. I am sure that my father would not lie to me in such a vulgar way, for no reason at all. Therefore, since I judge that he is credible and tells the truth, I KNOW he played hockey when he was a kid.

"Believing" is just one of the many possible ways to acquire knowledge, it is not the opposite of knowledge...

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hi

The church's moral teachings say the use of any contraception is a GRAVE OFFENSE. So no, true catholics do not use condoms, do not have premarital sex. We believe it is wrong to masturbate, to lie, to steal.....we believe in the commandments of God.

Creation theology is in no way contradictory to evolution and the Big Bang. You think it is so because you read the Bible LITERALLY. But when confromted with John 6:55 you pathetically argue that it is "Symbolic". What a shame. THAT is cognitive dissonance.

Of course you understand that this is another tu quoque...

But on a serious note. You also use equivocation. Yes, it is a fallacy. No surprise there. Taking the Bible literally does not mean that everything should be taken literally. It contains only that all the Bible is literally true, not that everything in the Bible is true literally. Jesus told parables, you know. You use a straw man and equivocation to make the Baptists' literal reading look ridiculous.

If “eating the flesh of Jesus” is taken as transsubstantiation, then all of those who partake of communion would be saved as Jesus said all who partake of it are given life by him, i.e., salvation. We know this is false. It is obvious that there are those who partake of communion but are unbelievers or agnostics or apostates. Or do you disagree? Or does Jesus lie?

Only through tradition and confirmation bias can one support transsubstantiation.

I'm afraid that prayer is going to be more useful in your case than discussion. Transsubstantiation won't save you. Only faith does (John 3:16-18).


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Hi

At the time, evolution was very poorly supported and it was very imprudent to adhere to it, so the Pope was right on that.

I'm guessing you've never held "On The Origin of Species" in your hands. Too bad.

So I will reply to your points:

1)already answered
2)it did lack evidence, especially on the questions of the possibility of life emerging from inanimate matter, it lacked hybrid fossils and a whole bunch of evidence that we have enough of today to safely assert that species did evolve into one another.

Actually, fossil record was known since at least early 19th century. Darwin's theory was the thing which made sense of it.

3)Saying wrong people use continuous evolution to justify paganism is different from saying continuous evolution is FALSE.

Yet, the document condemns evolution on the basis of it.

Anyways, the Church is not infallible in matters of cosmology and evolution nor in anything relating to science. Its declarations on the matter are to be interpreted like any other text, in context and subject to change. Only when science affirms something contrary to the faith is the church entitled to speak with authority. Monogenism is an example of that.

Now, that's a perfect example of convoluted Catholic "logic" which has shaken my faith in the first place. How do you define which parts of the Bible relate to faith and which don't? Does stoning gays to death relate to faith? Does women's subjugation relate to faith? Where the heck do you draw the line?

4)Communists support this idea is not the same as everyone supporting this idea is a communist.
5)Evolution is used to support atheism does not mean everyone who believes in evolution must necessarily be atheist

Yet, the document does not say "but evolution is also supported by nice Christian people."

6)Where does he say the world is immutable?

In the first sentence of #6.

He says that some people try to make what is immutable in it subject to CHANGE. That is NOT the same thing. The immutable things in the Universe are, for example, it's finality, it's purpose, God's action in infusing the human soul directly and such things.

If Pope meant what you say he meant, why didn't he specify it? Because the way it's written, it looks like the world is immutable. And your statement that "the finality of the universe is immutable" is just precious. A bit of historical background: what the Pope is referring to is the debate between static, unchangeable universe, created by God "as-is," and between the scientific evidence provided by geology of constant changes in the appearance of the Earth. Clearly, the author of this document supported the static universe idea.

7)Plato's essentialism was refuted by St-Thomas Aquinas. The Church says that the only way in which this is true is pertaining to Angels, which ressemble what Plato described as "Ideas", "Pure Forms".

Yes. Essentialism. Call it whatever you want, it's ultimately Plato's idea.

You overinterpret the Pope's encyclical and fail to put it into context where it is not infallible.

That's the point: it's not infallible.