Ask a Catholic

[SSDSSDSSD3]

Not a debate question, but why can't baptized Protestants and baptized Eastern Orthodox be allowed to accept a Catholic communion?

 

[leibowde84]

The verifiable evidence for a Creator is all around us. None so blind apparently, as those who don't want to see.

The Creator has been around a lot longer than either humans or their theories. He told us how it all happened because he was there....and I believe him.

I see design in nature that could not possibly have come about by random mutations.

If science has a branch called bio-mimetics that investigates the designs in nature in order to copy them for commercial use by humans, it astounds me that humans have to copy designs that are ingenious and yet the originals didn't need designing in the first place.[emoji14]That is just plain stupid reasoning IMO.

Can you get more specific? What are the requirements for something being designed? How much complexity?

 

[leibowde84]

No I am using common logic.... if there is design...there must be a designer.

These just happened accidentally...did they?

No, not accidentally. Random mutations causing changes due to natural selection over billions of years.

 

[suncowiam]

No I am using common logic.... if there is design...there must be a designer.

These just happened accidentally...did they?

if there is a designer, then there must be a designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer of the designer.

So after a mathematical extrapolation, a matrix inverse of the chavolian order and then a reverse inductional deriviation bovine function, this all results up to about, uhm, 10023423494 "Designers" to exist. Did I do my math right? Can you double check?

 

[Thanda]

Well, if the first living beings had no soul and humans do have a soul, then it follows that there must be on organism in between with no soul but with offsprings with a soul.

Unless you subscribe to one of the two premises:

1) souls evolve gradually like the phenotypes that contain them
2) evolution is false

And no. Accepting evolution without accepting what it entails (e.g. a fish in the family album) equals to not accepting it.

Ciao

- viole

Accepting evolution also requires that we accept there were people who could speak whose parents couldn't. According to some scientists language (spoken language) developed quite suddenly.

 

[viole]

Accepting evolution also requires that we accept there were people who could speak whose parents couldn't.

Maybe. Alas, languages can cover a continuum that goes from babbling to Shakespeare. Do souls follow the same pattern? Is there something like the equivalent of a babbling soul?

According to some scientists language (spoken language) developed quite suddenly.

Give it to me in years.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Maybe. Alas, languages can cover a continuum that goes from blabbing to Shakespeare. Do souls follow the same pattern? Is that something like the equivalent of a babbling soul?

The first thing to understand about a soul is that it is unique to that particular individual in whom it resides. Not only is it unique it is also independent. Therefore there is no requirement for any person's soul to be related to the soul of another person, not even their own parent.

Furthermore when we speak of language we're not talking about babbling (even animals can do that).

Give it to me in years.

Ciao

From Wikipedia

Noam Chomsky, a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory, argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form.[6] According to this view, emergence of language resembled the formation of a crystal; with digital infinity as the seed crystal in a super-saturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, onceevolution added a single small but crucial keystone.[7][8] It follows from this theory that language appeared rather suddenly within the history of human evolution.​

 

[viole]

The first thing to understand about a soul is that it is unique to that particular individual in whom it resides. Not only is it unique it is also independent. Therefore there is no requirement for any person's soul to be related to the soul of another person, not even their own parent.

Furthermore when we speak of language we're not talking about babbling (even animals can do that).


From Wikipedia

Noam Chomsky, a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory, argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual in the order of 100,000 years ago, instantaneously installing the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in "perfect" or "near-perfect" form.[6] According to this view, emergence of language resembled the formation of a crystal; with digital infinity as the seed crystal in a super-saturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, onceevolution added a single small but crucial keystone.[7][8] It follows from this theory that language appeared rather suddenly within the history of human evolution.​

Digital infinity as the seed crystal in a super saturated primate brain? Lol. What on earth does that mean? That sounds like a sentence randomly generated by a new ageist computer simulator.

Ok. Suppose it is true, whatever that means. Do you agree that souls followed the same pattern? Some had it without their parents having it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Digital infinity as the seed crystal in a super saturated primate brain? Lol. What on earth does that mean? That sounds like a sentence randomly generated by a new ageist computer simulator.

Ok. Suppose it is true, whatever that means. Do you agree that souls followed the same pattern? Some had it without their parents having it?

Ciao

- viole

I don't pretend to know how evolution and creation may or may not have worked together. I merely pointed this out to debunk the idea that a soul evolves in the same waythat a human body is said to evolve. A soul arrives new, unique and independent to abide in the body of each person who is born. It has no relation to any other soul that exists, neither the souls of its parents, siblings or of any other person.

So it is conceivable that after a period of time of our bodies development God could have inserted into the human body Souls that were widely different from those which existed had existed before. It would have implied no contradiction since, as I keep emphasizing, souls have no intrinsic relationship to each other. This is why a family can have, and often does have, children who are widely different from each other in personality and character. The fact that they are children of their parents says very little about the nature of their souls.

 

[Spiderman]

Not a debate question, but why can't baptized Protestants and baptized Eastern Orthodox be allowed to accept a Catholic communion?

Church wants to Make sure the recepient doesn't receive the body of Christ unworthily or without proper catechises or correct understanding of what they are doing.

 

[First Baseman]

Not a debate question, but why can't baptized Protestants and baptized Eastern Orthodox be allowed to accept a Catholic communion?

I had thought that Eastern Orthodox could receive Catholic communion. Is that not correct?

 

[First Baseman]

if there is a designer, then there must be a designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer of the designer.

So after a mathematical extrapolation, a matrix inverse of the chavolian order and then a reverse inductional deriviation bovine function, this all results up to about, uhm, 10023423494 "Designers" to exist. Did I do my math right? Can you double check?

Have you ever studied the theory of The Absolute? Only one designer exists is what we believe.

 

[Deeje]

if there is a designer, then there must be a designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer.

if there is a designer of the designer of the designer, then there must be a designer of the designer of the designer of the designer.

So after a mathematical extrapolation, a matrix inverse of the chavolian order and then a reverse inductional deriviation bovine function, this all results up to about, uhm, 10023423494 "Designers" to exist. Did I do my math right? Can you double check?

I am afraid that only evolutionists engage in this kind of circular thinking. Those who believe in an Intelligent Designer do not need the designer to be designed. He exists in a realm we cannot comprehend as mere mortals.
So your math is only relevant to your own belief system...which has so many impossible assertions that we would lose count of the odds against probability anyway.

 

[Spiderman]

Somehow this thread is 21 pages long which is cool but didn't read every post. were there any questions I didn't get to?

 

[paarsurrey]

The foundation of the Church (the Body of Christ) is Christ. The rest of the pink isnt in my post.
The Church is "built" on St. Peter's confession of faith in Christ by anwering as their father willed (which would have been easier said than all these 395 posts)

"The rest of the pink isnt in my post."
I didn't say that it was in your post. I just gave my understanding of the issue. Thanks
The name of Jesus' disciple was Simon (Hebrew: Shim'on Bar Yona), not Peter. The Church changed the names from "Saul" to "Paul" and from "Simon" to "Peter". There was no disciple of Jesus by the name Peter. Right?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

"The rest of the pink isnt in my post."
I didn't say that it was in your post. I just gave my understanding of the issue. Thanks
The name of Jesus' disciple was Simon (Hebrew: Shim'on Bar Yona), not Peter. The Church changed the names from "Saul" to "Paul" and from "Simon" to "Peter". There was no disciple of Jesus by the name Peter. Right?
Regards

The Church didn't change their names. Paul and Peter did it themselves and/or Jesus did it ... during their lifetimes. So, according to scripture, Jesus did have a disciple named Peter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"The rest of the pink isnt in my post."
I didn't say that it was in your post. I just gave my understanding of the issue. Thanks
The name of Jesus' disciple was Simon (Hebrew: Shim'on Bar Yona), not Peter. The Church changed the names from "Saul" to "Paul" and from "Simon" to "Peter". There was no disciple of Jesus by the name Peter. Right?
Regards

How does that change my point that the Church is built of the confession of St. Peter (or what his real name is)?

 

[leibowde84]

How does that change my point that the Church is built of the confession of St. Peter (or what his real name is)?

You were right anyhow. According to the Gospels, Peter was renamed by Jesus, during his life. The future Church played no part.

 

[leibowde84]

No I am using common logic.... if there is design...there must be a designer.

These just happened accidentally...did they?

Haha ... you literally showed conclusively that your reasoning is based on a logical fallacy ... namely circular reasoning. Of course "designs require a designer". No one is arguing against that. The problem with your argument is that you haven't supported your claim that it is actually and necessarily a design. You rely on the pathetic claim that "it's obvious" or "common sense" that it is "designed", but that is nothing more than a cop out.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You were right anyhow. According to the Gospels, Peter was renamed by Jesus, during his life. The future Church played no part.

My point was what the Church teaches, though. Whether or not is accurate, I dont know.