Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[metis]

And yet, that is the dogmatic stance that all Catholics must espouse to remain in full communion with the Church.

Not this guy, and my priest well knows this because of my science background that questions basically everything and anything.

"Some" theologians say all kinds of things, which doesn't reflect on what Catholic teaching actually is or even necessarily what they assent to; there is a line of Catholic theological discourse which exists for making sure we are thinking and truly considering what the Church teaches and not to actually accept the positions offered.

The Church is not the Gestapo, and we do have the right of personal discernment per the Catechism. After all, we're the ones who will be judged as individuals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know how often God might do that. However some things are necessary in certain situations even though they are not good actions in themselves.
Some things are allowed by God even when they are not God's perfect will for us.

Wait, so God commands us to do bad things?


Essentially you're saying that whatever god says is good is good, and whatever god says is bad is bad, no matter what it is or what we think of it.
That sounds like the most subjective morality I've ever heard and not an actual system of morality at all. It's just "Do what your told!" Which doesn't involve an exercise in morality on the part of the person being told what to do. They're just following orders. That is not a moral system, in my opinion.

I see nowhere that humanity is punished for the first sin of Adam and Eve even if we inherit the results of the sin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and probably inherit the results of other sins that Adam and Eve did.

Cool so there's no original sin then? Oh wait, there is.

 

[Mister Emu]

Not this guy, and my priest well knows this because of my science background that questions basically everything and anything.

The Church is not the Gestapo, and we do have the right of personal discernment per the Catechism. After all, we're the ones who will be judged as individuals.

The requirements for full communion are not idiosyncratic. You may believe yourself spiritually sound, but you still remain outside of full communion in your rejection of a dogmatic truth of the Church. And, the existence and role of Adam (and Eve) in the human story are dogmatic truths. Questioning is not the same as rejecting outright, and further as far as I am aware the science suggests that humanity arose through a rapid transition from earlier hominids in a single locale and spread from there, which is not incongruent with the creation story.

Lastly on this, any Catholic who denies a dogma is definitionally a heretic according to the Code of Canon Law. That's what heresy is, the denial by a Christian of some divine truth. Heresy incurs latae sententiae excommunication regardless of that person's acceptance of their state.

Similarly, tolerance is not endorsement. You have free will and you are called to use that faculty to bring yourself in line with the will of God, not to place your self above the Church.

 

[Brian2]

Essentially you're saying that whatever god says is good is good, and whatever god says is bad is bad, no matter what it is or what we think of it.
That sounds like the most subjective morality I've ever heard and not an actual system of morality at all. It's just "Do what your told!" Which doesn't involve an exercise in morality on the part of the person being told what to do. They're just following orders. That is not a moral system, in my opinion.

No I'm not saying that. I am pointing out a problem with moral laws however. Sometimes they aren't the be all and end all of morality.
Generally you do as they say, and they are laws of God.
There are times when God in the past has told His people that He wants them do certain things which seem to contradict the moral laws, and it is up to the people to recognise that the one who gave the moral laws is also the one who said, on that occasion, to go beyond them. For the Israelites that is a recognition of God as their God and King in all situations, and that He knows what is the best thing to do.

Cool so there's no original sin then? Oh wait, there is.

People suffer the results of sin even though God does not judge one person for someone elses sins.
Example, if my father gets drunk and gets violent, others suffer as a result of his sins and that affects them and others in their life etc.

 

[1213]

So slavery is good.

I can accept it, if done exactly as told in the Bible. People who know only one line about it from the Bible, should not do so, because they don't have right understanding of the issue.

Murdering ...

Murdering is not allowed in the Bible.

Stoning your disobedient child is good.
...so shalt thou put evil away from among you...

I don't think stoning is good. But, I think God has right to end evil. Would you like if evil would last forever?

And then there's that whole thing where all of humanity is supposedly responsible for the actions of the supposed first two people, which is also ridiculously immoral, in my opinion.

Why do you think all people are responsible for the actions of two?

 

[1213]

So free will doesn't exist?

I have free will, so I think it exists.

If I commit suicide at age 20, then that means that even before I was born, your god decided I would get only 20 years?
My decision to commit suicide thus wasn't really "my" decision? It was destined to be so?

It was your decision to take only 20 years in that case. God would have just known it before you do it. But, God could also decide that you get more and fail in the attempt. In this case you would still have free will and could want the opposite. Free will doesn't mean that you are omnipotent and things also go exactly as you want. It only means you can freely want whatever you want.

If I decide to smoke and get cancer at 50 and die, then there was nothing I could do about it?
Wheter I decided to smoke or not, makes no difference? I'ld still die at 50?

I think God gives eternal life for everyone who is righteous. That is the baseline. Then people can shorten it by their own choices.

If a drunk driver kills a 5-year old, it isn't the responsability of the drunk drive?

Yes, it is the drives fault.

 

[1213]

With "god" might is exactly what makes right.

I have no good reason to agree with that. I think all what God thinks is right is based on good reasons.

As for " gifts"? Something you don't want and
cannot refuse...will receive the most hideous punishment
beyond imagination if you don't receive it with limitless gratitude...you call that a GIFT!!??

In Biblical point of view, if you don't want eternal life, you get death. How can it be called hideous punishment, if it is exactly what you want?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have free will, so I think it exists.

It was your decision to take only 20 years in that case. God would have just known it before you do it. But, God could also decide that you get more and fail in the attempt. In this case you would still have free will and could want the opposite. Free will doesn't mean that you are omnipotent and things also go exactly as you want. It only means you can freely want whatever you want.

I think God gives eternal life for everyone who is righteous. That is the baseline. Then people can shorten it by their own choices.

Yes, it is the drives fault.

You just contradicted yourself.

Either your god decides how many days a person gets or he doesn't.

Clearly a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.

 

[Brian2]

You just contradicted yourself.

Either your god decides how many days a person gets or he doesn't.

Clearly a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.

The future is set imo and God knows what it will be and God ordained it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but not by making it happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but by allowing it to happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The future is set imo and God knows what it will be and God ordained it

Then free will doesn't exist.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but not by making it happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but by allowing it to happen.

Irrelevant.
If the future is set and ordained, that means all your future decisions are pre-determined.
All future accidents are predetermined.

All future events, actions and decisions are pre-determined.

Either your future is "set and ordained" and there's nothing you can change about it OR the future isn't certain and it merely depends on the decisions you make.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[metis]

You may believe yourself spiritually sound, but you still remain outside of full communion in your rejection of a dogmatic truth of the Church.

"Questioning" is not "rejection", plus words are not actions. IMO, it's the latter that really counts the most.

Questioning is not the same as rejecting outright, and further as far as I am aware the science suggests that humanity arose through a rapid transition from earlier hominids in a single locale and spread from there, which is not incongruent with the creation story.

The ToE does not negate Divine creation as it doesn't posit original causation. I am an anthropologist, now retired, so what do you expect.

Lastly on this, any Catholic who denies a dogma is definitionally a heretic according to the Code of Canon Law. That's what heresy is, the denial by a Christian of some divine truth. Heresy incurs latae sententiae excommunication regardless of that person's acceptance of their state.

"Heresy" is not "questioning" but is an expression of disagreement.

Similarly, tolerance is not endorsement. You have free will and you are called to use that faculty to bring yourself in line with the will of God, not to place your self above the Church.

I have not placed myself above the Church, so what you are doing is fabricating stories.

We're done.

 

[Brian2]

Then free will doesn't exist.


Irrelevant.
If the future is set and ordained, that means all your future decisions are pre-determined.
All future accidents are predetermined.

All future events, actions and decisions are pre-determined.

Either your future is "set and ordained" and there's nothing you can change about it OR the future isn't certain and it merely depends on the decisions you make.

Can't have it both ways.

Yes of course I can have it both ways.
If I cannot have it both ways then neither can you since the future is the future and we cannot change what it is going to be.
But at the same time we determine what it is going to be by our choices.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes of course I can have it both ways.

You can think that. But it's off course self-refuting.

If I cannot have it both ways then neither can you since the future is the future and we cannot change what it is going to be.

I'm not trying to have it both ways.
I'm not claiming the future is set in stone. That's all you.

 

[Muffled]

You have experience that taught you the " rules"
( goofy inept word ) of nature are " made up".

I don't believe you did other than make that up.

Try even a tiny bit of thought?

The "rules " of math required master intelligence
to make them up? One and one isn't two unless
someone chose that rule?

Don't say yes, that would be insane.

You still think you know morevscience than any
scientist on Earth.

Are you sure that is sane?

Yes. Numbers do not exist without material.

I do not believe that. I believe I know enough to know the difference between science and fantasy.

I do not believe expression of a different view is a sign of insanity. So I wouldn't think that of you either.

PS. Time does not exist without material either.

 

[Muffled]

You would be wrong again.. You do not have a valid point.

If you really believe what you claim to believe then why are you afraid to learn?

I believe you are in error. I am not afraid to learn. I can't say I have learned anything useful from you though.

 

[Muffled]

Job and his family. Then again, he was told by god to do it on a dare to make some narcistic psychopathic point.

I believe I need to have that explained to me because I don't see it. First of all God didn't tell him to do it. He only gave him permission but not permission to kill Job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are in error. I am not afraid to learn. I can't say I have learned anything useful from you though.

Okay, first off you should learn how to keep your beliefs to yourself until you can demonstrate that they are justified. Merely stating that one has a belief and then not supporting it is no different from admitting that one was wrong.

Let's start with the scientific method. It is how scientists learn new ideas.

Here is a rough flow chart of how the scientific method is applied. It is not the only way that one does it, but it is close enough:

Do you see the third step? Construct a hypothesis. That is one must have a testable idea that explains what one has observed. It is a very important part of the scientific method. And do you know what scientists try to do next? He tries to show that his idea is wrong. I know, sounds crazy, but it makes sense as we move on through the process. Before he tests it you would be valid to call his idea "speculation". He does not really know if it works or if it doesn't work.

But by trying again and again to refute his work. Adjusting it as needed, that is what happens when ones idea fails a test but is not irredeemably broken, he begins to have valid confidence in his work. Now if everything goes right he eventually gets to the bottom. But his idea is nowhere near being a theory yet. Now he has to communicate his results. He has to tell the whole world what he did, how he did it, the procedures that he used, every boring detail of his work. Proper communication is a very very important part of the scientific method. Now others will take his idea and test it themselves. That is why it is in the best interest of a scientist to honestly try to refute his own work It is rather unpleasant to have one's work refuted by others. And there is very little friendship when it comes to scientific ideas and claims.

This is just the bare bones to get you to realize that scientists are not just guessing. His ideas have to run several gauntlets. First he tries to refute it. Then his work is submitted for peer review and experts look for "obvious" (to them not to us) errors that the scientist may have missed. And then the whole world attacks his idea. If it survives all of that it is probably true. It is treated as being "provisionally true" since the sciences cannot absolutely prove an idea.

Are you with me so far? Do you have any questions at all? I may be referring back to this later.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No I'm not saying that. I am pointing out a problem with moral laws however. Sometimes they aren't the be all and end all of morality.
Generally you do as they say, and they are laws of God.
There are times when God in the past has told His people that He wants them do certain things which seem to contradict the moral laws, and it is up to the people to recognise that the one who gave the moral laws is also the one who said, on that occasion, to go beyond them. For the Israelites that is a recognition of God as their God and King in all situations, and that He knows what is the best thing to do.

You just confirmed exactly what I said.

People suffer the results of sin even though God does not judge one person for someone elses sins.
Example, if my father gets drunk and gets violent, others suffer as a result of his sins and that affects them and others in their life etc.

This also confirms what I said. The supposed "fact" that there is "original sin" at all confirms what I said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can accept it, if done exactly as told in the Bible. People who know only one line about it from the Bible, should not do so, because they don't have right understanding of the issue.

Ugh. The slavery described in the Bible is abhorrent to me. So because the Bible says so, you "accept" that slavery is good. On the other hand, you seem to think taxation is slavery, but that's a bad thing. So, which is it?

There's more than "one line" condoning slavery in the Bible, by the way. I gave you more than that just now, in the post you're responding to.

Murdering is not allowed in the Bible.

Except when God tells his people to murder, as in the verses I just gave you.

I don't think stoning is good.

God supposedly does.

But, I think God has right to end evil. Would you like if evil would last forever?

God isn't doing the action in those verses. The person with the unruly kid is doing the action of pelting their child with stones, as God supposedly commands.

You think stoning a disobedient child is going to stop evil from lasting forever? What?

Why do you think all people are responsible for the actions of two?

Have you never read the Bible?
How did sin come into the world, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes of course I can have it both ways.
If I cannot have it both ways then neither can you since the future is the future and we cannot change what it is going to be.
But at the same time we determine what it is going to be by our choices.

Not if you want to be rational and consistent, you can't.