RE: Is belief......?

RE: Is belief......? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RCdc -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We just wore bell-bottoms then. Some of us still do.[:D] the.dark.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We just wore bell-bottoms then. Some of us still do.[:D] the.dark. Tell me it isnt so, my dark friend [8D]

RCdc -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:26:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We just wore bell-bottoms then. Some of us still do.[:D] the.dark. Tell me it isnt so, my dark friend [8D] Uhuh.... and they are deep purple.[:)] the.dark.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:28:53 PM)
quote: Uhuh.... and they are deep purple. [:)] ROTFL! Too perfect! [:D]

Apocalypso -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Really ? The Catholic Church wont allow any belief other than Adam and Eve. That sounds like a literal translation that everyone stems from the same two people to me. That's not been the formal position of the Catholic church for years- In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. (John Paul II)

Politesub53 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 12:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Really ? The Catholic Church wont allow any belief other than Adam and Eve. That sounds like a literal translation that everyone stems from the same two people to me. That's not been the formal position of the Catholic church for years- http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm Scroll down to Adam and Eve.

blacksword404 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig A little further reading up, and the following has come up, the Summerians were not even the first to practice irrigation agriulture in their region (That was the Samara culture 5700 – 4900 BC). What the Summerians were was the first in that region to practice large scale irrigation agriculture. They were not the first to develop cities, there are several cities which pre-date the Summerians (Jericho being one). The Indus civilisation arose at approximatly the same time as that of the Summerians (roughly 5500 BCE), so to say that one created the other is illogical, and also not supported by any evidence. In conclusion, there is no one source of civilisation, it arose idnependantly in several differnt place, at different times. What books did you read to find your info from? I might like to get my hands on them.

RCdc -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:09:25 PM)
You are both 'right'. quote: The Catholic Position What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. the.dark.

beargonewild -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. So postulating from this paragraph, it's safe to say that this is a good example where religion and science is in agreement. It is the biology which creates the physical body and the soul is God's creation?

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:27:47 PM)
Science is a method, not an entity in and of itself. It isn't a matter of belief...it's a matter of tested reality. People who have issues with science as far as beliefs are concerned are those discontented with having their beliefs remain solely in the realm of belief, wanting to push them into the bolstering position of tangible accuracy when they do not qualify.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:29:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 People are only closed minded when they refuse to consider the other sides argument. If they have considered science and rejected it as an answer, then that isnt closed mindedness in my opinion. Intellectual affirmative action is not an applicable way to deal with things factually. Are you closed-minded because you don't entertain the possibility that you may be a rhinoceros?

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Evolution theory does not clash with Creation. Of course it does. Unless you're conveniently rewording the term "creation" to imply that there is no sentient catalyst behind the progression of things.

RCdc -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild So postulating from this paragraph, it's safe to say that this is a good example where religion and science is in agreement. It is the biology which creates the physical body and the soul is God's creation? If science thinks that also, then sure, it's a start. the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:35:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso Equally, if I was wanting to create a painting, would I do so using the scientific method? Technically, yes. As it is the scientific method that has likely led to the understanding of using certain fabrics as painting canvases and dyes as blotting tools.

beargonewild -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild So postulating from this paragraph, it's safe to say that this is a good example where religion and science is in agreement. It is the biology which creates the physical body and the soul is God's creation? If science thinks that also, then sure, it's a start. the.dark. I can agree with that .dark. As of yet I don't believe that science has been able to prove or disprove the existence of a soul through any known scientific means.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:39:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild So postulating from this paragraph, it's safe to say that this is a good example where religion and science is in agreement. It is the biology which creates the physical body and the soul is God's creation? I suppose if you consider that science is neutral as far as people having their fanciful metaphysical notions (e.g. "soul"), then there isn't a divide. Calling it an "agreement", however, is like putting me and Peyton Manning in a football throwing competition and then saying we're both doing the same thing.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild I can agree with that .dark. As of yet I don't believe that science has been able to prove or disprove the existence of a soul through any known scientific means. That's because it is an incoherent idea without any testable falsifiable hypotheses.

beargonewild -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:44:21 PM)
To clarify, I used "agreement" in the context of being without conflict, at least from the religious angle.

Apocalypso -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero That's because it is an incoherent idea without any testable falsifiable hypotheses. Is it any more so than concepts like "truth" or "freedom" or "justice"?

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 1:48:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild To clarify, I used "agreement" in the context of being without conflict, at least from the religious angle. In a sense, yes. Although I think "agreement" is still a jgenerous way of putting it for the religious side. More like the religious side, faced with near-undeniable evidence, decided to begrudgingly shake hands with figurative science while yet saying "but this one metaphysical concoction of the human...this does not get taken by your policies!" (since unless your dealing specifically with neurobiology, you're likely not to have a big clamor of interest from other science avenues).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125