Zone1 "Does anybody really love anyone at all"

[Donald H]

I'm sure that many Catholics still believe in special creation.

Define that if you want to be a part of the discussion. It sounds like you're trying to invent something halfway between.

New ideas are always welcome.

 

[Woodznutz]

Define that if you want to be a part of the discussion. It sounds like you're trying to invent something halfway between.

New ideas are always welcome.

I think it's already been 'invented'.

"[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma."[2

Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't believe that everyone welcomes new ideas, especially if they disenfranchise you.

 

[Donald H]

I think it's already been 'invented'.

"[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it.

Yes, but that isn't working all that well and it's threatening a division of the Catholic church. Believers like our Ding are left with not being able to express their beliefs to other Catholics because odds are he won't find another believer who fits on my scale of 1 to 100. There can no longer be one unified Catholic belief.

Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma."[2

Authority in the Catholic church has definitely accepted Darwinian evolution. Are you trying to say that's not the subject?

I don't believe that everyone welcomes new ideas, especially if they disenfranchise you.

That's the problem with the Catholic church. Most accept no new ideas, while some go all the way to accepting Evolution.

 

[Woodznutz]

Authority in the Catholic church has definitely accepted Darwinian evolution. Are you trying to say that's not the subject?

T

According to the article the RCC hasn't insisted on the belief in evolution, that members are free to believe either without the fear of eternal damnation. It's just not a dogmatic teaching of the church and likely won't be.

 

[Donald H]

According to the article the RCC hasn't insisted on the belief in evolution, that members are free to believe either without the fear of eternal damnation. It's just not a dogmatic teaching of the church and likely won't be.

Alright then, Catholics are free to believe in Darwinian Evolution without having to face eternal damnation. That sounds like its a done deal to me!

That works well for the entire flock, while the Catholic church's explanation doesn't make the statement nearly as clear.

Is there any statement to go along with that to say that they also have to believe in creation at the same time?

 

[1miseryindex]

Honestly - one needs a God or believe in a God to love or respect others???

It is foremost religion - perverted by "believers" and power-greedy scum (e.g. politicians), that causes endless misery and destruction in this world. Thus leading to a total societal breakdown, especially in those "Sand-Religion" countries.

MORALS aren't defined by some God or religion - but by the respective society and it's educational efforts towards moral, supposedly to be ensured via laws. As such a lawless country, and/or people defying the law, e.g. Trump - provide for and cause a societal 'breakdown".

delusional

not facing reality

 

[Woodznutz]

Alright then, Catholics are free to believe in Darwinian Evolution without having to face eternal damnation. That sounds like its a done deal to me!

That works well for the entire flock, while the Catholic church's explanation doesn't make the statement nearly as clear.

Is there any statement to go along with that to say that they also have to believe in creation at the same time?

They settled on "Theistic Evolution", meaning it's God-directed. Not exactly Darwinian evolution.

 

[ding]

See my reply to Woodnutz.

Which doesn't address my point in the slightest. According to Darwin if religion or faith offered no functional advantage it would have been abandoned long ago. So clearly religion and faith do offer a functional advantage above and beyond no religion and no faith.

 

[Kruska]

delusional

not facing reality

No - factually YOU are delusional - even animals have morals. E.g. helping wounded members of their herd or pack to survive.

That you brought in this thread to solely propagate/promote your Sand-religion was clear from the beginning.

 

[Donald H]

Which doesn't address my point in the slightest. According to Darwin if religion or faith offered no functional advantage it would have been abandoned long ago. So clearly religion and faith do offer a functional advantage above and beyond no religion and no faith.

Functional or not, the advantage is security to those who are afraid of facing the truth and the facts, of course.
We shouldn't spend too much time on that unless our mission is to break people's security bubbles.

 

[Donald H]

They settled on "Theistic Evolution", meaning it's God-directed. Not exactly Darwinian evolution.

Are you serious or is that supposed to be a joke that's meant to lighten the conversation?

 

[Woodznutz]

Are you serious or is that supposed to be a joke that's meant to lighten the conversation?

It's what the RCC believes; God-directed evolution.

 

[Donald H]

It's what the RCC believes; God-directed evolution.

I've heard that twist and turn too. Our Ding places complete confidence in that counterspin and I wouldn't under estimate the chance that it can hold some of them to their doctrine.

But it's still Darwinian evolution and that's got to be backsliding into satan's camp.

The 'devil' is in the details. Don't bring up any embarrassing facts such as the fossil record.

Or the discovery of the Ark up on a mountain!

 

[Woodznutz]

I've heard that twist and turn too. Our Ding places complete confidence in that counterspin and I wouldn't under estimate the chance that it can hold some of them to their doctrine.

But it's still Darwinian evolution and that's got to be backsliding into satan's camp.

The 'devil' is in the details. Don't bring up any embarrassing facts such as the fossil record.

Or the discovery of the Ark up on a mountain!

That's the RCC's problem. Most of the Protestant church believes in special creation.

 

[ding]

Functional or not, the advantage is security to those who are afraid of facing the truth and the facts, of course.
We shouldn't spend too much time on that unless our mission is to break people's security bubbles.

No, it's not whether it is functional or not, it is a functional advantage. To deny that would be to deny the principle of natural selection.

The rest of what you wrote is the antithesis of functional advantage.

 

[otto105]

These are the words or a paraphrase thereof to a song I heard in the 80s or 90s.

But I found myself asking this Q a long time ago, maybe b4 the song came out, can't recall.

You see the high divorce rates, the acrimony during divorce proceedings, you see all the violence and then you look at the Christian communities, both C and P and you see all this selfishness, materialism.. not helping the poor much or at all

and you ask this Q (in OP)

People here at the forums, and this is what prompted my Q here, don't even listen to one another. They think they know it all already, and boy, don't be part of a Church (or "church") that doesn't believe EXACTLY as that person does! OMG! Total deafness ensues!

Now I know people here will pounce on that and say that I am one of the worst offenders. But no, I am objectively NOT. And also there is this pesky little truth: I do indeed belong to the Church Christ established. I can provide much evidence to support that contention, and yet... again, few listen to me or anyone else. And then there is also this: While I may not listen to what someone says when/if I perceive it is WRONG, I do listen to sincerely held assertions and commentary when I perceive I am dealing with a person of good will. If i think that the person in question is being deceptive in any way... yes, I ditch that person until he or she asks a valid question or appears to be seeking knowledge/truth.

Looks like you're looking for love in all the wrong places.

 

[Donald H]

No, it's not whether it is functional or not, it is a functional advantage. To deny that would be to deny the principle of natural selection.

The rest of what you wrote is the antithesis of functional advantage.

Thousands of religions have come and gone in less than a few thousand years. Will Christianity be any different? Are there any indications that yours will be different?

If your religion had survived for millions of years, you might be able to talk in terms of 'natural selection' or functional advantages?

You see Ding, there is science and then those who won't accept science and evolution, and they must be kept distinct from each other. Fortunately the two are separated by millions of years, if not billions.

Is Christianity growing or is it showing signs of being on the way out, with the *rest of them.

* possibly excepting Islam.

 

[ding]

Thousands of religions have come and gone in less than a few thousand years. Will Christianity be any different? Are there any indications that yours will be different?

If your religion had survived for millions of years, you might be able to talk in terms of 'natural selection' or functional advantages?

You see Ding, there is science and then those who won't accept science and evolution, and they must be kept distinct from each other. Fortunately the two are separated by millions of years, if not billions.

Is Christianity growing or is it showing signs of being on the way out, with the *rest of them.

* possibly excepting Islam.

And yet every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. I don't see that changing regardless of which religions pop in and out of existence. The more materialistic man became the less satisfied he became. I think it's because we were made for more.

 

[Donald H]

And yet every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man.

Yes, that's true.

All of the gods were attractions for man for more reasons than just the one I named for Christianity.

I don't see that changing regardless of which religions pop in and out of existence.

No, I don't either. But maybe the reasons for needing a religion will change.

The more materialistic man became the less satisfied he became. I think it's because we were made for more.

Uhmmmm? The atheist is likely as materialistic but not needing of a religion.

I think you realize your mistake in equating the need for a religion, to 'natural selection' and functional advantage.

No religions have held up for millions of years so that we could find out.

 

[ding]

All of the gods were attractions for man for more reasons than just the one I named for Christianity.

Again, you are arguing against natural selection by dismissing religion as being beneficial to man.