Denominations

[Mountainmike]

I was talking about posts on this forum, talking about human ear bones having been evolved from reptile jaw bones and whatever else they were talking about. Stuff like that.

Ah. The more interesting question is where the first cell came.
A self developing factory of over ten thousand proteins, order(s)of magnitude more complicated than any known chemical factory. Yet no intermediate or route to it even postulated or found . ) No evidence of the process ever repeated. Contrary to the apparent scientific consensus , reality is abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory. ( no process, observation or experiment to test) required for a hypothesis.


Science postulates it out of pure faith in the blind watchmaker. No evidence whatsoever. All they have eg Evidence of cell wall materials developing in biochemical soup is like saying a piece of factory wall cladding is evidence of self designing factories. Complete non sequitur.

Away from the superficial apparent development of species there are also massive anomalies, in macro evolution which rarely get mentioned.
like the three chamber heart evolving to four involved massive replumbing and reversing of flows, It’s hard to see how a skilled surgeon could keep a patient alive trabsforming it, let alone it happening by accident.

For me at least the Eucharistic miracles trump all of that. Heart myocardium showing evidence of beating appearing from bread so intermingled with flesh it cannot be faked. White cells in vitro proving life. A lot of forensic labs involved for different miracles concluding the same. Darwin said that if life could be shown to have occurred other than by incremental small changes then it would disprove his theory.

There are at least four forensically analysed examples by different labs in different areas of the world denonstrating that. White cells ( said to be impossible in vitro) showing life.

Score is Darwin 0 Theistic 5 , considering abiogenesis is not even a hypothesis and we have forensics for eg Buenos Aires, sokolka, tixtla, legnica and the oldie lanciano.

So I’m with theistic origin, even if a God chose to take advantage of evolutionary development. The two are not exclusive.

 

[FaithT]

Ah. The more interesting question is where the first cell came.
A self developing factory of over ten thousand proteins, order(s)of magnitude more complicated than any known chemical factory. Yet no intermediate or route to it even postulated or found . ) No evidence of the process ever repeated. Contrary to the apparent scientific consensus , reality is abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory. ( no process, observation or experiment to test) required for a hypothesis.


Science postulates it out of pure faith in the blind watchmaker. No evidence whatsoever. All they have eg Evidence of cell wall materials developing in biochemical soup is like saying a piece of factory wall cladding is evidence of self designing factories. Complete non sequitur.

Away from the superficial apparent development of species there are also massive anomalies, in macro evolution which rarely get mentioned.
like the three chamber heart evolving to four involved massive replumbing and reversing of flows, It’s hard to see how a skilled surgeon could keep a patient alive trabsforming it, let alone it happening by accident.

For me at least the Eucharistic miracles trump all of that. Heart myocardium showing evidence of beating appearing from bread so intermingled with flesh it cannot be faked. White cells in vitro proving life. A lot of forensic labs involved for different miracles concluding the same. Darwin said that if life could be shown to have occurred other than by incremental small changes then it would disprove his theory.

There are at least four forensically analysed examples by different labs in different areas of the world denonstrating that. White cells ( said to be impossible in vitro) showing life.

Score is Darwin 0 Theistic 5 , considering abiogenesis is not even a hypothesis and we have forensics for eg Buenos Aires, sokolka, tixtla, legnica and the oldie lanciano.

So I’m with theistic origin, even if a God chose to take advantage of evolutionary development. The two are not exclusive.

Speaking of Eucharistic miracles, how do the non Catholics explain them?

 

[Jaxxi]

However, people who fit that description to a "tee," hold widely different beliefs from other Christians who also fit the description as people who love Jesus, believe Him to be the Savior, and trust the Bible to be the infallible word of God.

Like what? They can go home and put teeth under their pillows if they want to- that does not mean they need to divide the church because of it. They are still Christians. When I was in college on the softball team, we all had different ideas of what plays were more effective, which uniforms looked better and who should be in the starting lineup but at the end of the day, we all supported each other, respected each other, knew the game very well And most importantly played on the same team. I think the church has split for irrelevant reasons. Does the Bible tell us to have a Pope? No it does not. Is Joseph Smith or Muhammed in the Bible? No they are not. Are there Cardinals in the Bible and instructions to pray to Mary? No there are not. Many divisions rose out of men taking it upon themselves to create their own traditions and customs which are dangerous. We see here
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ. Colossians 2:8

This is exactly what is warned here. At this point people are not trying to create new traditions, the ones warned against already exist. People today are abandoning religion as a whole. All the warnings are in the Bible. The only traditions Christians should probably follow closer is the religion leading up to Christianity, to worship how our Lord would worship and celebrate how He would.

We ask ourselves " What would Jesus Do?"
Well, would Jesus kiss the Popes ring? Did Jesus pray to Mary? Would Jesus sit on Santa's lap, or go to the mall to buy presents or accept material gifts? Hunt Easter eggs?

If the answer is an obvious no then we should re examine " The blind leading the blind."

Seriously. How smart are we? Satan has had 2000 years to try to perfect what he knows will make us fall short of heaven and stand guilty before God and the Bible tells us to be perfect. Hell is eternal! Can we afford to slip up? Do we dare risk that precious salvation by doing what we think is acceptable or ok? The Bible is there for a reason. Doing extra stuff not in the book is like adding to the Bible. We will have no excuse when He asks us " Did I tell you to do those things? So why did you? If the direction did not come from Me, then where is it from?" Doing what is not commanded is disobedience to the Lord and I am nobody worthy by any means but the Holy Spirit has made this point very clear to me to be passed on to anyone who will just think about it. Really think about it. We have ONE shot to get this right you guys and we are still breathing.....so it is never too late to stop doing what the wide path does. Remember Satan mimicks God, and he is always in our ear. Whispering. Lying. Hating.

 

[Mountainmike]

Speaking of Eucharistic miracles, how do the non Catholics explain them?

I have no idea.

I’ve quite a library on them. ( and other phenomena) But I can’t seem to raise interest even amongs Catholics About the evidence, let alone non Catholics.

Or Take the analysis of the bleeding statue of Cochabamba. In amongst the skin cells, a forensic scientist found what he believed to be thorn cells! How does a plaster statue scanned to show no internal channels bleed and weep live on continuous camera footage?

The pre and post Mortem forensics of such as the sudarium of Oviedo , or lesser known such as tunic of argentuille are fascinating too. They proove again if proof were needed the shroud date was wrong and a scientific disaster.

Theres a world of fascinating evidence out there.

What people fail to appreciate is the day job of most of these scientists is criminology.

They are not wishful thinking of the gullible pious. In fact the church often backs off. With Alexandria da Costa- for example- after a 40 day 24 hour observation of inedia without fluid either, the doctors concluded her fast was inexplicable, impossible to fake.

It was the church that got cold feet in pronouncing supernatural.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, what denomination are you? I was raised Catholic but long story short, it didn’t stick. I joined the Lutheran LCMS two or so years ago but they don’t accept evolution and while I thought I didn’t believe in macro evolution, either, now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’d be happier in a more theologically liberal church. But I really like the people I’ve met.
Suggestions would be helpful.

I'm an existentialist, and I affiliate loosely with Christians in all other Trinitarian belief denominations (minus any racists). I don't think evolution should be either a deal breaker nor a deal closer in my fellowship. Other Christians will sometimes insist that it is, but I refuse to focus on it since I think it is a secondary level issue rather than a primary one.

 

[Job 33:6]

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists, what denomination are you? I was raised Catholic but long story short, it didn’t stick. I joined the Lutheran LCMS two or so years ago but they don’t accept evolution and while I thought I didn’t believe in macro evolution, either, now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’d be happier in a more theologically liberal church. But I really like the people I’ve met.
Suggestions would be helpful.

You're probably better off in a church with a large body of people. The more people there are, the more likely you would find Christians of particular niches.

And something non-denominational may help too.

 

[FaithT]

You're probably better off in a church with a large body of people. The more people there are, the more likely you would find Christians of particular niches.

My church is pretty big. I prefer that.

 

[fhansen]

Nonsense. The church's clergy administer these policies which have been handed down to them by higher-ups and there are established rules that they follow.

Nope. Clergy and higher ups can both abuse or ignore church teachings, as was done with the sale of indulgences, for example, where teachings were denied or overridden because of human greed-there’s always a reason. The teachings remain the same, as I presented. And we have a principle in the following:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Matt 23:2-3

And even Moses compromised on the matter of divorce. So this issue is apparently a very pervasive problem with humanity for whatever reasons and the tendency for modern-day authorities to allow it must still be as strong as ever even though Jesus corrected us on it and gave us the right position in line with God’s will such that the Church continues to teach rightly to this day regardless of what her people may or may not practice. And that is the purpose of infallibility, that the teachings be correct, despite human fallibility, weakness, and compromising. Just as the Jews often strayed from the law, the law still stood-and could always be returned to. Perfection is the ideal, and should be, while knowing that it won’t always be attained.

 

[Lawrence87]

It seems to me that most denominations have people that come down on either side of this issue.

I personally wouldn't pick a Church based on what it says on this matter, but rather on what it says about Christ, and how I feel after attending it's services.

 

[Hmm]

Nope. Clergy and higher ups can both abuse or ignore church teachings, as was done with the sale of indulgences, for example, where teachings were denied or overridden because of human greed-there’s always a reason. The teachings remain the same, as I presented. And we have a principle in the following:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Matt 23:2-3

And even Moses compromised on the matter of divorce. So this issue is apparently a very pervasive problem with humanity for whatever reasons and the tendency for modern-day authorities to allow it must still be as strong as ever even though Jesus corrected us on it and gave us the right position in line with God’s will such that the Church continues to teach rightly to this day regardless of what her people may or may not practice. And that is the purpose of infallibility, that the teachings be correct, despite human fallibility, weakness, and compromising. Just as the Jews often strayed from the law, the law still stood-and could always be returned to. Perfection is the ideal, and should be, while knowing that it won’t always be attained.

I agree with you that the practice of individual clergy or members is separate from the teachings of the church they attend and so the church can't be held to account for their personal failings. But I do wonder what Jesus meant by a church. Did he intend it to be just a repository of correct or infallible teachings or should it have a human warmth and be like a family? I think the latter because many people do not have a good family experience. If that's true, then everyone in that family should practice and and live out Christian values and it's not enough to say "Well, I may have done this or that it but it doesn't matter because when I speak ex cathedra, I speak with the voice of God". If the church is supposed to be a family, then isn't how we live as individuals important and we can't separate our individual conduct from our authority like this? When you look at Jesus's life, He didn't separate the spiritual from the world's at all - He befriended prostitutes and tax collectors etc. I'm certainly not saying that the CC is worse than any other - I don't think it is and actually I think it's a great church - but I struggle with it saying Don't do as I do, do as I say. Would that policy work in a healthy family?

 

[fhansen]

I agree with you that the practice of individual clergy or members is separate from the teachings of the church they attend and so the church can't be held to account for their personal failings. But I do wonder what Jesus meant by a church. Did he intend it to be just a repository of correct or infallible teachings or should it have a human warmth and be like a family? I think the latter because many people do not have a good family experience. If that's true, then everyone in that family should practice and and live out Christian values and it's not enough to say "Well, I may have done this or that it but it doesn't matter because when I speak ex cathedra, I speak with the voice of God". If the church is supposed to be a family, then isn't how we live as individuals important and we can't separate our individual conduct from our authority like this? When you look at Jesus's life, He didn't separate the spiritual from the world's at all - He befriended prostitutes and tax collectors etc. I'm certainly not saying that the CC is worse than any other - I don't think it is and actually I think it's a great church - but I struggle with it saying Don't do as I do, do as I say. Would that policy work in a healthy family?

Even a healthy family has issues, and there may be a black sheep or two regardless of how good the rest are. But even then, in human terms “goodness” is a relative thing so while teachers and leaders will be held to a higher account, impeccability is an ideal and not attainable with absolute perfection in this life. God, alone, is trustworthy in that absolute sense while humans will disappoint.

But if one wants to look objectively at the fruit, the overall good, that the church has done throughout the centuries, I believe that they’ll be more impressed than otherwise and also impressed by the number of truly good people in, say, the papacy alone compared to the scoundrels. Anyway, at the end of the day the church is meant to be a group of admitted sinners, not yet fully saints, while some will be closer to that goal than others.

To answer your question I think we need both: knowledge/correct teachings and love/compassion. And I believe that the church, many denominations included, are getting better at the latter.

 

[Albion]

Like what? They can go home and put teeth under their pillows if they want to- that does not mean they need to divide the church because of it. They are still Christians.

"They" are all still Christians, but it's clear that serious Christians, Bible-believing Christians, can still hold serious and intelligent differences of opinion about important matters of faith.

 

[Albion]

Nope. Clergy and higher ups can both abuse or ignore church teachings...

But that wasn't the issue. The clergy administering these annulments are following the church's rules in that regard, and it's nonsense to dismiss it by saying that maybe all of them are renegades who are operating in defiance of the policies established by their own church.

 

[fhansen]

But that wasn't the issue. The clergy administering these annulments are following the church's rules in that regard, and it's nonsense to dismiss it by saying that maybe all of them are renegades who are operating in defiance of the policies established by their own church.

That is the issue. Without going into detail, canon law looks at three criteria for a marriage to be valid: capacity, consent, and form. IOW there are criteria that, when applied correctly, would not cause an annulment to conflict with the teachings prohibiting divorce. When applied incorrectly, say for the purpose of declaring a marriage to be invalid simply because the parties decide they wanted to move on despite their vows, then policy hasn't been followed. My understanding is that annulments are often granted where they should not be, IMO, at least, an opinion many apparently share. Leadership has been weak and compromising in many areas as I see it, the word "no" being a difficult one to muster in these times.

 

[Albion]

That is the issue..

No, it isn't. You can't just dismiss every doctrinal and policy change made by the church by saying that the clergy violated those rules and no one cared that they did or didn't notice.

That sort of "blanket" excuse--without any evidence--might better be left unsaid.

 

[Hmm]

Even a healthy family has issues, and there may be a black sheep or two regardless of how good the rest are. But even then, in human terms “goodness” is a relative thing so while teachers and leaders will be held to a higher account, impeccability is an ideal and not attainable with absolute perfection in this life. God, alone, is trustworthy in that absolute sense while humans will disappoint.

Good point!

 

[Albion]

Good point!

Why is it a "good point" to argue that a general policy change made by the leadership of the organization, the church, is not really a change because there might be a hypothetical "black sheep or two," defying the church's own policies?

Even if there actually were a black sheep or two out of tens of thousands, and those were getting away with something (which of course hasn't been shown to be the case either) it wouldn't alter the facts about the Catholic Church having changed its teachings.

 

[FaithT]

Why is it a "good point" to argue that a general policy change made by the leadership of the organization, the church, is not really a change because there might be a hypothetical "black sheep or two," defying the church's own policies?

Even if there actually were a black sheep or two out of tens of thousands, and those were getting away with something (which of course hasn't been shown to be the case either) it wouldn't alter the facts about the Catholic Church having changed its teachings.

This is OT but there’s the issue that the RCC won’t marry a couple if the man is wheelchair-bound and unable to consummate the marriage. Unless I’m mistaken, but that’s what I’ve always heard.

 

[fhansen]

Why is it a "good point" to argue that a general policy change made by the leadership of the organization, the church, is not really a change because there might be a hypothetical "black sheep or two," defying the church's own policies?

Even if there actually were a black sheep or two out of tens of thousands, and those were getting away with something (which of course hasn't been shown to be the case either) it wouldn't alter the facts about the Catholic Church having changed its teachings.

We were discussing a general point in that post. In the case of annulments specifically you're speaking of actual policy changes made by Francis, even if they're not written into canon law, and your position is not without merit-many Catholics have the same concerns. For the most part he wishes to streamline the process without putting "the principle of the indissolubility of marriage at risk". Whether or not he's helped or hindered the overall cause will be determined.

 

[Albion]

We were discussing a general point in that post. In the case of annulments specifically you're speaking of actual policy changes made by Francis, even if they're not written into canon law, and your position is not without merit-many Catholics have the same concerns.

In short, the church changed its position on a moral issue.

That's what was said in the first place and brought the wave of denials that followed in response.