- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The weakest link.
- Thread starter Lily_Among_Thorns
- Start date
Mark wrote:
Mark, then why do you have such a problem with the theistic evolution position advocated by both Rome and the Pope - that Adam was a single, literal person, the first human in the transitional series from the evolution of ape to human? He was specially created by God, because God intervened and gave him a soul - unlike other animals, and that all humans are descended from him?
If you don't see that as solving your doctrinal issue, then what part of your doctrinal issue isn't solved by it?
On the other points, it seems that you are incorrect on both.
In the first one, you objected to my pointing out to Lily that the Pope supports evolution, by stating that Rome affirms a historical Genesis, when my quote of the Pope describing the evolution of humans in detail clearly shows that my original statment was accurate. I hope you aren't still going to assert that my original statement wasn't accurate.
On the second, you asserted that no official Catholic edict has been made that is friendly to evolution, and I showed that evolution is explicitly allowed by the official edict of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis.
Looking specifically at your responses:
Well, then it sounds like you agree with my original statement that the Pope supports, evolution, right?
General? You've got to be kidding me! He gives specific ages to two significant figures, mentions different lines of evidence, as well as universal common descent of all life on earth, and the time since the first life on earth. Since that's so general, perhaps you can agree with it yourself?
Sure I agree. I don't advocate polygenism, and neither should any doctrinally observant Catholic. Nothing in my theistic evolution view requires or even is helped by polygenism.
Yes, I agree with that too. It fits theistic evolution perfectly. In a population of apes, evolving to be more humanlike, one ape/human (Adam) will be the first to cross whatever line you choose, and as breeding contines, everyone will be descended from him. The parents of Adam were not human - they were still behind the line, just barely still being non-human ape transitionals. I must have described this a dozen times here on CF, plus you can see it in the statement you posted from the Pope. See how it solves your doctrinal problem?
Do you have a reference from a Catholic edict that taking the rib-woman part literally is required Catholic doctrine?
Take care-
Papias
Mark, then why do you have such a problem with the theistic evolution position advocated by both Rome and the Pope - that Adam was a single, literal person, the first human in the transitional series from the evolution of ape to human? He was specially created by God, because God intervened and gave him a soul - unlike other animals, and that all humans are descended from him?
If you don't see that as solving your doctrinal issue, then what part of your doctrinal issue isn't solved by it?
On the other points, it seems that you are incorrect on both.
In the first one, you objected to my pointing out to Lily that the Pope supports evolution, by stating that Rome affirms a historical Genesis, when my quote of the Pope describing the evolution of humans in detail clearly shows that my original statment was accurate. I hope you aren't still going to assert that my original statement wasn't accurate.
On the second, you asserted that no official Catholic edict has been made that is friendly to evolution, and I showed that evolution is explicitly allowed by the official edict of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis.
Looking specifically at your responses:
Well, then it sounds like you agree with my original statement that the Pope supports, evolution, right?
General? You've got to be kidding me! He gives specific ages to two significant figures, mentions different lines of evidence, as well as universal common descent of all life on earth, and the time since the first life on earth. Since that's so general, perhaps you can agree with it yourself?
Sure I agree. I don't advocate polygenism, and neither should any doctrinally observant Catholic. Nothing in my theistic evolution view requires or even is helped by polygenism.
Yes, I agree with that too. It fits theistic evolution perfectly. In a population of apes, evolving to be more humanlike, one ape/human (Adam) will be the first to cross whatever line you choose, and as breeding contines, everyone will be descended from him. The parents of Adam were not human - they were still behind the line, just barely still being non-human ape transitionals. I must have described this a dozen times here on CF, plus you can see it in the statement you posted from the Pope. See how it solves your doctrinal problem?
Do you have a reference from a Catholic edict that taking the rib-woman part literally is required Catholic doctrine?
Take care-
Papias
Upvote
0
Nor anyone who takes the evolution of humanity seriously. Biology confirms that all humans have a single origin. The last well-known scientist who supported polygenism was the creationist, Louis Agassiz, who did so much to fend off the teaching of evolution at Harvard.
Upvote
0
Where are the chimpanzee ancestors?
No essential doctrine was ever tied to the 'flatness' of the earth. You have no idea what is important here or why.
Have a nice day
Mark[/QUOTE]
When I think about the idea that you could possibly teach this nonsense to my children I don't have a nice day mark.
It quite literally frightens me. Work it in into your beliefs, become a scientologist, whatever you gotta do.. Just accept it like you accepted Christ or whatever
No essential doctrine was ever tied to the 'flatness' of the earth. You have no idea what is important here or why.
Have a nice day
Mark[/QUOTE]
When I think about the idea that you could possibly teach this nonsense to my children I don't have a nice day mark.
It quite literally frightens me. Work it in into your beliefs, become a scientologist, whatever you gotta do.. Just accept it like you accepted Christ or whatever
Upvote
0
Similar threads
