The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Leroy42 · 28-07-2016 09:32AM

Not according to Absolam, it was merely incorrect interpretation and the CC was never of the position.

And I'm afraid that whether it was actively taught or not, the belief of the CC is that anyone, not just babies, that is unbaptised, goes to hell. You might not like it but that is the CC position (not sure if they still believe is hell at the moment).

No point getting annoyed at me, I am just pointing out the position of the CC (or at least my understanding of it).

Safehands · 28-07-2016 09:40AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not according to Absolam, it was merely incorrect interpretation and the CC was never of the position.

And I'm afraid that whether it was actively taught or not, the belief of the CC is that anyone, not just babies, that is unbaptised, goes to hell. You might not like it but that is the CC position (not sure if they still believe is hell at the moment).

No point getting annoyed at me, I am just pointing out the position of the CC (or at least my understanding of it).

If Absolam thinks that the CC didn't teach everyone about Limbo then Absolam doesn't know anything about the CC of the 60's and 70's and really shouldn't talk about it.

The CC has some crazy ideas. So does Islam, so does the Hindu faith. What more and more people are doing is ignoring the really stupid stuff and thinking for themselves. The Churches hate that.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 10:23AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has gone back and forth a bit on whether Limbo itself is an accepted doctrine or simply a hypothesis. Some seem to think it was actively taught by the CC whilst others have said that anybody who did teach it was actually wrong.

Have I summarised that right? I think so.

I'm afraid not; you appear to have fallen at the last hurdle. That members of the Catholic Church believe in, and even teach, the hypothesis of limbo doesn't make it doctrine; doctrine is what the Church itself teaches, and the Church has never taught that limbo exists.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So, my reading of this is that Augustine simply made up Limbo in order to make parents of dead babies feel better. There is no actual evidence within scriptures of this, the CC don't accept it and anybody who taught it was wrong. So Augustine should be seen as being good for that. But if CC didn't ever agree with Limbo, then it's only position was that dead babies went to hell. What part am I making up?

Well;
The part that Augustine simply made up Limbo in order to make parents of dead babies feel better, for starters. No one has offered that motivation for Augustine.
That anyone who taught limbo is wrong is made up too; nobody knows whether they were (or are) wrong.
And, of course that the Church's position was that babies went to hell. You've made that up too.
So... pretty much every part?

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-07-2016 10:27AM

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid not; you appear to have fallen at the last hurdle. That members of the Catholic Church believe in, and even teach, the hypothesis of limbo doesn't make it doctrine; doctrine is what the Church itself teaches, and the Church has never taught that limbo exists.

So when agents of the CC teach something in religion classes in schools it's everyone else's fault but the CC? Why didn't the CC stop it's agents teaching about limbo instead of letting them say it existed for centuries?

Well;
The part that Augustine simply made up Limbo in order to make parents of dead babies feel better, for starters. No one has offered that motivation for Augustine.
That anyone who taught limbo is wrong is made up too; nobody knows whether they were (or are) wrong.
And, of course that the Church's position was that babies went to hell. You've made that up too.
So... pretty much every part?

Why else would he make it up?

Absolam · 28-07-2016 10:27AM

Safehands wrote: »

I don't THINK it was taught by the Catholic church, I KNOW it was!

You may very well have been taught it, but it's not, and was not, Catholic doctrine.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not according to Absolam, it was merely incorrect interpretation and the CC was never of the position.

That's not true; I didn't say he wasn't taught it, I said it isn't and wasn't doctrine.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And I'm afraid that whether it was actively taught or not, the belief of the CC is that anyone, not just babies, that is unbaptised, goes to hell. You might not like it but that is the CC position (not sure if they still believe is hell at the moment).

That's not true either though... you're still making stuff up.

Leroy42 wrote: »

No point getting annoyed at me, I am just pointing out the position of the CC (or at least my understanding of it).

Well.. there is if you're making stuff up and presenting it as someone else's position to be fair...

Safehands wrote: »

If Absolam thinks that the CC didn't teach everyone about Limbo then Absolam doesn't know anything about the CC of the 60's and 70's and really shouldn't talk about it. The CC has some crazy ideas. So does Islam, so does the Hindu faith. What more and more people are doing is ignoring the really stupid stuff and thinking for themselves. The Churches hate that.

If you want to know what I think you might do better reading what I said than what Leroy42 says I said... all things considered.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 10:35AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So when agents of the CC teach something in religion classes in schools it's everyone else's fault but the CC? Why didn't the CC stop it's agents teaching about limbo instead of letting them say it existed for centuries?

Who said it was anyone's fault? All I said was it's not Church teaching. Neither is the absence of limbo.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why else would he make it up?

Do you think there could be no other motivation for hypothesising on a subject? For instance, do you think he could have arrived at the conclusion as a result of debating the topic of original sin with another Christian philosopher?
It seems odd that you're so exercised by his hypothesis but haven't bothered to find out about it.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-07-2016 10:40AM

Absolam wrote: »

Who said it was anyone's fault? All I said was it's not Church teaching. Neither is the absence of limbo.

Do you think there could be no other motivation for hypothesising on a subject? For instance, do you think he could have arrived at the conclusion as a result of debating the topic of original sin with another Christian philosopher?
It seems odd that you're so exercised by his hypothesis but haven't bothered to find out about it.

So they didn't teach it but didn't lift a finger to stop the teach8ng of it by their agents? As I said before, have to keep the fear alive in the people.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 10:43AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they didn't teach it but didn't lift a finger to stop the teach8ng of it by their agents? As I said before, have to keep the fear alive in the people.

Why exactly should they stop it being taught? The Church doesn't know it's not true. Though if keeping fear alive in the people is a motivation (I know, we know it isn't, but it's your narrative...) then it seems to me hell would serve far far better than limbo in that regard.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-07-2016 10:47AM

Absolam wrote: »

Why exactly should they stop it being taught? The Church doesn't know it's not true. Though if keeping fear alive in the people is a motivation (I know, we know it isn't, but it's your narrative...) then it seems to me hell would serve far far better than limbo in that regard.

So like all Catholic teaching, false hope is better than no hope.

Delirium · 28-07-2016 10:47AM

MOD NOTE

If people wish to discuss the RCC and Limbo, they are free to start a new thread.

Please don't derail this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

Absolam · 28-07-2016 10:51AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So like all Catholic teaching, false hope is better than no hope.

I'd suggest that, unlike Creationism, whether all (or even some) Catholic teaching is false hope is a matter of opinion.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-07-2016 10:56AM

Absolam wrote: »

I'd suggest that, unlike Creationism, whether all (or even some) Catholic teaching is false hope is a matter of opinion.

There is evidence for creationism?

Absolam · 28-07-2016 12:37PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is evidence for creationism?

As far as I'm aware nothing that's accepted as such by the wider scientific community, no.

Safehands · 28-07-2016 09:23PM

Absolam wrote: »

As far as I'm aware nothing that's accepted as such by the wider scientific community, no.

You mean by the people who know about these things. There is as much evidence for Robin Hood as there is for Adam and Eve or Noah, probably more.

Absolam · 29-07-2016 12:22AM

Safehands wrote: »

You mean by the people who know about these things. There is as much evidence for Robin Hood as there is for Adam and Eve or Noah, probably more.

I do; the wider scientific community would generally be a good gauge of the merits of any contribution to science. Not sure why you think Robin Hood, Adam, Eve, or Noah have anything to do with that but whatever floats your boat. Or not, as the case may be.

Delirium · 29-07-2016 08:46AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So like all Catholic teaching, false hope is better than no hope.

MOD NOTE

Less of the baiting/goading comments please.

Thanks for your attention.

J C · 08-01-2017 01:31PM

... something to think about, the next time you put your granny on a train

http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=gb&utm_campaign=emails

Dont forget that the mechanisms/information by which populations of organism adapt to changes in their environment cannot give rise to the organisms, in the first place.
... AKA the principle that Natural Selection can explain the the survival of the fittest ... but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest ... enjoy.:)
http://creation.com/designed-to-adapt?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=gb&utm_campaign=emails

Happy New Year to everyone on the Boards.

Harika · 08-01-2017 02:54PM

J C wrote: »

... something to think about, the next time you put your granny on a train
http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin?utm_media=email&utm_source=infobytes&utm_content=gb&utm_campaign=emails

Happy New Year to everyone on the Boards.

This is quite an old article, rebounced for some reason. Here the rebuttal from the other side to it: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/wieland_information_pp.htm

And the arrival of the fittest seems to be a very old discussion, so we are not gonna solve it, but want to add that this is the beauty of science.

Happy new year too.

:cool:

J C · 08-01-2017 03:55PM

Harika wrote: »

This is quite an old article, rebounced for some reason. Here the rebuttal from the other side to it: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/wieland_information_pp.htm

The train analogy goes back to the early noughties ... and below is a graphical illustration of 'grannies evolutionary express' ... always observed to be going in the wrong direction ... metaphorically 'going south' all of the time!!

A idea that the powers of mutation create improvements in genetic information ... is analagous to the idea that the powers of sledge hammers will produce improvements in anything !!!:eek:

J C · 08-01-2017 04:24PM

Harika wrote: »

And the arrival of the fittest seems to be a very old discussion, so we are not gonna solve it, but want to add that this is the beauty of science.

Happy new year too. :cool:

For a pig to have functional wings it is not just a gene mutation at the storage level (e.g. duplication) that's required, but also the flow and processing of the information has to be new and all must function together at every stage in the process i.e. a massive irreducible complex system (that can only logically be produced by an information and creative input from a mind with an equally inordinate level of intelligence).

Thats why we use the phrase 'pigs will fly' to denote something that is logically impossible ... something like spontaneous evolution, actually

Once our current understanding of the living cell and molecular biology was realised, evolution (of pondkind to mankind) became a dead theory.

It's still kept alive, however, by people of great faith ... in the idea that 'God didn't do it'.:)

Leroy42 · 08-01-2017 04:32PM

But even if evolution turns out to be incorrect, although highly unlikely given the vast amount of evidence across multiple disciples, but even if that was to happen, it provides nothing to the theory that God did it.

Is the God that created heaven and Earth in just seven days that we are supposed to believe in, the same one that has seemingly been changing things ever since?

And therein lies the problem. Even the catholic church accepts that evolution is a fact, as even they can see that it doesn't, not does it attempt, to answer the question of how life originated.

What it does show, is that the 'story' in Genesis is just that. A story to try to give some explanation, in the dearth of any understanding, of the nature of life. Disproving evolution simply puts us back to zero again, it does not in any way advance the notion that God was involved.

J C · 08-01-2017 04:53PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even if evolution turns out to be incorrect, although highly unlikely given the vast amount of evidence across multiple disciples, but even if that was to happen, it provides nothing to the theory that God did it.

It is a fact that the theory of the spontaneous evolution of pondkind into mankind has become defunct.
However, it continues to be believed in by many people, due to it's conflation with the fact that populations do change and adapt to environmental change ... using previously created genetic diversity.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is the God that created heaven and Earth in just seven days that we are supposed to believe in, the same one that has seemingly been changing things ever since?

He Created in six days ... and He rested on the seventh day ... and every day since.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.

There is no problem, God Created everything in six days ... and then He rested (and continues to rest).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even the catholic church accepts that evolution is a fact, as even they can see that it doesn't, not does it attempt, to answer the question of how life originated.

The Roman Catholic Church tends to defer to secular science on scientific issues ... sometimes, even when the secular science is observably and logically wrong ...
They did this before when some secular philosphers agreed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, when it was patently obvious that it was the Earth that was rotating ... and not the other way around.
Creation Scientists are the latter day 'Galileos' ... on the side of observable fact ... while mainstream science and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church (and indeed many other churches) side with the current scientific consenus.

I would also point out that the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the Apostles Creed which proclaims a belief in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth ... and the Nicence Creed which proclaims God to be Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.
Although some within the leadership Roman Catholic Church may support the current scientific synthesis of Spontaneous Evolution and the Big Bang, i.e. naturalistic 'origins' explantions, they still hold to Creeds which proclaim that everything was made/created by God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What it does show, is that the 'story' in Genesis is just that. A story to try to give some explanation, in the dearth of any understanding, of the nature of life. Disproving evolution simply puts us back to zero again, it does not in any way advance the notion that God was involved.

I accept that the story of Genesis is a story ... but it is a story in line with observable fact ... unlike the 'pondkind to mankind evolution' story which isn't.
We now know enough to definitively conclude that an intelligence/intelligences of inordinate capacity created life ... whether this intelligence was the God of the Bible is a matter of faith.
Disproving (pondkind to mankind) Evolution removes what Prof Dawkins describes as the reason for being an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and it is therefore a landmark event within both conventional science and Atheist circles.

Quote:- "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6).

Leroy42 · 08-01-2017 05:01PM

So evolution has been debunked according to you. Great, noble prizes all round I'd imagine. Who was this that proved it?

But, it still doesn't bring you any closer to God did it, it just means we have got rid of one theory. So now we move on to Leprecauns, or Aliens, or Great Spagetti Monster. Why would you think that God would be the only option left?

You accept that Genesis is a story, but in line with Observable fact! Really, how did you observe that man can be created from dust, and that a woman is created from a rib? And talking snakes? A trees of knowledge?

J C · 08-01-2017 05:19PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So evolution has been debunked according to you. Great, noble prizes all round I'd imagine. Who was this that proved it?

Unfortunately, Nobel Prizes are not handed out for dis-proving things.
If you want a Nobel prize ... you need to devise a plausible theory (not involving God) as to how all living organisms came to be.:)

So far, this hasn't been done ... but you are correct, that a Nobel prize and the eternal gratitude of every Atheist on the planet, awaits anybody who does.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But, it still doesn't bring you any closer to God did it, it just means we have got rid of one theory. So now we move on to Leprecauns, or Aliens, or Great Spagetti Monster. Why would you think that God would be the only option left?

We know that it was an inelligence/intelligences of inordinate capacity that created life ... it is a matter of faith who that intelligence(s) was/were.
I believe it was the God of the Bible ... you are entitled to your own beliefs on the matter.

BTW, do you believe that it was Leprecauns, or Aliens, or Great Spagetti Monster that did it ... or do you still cling to the belief that it 'did itself' in contravention of everything that has ever been observed? (that every phenomenon has an equal or greater cause and Complex Functional Specified Information is always observed to have an intelligent source)

Leroy42 wrote: »

You accept that Genesis is a story, but in line with Observable fact! Really, how did you observe that man can be created from dust, and that a woman is created from a rib? And talking snakes? A trees of knowledge?

The observable fact is that an inelligence/intelligences of inordinate capacity is required to create life.
Whether that intelligence was the God of the Bible is a matter of faith - but I haven't heard of any other plausible claims or candidates for the job of Creator.

Equally, the presence of evil, sin and death in the World is an observable fact ... whether the ultimate cause of these phenomena is because the first man and woman succumbed to the temptations of a snake possessed of Satan telling them that they would be as God, if they acquired Satan's infinite knowledge of evil ... is also a matter of faith.

Leroy42 · 08-01-2017 06:11PM

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately, Nobel Prizes are not handed out for dis-proving things.
If you want a Nobel prize ... you need to devise a plausible theory (not involving God) as to how all living organisms came to be.:)

So it has been proven that evolution is false yet no alternative has been put forward? And I really think that had evolution been debunked it would be being shouted from the rooftops by every religious based organisation, yet very little is being said. No peer reviewed journals, no acceptance by the scientific community.

J C wrote: »

So far, this hasn't been done ... but you are correct, that a Nobel prize and the eternal gratitude of every Atheist on the planet, awaits anybody who does.

Why would atheist have any feelings one way or the other. Evololution has nothing to do with athesim.

J C wrote: »

We know that it was an inelligence/intelligences of inordinate capacity that created life ... it is a matter of faith who that intelligence(s) was/were.

We do? Wow, when was that proved? I mean has anybody told all those scientists wasting time tyring to answer that very question, it seems somewhat clumsy to not have even checked that we already know the answer.

[/QUOTE]I believe it was the God of the Bible ... you are entitled to your own beliefs on the matter.[/QUOTE]

That is very understanding of you. I don't have faith either way. At the present time the weight of evidence supports evolution, but if, and since you said it has been debunked I expect to see if soon, it is proven otherwise then I'll go with that.

J C wrote: »

The observable fact is that an inelligence/intelligences of inordinate capacity is required to created life.

This is amazing. People have actually observed a God (of whatver hue) create life from nothing. Please let us know when this happened.

J C wrote: »

Whether that intelligence was the God of the Bible is a matter of faith.

Well first you need to prove the intelligence query, then you'll have to prove what type of God it was.

J C wrote: »

Equally, the presence of evil, sin and death in the World is an observable fact ... whether the ultimate cause of these phenomena is because the first man and woman succumbed to the temptations of a snake possessed of Satan telling them that they would be as God, if they acquired Satan's infinite knowledge of evil ... is also a matter of faith.

So really everything you believe in is based on the stories that you were told as a child. This despite the fact that even you acknowledge that the very 1st book of the bible is just a story. Good and evil, and the presence of same again does nothing to link to any belief in God. You seem to be of the view that until you know something as fact that the logical reason must be God. Thats called God of the gaps and throughout history that has been proven to be an ever decreasing position to be in.

HandsomeDan · 08-01-2017 07:15PM

Church out of our schools NOW!

J C · 08-01-2017 07:47PM

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Church out of our schools NOW!

I think you may have strayed onto the wrong thread.:)

J C · 08-01-2017 08:08PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So it has been proven that evolution is false yet no alternative has been put forward? And I really think that had evolution been debunked it would be being shouted from the rooftops by every religious based organisation, yet very little is being said. No peer reviewed journals, no acceptance by the scientific community.

Strange ... but true.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would atheist have any feelings one way or the other. Evololution has nothing to do with athesim.

... nothing except making Atheist feel intellectually fulfilled, apparently.:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

We do? Wow, when was that proved? I mean has anybody told all those scientists wasting time tyring to answer that very question, it seems somewhat clumsy to not have even checked that we already know the answer.

Perhaps its because they don't like the answer and its obvious implication that God really did do it !!

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is very understanding of you.

That's me allright.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't have faith either way. At the present time the weight of evidence supports evolution, but if, and since you said it has been debunked I expect to see if soon, it is proven otherwise then I'll go with that.

Good.

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is amazing. People have actually observed a God (of whatver hue) create life from nothing. Please let us know when this happened.

Nobody has observed life originating (or supposedly developing from pondkind to mankind).
However, forensic science can be applied to the issue.
What forensic science does is observe the result of the phenomenon under examination. The result of life originating is observable in all living organisms today ... and it points to an inordinate intelligence creating it - rather than any spontaneous process evolving it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So really everything you believe in is based on the stories that you were told as a child. This despite the fact that even you acknowledge that the very 1st book of the bible is just a story. Good and evil, and the presence of same again does nothing to link to any belief in God. You seem to be of the view that until you know something as fact that the logical reason must be God. Thats called God of the gaps and throughout history that has been proven to be an ever decreasing position to be in.

The real gaps are wider than ever ... so wide that they are un-bridgeable by even the most fertile and creative of secular minds.

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-01-2017 08:16PM

J C wrote: »

Strange ... but true.

... nothing except making Atheist feel intellectually fulfilled, apparently.:)

Perhaps its because they don't like the answer and its obvious implication that God really did do it !!

That's me allright.

Good.

Nobody has observed life originating (or supposedly developing from pondkind to mankind).
However, forensic science can be applied to the issue.
What forensic science does is observe the result of the phenomenon under examination. The result of life originating is observable in all living organisms today ... and it points to an inordinate intelligence creating it - rather than any spontaneous process evolving it.

The real gaps are wider than ever ... so wide that they are un-bridgeable by even the most fertile and creative of secular minds.

JC

Dodging questions since 2005 :rolleyes:

J C · 08-01-2017 08:23PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

JC

Dodging questions since 2005 :rolleyes:

Pointing out truths that people don't like since 2005.:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments