Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,352 posts)

13. So you think "your question is completely inane" is a "great answer"?

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 07:11 PM

Jul 2013

And, even more, "a great analysis"? Have you ever been a teacher? I hope not.

Let's get official about this - the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":226
...
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
...
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Questions about simultaneous believers in evolution and punishment/reward-based afterlife [View all] Arugula Latte Jul 2013 OP

Interesting question. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #1

Because there is no real conflict between science and faith. SheilaT Jul 2013 #2

What a great analysis. cbayer Jul 2013 #3

That's fine but I was just wondering about a specific context Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #7

You'll have to hope that someone who SheilaT Jul 2013 #54

That would only be the case if "faith" skepticscott Jul 2013 #32

I am aware of that. SheilaT Jul 2013 #55

So all you really seem to be saying after all skepticscott Jul 2013 #70

Clearly for you there is a huge conflict. SheilaT Jul 2013 #80

Did I say "huge conflict" anywhere? skepticscott Jul 2013 #101

You are wrong about this edhopper Jul 2013 #98

All evidence points to their not being a god? cbayer Jul 2013 #99

The Universe functions quite well edhopper Jul 2013 #103

The fact that it functions quite well, cbayer Jul 2013 #104

Yeah, there's ample evidence. trotsky Jul 2013 #105

"I will fight you every step of the way" rug Jul 2013 #113

It is simply not true that the vast majority believe there is a god. dimbear Jul 2013 #106

Most of the data I have seen say that somewhere around 80 - 85% of the world's population cbayer Jul 2013 #107

What you actually said, cbayer, was this: trotsky Jul 2013 #108

at one time edhopper Jul 2013 #109

Silly ed. trotsky Jul 2013 #110

At the time, you couldn't have said they were wrong because you had no cbayer Jul 2013 #111

If I'm wrong, and god exists, may god strike me down. trotsky Jul 2013 #112

But they were wrong. edhopper Jul 2013 #136

As it turned out, they were wrong. cbayer Jul 2013 #137

Because people right now are making policy decisions based on their belief in gods, cbayer. trotsky Jul 2013 #140

So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #151

First of all, it's if not is. cbayer Jul 2013 #152

Actually, that is all. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #154

People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock. cbayer Jul 2013 #157

People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #171

Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth to within a few percent 200 years before Christ Fumesucker Jul 2013 #155

Were he Eratosthenes, which he most assuredly is not. cbayer Jul 2013 #156

You aren't Eratosthenes either Fumesucker Jul 2013 #159

Not sure where you are going with this. cbayer Jul 2013 #160

until there is some evidence that either makes it more or less likely that there is a god or gods AlbertCat Jul 2013 #173

Has anyone done anything similar to challenge people's belief in a god or gods? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #172

According to Stephen Hawking, you have no justification to say they were wrong. Jim__ Jul 2013 #158

His point is that until we had observations that disrupted Ptolomey edhopper Jul 2013 #161

No, that is not his point. Jim__ Jul 2013 #162

Your saying my view of the model of his statement is wrong? edhopper Jul 2013 #163

I didn't say anything about "the model of his statement" never mind your view of it. Jim__ Jul 2013 #165

The Ptolomaic model existed. yes edhopper Jul 2013 #166

"He is talking about models we use, not the actual universe." Jim__ Jul 2013 #168

If he is saying this, as you say edhopper Jul 2013 #170

*If* he is saying this? Jim__ Jul 2013 #176

So what you are saying simply is edhopper Jul 2013 #177

No. That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what Hawking is saying. Jim__ Jul 2013 #178

Okay edhopper Jul 2013 #179

It's not my claim, it's Hawking's claim. Jim__ Jul 2013 #180

I simply don't agree with your interpretation of what Hawking is saying edhopper Jul 2013 #181

Yes, what Hawking is saying conflicts with your beliefs. Jim__ Jul 2013 #182

I am expanding the claims to different models edhopper Jul 2013 #186

that there is not be something much more highly evolved AlbertCat Jul 2013 #150

This was probably mentioned Lordquinton Jul 2013 #135

I understand that. cbayer Jul 2013 #138

So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #153

All evidence points to their not being a god? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #149

Question about posts like this that feign sincerity and curiosity. cbayer Jul 2013 #4

I honestly am wondering how it has traditionally been explained. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #6

Sorry, not buying it. cbayer Jul 2013 #8

"Please help me understand" okasha Jul 2013 #9

"I am so confused by this" and "i guess there is no answer" cbayer Jul 2013 #11

You are the one mocking, defacto7 Jul 2013 #63

Who are you? Haven't seen you around much before. cbayer Jul 2013 #86

The "hey everybody, look what I've done" thread in the Atheist safe haven is revealing as well. goldent Jul 2013 #62

Your response is about as childish as it can get. defacto7 Jul 2013 #64

I'm with you on this! goldent Jul 2013 #79

I don't think SheilaT's post answers the question in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #10

I can't speak for her, but what I read is that she finds the question cbayer Jul 2013 #12

So you think "your question is completely inane" is a "great answer"? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #13

No, I think her explanation for why it is inane is a good answer. cbayer Jul 2013 #14

It's your dismissive attitude to a question - that to not answer it is 'great' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #16

Acknowledging that a question is inane and explaining why is not dismissive. cbayer Jul 2013 #18

I'll give you an example. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #15

Uh, huh. cbayer Jul 2013 #17

Is this not a forum for discussion about religious topics? Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #20

Why would I have an answer? cbayer Jul 2013 #23

This forum has religious people who post. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #25

Muriel supplied the conventional catholic explanation in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #30

Yes, actually. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #61

Well, you know, this is about the most honest post I have seen from you in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #85

And your post got exactly the kind of response okasha Jul 2013 #29

I think there used to be a great deal more of this before some smart people, both cbayer Jul 2013 #31

Truth. okasha Jul 2013 #35

By which you mean . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #44

Nonbelievers considering all believers to be fools would be, well, cbayer Jul 2013 #47

Anyone who, when faced with a straightforward question . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #57

OMG! What a freaking brilliant debate technique! cbayer Jul 2013 #83

Wrong. okasha Jul 2013 #59

Asking rather straightforward question is a "ploy." Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #60

Nope. okasha Jul 2013 #90

Yes, the 'ploy' is to ask a question that *you* don't want to answer . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #67

The question isn't directed to me, okasha Jul 2013 #91

Pagan-schmagan. MrModerate Jul 2013 #114

Ploy it was. okasha Jul 2013 #117

And 'smug' will be the attitude you adopt should anyone question you. MrModerate Jul 2013 #119

Oh my. okasha Jul 2013 #123

Wow. Anthropoligist *and* clairvoyant MrModerate Jul 2013 #124

Yep. okasha Jul 2013 #127

Interesting, since I'm an editor by trade, and yet . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #129

Hear, hear! defacto7 Jul 2013 #65

different people think different things d_r Jul 2013 #52

I don't see how SheilaT's reply answers the questions. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #33

The Catholics do have an answer, as has been given by both rug and muriel in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #37

I did not say that the Catholics did not have an answer, I said that I did not know their answer. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #38

As I read it, she is saying that it is not a valid question. cbayer Jul 2013 #39

What?!? You don't ike Pius XII's encyclical?!?! rug Jul 2013 #76

You 'doubt' the questioner's sincerity, but refuse to answer the question . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #42

I wouldn't even pretend to be able to answer the question. cbayer Jul 2013 #43

You have the same negative attitude towards fundamentalists, cbayer skepticscott Jul 2013 #45

It's been quite enjoyable seeing multiple people call her behavior out on this thread. trotsky Jul 2013 #77

Which comes back to you saying . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #46

That is correct. It doesn't need to be answered... by anyone. cbayer Jul 2013 #48

A single loyal trooper okasha Jul 2013 #50

That seems to be you! defacto7 Jul 2013 #66

LOL! trotsky Jul 2013 #78

Nope. That's Mr. Moderate okasha Jul 2013 #92

Highlighting the fact that religion can't even be effectively defended by its adherents . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #58

More of this freaking brilliant debate technique. cbayer Jul 2013 #84

For something that doesn't need to be defended . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #146

The ability to ignore skullcrushing paradoxes also developed slowly over time. dimbear Jul 2013 #5

Assuming this s a legitimate question, you can read Humani Generis for a Catholic perspective. rug Jul 2013 #19

Okay, thank you. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #22

I made it to paragraph (chapter? verse?) 5 . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #68

Well, aren't you special. rug Jul 2013 #72

The whole point is that he's "special." okasha Jul 2013 #93

No reassurance required, thanks. MrModerate Jul 2013 #121

I bet it itches okasha Jul 2013 #125

That movie running on the inside of your eyelids? MrModerate Jul 2013 #126

Oh dear. okasha Jul 2013 #130

Hey, your eyelids, no problem. n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #131

The operative word being 'muddle.' n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #118

I'm sorry I can't apply reason like you so I too can be running, screaming, from the building, rug Jul 2013 #120

Look out for the front steps. MrModerate Jul 2013 #122

How will we go on? cbayer Jul 2013 #87

Hmm. Paranoid much? n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #116

Nope. Any other psychiatric diagnoses you want to throw out there? cbayer Jul 2013 #139

Well perhaps I should have dumbed down my diagnosis for you . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #141

Well, bless your little heart, MrModerate. cbayer Jul 2013 #142

I trust you'll be sending me a scan . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #143

That must be a mighty small collection. rug Jul 2013 #144

Most are about 5 inches across . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #145

And, as a significant followup, this from 2004: muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #71

That is significant. rug Jul 2013 #73

The split into two species may not last, though. okasha Jul 2013 #95

You're right. rug Jul 2013 #96

I read an article a while ago-- okasha Jul 2013 #184

Ooh, I can't wait to till that to a certain redhead I know. rug Jul 2013 #185

My understanding is that Neanderthals, Florensis, and us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #164

I hadn't heard of Florensis but being contemporaries is the likeliest case. rug Jul 2013 #167

Florensis is an island species, they are better known as the "hobbit" species... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #169

Oh, ok, now I remember them. rug Jul 2013 #174

They lived in the Shire edhopper Jul 2013 #175

I heard about that debate, I remember reading a science fiction book written around that time... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #183

Which sort of answers the question asked by the op. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #75

You agree with this? edhopper Jul 2013 #81

No, and I'm surprised at the typo "principle' instead of "principal". rug Jul 2013 #82

Okay edhopper Jul 2013 #97

That paragraph is. rug Jul 2013 #100

I was only referring to it. edhopper Jul 2013 #102

Simple question. When did heaven open for business? You might think dimbear Jul 2013 #21

I'll name that tune in one. rug Jul 2013 #74

I don't believe in hell so I think we all go to heaven in the end. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #24

Do you think only modern humans are there, or do you think it goes farther back? Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #26

Interesting question. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #28

You can create your own heaven or hell by your thoughts. Manifestor_of_Light Jul 2013 #27

I agree. cbayer Jul 2013 #36

OMG! You did not just do that! cbayer Jul 2013 #34

Yes, she did! okasha Jul 2013 #40

Funny joke (well, funny to me at least). cbayer Jul 2013 #41

Many year ago, when I was a new birder, okasha Jul 2013 #49

My religious views are not views about the nature of the natural world: they are views struggle4progress Jul 2013 #51

You vote 'pass,' but do you in any way resent the asking of the question? dimbear Jul 2013 #53

? struggle4progress Jul 2013 #56

So your view of religion . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #69

I think I prefer to describe my own religious views -- and to let you describe your own but not mine struggle4progress Jul 2013 #88

Your call, of course . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #115

In your #69, you misrepresented my views, but now I suspect you're just trolling. struggle4progress Jul 2013 #132

I *interpreted* your views. This is not identical to misrepresenting them. MrModerate Jul 2013 #134

This is a great question. DavidDvorkin Jul 2013 #89

One answer - while evolution was used to create animals, possibly including man el_bryanto Jul 2013 #94

Anyone who lives with dogs knows they have a sense of right and wrong. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #147

But cats don't edhopper Jul 2013 #148

"...at what point did modern humans become eligible for Heaven or Hell?" Jenoch Jul 2013 #128

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #133