Posts by Mad Dawg

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

I asked a simple question. If you don't know the answer, why not just say so? Have I stepped on your toes? Are you feeling like crap?

I love science. I keep an open mind about it. It is open enough that I am not beholden to philosophical naturalism. BTW, I still would like to know what we evolved from. Rocks, air, water? What? Does it matter which? Even if it doesn't matter, enquiring minds want to know.

I can guarantee that I know more about evolution than you do about Biblical theology. As I said before, it is nonsense to measure theology with secular humanism. Further, most of your premises on the subject are in error.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Please enlighten this poor benighted soul. From what basic material did we evolve?

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Are you familiar with the terms: Quantum fluctuations of nothingness? Chemical evolution? How about prebiotic evolution? This is what is taught at Harvard. Look them up, Google is your friend. All I did was strip them of the mumbo jumbo and used plain English. Remember, if you believe in evolution, you cannot escape the conclusion that we evolved from rocks. An absurd idea.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

The terms I used are accurate. It is not my fault that, when the veneer is stripped away, what is left is patently absurd. Intellectually dishohest? I learned this from bohm and from reading Richturd Dawkins website.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

bohm said:

If i claimed the universe is a big turd laid by the cosmic pink unicorn, i think it would be entirely logical to dismiss that notion without having a fully established idea of how the universe actually came about.

I agree. And if someone wants to claim that the universe is a cosmic burp of nothingness, or that we evolved from rocks, it would be entirely logical to dismiss that notion without having a fully established idea of how the universe actually came about.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying "I don't know what the truth is, but that is not it?"

55

WT article on ''never have we said Jehovah has said"

by Aussie Oz in

been going nuts looking for this.. i am sure i have read, and probably saved, a quote by them about not being false prophets but i am buggered if i can find it anywhere in search, google or my own pc.. can you help?.

i think its 2009 but not sure, where they have the line 'never have we said ''jehovah has said'' when ...'.

a link or pdf or scan or cut n paste, etc would be great!.

Mad Dawg

Hmmm.... The WT says that the mags are not without error. Perhaps I will ask the next JW I bump into what errors they have found in the last, oh say, ten years.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Sabastious said:

The reason I feel so strongly about these topics is because I feel explanations given for the Adam and Eve story, like this one, are disrepsectful to the truth of how we actually came to be (which is still a complete mystery).

How can one say it is disrepsectful to the truth if the truth is a complete mystery? Even though I don't understand what you mean by disrespecting truth, if it is truly a complete mystery, then wouldn't Adam and Eve or some other account lie within the possibility of truth? If the truth of how we came to be is a total mystery, how do you eliminate something as a possibility?

If we can't explain our existence without consulting to legend and myth then we shouldn't be explaining it.

If the account of Adam and Eve is true; then, by definition, it is not a legend or myth.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

Yes, that was my assumption. Feel free to correct me if the assumption is wrong. I stand by my statement in reference to atheists in general.

139

The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious in

in another thread, bts quoted this catholic doctrinal paraphrasing of adam and eve:.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml#390.

god created man in his image and established him in his friendship.

Mad Dawg

I find it interesting that atheists complain that creationists don't have a proper science background and shouldn't be comenting on science. Yet, they feel they are qualified to comment on theology even though they are unable to display any understanding of actual theology. The OP is a tirade about God, yet it displays no attempt to get answers from any source that actually has an understanding of theology.

It is nonsensical to use creationism as the yardstick for evolution - and vice versa. It is equal nonsense to use secular humanism as a yardstick for theology. For those actually looking for answers to the question of original sin, here is an excellent link.

Here is it's introduction:

Good question…Why didn't God stop the process before it started, if He knew of the massive amounts of suffering that would befall many of His creatures??

Draft June 3, 2000 // Last update: July 17/2000 (part one)

Index to the pieces in this response:

Part One: Statement of the Problem, Methodological observations/reservations, and Creating the Criteria for an acceptable "Go Ahead" decision. [this document]

Part Two : Criterion One

Part Three : Pushback about cases of extensive suffering

Part Four : Criterion Two and Three

Part Five : Criterion Four and Summary

Part Six: Additional Pushbacks

Part Seven : Reflection on what this means

....................................................................................................

In the first (related) part of this question [ gutripper.html ], we dealt with the issue of the character of God, and more specifically with how one 'builds' a theological understanding of His heart, when starting from the bible. In this piece, we move to one of the more emotionally-laden issues in the Christian worldview, and one that gets attention in the technical (i.e., philosophical) literature, but little in the popular works. [One work that includes a discussion of the topic is Immortality: the Other Side of Death, Habermas and Moreland, Thomas Nelson:1992.]

To try to re-state this issue as succinctly (and starkly) as possible, I need to 'unpack' it a little and lay out the propositions and assumptions which are often stated/implicit in it, or at least seem to be included in it. As far as I can tell, the objection goes something like this:

1. The world is characterized by vast amounts of intensive and extensive suffering and evil.

2. After enduring a life of hardship and pervasive suffering, many (if not most) humans will end up in hell, where they will be actively tortured forever and ever.

3. All of this was known ahead of time by God, before He had even created ANYTHING or ANYONE.

4. For some reason or motive , He "went ahead" with the plan anyway, but could have chosen to not implement it (or to start a different one altogether) or to interrupt it before it "went bad".