Shock Jocks have gone too far this time

AminKor02 · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by Ludahai

I have always been taught in my cathecism classes that the Catholic Church does not take a stance on this issue. I will have to look up the specific reference in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. I know most Protestant Churches take a view on this, but not the Catholic Church. There are individual Catholics who do take sides (both of them by the way), but his is their right.
Click to expand...

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creator.html#CATECHESIS
I have always found paragraph 283 very interesting. It allows for the great things science has given the world. I've always seen Catholics as quite liberal on many issues -- certainly the acceptance of science is one of them (when compared to other Christian denominations).

I believe though that this is the closest the Catholic church comes to a stance -- basically that the world was created at some time, but it leaves the door open for how life developed after that creation.

superdave · Aug 29, 2002

Re: Re: Shock Jocks have gone too far this time

Originally posted by Ludahai
Most Protestants take the Bible literally (interesting because of how it was altered by the reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries) while the Catholics do not.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say that the use of the word "most" is remarkable, because the filters here won't let me say it's ******* stupid.

Speaking of literal, does the body of Christ taste like chicken?

GringoTex · Aug 29, 2002

Protestants are a stupidface.

dcaddick · Aug 29, 2002

Dear Galileo-

Whoops.

Sincerely-

The Vatican

SoFla Metro · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by Ludahai

Neither. THe Church is VERY fallable and we do not teach otherwise. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals and only when he invokes the "Doctrine of Papal Infallibility" for the lack of a better term.
Click to expand...

So in other words, the Pope is only infallible when he claims to be?

SoFla Metro · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Segroves

You know or you've heard from your Catholic indoctrinator?

I see your still equating Protestants with Fundamentalists

Way to go Linus Van I'msocluelessthatIcan'tevenseethatI'vegotmyheadupmyassandthinkeveryonewhoisn'taCatholicisasheetwearingstumpjumpingcousinfuckingsnakedancingclinicbombingbookburningfundamentalist
Click to expand...

Aren't they?

GringoTex · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by dcaddick
Dear Galileo-

Whoops.

Sincerely-

The Vatican
Click to expand...

Dear Martin Luther,

Whoops.

Sincerely,
Robert Tilton

Ludahai · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Segroves

You know or you've heard from your Catholic indoctrinator?
Click to expand...

What, referring to Protestants? I have had many discussions with a variety of Protestants, and while there is a wide range of views among Protestants, MOST I have spoken with take those view, yes. The Catholic Church does not.

I see your still equating Protestants with Fundamentalists
Click to expand...

You obviously have not been reading my posts.

Way to go Linus Van I'msocluelessthatIcan'tevenseethatI'vegotmyheadupmyassandthinkeveryonewhoisn'taCatholicisasheetwearingstumpjumpingcousinfuckingsnakedancingclinicbombingbookburningfundamentalist
Click to expand...

Hey, more personal attacks. Nice debate style.

Ludahai · Aug 29, 2002

Re: Re: Re: Shock Jocks have gone too far this time

Originally posted by superdave

I'm going to say that the use of the word "most" is remarkable, because the filters here won't let me say it's ******* stupid.

Speaking of literal, does the body of Christ taste like chicken?
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain why you have a problem with it? Hard to debate someone who denounces a statement without a rationalization for it.

Ludahai · Aug 29, 2002

Originally posted by SoFla Metro
So in other words, the Pope is only infallible when he claims to be?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes so long as he is commenting on matters of faith and morals.

wu-tang beez · Aug 29, 2002

I included my friend in this discussion that's not on this board. These were his comments:

well, i'm no mathematician so i can't speak to all of the 7 days and 16
billion years stuff. also because i don't really know anything about that.
if you ask me if evolution occurs i say absolutely. if you ask me if we
came from primates i would say i don't know but i lean towards probably
not. there isn't any scientific proof of that, and while it is interesting
to ponder the possibility, i just doubt that it happened. if someone were
to prove otherwise beyond any doubt, then of course i would accept it as
true. it just isn't something i usually spend a lot of time on. i'm more
interested in what we are evolving to than where we evolved from. being a
believer and to some degree a scientist, i tend to use certain clues from
christianity as to where science is headed. eventually more things will be
explained by science and i think it is possible that someday science and
christianity will find each other, and in doing so find some large truth.
maybe that will be the end, who knows.

for some time now i have recognized that religion and science are after the
same thing. the difference is in the approach. religion has far more
power than science because faith has far more power than just about
anything, but religion also works from an a priori belief structure which
causes it to move more slowly. science is much more exacting, unbiased and
methodical, leaving fewer stones unturned, but sometimes it skips past
things which require more time to study. also, religion is after truth
from the perspective of faith, psychology, meditation and things of that
nature whereas science is practiced more directly in labs as well as in the
field. religion will always hinder or slow the advance of science and
science will always force religion to redefine its ideology to include new
findings. each teaches us something the other does not and both are
indispensable in the quest for what is true.

having said all of this, i base my faith on what i feel is the voice of our
creator (the conscience) and not on the black and white of the words in the
book. (i can see no other explanation for the human conscience and this
one seems to make a lot of sense.) the bible was not presented to us from
that which created us, but was written and bound by people who might
certainly have been inspired, but who are probably in many cases incorrect
and surely are mostly misunderstood or misread by the majority of people
today. folks want to read the bible and get recipe-type instructions on
how to live their lives, but books aren't normally read that way. you have
to read a book and take it as a whole to get the overall meaning the
author(s) intended. to me there is no legitimacy to claims that we should,
for instance, not let women 'preach the word' or that men should cut their
hair while women should not. the bible is full of such things, but the
overall tone of the bible is that we should be loving, kind, forgiving,
just in our dealings, honest, selfless and basically all of those same
things that actually make up the crux of almost all the world's religions.
so getting back to evolution, i would say that of course it isn't mentioned
in the bible and of course Genesis doesn't give an actual account of the
creation of the earth. come on, as a scientist we all know that for things
to work the way they do it was a lot more complicated than waving a magic
wand and saying so be it. our creator did not reveal the exact steps
required to create the universe, and who is to say we could even comprehend
it if it had been revealed, so basically any theory could fit into the
parable of Genesis. to me there is nothing in the bible that should cause
a lack of support for the big bang theory or red shift or anything else for
that matter. the truth is that we have no mention in the bible of exactly
how we or the earth were created.

another thing that gets me about people is that they say, "look at us and
look at apes. we were created in god's image and god isn't an ape!" this
is the most retarded argument. it is also supremely nearsighted. nobody
seems to understand that we probably are nowhere near done with our own
evolution. if we were created in our creator's image, do we really think
this is it? i say no. i think we are on our way to something else because
i can't imagine the creator to be bound by things like gender or race. the
creator, in my opinion, must be far more pure, more efficient than what we
are today. i'm not sure where we are headed, but if more people would look
at things in this manner, as if they were looking back on our present forms
from a perspective a million years from now, they may find it more easy to
accept the possibility of those things they currently are too closed-minded
to fathom.
Click to expand...

TRC Real Sociedad · Aug 30, 2002

Homer 3:14

Forgive them Jebus, they know not $hit about anything.