31 Jan 09
John Paul II.
In Creation God Calls the World into Existence from Nothingness.
" ................ "
The account begins with the words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that is, the entire visible world. Then, in the description of the individual days, the expression recurs: "God said: Let there be...." Through the power of this word of the Creator , let there be," the visible world gradually arises. In the beginning the earth is "without form and void." Later, under the action of God's creative word, it becomes suitable for life and is filled with living beings, with plants and animals, in the midst of which God finally created man "in his own image" (Gen 1:27).
Above all, this text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn't contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest. Indeed, the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860129en.html
31 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWas this an ex cathedra proclamation, or just a case of "Simon didn't say..."?
John Paul II.
In Creation God Calls the World into Existence from Nothingness.
" ................ "
The account begins with the words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that is, the entire visible world. Then, in the description of the individual days, the expression recurs: "God said: Let there be...." Through the power of t p://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860129en.html
01 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”
John Paul II.
In Creation God Calls the World into Existence from Nothingness.
" ................ "
The account begins with the words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that is, the entire visible world. Then, in the description of the individual days, the expression recurs: "God said: Let there be...." Through the power of t p://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860129en.html
apparently Christ didn't think so, for here he states, quite clearly that he not only had read, acknowledged and gave credence to the actual act of creation, but taught others as well.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour interpretation of the Holy Scripture is too literal, I'm afraid ..... the quote you give does not refute the theory of evolution at all .... please.
And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he [b]who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and th ...[text shortened]... d, acknowledged and gave credence to the actual act of creation, but taught others as well.[/b][/b]
01 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeim so sorry but your attempts to validate your hypothesis are clearly refuted, not by my words, but by the words of the Christ himself, why, for there is nothing to interpret, the holy scriptures clearly indicate what Christ believed, taught and expected others also to give credence to, therefore you cannot glibly ignore this nor evade it under the false guise of interpretations, for the words are quite clear and specific, so please. if you can offer an interpretation, with reference, to show that Christ held any other belief, then be my guest, otherwise you stand accused as having forsaken the actual teachings of the Christ and have adopted another, which is hardly surprising, is it?
Your interpretation of the Holy Scripture is too literal, I'm afraid ..... the quote you give does not refute the theory of evolution at all .... please.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePope John Paul II never denied that God created man and woman. In fact, it was central to his view his theology of the body that God made man and woman. Did you even both to read Ivanhoe's post?
im so sorry but your attempts to validate your hypothesis are clearly refuted, not by my words, but by the words of the Christ himself, why, for there is nothing to interpret, the holy scriptures clearly indicate what Christ believed, taught and expected others also to give credence to, therefore you cannot glibly ignore this nor evade it under the f ...[text shortened]... the actual teachings of the Christ and have adopted another, which is hardly surprising, is it?
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by Conrau Kperhaps then you can show, with reference where the scriptures state that Christ taught anything other than the creation account. we are Christians after all, interested in what Christ taught, not John Paul II
Pope John Paul II never denied that God created man and woman. In fact, it was central to his view his theology of the body that God made man and woman. Did you even both to read Ivanhoe's post?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are a nutjob.
perhaps then you can show, with reference where the scriptures state that Christ taught anything other than the creation account. we are Christians after all, interested in what Christ taught, not John Paul II
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes, i do not deny it, but where is the references my learned friend, for if Christ taught that Adam and Eve were created, as the Genesis account states, 'did you not read? in the beginning', then this surely contradicts not only a material view of human existence, for the account mentions nothing of an evolutionary process but also the churches attempt to harmonize and marry the two by stating that God used the evolutionary process. this is nothing but a scantily clad attempt to deny the divine element and rationalize the event, it has no foundation in scripture, let me say that again, no foundation in scripture. if you can provide any then let it be stated, otherwise, i hold that there is a contradiction in these different views and either one negates the other so that one is false, the other true. is it not so?
You are a nutjob.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't see why this is such a difficult problem for you. Pope John Paul II did not endorse a material view of 'human existence'. That I have had to say this twice is extremely frustrating. JPII was never a materialist nor a rationalist.
yes, i do not deny it, but where is the references my learned friend, for if Christ taught that Adam and Eve were created, as the Genesis account states, 'did you not read? in the beginning', then this surely contradicts not only a material view of human existence, for the account mentions nothing of an evolutionary process but also the churches atte ...[text shortened]... nt views and either one negates the other so that one is false, the other true. is it not so?
01 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Ki never said that he did! what i am saying for the third time is that a contradiction exists between the teaching of Christ and his endorsement of creation and the idea of the evolutionary hypothesis as a plausible account of the diversity of life! unless i have misunderstood, which is also possible, and i ask your forgiveness if this is the case, the original poster stated that there is not!
I don't see why this is such a difficult problem for you. Pope John Paul II did not endorse a material view of 'human existence'. That I have had to say this twice is extremely frustrating. JPII was never a materialist nor a rationalist.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, instead he should have answered to the question about divorce "man descends from apes". that would have been really relevant.
And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” In reply he said: “Did you not read that he [b]who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and th ...[text shortened]... d, acknowledged and gave credence to the actual act of creation, but taught others as well.[/b][/b]
when talking to children you use whatever material you have available. you don't give sex education to 3 year old's but you mention the stork story.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually if you noticed, although given your apparent lack of scriptural references i doubt that you did, the question although about Jewish customs is practically irrelevant to the discussion at hand, nope, just another scantily clad attempt to deffer attention away from the real question, that being the apparent contradiction between the teachings of the Christ, and those who try to merge the evolutionary hypothesis with it, for they are diametrically opposite, you must either accept the one and reject the other or explain, with reference, why they are not incongruous!
yes, instead he should have answered to the question about divorce "man descends from apes". that would have been really relevant.
when talking to children you use whatever material you have available. you don't give sex education to 3 year old's but you mention the stork story.
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieY'know, robbie, it would be a lot easier to read what you say if you actually used punctuation.
actually if you noticed, although given your apparent lack of scriptural references i doubt that you did, the question although about Jewish customs is practically irrelevant to the discussion at hand, nope, just another scantily clad attempt to deffer attention away from the real question, that being the apparent contradiction between the teachings ...[text shortened]... er accept the one and reject the other or explain, with reference, why they are not incongruous!
01 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by randolphOK Randolph, whatever, but its a side issue like Ivanhoe's, 'that's you're interpretation', or Zhalaniiiis, 'he was talking about divorce', or, Conrads, 'you're a nutjob'. All just side issues with practically no relevance to the actual issue! Therefore will someone please state why the acceptance of evolutionary hypothesis should be taken as congruent with the teachings of the Christ, for as i have stated, they are diametrically opposite. Robbie should have a capital R, by virtue of it being a proper noun!
Y'know, robbie, it would be a lot easier to read what you say if you actually used punctuation.