63% Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[Dark Knight]

Yes, we all understand it was not clear to you. Nonetheless, I used the correct notation. (At least in terms of American legal usage. I'm only guessing from your hat that you may be posting from Australia; I honestly don't know if punctuation rules are the same there. If not, I'll be happy to learn what you would have done instead.)

For the record, I deleted the second half of the passage only because of length. I don't happen to agree with you that the quote seems "worse" because of the omission. The first half of the email is a straw man argument; the straw man is demolished in the second half, but a straw man is still just a straw man.

(Sorry, Top Gunner. I know you said "enough." But I'm still being accused of having done something wrong here. I'll stop now.)

You've gotten hooked on 'straw men.' Maybe if you say it enough times, it becomes one, right? :crazy:

 

[Nova]

You're most excused, hehe.

You are talking about the old concept of "limbo." That was never officially Church Doctrine, only an idea/theory by some Church leaders. It was wholeheartedly rejected by Pope Benedict a couple of years ago as not existing and not something that the anyone in the church should teach, for it puts a limit on God's mercy, which can be limitless. (Not always, otherwise there'd be no point in Hell, but that's another discussion.) So it isn't even put forth as an idea or theory, any more, within the church. (We're a denomination, not a religion, by the way, but I know what you meant.)

What IS Church Doctrine is that a child under the age of 7 is not capable of sinning as their moral reasoning has not properly developed enough, GENERALLY speaking, to make an informed choice as to what is a sin or not a sin. Age 7 is considered the "age of reason." Obviously, your child's results may vary. So yes, children obviously go to heaven, and yes, even unbaptized ones can go, too, as God Wills, according to official Church Doctrine.

I'm glad to hear that, DK! To me, that seems much more compatible with many of the Church's other teachings on the nature of God, and of course I'd like to see grieving parents given any comfort that can be offered to them.

But Irish Mist's original query was an example of the age-old question of why, if God is omnipotent, do bad things happen to good people? Even the greatest Church thinkers have struggled with that issue, along with everyday people of great faith. Your reply was correct according to Church teaching, of course, but in fairness to IM, almost everyone finds the matter challenging.

(Sorry about the denomination/religion mix up. I should have been more precise. As you know, I make no judgments as to whether any denomination is more or less "authentically" Christian.)

 

[Nova]

You've gotten hooked on 'straw men.' Maybe if you say it enough times, it becomes one, right? :crazy:

Just for you, I looked up synonyms. Unfortunately, they are not nearly as commonly used and may not be clear to all readers here:

informal fallacy (this is a category of which "straw man" is one example)
straw dog argument
scarecrow argument
wooden dummy argument

and in the UK: "Aunt Sally".

All of these mean mistating the opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it, as we see here and in most arguments against the TofE.

Feel free to substitute at will as you read my future posts.

 

[Dark Knight]

I'm glad to hear that, DK! To me, that seems much more compatible with many of the Church's other teachings on the nature of God, and of course I'd like to see grieving parents given any comfort that can be offered to them.

But Irish Mist's original query was an example of the age-old question of why, if God is omnipotent, do bad things happen to good people? Even the greatest Church thinkers have struggled with that issue, along with everyday people of great faith. Your reply was correct according to Church teaching, of course, but in fairness to IM, almost everyone finds the matter challenging.

(Sorry about the denomination/religion mix up. I should have been more precise. As you know, I make no judgments as to whether any denomination is more or less "authentically" Christian.)

Oh I don't disagree that it is challenging to people. Satan gets off easy, unfortunately, (and God gets the blame, instead) since we know from the Book of Job that he causes many of our maladies, as he is allowed some power until Armageddon. Scripture also indicates that what we suffer is an act of love in itself, as it purifies us like fire purifies silver and gold to make it more valuable, so we become better humans, and Christians, as a result, if we turn to God. I can only imagine how devastating losing a child is, I am just saying God's child went through the same thing, so rather than "why us" it should be "why NOT us?" After all, to God, death is not a punishment for those who love Him. He knows where we go when we die, and it is FAR better than earth is! As Jesus also said, "it rains on the just AND the unjust." And that those who die tragically are not more sinful than those who live long lives (using a real life event where several men died when a tower fell on them as an example.) There is simply no correlation. Where we go when we die is more important than how long we live on earth.

ETA: Before someone misunderstands and jumps on me, I didn't mean losing a child is an act of love, I was answering Nova's greater comment of "why bad things happen to good people." But certainly God can help us turn even a tragedy such as that into something good. We see that happen all of the time on here. We'd never have an Amber Alert were it not for a tragedy. How many lives has that saved?

 

[Dark Knight]

Just for you, I looked up synonyms. Unfortunately, they are not nearly as commonly used and may not be clear to all readers here:

informal fallacy (this is a category of which "straw man" is one example)
straw dog argument
scarecrow argument
wooden dummy argument

and in the UK: "Aunt Sally".

All of these mean mistating the opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it, as we see here and in most arguments against the TofE.

Feel free to substitute at will as you read my future posts.

LOL! I'd like you to use Aunt Sally a bit more frequently, please.

(Out of context, that sounded REALLY bad!) :crazy:

 

[Nova]

Oh I don't disagree that it is challenging to people. Satan gets off easy, unfortunately, (and God gets the blame, instead) since we know from the Book of Job that he causes many of our maladies, as he is allowed some power until Armageddon. Scripture also indicates that what we suffer is an act of love in itself, as it purifies us like fire purifies silver and gold to make it more valuable, so we become better humans, and Christians, as a result, if we turn to God. I can only imagine how devastating losing a child is, I am just saying God's child went through the same thing, so rather than "why us" it should be "why NOT us?" After all, to God, death is not a punishment for those who love Him. He knows where we go when we die, and it is FAR better than earth is! As Jesus also said, "it rains on the just AND the unjust." And that those who die tragically are not more sinful than those who live long lives (using a real life event where several men died when a tower fell on them as an example.) There is simply no correlation. Where we go when we die is more important than how long we live on earth.

ETA: Before someone misunderstands and jumps on me, I didn't mean losing a child is an act of love, I was answering Nova's greater comment of "why bad things happen to good people." But certainly God can help us turn even a tragedy such as that into something good. We see that happen all of the time on here. We'd never have an Amber Alert were it not for a tragedy. How many lives has that saved?

Lots of thought-provoking ideas (as well as great compassion) in your post, DK, and YOU KNOW I'd love to spend 100 pages discussing them! But we'd very quickly strain the mods' patience with religious discussions.

Maybe someday... Doesn't your parish send missions to Southern California?

 

[Dark Knight]

Lots of thought-provoking ideas (as well as great compassion) in your post, DK, and YOU KNOW I'd love to spend 100 pages discussing them! But we'd very quickly strain the mods' patience with religious discussions.

Maybe someday... Doesn't your parish send missions to Southern California?

I'll have to check into the Southern Cal missions, lol! I'm sure we'd have quite the discussion! Thanks for the compliments, too. Catholics (and Christians in general) should be compassionate, first and foremost, rather than wanting to smite people right off the bat, lol.

And whatever good was in my post, I thank God for, as I always ask for His guidance on such posts, via the Holy Spirit. I should ask for that anytime I post...I wouldn't get myself in such trouble then, lol.

 

[kline]

Why Bad things happen to good people or why God allows it is complicated though Darkknight explained it well.
Ive always understood its simply that though God is a loving God we are not puppets and men have Free Will.
Also in this world Satan definately has influence over people and events if an opening is left for him to do so.
I beleive some of these attrocities we read about on these forums are pure products of Satan's handiwork perpetuated with the clear intention of making us despair and question our Faith.(the Groene case comes to mind)

Fortunately though, one of the good things about Faith is the consolation of knowing how the story ends.

 

[Dark Knight]

Why Bad things happen to good people or why God allows it is complicated though Darkknight explained it well.
Ive always understood its simply that though God is a loving God we are not puppets and men have Free Will.
Also in this world Satan definately has influence over people and events if an opening is left for him to do so.
I beleive some of these attrocities we read about on these forums are pure products of Satan's handiwork perpetuated with the clear intention of making us despair and question our Faith.(the Groene case comes to mind)

Fortunately though, one of the good things about Faith is the consolation of knowing how the story ends.

Thank you and I agree with your sentiments.

 

[Nova]

I'll have to check into the Southern Cal missions, lol! I'm sure we'd have quite the discussion! Thanks for the compliments, too. Catholics (and Christians in general) should be compassionate, first and foremost, rather than wanting to smite people right off the bat, lol.

And whatever good was in my post, I thank God for, as I always ask for His guidance on such posts, via the Holy Spirit. I should ask for that anytime I post...I wouldn't get myself in such trouble then, lol.

Oh, I think God has a sense of humor, don't you? He probably doesn't mind watching us get into a little trouble now and then. (I am not suggesting, of course, that God laughs at genuine misfortune.)

Even if I believed in Satan, blaming him for evil doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people. If God created everything, then He created Satan; if everything is God's Will, then Satan's supposed actions are God's Will as well. Even in Job, the suffering visited on Job by the devil is done so with God's explicit permission.

As a symbol on which we may project our fear and anger, Satan works fine, but he doesn't solve any logical problems (despite 20 centuries of legalistic arguments and the big "borrow" from Zoroastrianism).

 

[Dark Knight]

Oh, I think God has a sense of humor, don't you? He probably doesn't mind watching us get into a little trouble now and then. (I am not suggesting, of course, that God laughs at genuine misfortune.)

Even if I believed in Satan, blaming him for evil doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people. If God created everything, then He created Satan; if everything is God's Will, then Satan's supposed actions are God's Will as well. Even in Job, the suffering visited on Job by the devil is done so with God's explicit permission.

As a symbol on which we may project our fear and anger, Satan works fine, but he doesn't solve any logical problems (despite 20 centuries of legalistic arguments and the big "borrow" from Zoroastrianism).

If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, setting in motion the chain of events that likely led to the necessity of Christ being born. Since Satan knows he is NOT more powerful than God, and that his fate is sealed at the end of time, all Satan can do is try to take as many of God's beloved creatures that were formed in His own image (us) with him as possible. He has no other purpose but to tempt us and lie to us and corrupt us in hopes that we reject God just like he did. Satan even said to Jesus that he has power over the cities and countries while on earth (when Satan was tempting Jesus in the desert.)

 

[Nova]

If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, setting in motion the chain of events that likely led to the necessity of Christ being born. Since Satan knows he is NOT more powerful than God, and that his fate is sealed at the end of time, all Satan can do is try to take as many of God's beloved creatures that were formed in His own image (us) with him as possible. He has no other purpose but to tempt us and lie to us and corrupt us in hopes that we reject God just like he did. Satan even said to Jesus that he has power over the cities and countries while on earth (when Satan was tempting Jesus in the desert.)

The evangelical denomination in which I was raised didn't offer quite so many details, but they did "teach" Satan and I understand the general concept.

The logical problem, however, is how, if God is wholly "good," He created beings (Satan and man) capable of evil. (Yes, I understand Free Will, but freedom to do something isn't the same thing as the actual inclination to do it.) Other religions solve this problem by saying that God is "great" and/or "all" rather than good, per se.

 

[Dark Knight]

The evangelical denomination in which I was raised didn't offer quite so many details, but they did "teach" Satan and I understand the general concept.

The logical problem, however, is how, if God is wholly "good," He created beings (Satan and man) capable of evil. (Yes, I understand Free Will, but freedom to do something isn't the same thing as the actual inclination to do it.) Other religions solve this problem by saying that God is "great" and/or "all" rather than good, per se.

I'm surprised your evangelical church didn't go into more details about HOW Satan came to be.

Remember that we were not created as sinners. The first time mankind ever sinned was due to the temptation of who? That's right, Satan, as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. So he has been tempting us to sin from the very beginning. I don't know that our fallibility and free will, as you mentioned, necessarily makes us INCLINED to do evil, however. We're just not strong enough to resist Satan's temptation without God's help. Hence the birth of Christ. People CAN and often DO go for periods of time without sinning, however we are still stained with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, brought about by Satan. Hence, again, the need for Christ's birth as "the new Adam." And obviously God gave the angels, even Archangels such as Satan, enough free will to rebel against him, just like us humans do all too often. Why? Only God understands that, as it would probably beyond our understanding, anyways.

Also, do you remember the bible verse (I cannot remember it offhand) where Jesus says there cannot be belief in Him without belief also in Satan? And that there cannot be belief in Heaven without belief in Hell. Jesus went on to say that there cannot be one without the other. So in order to believe in Him and Heaven, we must also believe in the existance of His opposite, Satan and Hell. I always found that interesting.

It's also interesting that at the end of time, it will be another Archangel, Michael, who defeats Satan, who was even greater than Michael, at one time. Having God on his side makes the difference.

 

[Nova]

I'm surprised your evangelical church didn't go into more details about HOW Satan came to be.

Of course, I don't claim my memory is perfect. We were certainly taught that Satan was cast out of Heaven because of his pride, but in general, angels weren't discussed much except when they appeared in Bible stories.

Remember that we were not created as sinners. The first time mankind ever sinned was due to the temptation of who? That's right, Satan, as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. So he has been tempting us to sin from the very beginning. I don't know that our fallibility and free will, as you mentioned, necessarily makes us INCLINED to do evil, however. We're just not strong enough to resist Satan's temptation without God's help. Hence the birth of Christ. People CAN and often DO go for periods of time without sinning, however we are still stained with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, brought about by Satan. Hence, again, the need for Christ's birth as "the new Adam." And obviously God gave the angels, even Archangels such as Satan, enough free will to rebel against him, just like us humans do all too often. Why? Only God understands that, as it would probably beyond our understanding, anyways.

Whether evil originates in Man or Satan, the logical problem remains the same. If God is perfectly and wholly good, how can He create beings (whether Satan or Man) that are not? As you say, perhaps only God (and/or faith in Him) can answer that question. I mention the issue only as a logical problem; I'm not suggesting anyone should become an atheist because there is evil in the world (an overreaction, IMHO).

Also, do you remember the bible verse (I cannot remember it offhand) where Jesus says there cannot be belief in Him without belief also in Satan? And that there cannot be belief in Heaven without belief in Hell. Jesus went on to say that there cannot be one without the other. So in order to believe in Him and Heaven, we must also believe in the existance of His opposite, Satan and Hell. I always found that interesting....

If we take this passage literally, it seems to say that good and evil are essential opposites; we might therefore expect both to come from God. It's an interesting idea (essential opposition) that is echoed in a lot of postmodern theory which holds that every thing automatically implies its opposite, that we are incapable to thinking otherwise. Some social construction theories point to the way we create social dichotomies (black/white, male/female, gay/straight) and note that we can't seem to define (or have) a "norm" without also identifying "otherness."

It's also interesting that at the end of time, it will be another Archangel, Michael, who defeats Satan, who was even greater than Michael, at one time. Having God on his side makes the difference.

Well, that inverts Zoroastrianism, which has a revelation of the End-Time that is not unlike that of the NT. But to the Zoroastrians, the good god wins in the end because he has Man on his side.

The specifics of the Christian Revelations is something else my early church training neglected. As a very broad rule and though some "born-again" sects are deeply immersed in "End-Time" thinking, evangelical denominations have a lot less dogma than Catholicism. Of course, they haven't been around as long, so perhaps we have to give them time.

 

[accordn2me]

<snip>
What IS Church Doctrine is that a child under the age of 7 is not capable of sinning as their moral reasoning has not properly developed enough, GENERALLY speaking, to make an informed choice as to what is a sin or not a sin. Age 7 is considered the "age of reason." Obviously, your child's results may vary. So yes, children obviously go to heaven, and yes, even unbaptized ones can go, too, as God Wills, according to official Church Doctrine.

I thought it was age twelve.

Has it been lowered, and if so, why?

7 or 12, who came up with those, and how?

 

[accordn2me]

If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, <snip>

I thought Satan and the other angels were banished from Heaven because they questioned God.

 

[Dark Knight]

I thought it was age twelve.

Has it been lowered, and if so, why?

7 or 12, who came up with those, and how?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

I thought Satan and the other angels were banished from Heaven because they questioned God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

 

[Dark Knight]

Whether evil originates in Man or Satan, the logical problem remains the same. If God is perfectly and wholly good, how can He create beings (whether Satan or Man) that are not? As you say, perhaps only God (and/or faith in Him) can answer that question. I mention the issue only as a logical problem; I'm not suggesting anyone should become an atheist because there is evil in the world (an overreaction, IMHO).

The being God created, man and the angels, are/were good. But He didn't create robot followers, so he gave angels and man the choice to reject Him if we so chose. Satan, then known as Lucifer, the most powerful angel, did choose to reject God. And mankind often does the same, sadly.

 

[Nova]

The being God created, man and the angels, are/were good. But He didn't create robot followers, so he gave angels and man the choice to reject Him if we so chose. Satan, then known as Lucifer, the most powerful angel, did choose to reject God. And mankind often does the same, sadly.

If a writer pens a novel in which evil deeds are recounted, from where does that evil originate? From within the writer's imagination, of course. This is not to say she would ever commit such deeds in real life, but if she is able to imagine them sufficiently to portray them accurately, she feels some sort of sympathy with the evil desires and actions she recounts. Sympathy is something we only feel for persons, things, etc. that are in some way similar to us. Any honest artist will tell you she has to write what she "knows," even if fictional characters sometimes seem to take on "a will of their own."

Now one may choose to believe that God's creative process is vastly different from any we can observe, but there's no logic in such a belief, only faith. In the alternative, we might better understand that God is All That Is, great rather than merely good.

 

[Dark Knight]

Now one may choose to believe that God's creative process is vastly different from any we can observe, but there's no logic in such a belief, only faith. In the alternative, we might better understand that God is All That Is, great rather than merely good.

God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. I certainly have no problems believing He is "great," and certainly His creative process is far beyond our comprehension. I'm sure you've heard the before meals prayer that begins, "God is great, God is good...." He is both!