PurpleYouko responds to me:
quote:
The topic of this thread is "Christian" and or "Creationist" images of God and their consistency or inconsistency with the TOE.
No, it isn't. It's "Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)" When did "theism" become equivalent to "Christian"? And when did "creationist" become equivalent to "Genesis literalism"?
You're engaging in the logical error of the excluded middle. There is a third option.
But even if we accept your claim, are you saying that Catholics aren't Christian? That they don't believe god created?
The mere existence of Pope John Paul II disproves your thesis. Why do you keep clinging to it?
quote:
Does it? Are you so sure?
Yes. Please read the Magisterium (JPII) and the Encyclical (Pius XII). The official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life on this planet.
quote:
Are you saying that the present Pope IS the Catholic church?
No, I'm saying over fifty years of Catholic cogitation upon the subject has come to the conclusion that there is no other scientific theory to explain the diverisifcation of life on this planet other than evolution.
But to get to your subtext, are you seriously saying that the head of a religion isn't the head of a religion?
quote:
This is apparently the "official" Catholic position on evolution as I understand it.
Then you misunderstand.
The Pope overrules the bishops. That's one of the perks of being the Pope. You're the head of the group.
Does the leader not get to be the leader?
As JPII said, in reiterating the statement of Pius XII and agreeing with it, "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation."
Doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say? There will always be those who disagree, but doesn't the leader get to be the one with the final say?
What is the point of being the leader if you don't get to lead?
quote:
Still claims that the soul was created by God and put into man at some point.
I never said it didn't.
Since when has evolution ever said anything about a soul? To do that, it would have to perform experiments upon souls and so far, we have never been able to detect one let alone stick it in a box and poke it to see what it does.
Remember what I said: The diversification of life. I chose that phrasing for a reason. Actually, for many reasons. It points out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about what happens to life after it comes into existence just as chemistry is not about the origin of atoms but rather about what happens to atoms after they come into existence. It also points out that it is about how life changes from one form into another and not about such metaphysical concepts as a "soul" and "vocation."
That's how Catholicism gets away with it. Evolution created the body. God created the soul.
And since evolution doesn't even know what a "soul" is, there is no reason to deny the Catholic position.
quote:
One man does not a religion make!
Yes, he does. That's what "ex cathedra" means. I'm not saying that the statements from Pius XII and JPII regarding evolution were made ex cathedra. I'm simply pointing out that your statement is directly contradicted by the existence of the Pope. He does have the power to define the religion all on his own.
That's why there are different catholic religions (such as the one Mel Gibson follows as well as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches...they all disagreed with the Pope over something and thus splintered off.)
quote:
Have you ever heard of boolean logic?
Of course.
Since when did language follow the rules of Boolean logic? Take a look at the use of "or." In standard English, it really means "XOR," but that's not what we say. When someone asks if you would like the soup or the salad, you are not being offered the option of having both.
In logic, a double negative is a positive and while that is a supposed "rule" in English, it is routinely broken. And in many other langauges, you have to have a double negative or you aren't following the rules correctly of how to construct a negative. In Spanish, a negative statement is made by negating everything: "Yo no conozco nada" and not "Yo no conozco cualquier cosa."
If you're going to use English, you must be cognizant of the way in which stock phrases are interpreted. If you are going to use an unusual interpretation, then it is best to indicate that you are doing so or perhaps recasting your sentence to avoid the use of the stock phrase that might be misinterpreted.
quote:
quote:
But not even Christianity believes that. God doesn't create everything.
Maybe some branches of Christianity don't believe that, however Christian Creationists do and that was the exact definition used in my previous reply.
Then there is no such thing as free will. And among the most fervent Christians such as those that advocate a literal reading of Genesis, they most certainly do not claim that god creates evil.
God does not create everything.
quote:
"or" doesn't come into it when referring to absolute creationism.
But "creationism" does not mean "absolute creationism" (whatever that means...I think you mean "literal Genesis.") This is why you keep erring. Logical error of the excluded middle.
Read the topic. Where do we find any statement that we're talking only about a literal reading of Genesis and only such? While such certainly is a theistic framework and a foundation for a certain type of creationism, it is by no means the only one.
quote:
If the answers weren't there then I was looking in the wrong place!
But you are assuming that there are only two options. There are at least four.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
