Catholics are coming home

Deacon's Bench ^ | September 6, 2009 | DEACON GREG KANDRA

[Zionist Conspirator]

The primordial earth was much larger than it currently is. When it did come together (let’s assume that the orbit was stable and consistent), then it may have taken a billion years to revolve once (the first day). As it started to contract (remember the figure skater), the speed of rotation increased. The second day may have been 500 million years. The third 250 million years and so on. No violation of Genesis.

So here's the crux of the matter: to you the universe formed "naturally." This is because you are a uniformitarian who believes that scientists, by looking at the world that exists today, are seeing the same processes that brought it into existence in the first place. This reduces Genesis to "theological truths" and historical and scientific error.

The creation of the universe began with Yehi 'or (that's fiat lux to you) and concluded with the creation of Adam and Eve on the Sixth Day. Until the universe was fully formed and created at the end of those six days the laws of nature as we know them did not exist. As I have stated numerous times on this forum the original human gestation period was a matter of moments, and Adam and Eve brought forth their first five children with two acts of copulation on that Sixth Day (the human gestation period was lengthened to nine months as a punishment for the sin).

The world as it originally slipped from G-d's hands is beyond the purview of science, and all the more so the coming-into-being of that world. Your stubborn insistence on turning the supernatural formation of the universe into a natural phenomenon is uncalled for, but expected.

Have you a reply regarding the length of each day?

Sure. Each "evening" was twelve hours and each "morning" was twelve hours. You know what an "hour" is, right? Probably not. An "hour" is by definition "one twelfth of a day/night" (the absolute hour we know today is a medieval Arabic invention). In the winter daytime hours are short and nighttime hours are long. In the summer the opposite is the case.

But you're missing the point. You want to define "day" as zillions and zillions of years so you can believe the universe formed "naturally," when "nature" properly speaking didn't even exist until after the six days.

[Petronski]

You want to define...

Mindreading?

That's not permitted on the Religion forum.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You said Catholics deserved having this guy do this. Even if you disagree with Catholics, you really think we deserved him doing that? That is just sick.

Yes. People who believe the "old testament" is parables and fables but that the "new testament" is the "literal word of G-d" deserve both that fellow and the "J*sus Seminar." It's just a dose of your own irreverent medicine.

[Petronski]

People who believe the "old testament" is parables and fables but that the "new testament" is the "literal word of God"...

Who are those people?

Or did you leave out a simple modifier ("some")?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Why? There's no inherent contradiction between science and any of those things, evolution included.

I repeat: I am not primarily an anti-evolutionist. I am primarily an exponent of the first eleven chapters Genesis being literal history. I reject any theology that does this, whether it is "evolutionary" or not.

Per example, Adam being created from `afar and Eve from his side as he slept are historical facts, not theological parables (though they are loaded with theological meaning). If you come up with some non-evolutionary origin story that denies this then you'll learn what my focus is.

Are you aware that your friend vladimir998 is doesn't seem to agree with you?

[Petronski]

I repeat: I am not primarily an anti-evolutionist. I am primarily an exponent of the first eleven chapters Genesis being literal history. I reject any theology that does this, whether it is "evolutionary" or not.

Have you begun to gather that I don't care?

I was responding to refute the insinuation that believing in evolution means evolution happened without Divine interference.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I was responding to refute the insinuation that believing in evolution means evolution happened without Divine interference.

Of course one may believe that evolution happened with Divine "interference." But to do so one must reject the historical and scientific inerrancy of Genesis. So big whoop.

[Petronski]

...scientific inerrancy of Genesis...

Uh, yeah.

Okay.

[Zionist Conspirator]

...scientific inerrancy of Genesis...

Uh, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

John 6 is obviously a spiritual allegory.

[Petronski]

John 6 is obviously a spiritual allegory.

Are you a Christian?

[Ransomed]

“It’s just a dose of your own irreverent medicine.”

So because we don’t believe a certain way, it is your opinion that it was deserved that some sick degenerate put a nail in something we consider holy. That’ll teach us, eh?

Freegards

[Zionist Conspirator]

So because we don’t believe a certain way, it is your opinion that it was deserved that some sick degenerate put a nail in something we consider holy. That’ll teach us, eh?

If you don't believe Genesis teaches literal, historical, "scientific" truth, then you have no business believing in something like the "real presence." Either the supernatural exists or it does not.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Are you a Christian?

Lol! Now you're starting to sound like one of "those awful people from Arkansas!"

It isn't necessary to be a chr*stian to recognize hypocrisy when one sees it. As a matter of fact, chr*stianity seems to blind its adherents to hypocrisy.

[Petronski]

Your continued effort to couple your literal view of Genesis with Transubstantiation is bizarre, since the Catechism does not claim any “scientific inerrancy” of Transubstantiation.

Or do you have a paragraph number I might have overlooked?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Your continued effort to couple your literal view of Genesis with Transubstantiation is bizarre, since the Catechism does not claim any “scientific inerrancy” of Transubstantiation.

So there is no change then, and the "real presence" is symbolic (like Genesis).

[Petronski]

It isn't necessary to be a Christian to recognize hypocrisy when one sees it.

I'm just at a loss as to why I would take guidance on the New Testament from someone who doesn't believe it.

I don't ask Hindus about the Torah either.

[Petronski]

The change is real, and only perceptible to science in rare and miraculous cases.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm just at a loss as to why I would take guidance on the New Testament from someone who doesn't believe it.

I'm at a loss as to why a religion would call classify a book as its "scripture" and then insist it contains errors. Maybe you guys should just jettison the Hebrew Bible? That would be better than claiming that G-d can't tell the truth.

[Petronski]

I'm at a loss as to why a religion would call classify a book as its "scripture" and then insist it contains errors.

The Catholic Church does not do that.

You are conflating non-literal interpretation with a declaration of errors.

[Ransomed]

“If you don’t believe Genesis teaches literal, historical, “scientific” truth, then you have no business believing in something like the “real presence.” Either the supernatural exists or it does not.”

Telling someone what they should believe or not is fine with me. Taking something from them that they consider holy and putting a nail through it isn’t. Thinking that they deserve it is sick.

Freegards