Welcome to Gaia! ::


Today in our modern times, experiencing still the metaphorical tidal waves of the Enlightenment in the choppy waters of our current thought, exists a most pernicious and errant lie harbored even by otherwise well meaning, but liberal "religious" folk. This repungant heresy makes a strike at the very heart of the Christian Faith, which centers itself entirely around the Sorrowful Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ and on His Most Glorious Ressurection and Ascension into Heaven.

Ask yourselves, my dear readers: For what, indeed, for whom did Jesus die? Jesus suffered and died for the sake of us poor sinners. Jesus poured out a fountain of Blood and Water from His Very Side to purify the souls of us poor men, born from our First Parents into Original Sin, and all its pitiable effects, including but not limited to the expulsion of our First Parents from Paradise, and thus our subsequent lack of that Original Justification, which is restored to us only through the waters of our Baptism, which restores us to Grace, as did the waters that poured from the side of Our Lord when pierced by the cruel lance of that soldier on Golgotha.

Yet, if we are to believe in Original Sin, then we must believe in our First Parents, and if we are to believe in our First Parents, then their miraculous creation by God. But "no," says the modern Heretic. "The 'first parents' were not made miraculously by God, but from pre-existant organisms! Yea, there were not even one set of first parents, not did they exist at the same time!"

In so doing, they deny Original Sin, and therefore our own lack of original justification, and therefore the need for God's redemptive suffering.

Yet, do only the extreme liberal Christians, and those that hate the Church put credence in such an abominable heresy? Nay! Even many Catholics, those who take refuge on the Ark of Salvation, established by Our Blessed Lord by Divine Mandate when He said to The Holy Apostle St. Peter, "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church...and the Jaws of Hell shall not prevail against it," believe in such a cursed lie holding as their excuse a lack of definitive definition by the Magisterium.

Yet, this is truly false. The Vicar of Our Lord, the Successor of St. Peter has on many occassions written and spoken against this abominable error, as has been directed to me by a certain other Catholic. See here.

Let noone be fooled by the sophistry of those who advocate such lies. Even against this most dark falsehood, the light of the Church, the very Foundation of the Truth, prevails.
Geez barry, it's not organic chemistry's fault that evolution is a heck of a lot more practical.

Aged Pants

9,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Profitable 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Quote:
Yea, there were not even one set of first parents, not did they exist at the same time!"

You are not referring to Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? They really are not originators, merely the latest examples of organisms whose lineage we can trace to all humans?

Though, I do quite like the prose. Ignoring the whole messy business about denying what our experience teaches about the world.
This thread was targeted primarily towards Orthodox/Catholics who believe in it. Tradition says that it's a lie.
Reality contradicts tradition. Which do we go with? (This shouldn't be a hard question.)
Steampunk Patashu
Reality contradicts tradition. Which do we go with? (This shouldn't be a hard question.)


We've been over this in the Parmenides thread, SP. How do you know what Reality is? If one is a Catholic, then one says that Reality is that which the Church dictates unto us, and the reality according to the Church is that which I have presented.

Yet some Catholics run contrary to the same. That is the point I am getting at, comrade.

Aged Pants

9,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Profitable 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Philosophus Vir
This thread was targeted primarily towards Orthodox/Catholics who believe in it. Tradition says that it's a lie.

I gather, I just don't think the citing of the scientific "Adam" and "Eve" is fair because their role is quite different to that of Adam and Eve. It is a side issue, but I don't think you help your argument if you misconstrue the roles of M. Eve and Y-c. Adam: it is quite simple for descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve to be recognised as M. Eve and Y-c Adam by scientists.
A Lost Iguana
I gather, I just don't think the citing of the scientific "Adam" and "Eve" is fair because their role is quite different to that of Adam and Eve. It is a side issue, but I don't think you help your argument if you misconstrue the roles of M. Eve and Y-c. Adam: it is quite simple for descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve to be recognised as M. Eve and Y-c Adam by scientists.


You are speaking science to a philosopher. Do you mind putting that in English?
Philosophus Vir
Steampunk Patashu
Reality contradicts tradition. Which do we go with? (This shouldn't be a hard question.)


We've been over this in the Parmenides thread, SP. How do you know what Reality is? If one is a Catholic, then one says that Reality is that which the Church dictates unto us, and the reality according to the Church is that which I have presented.

Yet some Catholics run contrary to the same. That is the point I am getting at, comrade.

I really don't think that being told what reality is changes what reality is. Even if it is religion.
Steampunk Patashu
I really don't think that being told what reality is changes what reality is. Even if it is religion.


I suppose what I am getting at is this: How do you judge what reality really is? I say "By giving ear to the Church, for she hath divinely instituted authority do discern what is error from what is truth," whereas you say "Sensory speculation."
Philosophus Vir
Steampunk Patashu
I really don't think that being told what reality is changes what reality is. Even if it is religion.


I suppose what I am getting at is this: How do you judge what reality really is? I say "By giving ear to the Church, for she hath divinely instituted authority do discern what is error from what is truth," whereas you say "Sensory speculation."

How do you judge what a painting looks like? You look at it.
Well, I'm certain Johnny-P the Second was a liberal in your eyes, but he still was the Vicar of Christ.
Steampunk Patashu
Philosophus Vir
Steampunk Patashu
I really don't think that being told what reality is changes what reality is. Even if it is religion.


I suppose what I am getting at is this: How do you judge what reality really is? I say "By giving ear to the Church, for she hath divinely instituted authority do discern what is error from what is truth," whereas you say "Sensory speculation."

How do you judge what a painting looks like? You look at it.

Yeah, but the painting may be transubstantiated. gonk
Steampunk Patashu
How do you judge what a painting looks like? You look at it.


Presume that the painting is one of them modern works. How do you know what the artist meant when he created it? Do you judge it for yourself? Nay. You ask the artist, or if the artist is not around, the person to whom that artist directly told the meaning of the painting.
Philosophus Vir
Steampunk Patashu
How do you judge what a painting looks like? You look at it.


Presume that the painting is one of them modern works. How do you know what the artist meant when he created it? Do you judge it for yourself? Nay. You ask the artist, or if the artist is not around, the person to whom that artist directly told the meaning of the painting.

If the painting has no worth unless you ask the artist, it's not a very good painting, now is it?
(On a coincidental note, that's my view on postmodern works in general.)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum