Evolution and the soul...

[Kadagar_AV]

I wondered about this after some christians claimed that yes indeed, you COULD be a christian and believe in evolution.

This had made me wonder...

Have I got this right now, christianity is much based on two things:
1. There is a heaven.
2. We have a soul.

With me this far?

Good, so a christian who then believes in evolution, at what stage did we get the soul?

Take the neanderthals as an example, not far from us on the evolutionary tree, and they had rituals for their dead. Would they be in heaven?

Have christian science yet determined an exact point as to where we grew a soul, or should we expect heaven to be absolutely PACKED with dinosaurs (now, that is actually a selling concept if you ask me. Go to heaven and hang out with ****** DINOSAURZ!!).

[Fragony]

For a christian that it's too easy to counter that one, does a big fat T-rex believe in god? No, a big fat T-Rex doesn't and that's kinda is a requirement to go to heaven. It's safe there, no big fat T-rex there

[Centurion1]

You guys don;t know anything about most major religions actual current dogma so it simply makes telling you anything annoying and fruitless. LOLZ RELIGION IS STUPID is at the end of the day the summation of your arguments. This isn't reddit.

I am Catholic and as a denomination our church leadership believes in evolution.

First of all Fragony animals do not have souls so no kadagar and fragony, no dinosaurs would be in heaven because as I am sure you know most scientists posit that they were not sentient intelligent life. Also Fragony in my christian religion at least it does not matter what religion in terms of going to heaven only that you live a life according to the right values (i.e. a good person)

Religion dictates that humanity is defined by our sentience and thusly our souls. Souls and sentience are tied in together and in the mind of religion it is our soul which separates us from simply being an intelligent animal and allows for things like free will or other uniquely human concepts.. Sentient beings have souls which allows for alien races to be converted I suppose.

[Papewaio]

So an AI would have a soul and a human whom is no longer sentient either by genetics/accident or drug damage/impairment to the brain is soulless?

[Fragony]

I didn't intend to attack your religion Centurion1, sorry if it looked like that but I didn't mean to

[Kadagar_AV]

You guys don;t know anything about most major religions actual current dogma so it simply makes telling you anything annoying and fruitless. LOLZ RELIGION IS STUPID is at the end of the day the summation of your arguments. This isn't reddit.

I am Catholic and as a denomination our church leadership believes in evolution.

First of all Fragony animals do not have souls so no kadagar and fragony, no dinosaurs would be in heaven because as I am sure you know most scientists posit that they were not sentient intelligent life. Also Fragony in my christian religion at least it does not matter what religion in terms of going to heaven only that you live a life according to the right values (i.e. a good person)

Religion dictates that humanity is defined by our sentience and thusly our souls. Souls and sentience are tied in together and in the mind of religion it is our soul which separates us from simply being an intelligent animal and allows for things like free will or other uniquely human concepts.. Sentient beings have souls which allows for alien races to be converted I suppose.

Well, that doesn't answer my question.

WHEN in the evolutionary chain did we get a soul? That animals don't have one but that the human variation do I have understood, what I wonder is what line is drawn between animal and human on the evolutionary chain.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, that doesn't answer my question.

WHEN in the evolutionary chain did we get a soul? That animals don't have one but that the human variation do I have understood, what I wonder is what line is drawn between animal and human on the evolutionary chain.


This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

So by your logic, neanderthals would have a place in heaven?

[Fragony]

This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

Yep, this gets filed under M for Militant atheism. It's called faith for a reason, can they have it it doesn't bother me

[a completely inoffensive name]

So by your logic, neanderthals would have a place in heaven?

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

[Kadagar_AV]

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

Well, their burial traditions points to neanderthals believing in an afterlife. So...?

[Fragony]

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

Not true, we share an ancestor, just like we share an ancestor with primates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, their burial traditions points to neanderthals believing in an afterlife. So...?

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not true, we share an ancestor, just like we share an ancestor with primates.

Shoot, that is what I meant. Modern humans and the neanderthals split off from the same ancestor around 550,000 years ago. Thanks for the correction though.

[Fragony]

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

Neanderthalers buried their dead like a foethus, along with various tools that come in handy. It isn't that far a stretch that they believed in an afterlife of some sorts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Neanderthalers buried their dead like a foethus, along with various tools that come in handy. It isn't that far a stretch that they believed in an afterlife of some sorts.

I am not an anthropologist, so if someone can post some links I would be grateful. But I try not to get into the habit of attributing reasons to people without solid evidence to support it. Burying someone with the tools they probably used to provide can symbolize something other than an attempt to prepare someone for an afterlife.

Last time I came into a discussion saying "they probably thought this" or "this is what probably their motivation was" I was ridiculed by many people (wasn't on this forum).

Obviously someone is going to show evidence and I am going to look like a fool, which means it's a lose-lose situation for me either way.

[Fragony]

I am not an anthropologist, so if someone can post some links I would be grateful. But I try not to get into the habit of attributing reasons to people without solid evidence to support it. Burying someone with the tools they probably used to provide can symbolize something other than an attempt to prepare someone for an afterlife.

Last time I came into a discussion saying "they probably thought this" or "this is what probably their motivation was" I was ridiculed by many people (wasn't on this forum).

Obviously someone is going to show evidence and I am going to look like a fool, which means it's a lose-lose situation for me either way.

You cannot of course, but it at least indicates they were concious of their existance. There is obviously nobody to ask as they are kinda extinct at the moment, please hold

Edit, here are some pics http://www.google.com/search?q=neanderthaler+burial&hl=nl&tbo=u&authuser=0&site=webhp&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qE5pUKHbOKKn0QW17YHICw&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=644

[Kadagar_AV]

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

Well, every sign points to them looking after their elderly, showing a sense of morals. Also, when someone died they had rituals around it, and buried bodies have been found with much needed items around.

You wouldn't leave equipment that would do the family/clan well behind for no reason, no? Homo Sapiens did it to help the dead in the afterlife, I see no reason thinking the Neanderthals would be different, specially since the groups intermingled.

[Sigurd]

Christianity has a "simple" answer.

The first soul was Adam, the next Eve... then the whole inter marriage began giving birth to humans with souls..and then the flood killed off any unwanted species making Noah the new father of humans.

They really don't touch the pre-adamites or dinosaurs. None of the denominations have a good answer for that.
The problem starts when some take the bible texts literally and tries to explain away the bones found in the strata (pseudo science).
They should really just let it lie... and answer: we don't know, it has not been revealed to us.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You cannot of course, but it at least indicates they were concious of their existance. There is obviously nobody to ask as they are kinda extinct at the moment, please hold

They definitely had a sense of the self it would seem. But the concept of a God or gods is an abstract answer to a deep question. Exactly where our ancestors were able to reach that point is impossible unless you had a time machine and a lot off patience. Thus back to my original point that Kadagars argument is silly because it demands that the opposition somehow come up with a convincing argument for a specific date.

[Kadagar_AV]

Christianity has a "simple" answer.

The first soul was Adam, the next Eve... then the whole inter marriage began giving birth to humans with souls..and then the flood killed off any unwanted species making Noah the new father of humans.

They really don't touch the pre-adamites or dinosaurs. None of the denominations have a good answer for that.
The problem starts when some take the bible texts literally and tries to explain away the bones found in the strata (pseudo science).
They should really just let it lie... and answer: we don't know, it has not been revealed to us.

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

ACIN, I generally don't bother supplying sources to things covered by education lower than university, and that can also be found in about 2 seconds using google.

I mean, you COULD, say, google "neanderthal burials" or something. It's not like it's super science hidden in some dark corner of the web.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, every sign points to them looking after their elderly, showing a sense of morals. Also, when someone died they had rituals around it, and buried bodies have been found with much needed items around.

You wouldn't leave equipment that would do the family/clan well behind for no reason, no? Homo Sapiens did it to help the dead in the afterlife, I see no reason thinking the Neanderthals would be different, specially since the groups intermingled.

Morals != religion or faith. As an atheist (which I am as well), you should agree with that.

Tools can be explained through personal relationships with individuals and tools they use frequently. People assign sentimental value of inanimate objects all the time. Someone who has been using a tool for decades can show sadness if it breaks after so many years of dependable use. For close knit tribes where people fulfilled vital functions, a hunter who hunts all his life could have his weapons and tools be seen as an extension of himself (through his and others eyes) and thus when he is buried his tools are buried with him.

[Fragony]

They definitely had a sense of the self it would seem. But the concept of a God or gods is an abstract answer to a deep question. Exactly where our ancestors were able to reach that point is impossible unless you had a time machine and a lot off patience. Thus back to my original point that Kadagars argument is silly because it demands that the opposition somehow come up with a convincing argument for a specific date.

Oh I am with you there. It's a bit silly to ask religious people to explain themselves, people should just leave them be, why do they insist on proving they are wrong anyway. What good does it do, nothing at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

Morals != religion or faith. As an atheist (which I am as well), you should agree with that.

Tools can be explained through personal relationships with individuals and tools they use frequently. People assign sentimental value of inanimate objects all the time. Someone who has been using a tool for decades can show sadness if it breaks after so many years of dependable use. For close knit tribes where people fulfilled vital functions, a hunter who hunts all his life could have his weapons and tools be seen as an extension of himself (through his and others eyes) and thus when he is buried his tools are buried with him.

Interesting... So you claim that neanderthals who had much the same ceremonies as homo sapiens, would have a completely different basis for it? Not really applying Ockhams Razor, are we?


Bodies have been found in set positions, with flowers, food and trinkets around. What would that at once remind you of?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

ACIN, I generally don't bother supplying sources to things covered by education lower than university, and that can also be found in about 2 seconds using google.

I mean, you COULD, say, google "neanderthal burials" or something. It's not like it's super science hidden in some dark corner of the web.

The wiki page on Neanderthal behavior:
Although much has been made of the Neanderthals' burial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial) of their dead, their burials were less elaborate than those of anatomically modern humans. The interpretation of the Shanidar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar) IV burials as including flowers, and therefore being a form of ritual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual) burial,[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#cite_note-24) has been questioned.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#cite_note-25) On the other hand, five of the six flower pollens found with Shanidar IV are known to have had 'traditional' medical uses, even among relatively recent 'modern' populations. In some cases Neanderthal burials include grave goods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_goods), such as bison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisent) and aurochs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs) bones, tools, and thepigment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment)ochre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochre).

Here is my source, "Maps of Time" by David Christian (Chapter 6)
"Neanderthals first appear in the archaeological record about 130,000 years ago, and they vanish from the record as recently as 25,000 years ago. Their brains were as large, and perhaps even larger than, those of modern humans, but their bodies were tougher and stockier. They clearly has the ability to hunt, and this enabled them to occupy Ice Age landscapes that had not been inhabited by any earlier hominines-for example, in parts of modern Ukraine and southern Russia. However their hunting methods were inefficient and unsystematic in comparison with those of modern foragers, or even humans of the upper Paleolithic era. Their stone tools, usually described as Mousterian, are more complex than those of erectus, but show far less variety and precision than the stone tools of modern humans. There are hints of Neanderthal art or burial ritual, both of which might have signaled an increased use of symbolic communication (but the evidence is ambiguous). And there is little sign of great social complexity. Like earlier hominines, Neanderthals seems to have lived primarily in simple family groups that had limited contact with each other. There is no evidence that Neanderthals could have had the same impact on the planet as modern humans."

[Papewaio]

Neanderthals had a common ancestor to ancient homo sapiens and are ancestors to modern homo sapiens.

Yeap we did our cousins.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting... So you claim that neanderthals who had much the same ceremonies as homo sapiens, would have a completely different basis for it? Not really applying Ockhams Razor, are we?


Bodies have been found in set positions, with flowers, food and trinkets around. What would that at once remind you of?

As I just replied in the above post, my point is that you are too bold in assigning the meaning of scientific findings that go beyond what can be considered safely said by a majority of the people in that field. The jury is out so far because there is insufficient evidence. Occams Razer does not apply when you might only have 10% of the full picture.

[Fragony]

Neanderthals had a common ancestor to ancient homo sapiens and are ancestors to modern homo sapiens.

Yeap we did out cousins.

Que? That is kinda conflicting Pap's. I did do my Australian niece though you got me there

[Sigurd]

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

Yes, this is what it is all about. You notice that I said soul and not human. By doing this, they cover their backs. In this way they open up for evolution AND Christianity. The ones that firmly hold to the six days of creation should rething their position, which is not IMO the orthodox position, but rather a fringe neo-christian/evangelical thing.

By reading extra canonical material - you will stumble over many pieces about how God agonized about whether to blow the soul of Adam into a tabernacle of clay/dust and other container synonyms, or not.
Knowing a thing or two about interpreting such, you could conclude that the first soul was put into a human form, a form prepared for this event. And there is nothing that really persuades against this form coming through evolution.
Reading genesis with evolution in mind is not impossible. :sneaky:

[Papewaio]

Mainly for Europeans...
"According to the study as much as 1–4% of the genome of the population that populated Eurasia was contributed by Neanderthals" - Wikipedia

[Fragony]

No idea what you said but because I am writing this from an iPad I just can't, browser isn't functioning

Ah, works now, do NOT buy an iPad it's terrible it just doesn't work

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this is a really interesting topic - it's not one I have an answer for.

A better way of asking the question might be - so Dolphins have souls, and if so was there a Dolphin Jesus?

The only answer I have is, we don't know because we can't talk to Dolphins.

[Sir Moody]

Oh I am with you there. It's a bit silly to ask religious people to explain themselves, people should just leave them be, why do they insist on proving they are wrong anyway. What good does it do, nothing at all.

Off topic I know but you will find most Athiests would be happy to leave Religion to the Religious, if only the Religious would butt out of Science and Politics and stick to the Spiritual...

Since that doesn't seem likely to happen any-time soon you are going to find Atheists and Secularists stepping in from time to time to undermine any "faith" based pseudo science or Political gambit...

[Fragony]

Off topic I know but you will find most Athiests would be happy to leave Religion to the Religious, if only the Religious would butt out of Science and Politics and stick to the Spiritual...

Since that doesn't seem likely to happen any-time soon you are going to find Atheists and Secularists stepping in from time to time to undermine any "faith" based pseudo science or Political gambit...

Yeah but I find atheists to be borderline missionary at times, what's their issue if someone believes in something, why would I harm them in any way long as if I don't get harmed myself. I have no respect for religion but good manners I will always return

[Papewaio]

Big bang was discovered by a Jesuit... Yet another reason to like Belgium.

Science and religion can coexist as long as all earthly beings no matter their rank realize they aren't infallible.

[Papewaio]

No idea what you said but because I am writing this from an iPad I just can't, browser isn't functioning

Ah, works now, do NOT buy an iPad it's terrible it just doesn't work

I've been writing my replies for years now on an iPhone... That's why I've decreased my number of smilies as they are hard to deploy from a phone.

[Sir Moody]

when I said "butt out of Science and Politics" I think you may have taken me a bit too literally - I was referring to the Religious groups like Answers in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis) who seem determined to undermine good Science with babbling pseudo science and out right lies

I was not suggesting that Religious people couldnt be scientists

[Fragony]

when I said "butt out of Science and Politics" I think you may have taken me a bit too literally - I was referring to the Religious groups like Answers in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis) who seem determined to undermine good Science with babbling pseudo science and out right lies

I was not suggesting that Religious people couldnt be scientists

Haven't read it all but have seen enough, yes pretty damn insane

[Strike For The South]

I don't think evolution works the way you think it does.

but in any event here is the catholic chruchs stance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Catholics would probably argue the soul is intrinsic due to original sin, it was always there whether we knew it or not.

[Fragony]

Some say that the lack of Catholism was what proved to be a rationalised society, ask CA he's the expert

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not trying to make a point as such, but just throwing it out there that neanderthals are nowhere near the closest-related non-humans to have human-like burial rituals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#Death_ritual).

[rvg]

Not trying to make a point as such, but just throwing it out there that neanderthals are nowhere near the closest-related non-humans to have human-like burial rituals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#Death_ritual).

I'm sure that Lord Ganesha has something special in store for them.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not trying to make a point as such, but just throwing it out there that neanderthals are nowhere near the closest-related non-humans to have human-like burial rituals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#Death_ritual).

I was about to get to that in time ;)

I do find the idea of "when did it start" extremely interesting though. I mean, to me it's all bogus of course, but what I find interesting is the intellectual skipping one would have to do to believe in evolution AND the christian god.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The only answer I have is, we don't know because we can't talk to Dolphins.
Long conversations still prove a bit tricky, but work is well under way in this field. Also, we can communicate (in writing, no less) with Bonobos, that is: we can teach them how to communicate with us.

[Fragony]

Long conversations still prove a bit tricky, but work is well under way in this field. Also, we can communicate (in writing, no less) with Bonobos, that is: we can teach them how to communicate with us.

Been reading too much van der Waal lately?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Long conversations still prove a bit tricky, but work is well under way in this field. Also, we can communicate (in writing, no less) with Bonobos, that is: we can teach them how to communicate with us.

We're nowhere near the level of being able to discuss metaphysics or philosophy with Dolphins though - "more fish?" and "are you sad" are big jumps, but they don't address the core questions of life.

[Fragony]

We're nowhere near the level of being able to discuss metaphysics or philosophy with Dolphins though - "more fish?" and "are you sad" are big jumps, but they don't address the core questions of life.

Society though, I am on to TA I know what book he read, must have a new girlfriend who just started studying psychology, well done TA

[ajaxfetish]

When did our ancestors become humans? When does a growing collection of grains of sand become a heap? When does a child become an adult? When does a fertilized egg become a person? Lots of transitions have fuzzy boundaries, and assigning a definite point of change is difficult if not impossible. As far as the Mormon take on this, it's not a big point of doctrine what happens to animals after death, so I can by no means claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that we believe all animals (and perhaps all living things?) have souls and existed spiritually before they existed physically, and will continue to exist eternally. Where exactly dinosaurs (for instance) would end up compared to humans I have no idea.

Ajax

[Tuuvi]

In my faith, it's believed that our religious knowledge is incomplete; we don't know everything there is to know about God, etc. I think the OP raises a really interesting question and I've wondered the same thing myself, especially when it comes to human evolution. But it doesn't pose an intellectual problem for me, because I don't expect my religion to answer every question.

[Fragony]

In my faith, it's believed that our religious knowledge is incomplete; we don't know everything there is to know about God, etc. I think the OP raises a really interesting question and I've wondered the same thing myself, especially when it comes to human evolution. But it doesn't pose an intellectual problem for me, because I don't expect my religion to answer every question.

You what

[Brenus]

I do not believe in any of these Religious Tales...
However, I vaguely remember from my University (History of Religions) that the Neanderthals, having never heard of the words of Christ will be in Heaven as they couldn't reject his teaching. Same for born before Christ or the one who never heard of Him. This include Aliens, in case they are some somewhere (mostly probable) and they never heard of Christ (even more probable)...

[The Stranger]

when I said "butt out of Science and Politics" I think you may have taken me a bit too literally - I was referring to the Religious groups like Answers in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis) who seem determined to undermine good Science with babbling pseudo science and out right lies

I was not suggesting that Religious people couldnt be scientists

its what happens when people ask questions such as "prove that God exists scientifically"

[Sigurd]

However, I vaguely remember from my University (History of Religions) that the Neanderthals, having never heard of the words of Christ will be in Heaven as they couldn't reject his teaching. Same for born before Christ or the one who never heard of Him. This include Aliens, in case they are some somewhere (mostly probable) and they never heard of Christ (even more probable)...

Good points... which brings us the question: How universal was Christ's atonement?
This is a disputed point in Christianity. Some hold to the absolute universal, as in every world created by God, is under the umberella of Christ's grace (Mormonism) to Calvinistic predeterminated selected grace. Only those chosen from the beginning will be saved.

[rvg]

Good points... which brings us the question: How universal was Christ's atonement?
This is a disputed point in Christianity. Some hold to the absolute universal, as in every world created by God, is under the umberella of Christ's grace (Mormonism) to Calvinistic predeterminated selected grace. Only those chosen from the beginning will be saved.

The Mormons have it right imho. The calvinist God comes across as a petty, evil little thing.

[Fragony]

The Mormons have it right imho. The calvinist God comes across as a petty, evil little thing.

You mean that beard, you call that right, it's not

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

when I said "butt out of Science and Politics" I think you may have taken me a bit too literally - I was referring to the Religious groups like Answers in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis) who seem determined to undermine good Science with babbling pseudo science and out right lies

I was not suggesting that Religious people couldnt be scientists

but that is often how it comes accross - and worse are the people, including on this board, who regularly ask me "do you believe in evolution".

I always say "yes" but really I should say "no, one does not 'believe' a scientific theory, one merely uses it so long as it provides a rational explanation and then abandons it like a cheap harlot as soon as a bustier, I'm sorry, more rational one comes along."


its what happens when people ask questions such as "prove that God exists scientifically"

Quite.


Good points... which brings us the question: How universal was Christ's atonement?
This is a disputed point in Christianity. Some hold to the absolute universal, as in every world created by God, is under the umberella of Christ's grace (Mormonism) to Calvinistic predeterminated selected grace. Only those chosen from the beginning will be saved.

I've often thought that this argument rather misses the point - Christianity isn't really about Jesus so much as what he taught and the example he provided. The argument should not be about whether his sacrifice was adaquate but about what it was meant to signify.

From my point of view, a "Christian" is someone who accepts Christs core teaching - which is that we are flawed beings with an impaired relationship to God, disobediant children who should ask for forgiveness. A christian is most certainly not someone who reads their Bible every night just because and wears a cross around their neck.

[Vladimir]

From my point of view, a "Christian" is someone who accepts Christs core teaching - which is that we are flawed beings with an impaired relationship to God, disobediant children who should ask for forgiveness. A christian is most certainly not someone who reads their Bible every night just because and wears a cross around their neck.

So you reject the divinity of Christ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you reject the divinity of Christ?

Did I say that?

[Vladimir]

Did I say that?

Yes; you kinda left that part out. I'm also playing on your rather subjective definitions.

[Quid]

In essence, science is not interested in the question of a god. There has never been a credible scientistic theory of their being a god(s) or indeed a creator. Therefore, science has never had any impetus on disproving it. The onus is not with scientists but with the religious. The same is true with the concept of a 'soul'. Choosing to believe something - anything - that makes you feel good, does not make it true.

Science is concerned with reason and not faith or philosophy. The questions 'how' and 'what' are important and not the 'why'.

Evolution by natural selction is no longer a theory but can now be accepted as fact. There is so much overwhelming evidence - scientific evidence - that it has ceased to be mere theory. It is arguably the most tested and validated 'theory' in science.

The fact that religion uses science is only too understandable. In the case of evolution even the Catholic Church has conceded for it to be so (though it might not promulgate it, yet). It has now become important to find ways in which to include it into the doctrine. This does not in any way mean that they are compatible but only that one uses the other. In this case, the church using science. One might argue rather cynically that a church that claims has all the answers in important matters has now had to adopt reason :quiet:.

Therefore, this ceases to be of any interest scientifically, and only remains so philosophically (barely).

By the way, I would bring forth the following as the basis for Christianity (rather than the ones you have suggested):

1. the immaculate conception
2. the resurrection
3. some form of atonement

If you disregard any of these three (there may be others perhaps slightly less important) you would not be able to say that you are a Christian with a straight face.

Quid

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes; you kinda left that part out. I'm also playing on your rather subjective definitions.

So you infer from what I wrote that I don't believe something because I didn't mention it?

Christianus Fidelis - "one who is faithful to Christ," not "one who worships Christ" - totally different verb, and fidelis cannot be misconstrued to mean that.

What is the relevance given in the Bible to Christ's divinity?

The idea of a "sufficient" sacrifice is a later invention be medieval theologians who saw the battle for men's souls in the frame of serfs being owned by their masters. According to this view the Devil "owns" man in "bondage" i.e. serfdom, and Christ literally pays, in a monitory sense, for the souls of the saved with his blood.

This is all about constructing Christ as a medieval King - it's not in the Bible.

If you want to know what I think about Christ's Divinity - look it up, I've talked about it often enough - it's not my fault if people don't read my posts.

[Kadagar_AV]

In essence, science is not interested in the question of a god. There has never been a credible scientistic theory of their being a god(s) or indeed a creator. Therefore, science has never had any impetus on disproving it. The onus is not with scientists but with the religious. The same is true with the concept of a 'soul'. Choosing to believe something - anything - that makes you feel good, does not make it true.

Science is concerned with reason and not faith or philosophy. The questions 'how' and 'what' are important and not the 'why'.

Evolution by natural selction is no longer a theory but can now be accepted as fact. There is so much overwhelming evidence - scientific evidence - that it has ceased to be mere theory. It is arguably the most tested and validated 'theory' in science.

The fact that religion uses science is only too understandable. In the case of evolution even the Catholic Church has conceded for it to be so (though it might not promulgate it, yet). It has now become important to find ways in which to include it into the doctrine. This does not in any way mean that they are compatible but only that one uses the other. In this case, the church using science. One might argue rather cynically that a church that claims has all the answers in important matters has now had to adopt reason :quiet:.

Therefore, this ceases to be of any interest scientifically, and only remains so philosophically (barely).

By the way, I would bring forth the following as the basis for Christianity (rather than the ones you have suggested):

1. the immaculate conception
2. the resurrection
3. some form of atonement

If you disregard any of these three (there may be others perhaps slightly less important) you would not be able to say that you are a Christian with a straight face.

Quid

Good post, why don't we see you around here more often?

I would however argue that the "soul" and "heaven" are the two VERY basics of christianity, as it predates the new testament.

I grant you that your version would be, like, the new edition highlights of the faith, but my examples are the very basics of the belief at large, pillars that still holds in the new testament too.

However, if we speak strictly of CHRISTIANITY You are of course right, but why don't we also allow for muslims, jews and so on to participate, as this is a game they can play set the way I set it :)

[Sigurd]

By the way, I would bring forth the following as the basis for Christianity (rather than the ones you have suggested):

1. the immaculate conception
2. the resurrection
3. some form of atonement

If you disregard any of these three (there may be others perhaps slightly less important) you would not be able to say that you are a Christian with a straight face.

Quid
Sorry Quid... only 1 in 35 000 Christian denominations believes in #1
You would have to change it to: The divine nature of Christ to hit the mainstream

Also... the concept of at-one-ment. The English word is quite inadequate. To my understanding, the Norwegian forsoning is a much better word. It consist of for and sone.
'Sone for' means to expiate. but in the ordering 'forsone' it means reconciliate (forsoning -> reconciliation). As I understand the concept - Christ reconciliated man with God. Where Adam broke the link, Christ restored it.
Also, he gave justice its payment for sins committed by the universal collective of sin capable accountable beings. Hence he holds the full debt of universal sin and will ransom based on mercy.
So... a Christian's salvation is totally at the mercy and grace of Christ, who can ransom whomever he chooses. There is nothing a Christian can do him/herself to "work" on his/her salvation.
However... Apparently Christ put forward some guideline/rules for Christians to become eligible for his mercy. Typically Faith, Repentance, Baptism receive the Holy Ghost, the two great commandments etc... would be such qualifiers.

[Centurion1]

Good post, why don't we see you around here more often?

I would however argue that the "soul" and "heaven" are the two VERY basics of christianity, as it predates the new testament.

I grant you that your version would be, like, the new edition highlights of the faith, but my examples are the very basics of the belief at large, pillars that still holds in the new testament too.

However, if we speak strictly of CHRISTIANITY You are of course right, but why don't we also allow for muslims, jews and so on to participate, as this is a game they can play set the way I set it :)

You are trying to play a "game" you can't reasonably play. Christians are Christians, Jews are Jews, etc. You also sound like you have a very weak understanding of what Christianity really entails. As a Catholic very little emphasis is placed upon the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not possess some superior position because it is older, rather the New Testament and Old Testament sit upon the same pedestal. If anything the New Testament holds greater value to the CHristian faith. Also you appear to be unaware of divine inspiration and that the belief that the bible is not an infallible source. Once again coming from my Catholic faith we are taught that the bible is composed of allegories and is not infallible. It was written by men who though guided by divine inspiration are still fallible.

In essence you need to grasp the fact that Christianity is built upon a foundation of Jesus and his teachings found within the New Testament not a foundation of the Old Testament. In all respect I simply believe you have a very weak understanding of religion and Christianity in particular; your coming off as an internet scholar who has browsed r/atheism or read a few bible verses. I think for most non religious people even the differences between mainstream Christian denominations which can be radically different are not noticed. Baptists or god forbid Calvinists seem like weirdos to me as a Catholic. They in turn think the spiritual head of my Church is the Whore of Babylon (love you Rhy).

[Centurion1]

Sorry Quid... only 1 in 35 000 Christian denominations believes in #1
You would have to change it to: The divine nature of Christ to hit the mainstream

Roman Catholics do and we make up nearly 50% of the worlds Christian population. Also I highly debate that fact.

[Kadagar_AV]

Wrote stuff. It really wasn't worth repeating though.

So You argue that the SOUL and HEAVEN are not fundamental in the christian belief as it is old testament stuff, and from that line of reasoning you bash my knowledge of the religion?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So You argue that the SOUL and HEAVEN are not fundamental in the christian belief as it is old testament stuff, and from that line of reasoning you bash my knowledge of the religion?

I wouldn't say heaven is fundamental in the Old Testament, in fact it is barely mentioned (if at all, I'm not sure). Heaven certainly wasn't a major tenet of belief for the ancient Jews, much of the conflict between the Sadducees and Pharisees was because the former didn't believe in an afterlife.

As for the soul, IIRC that was more of a Hellenic idea and wasn't really in the Old Testament at all, at least not as we would understand it. Indeed, a quick wiki reveals:

"The only Hebrew word traditionally translated "soul" (nephesh) in English language Bibles refers to a living, breathing conscious body, rather than to an immortal soul"

Quote taken from this page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible)

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyf, yes/no - is the soul and heaven paramount in your belief system?

[Sigurd]

Roman Catholics do and we make up nearly 50% of the worlds Christian population. Also I highly debate that fact.
So you identify yourself with the RC church, but you debate the immaculate conception?
Why would the belief in Mary being free from original sin from her conception have anything to do with being a true Christian?

Also.. I updated my earlier post :beam:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyf, yes/no - is the soul and heaven paramount in your belief system?

Well my above post wasn't about what I believe, you seemed to asking Centurian why he felt that a soul and heaven weren't as central to Christianity as they were in the Old Testament in particular, suggesting they were a big deal in the Old Testament. I was just saying that they weren't a big deal in the Old Testament.

As for what I believe, I'm not going to get caught up in definitions about the 1,000 different understandings of what a soul means. I believe that I will be physically resurrected with a body and a functioning brain the same way I am now.

As for heaven, well yes I definitely believe in that.

[Montmorency]

I
always say "yes" but really I should say "no, one does not 'believe' a scientific theory

My understanding is that various Theories of Evolution - some sort of Darwinism having hegemony at the moment - are used to describe the mechanism of the observed occurrence of a phenomenon called Evolution. Similarly with gravity...


So you identify yourself with the RC church, but you debate the immaculate conception?

I don't think that's what he is disputing. He seems to be raw about what he perceives a diminution on your part of the Catholic Church's role or significance in global Christianity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhyf, yes/no - is the soul and heaven paramount in your belief system?


So You argue that the SOUL and HEAVEN are not fundamental in the christian belief as it is old testament stuff, and from that line of reasoning you bash my knowledge of the religion?

Well, it's not part of mine - it really depends on how you look at it.

Jesus said that those who look for heaven will never find it, but lots of people use Christianity as a self-help program, which it isn't.

[Centurion1]

So You argue that the SOUL and HEAVEN are not fundamental in the christian belief as it is old testament stuff, and from that line of reasoning you bash my knowledge of the religion?

Heaven is barely within the Old testament it is a focus of the New Testament if anything. The Soul is also not an Old testament concept. If anything from the perspective of Mother Church it is a realization of one fellows such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. So i'm sorry but your point is just illustrating your ignorance. This doesn't necessarily dilute the validity of your prior arguments I merely seek to rectify certain false assumptions you have been making. Nowhere did I say that the soul and heaven are not integral to the Christian faith. Also nowhere did I say they are. The end fact you seem incapable of grasping is that Christianity differs wildly from individual to individual *gasp*. My Christianity differs wildly from the hardcore protestants like Rhy or the whatever the hell PVC is. If you must know my personal beliefs, no heaven is not a building block of my faith. I see Christianity as a way to come closer to God and a definition of how to live a fulfilling life on Earth. What comes next comes next.

(Wrote Stuff. It wasn't really worth repeating though)

And your troll thread wasn't really worth responding to. You obviously know everything so it doesn't seem there is any reason on educating you about anything. You apparently didn't read what I wrote either since you are just making stuff up.


So you identify yourself with the RC church, but you debate the immaculate conception?
Why would the belief in Mary being free from original sin from her conception have anything to do with being a true Christian?

Also.. I updated my earlier post

I was merely saying that immaculate conception is theoretically believed by 50% of the Christian population. The second part is just me asking for validation of your 1 in 35000 fact. If true its an interesting tidbit to know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a well known fact that a large number of Roman Catholics don't believe in the immaculate conception or transubstantiation - and never have.

As far as the "soul" goes - it's clear that certain mystical books of the Old Testament do show an awareness of something which is seperable from the physical body - the Dean of Exeter Cathedral gave an excellent sermon on it a few years ago - but you can detect the kernel of the idea as far back a Job.

[Centurion1]

It's a well known fact that a large number of Roman Catholics don't believe in the immaculate conception or transubstantiation - and never have.

As far as the "soul" goes - it's clear that certain mystical books of the Old Testament do show an awareness of something which is seperable from the physical body - the Dean of Exeter Cathedral gave an excellent sermon on it a few years ago - but you can detect the kernel of the idea as far back a Job.



s far as the "soul" goes - it's clear that certain mystical books of the Old Testament do show an awareness of something which is seperable from the physical body - the Dean of Exeter Cathedral gave an excellent sermon on it a few years ago - but you can detect the kernel of the idea as far back a Job.

That doesn't change the fact that theoretically transubstantiation and the immaculate conception are truths according to the church and therefore all believers should accept it as truth.

Christian understanding of the soul does not truly arise from these sources. The RC understanding of the soul has a distinctly Roman feel to it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That doesn't change the fact that theoretically transubstantiation and the immaculate conception are truths according to the church and therefore all believers should accept it as truth.

Theoretically speaking - these statements were made by the Pope after previous Ecumunical Councils determined he wasn't competent to make such statements.

Ex Cathedra is a nice theological prop, but it conflicts with the limits placed on the Pope's power by the Council of Constance - among others.


Christian understanding of the soul does not truly arise from these sources. The RC understanding of the soul has a distinctly Roman feel to it.

Which does not change the fact that a seperate spirit and a place to go when you die exist very early in the Old Testament - even if the idea is underdeveloped.

Ergo, Kadagar's view of Christianity is not so much wrong as lacking nuance.

Lacking a lot of nuance, to be sure, but still...

[The Stranger]

So You argue that the SOUL and HEAVEN are not fundamental in the christian belief as it is old testament stuff, and from that line of reasoning you bash my knowledge of the religion?

You are such an awesome person I really can't wrap my mind around it.

[Fragony]

Did rules on personal attacks change

[Kadagar_AV]

You are such an awesome person I really can't wrap my mind around it.

And I find you rude.

But so what?

[Papewaio]

Are test tube babies immaculately conceived?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No - because it isn't the act that is impure, it is humanity in general.

"Immaculate Conception" probably doesn't mean what you think it does - it pertains to Mary and means she was concieved without Original Sin, i.e. Sin was not present in her​ when she was concieved.

[Kadagar_AV]

No - because it isn't the act that is impure, it is humanity in general.

"Immaculate Conception" probably doesn't mean what you think it does - it pertains to Mary and means she was concieved without Original Sin, i.e. Sin was not present in her​ when she was concieved.

How come Mary was without sin? I haven't heard that take on things, indulge me :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How come Mary was without sin? I haven't heard that take on things, indulge me :)

Honestly?

I dunno, it's a Roman Catholic thing - it's not something I personally believe and it's relatively recent (like 600 years) as an idea. I believe it stems from the belief that in order to carry God, Mary would have had to have been a pure vessel, but that begs the question of her own mother - which implies the problem of infinite regression.

This isn't a problem in earlier medieval theology because Original Sin is inherited via the father, not the mother. That has some interesting implications for what the Original Sin actually was.

Personally, I believe it was not the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but trying to hide afterwards, when Adam and Eve tried to deceive God despite​ knowing it was wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

Honestly?

I dunno, it's a Roman Catholic thing - it's not something I personally believe and it's relatively recent (like 600 years) as an idea. I believe it stems from the belief that in order to carry God, Mary would have had to have been a pure vessel, but that begs the question of her own mother - which implies the problem of infinite regression.

This isn't a problem in earlier medieval theology because Original Sin is inherited via the father, not the mother. That has some interesting implications for what the Original Sin actually was.

Personally, I believe it was not the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but trying to hide afterwards, when Adam and Eve tried to deceive God despite​ knowing it was wrong.

I honestly never heard the idea that Mary was without sin generally speaking. I have heard that she was somewhat of a prude, sure. But that she of all the people would be without sin for me comes off as a big conundrum.

I mean, I thought we were all sinners and that that was the whole point of Jesus speeches, as well as the basis for more or less the whole of Christianity (that he died for our sins).

To then hear that there obviously are people walking around without sin, would kind of shake the roots of Christianity as I understand it. Or was she for some reason or another special in any way?

[Centurion1]

I honestly never heard the idea that Mary was without sin generally speaking. I have heard that she was somewhat of a prude, sure. But that she of all the people would be without sin for me comes off as a big conundrum.

I mean, I thought we were all sinners and that that was the whole point of Jesus speeches, as well as the basis for more or less the whole of Christianity (that he died for our sins).

To then hear that there obviously are people walking around without sin, would kind of shake the roots of Christianity as I understand it. Or was she for some reason or another special in any way?

Everyone loses original sin when they are baptized. Mary was born without original sin because she apparently needed to to have God's son.

She was special because she had God..... :eyerolls:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone loses original sin when they are baptized. Mary was born without original sin because she apparently needed to to have God's son.

She was special because she had God..... :eyerolls:

It makes no sense, or rather it is an esoteric elaboration, and it leads to...


I honestly never heard the idea that Mary was without sin generally speaking. I have heard that she was somewhat of a prude, sure. But that she of all the people would be without sin for me comes off as a big conundrum.

I mean, I thought we were all sinners and that that was the whole point of Jesus speeches, as well as the basis for more or less the whole of Christianity (that he died for our sins).

To then hear that there obviously are people walking around without sin, would kind of shake the roots of Christianity as I understand it. Or was she for some reason or another special in any way?

...this. The prime reason that people think Catholics are weird. It's like the whole catagorisation of angels thing.

[Fragony]

Personally I think catholics are weird because they don't seem to mind sexual abuse of minors all that much. The flesh is weak, yeah of course it is it's underage

[Sigurd]

Are test tube babies immaculately conceived?
As in.... they won't need baptism?
But I see what you mean... this needs answering!!!

edit: oh.. there was a page 2.

But as Pape brilliantly hinted to... There was a few objections to the concept of immaculate conceived in the earlier church. (It was not formalized as a dogma until late 19th century). How could anything be immaculate when sex was involved? Mary was not virgin born and had a father and a mother who copulated to conceive Mary. But test tube babies are conceived without the filthy methods of human carnality.


To then hear that there obviously are people walking around without sin, would kind of shake the roots of Christianity as I understand it. Or was she for some reason or another special in any way? What? you have never talked to any born agains? They are already saved, ya know.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But test tube babies are conceived without the filthy methods of human carnality.

Surely sex within marriage is not regarded as filthy or wrong?

[Sigurd]

Surely sex within marriage is not regarded as filthy or wrong?
Ask St.Augustine... :sneaky:
He was very clear on the theory that original sin was passed on through the carnal concupiscence of sex, even under the wedlock.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The idea of original sin being passed on on a hereditary basis seems strange to me. And yes, I realise this is unusual given what Calvin had to say on it and indeed he based his ideas a lot on Augustine.

I always thought we shared Adam's sinfulness more due to our common nature than genetic inheritance.

Am I a heretic?

[Strike For The South]

Yes

Now please feel more guilty than you already do.

[Sigurd]

The idea of original sin being passed on on a hereditary basis seems strange to me. And yes, I realise this is unusual given what Calvin had to say on it and indeed he based his ideas a lot on Augustine.


Lies beget lies...

You should question ANY ideas of any of the Church fathers. IF any of their ideas were pulled out of thin air, then they would have to invent new stuff to cover up the holes it creates when scrutinized. And finally the corruption is complete and the religion is not savable or recognizable for what it originally was.

You should do reversible engineering techniques on these dogma. Take the immaculate conception. You should ask - why did Mary need to be sinless from birth? Is there really a need? No... then why did one establish such? ... you need to look at the influx of Manichaeism and monasticsim which were in their introduction merely extremists much like the ones we entertain today. As found with today's extremists - the lack of faith in established religion leads them to do "extra" things to be more worthy but doesn't see that they are moving outside the requirements and are in fact being counter productive regarding their own religion's guidelines for salvation.

And that is how new dogma is established... the need for extra - and the stretching of rules and boundaries. This is what started to happen as soon as the apostles were removed and the gnostic worms started to emerge from the woodwork. Gnosticism is the claim of having the esoteric knowledge of the teachings of Christ during his 40 day ministry as a resurrected being, having received the full Glory of His Father and therefore shared a oneness in purpose, power and knowledge with the Almighty. Only the Apostles knew the full extent of this teaching, but the Gnostics claims to have this knowledge.

Is copulation a sin? No... Why? Because it was the very first commandment of the Almighty to his creation. Even before Adam and Eve was taught about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they received the commandment of going forth to multiply. Which is basically God saying to mankind. Go forth and have sex. How can an explicit commandment when followed be sinful? And the very first commandment given as well, which should indicate some sort of importance. There is no original sin... no hereditary sin. There is no sin passed on from father to children - hence there is no need for a immaculate conception. All are born sinless. Hence - child baptisms are not necessary. But children as all mortals born, needs resurrection - which is where Christ's grace will apply, as it will with Mary his mother.
Baptism - is for the remission of sins which will apply for those accountable. Commandments are not followed, laws are broken and Christ's mercy will save and mend.

So... if you do not copulate to beget children, you are sinning against the very first commandment given. Spinster nuns, monks and priests that do not multiply - are under condemnation, and will need Christ's grace to save them. As Luther realized... :sneaky:

[Kadagar_AV]

Lies beget lies...

You should question ANY ideas of any of the Church fathers. IF any of their ideas were pulled out of thin air, then they would have to invent new stuff to cover up the holes it creates when scrutinized. And finally the corruption is complete and the religion is not savable or recognizable for what it originally was.

You should do reversible engineering techniques on these dogma. Take the immaculate conception. You should ask - why did Mary need to be sinless from birth? Is there really a need? No... then why did one establish such? ... you need to look at the influx of Manichaeism and monasticsim which were in their introduction merely extremists much like the ones we entertain today. As found with today's extremists - the lack of faith in established religion leads them to do "extra" things to be more worthy but doesn't see that they are moving outside the requirements and are in fact being counter productive regarding their own religion's guidelines for salvation.

And that is how new dogma is established... the need for extra - and the stretching of rules and boundaries. This is what started to happen as soon as the apostles were removed and the gnostic worms started to emerge from the woodwork. Gnosticism is the claim of having the esoteric knowledge of the teachings of Christ during his 40 day ministry as a resurrected being, having received the full Glory of His Father and therefore shared a oneness in purpose, power and knowledge with the Almighty. Only the Apostles knew the full extent of this teaching, but the Gnostics claims to have this knowledge.

Is copulation a sin? No... Why? Because it was the very first commandment of the Almighty to his creation. Even before Adam and Eve was taught about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they received the commandment of going forth to multiply. Which is basically God saying to mankind. Go forth and have sex. How can an explicit commandment when followed be sinful? And the very first commandment given as well, which should indicate some sort of importance. There is no original sin... no hereditary sin. There is no sin passed on from father to children - hence there is no need for a immaculate conception. All are born sinless. Hence - child baptisms are not necessary. But children as all mortals born, needs resurrection - which is where Christ's grace will apply, as it will with Mary his mother.
Baptism - is for the remission of sins which will apply for those accountable. Commandments are not followed, laws are broken and Christ's mercy will save and mend.

So... if you do not copulate to beget children, you are sinning against the very first commandment given. Spinster nuns, monks and priests that do not multiply - are under condemnation, and will need Christ's grace to save them. As Luther realized... :sneaky:

I am just a humble servant of God then :yes:

Heck, I follow his first commandment WAY better than the priests and stuff.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Personally I think catholics are weird because they don't seem to mind sexual abuse of minors all that much. The flesh is weak, yeah of course it is it's underage

Patently offensive as well as being incorrect. At best you cannot speak credibly for any Catholic and at worst you are attempting to insult me personally as a member of that faith group. Shame on you sir, shame on you.

[gaelic cowboy]

Personally I think catholics are weird because they don't seem to mind sexual abuse of minors all that much. The flesh is weak, yeah of course it is it's underage

I think you will find this has more to do with people in authority exploiting the privilage and respect given them like that Jimmy Savile fella did.