Evolution and the soul...

[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 .

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.

[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

[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...
He was very clear on the theory that original sin was passed on through the carnal concupiscence of sex, even under the wedlock.