Posts by Daniel Chase13

Scott Nguyen5 said:That’s how you become a believer, not an atheist. You don't "become" an atheist. We all start out that way.

Actually, many atheists recognize that atheism is often a choice—one made after navigating life's traumas or deep disappointments, or perhaps even out of a desire to live with a clear conscience by avoiding what God has revealed to be a life of sin. There are plenty of different paths that lead someone toward an atheistic worldview.

northernscout9 said:Exactly. I’ve mentioned this regarding Elvis Presley before—it’s not exactly a rare thing for people to lose a child, have a complete mental breakdown, and then start clinging to total nonsense. Take Vesna Krmpotić, for example, with her whole thing about believing in Saj baba.

Or you’ve got the classic case of the guy who wrote Sherlock Holmes—Arthur Conan Doyle. He actually fell for those kids claiming they took photos of fairies in their garden; he even went as far as writing a book about how those fairies were totally real.

Then there are the others—people who turn into bitter atheists simply because they've been chewed up and spit out by life's disappointments.

Elvis Presley just dropped a new

A new video from DuPont

https://www.bitno.net/vijesti/american...e-informacije/

Here's the latest .

Bryan King3 said:Man, they’ve really done it—they’ve gone after Elvis Presley. It feels like everything is conspiring just to take him down.
Seriously, even Satan’s own little website is scrubbing every single link that points toward those "Flat Earth" landing pages.
(I mean, is God actually going to step in and deal with this personally??)

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/enter...s-anymore.html

Honestly, I doubt it’ll get under his skin much. At the end of the day, other people seem to promote his work and his shows way more than he even does himself.

Well, looks like Elvis Presley gave another one of his public lectures

feralranger said:It certainly wasn't my intention either, and even a crude, materialistic entity like Chase Bank won't come knocking at my door to collect on some ancestral debt, nor can I choose to waive an inheritance of my own free will. What kind of deity would descend into such pettiness, imposing burdens upon me for decisions I neither made nor caused? That would be a far more sinister God than the one Lisa Jackson7 describes—one who might be imperfect, yet still strives to make things right.

It isn't that God imposed the burden; rather, Adam and Eve made a choice for themselves, and we essentially inherited that decision. Through their own free will—prompted by Satan—they separated us from God, handing ourselves and all of us over to the dominion of Satan (though that very same God, embodied in Jesus Christ, works to liberate us through baptism).

God doesn't just work to repair the damage within this world—He is personally preparing us for a perfect existence: a new heaven and a new earth. We will experience bodily resurrection and receive from God a flawless world where physical death, disharmony among creation, pain, infections, and other diseases won't exist. There will be no more dominance, no struggle for survival where the "fittest" prevail at the expense of others, no natural disasters, no imperfections, and so on.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers this beautifully in sections 1042 through 1050, and also in 1060.

Lisa Jackson7 said:In the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, it keeps repeating... "And God saw that it was good."

It was good, sure—but not "perfect" in the way you're describing.

Otherwise, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the chance to sin in the first place.

Actually, I have to disagree there. When we talk about "good" in a metaphysical sense—especially when tied to an absolutely perfect God who is without flaw—it implies something entirely without defect. It’s synonymous with being "very good," which essentially means perfect.

Back then, there was no physical death, no friction between creatures, no pain, no diseases, and none of the struggle for survival where the strong prey on the weak (since, at the start, there wasn't really a hierarchy of "fit" versus "unfit"). There were no natural disasters, no imperfections, nothing of the sort.

God is perfection itself—pure love, goodness, and truth. This chaotic world we live in now? It certainly wasn't His intention.

Once Adam and Eve sinned, that initial state of perfection began to erode. We entered a world defined by physical mortality, a reality shackled to decay, corruption, and a fundamental disharmony among all living things.
__________________

feralranger said:[/I]

Yet, one cannot help but notice the logical inconsistencies here, unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion of an imperfect God who finds it necessary to constantly tinker with His own creation.

Suppose we imagine a hypothetical scenario where God acts as an automotive engineer; would such a being truly need to modify a vehicle—perhaps refining a transmission or correcting flaws in a drivetrain or braking system? Or if we consider God as a software programmer, would His code necessitate multiple beta versions or iterative patches to fix bugs? Certainly not—for such a reality would inherently imply His imperfection. This "God" described in the quote seems to be doing precisely that.

Consequently, one can only entertain this idea within the framework of believing in some sort of flawed "God" (which is perhaps the only way the passage you cited could maintain any semblance of consistency)... but if God is imperfect, then one must ask oneself: what kind of God is He, really?

Exactly.

God is perfect—perfect love, perfect goodness, and perfect truth.

Originally, before the first couple, Adam and Eve, fell into sin, a perfectly good God didn't create a world defined by physical death, disharmony among creatures, pain, infections, or disease. There was no struggle for survival, no "survival of the fittest" where one species thrives at the expense of another (in the beginning, there was no such hierarchy), and no natural disasters. This current version of the world—this broken reality—was never His intention.

feralranger said:I suppose nothing actually prevents a Pope from blessing any old charlatan, so why shouldn't he bless someone like Elvis Presley or Milton Petrović, or whoever else claims to possess such "knowledge"? The Church doesn't deny science or evolution; even the Pope’s blessing included serious scientists who study evolution.

Well, I suppose the agitated atheists can all rejoice at having various Elvis Presleys to point to, since individuals like that serve as perfect fuel for ridiculing the Church...
As for me, I honestly don't know what else to say other than this is—quite frankly—bizarre.

It wasn't bizarre at all for Benedict XVI.; he gave his official blessing to Catholic scientists and creationist theologians after personally reviewing their presentations, which had been provided to him in print beforehand (as noted in the Vatican's own correspondence). So, the Pope knew exactly what was being discussed at that conference—the literal six days of Creation, an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, and a Great Flood occurring roughly 4,500 to 5,000 years ago.

Regarding what the Catholic Church actually recognizes, a very influential young priest, Damir Stojić, wrote about the pseudoscience of macro-evolution on August 11, 2016, stating: "I kindly ask you to provide just one piece of evidence for so-called macro-evolution (the change from one species to another); I am not referring to micro-evolution (changes within a single species). The Church, much like the broader scientific community, accepts micro-evolution. The problem is that children in school are being forced to accept so-called macro-evolution theory without a shred of scientific proof. That's why pseudo-scientists, driven by ideology, fake evidence to reduce humans to apes. Besides, they've only just uncovered the scientific farce mentioned in this article. Of course, this pseudoscience was very useful to the Nazis, the Communists, and today's secularists. If man is just an ape, then you can do whatever you want to him."

The biblical "kind" that Damir Stojić is actually referring to corresponds to the level of "family" in our modern biological classification, not the level of a biological species. Biological species are merely varieties within the fixed, insurmountable boundaries established by the biblical kind—the family. Micro-evolution—viewed as extremely limited mechanisms of highly restricted variability within God's creations—is a fundamental component of Young Earth Creationism.

feralranger said:Oh, right—the whole idea that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. Honestly, that’s just as absurd as believing the world is flat. At least Elvis Presley stays consistent in his relentless insistence on interpreting the Bible literally, regardless of how bizarre the conclusions might be.

Actually, Benedict XVI. didn't see this as "bizarre" at all. In fact, he offered his official blessing to the idea—something released via an official Vatican document—that many Catholic PhD scientists (we’re talking geologists, biologists, biophysicists, physicists, and chemists, as well as theologians and philosophers) openly lecture on the literal creation of the universe. They argue that God created the first pair, Adam and Eve, in six literal days roughly 6,000 years ago, and that fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were actually formed rapidly during a massive, global catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago.

feralranger said:Well, we happen to be discussing Elvis Presley here, and since he’s busy peddling such utter nonsense, I can't help but wonder why you felt the need to drag academics into the conversation.

Come on now, please—take a closer look at the specific points I made regarding those college professors.

feralranger said:"University professors" who actually subscribe to the whole "Flat Earth" theory?
I have to wonder, which institutions are we even talking about here?

Wait, who brought up the flat Earth theory or university professors in the first place? Where did you get that from?

feralranger said:
From an outsider's perspective, this looks pretty bad for the Church—it just feeds into that stereotype of being uneducated or stuck in the past. And let's not forget, the Church actually founded many of our most prestigious universities...

At that Catholic creationist conference—the one where the Presidential letter of blessing through the White House has been printed in the book for all to see—the speakers weren't just random folks. We're talking PhDs in molecular biology, biophysics, genetics, chemistry, physics, theology, and philosophy. Some of them even hold professorships at major universities.

The Rock said:
The Earth is only 6,000 years old

Now, this is actually a perfectly legitimate belief for a devout Catholic—in fact, even Benedict XVI. personally extended his official apostolic blessing to a Catholic Young Earth Creationism conference that was quite explicitly anti-evolutionary from a scientific and theological standpoint. You can actually pick up the collection of papers from that gathering right here: The proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences conference. This publication marks the very first time since *Humani generis* came out back in 1950 that we've seen a set of conference proceedings explicitly blessed by a Pope that provides such a thorough presentation of the theological, philosophical, and scientific arguments standing against the evolutionary hypothesis. It’s all there—The Presidential letter of blessing through the White House has been printed in the book for all to see. http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Ev...tegory=3268836, or you can find it over here http://www.siewerth-akademie.de/cms/...amination.html.

He’s a really fascinating individual—he makes a lot of solid points. Of course, he’s human, which means he’s got his share of flaws and mistakes just like the rest of us. But, much like any devout Catholic, Elvis Presley holds a deep, unwavering belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ within the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Personally, I’m a big supporter of the way religious education is structured here in the States—it's the same model my own kids follow in their schools.