Posts by feralranger

Daniel Chase13 said: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.

How on earth can anyone claim to exercise their free will to make a decision on my behalf? It is an absolute absurdity. Furthermore, by what logic am I being held accountable for the misguided choices made through their supposed autonomy? Even a major institution like JP Morgan wouldn't dream of imposing such a liability on its clients. If you choose to decline an inheritance, you don't get to inherit the catastrophic mistakes of your ancestors along with it.

Daniel Chase13 As expressed by:
It seems that God isn't merely attempting to mend the damage within this world, but rather...

And where exactly might we be headed, if I may be so bold as to ask?

Daniel Chase13 said: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.

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.

Lisa Jackson7 said:A car's "perfection" is dead. Life is perfect because of its "imperfections"—or better yet, it's just good.
If we're sticking to metaphors, God looks more like an artist to me than some engineer or coder.

I mean, don't most human creations live "their own lives"? Does that make them any less perfect?

If God actually had to go around "tinkering" with the genome—to "modify" it, as that particular text implies—in order to improve it, then by definition, the previous iteration wasn't perfect to begin with.

Lisa Jackson7 said:A car's "perfection" is dead. Life is perfect because of its "imperfections"—or better yet, it's just good.
If we're sticking to metaphors, God looks more like an artist to me than some engineer or coder.

I mean, don't most human creations live "their own lives"? Does that make them any less perfect?

They live, in the sense of possessing "free will"—assuming they are indeed "creations" and assuming free will is anything more than a mere illusion born from deterministic processes. In any case, that concept has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed necessity of fixing a genome.

Lisa Jackson7 said:God works within Creation...

Just dropping a link for now... “Theistically Guided” Evolution as God’s Incarnational Work

The view of evolution I propose is what I will call theistically guided evolution. I define theistically guided evolution as the view that all life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process (“descent with modification”), but in various places God guided or influenced this process. God could guide the evolutionary process by mutating some gamete or even adding new information to the gametes, thereby resulting in one organism giving rise to a significantly different offspring. [Here Collins has a footnote: I prefer to think of God’s guiding the evolutionary process in a non-mechanical way, a sort of nurturing or brooding over the evolutionary process as God is said to brood over the waters in Genesis 1:2. For a sophisticated account of how God could have guided the evolutionary process, see Robert Russell, “Mutation: a New Defense of Theistic Evolution”; some of Russell’s ideas are presented in another column.] Since in this view god works in and through The Natural process of reproduction, the offspring could be said to be both the product of the natural operation of the world and a creation of god. The extent to which god guides The process, and The extent to which The evolutionary process is a result of unguided chance plus Natural selection, however, remains an open question.

[/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?

bluemason3 said:In the context of evolution, believing in a single original pair and original sin feels bizarre, but those are fixed dogmas within the Catholic Church, so I'm not sure how much room there actually is for symbolic interpretation.

Like many others, I sat through Catholic religious education classes, and I recall one particular incident from my elementary school days back in the old country. At the time, our religious studies were held in a parish classroom. My chemistry teacher was a staunch, uncompromising atheist and a committed communist (her husband, incidentally, was a rather notorious bigwig in the SK). During one specific chemistry lecture, she touched upon the origins of Earth and demanded that every student enrolled in religious studies stand up. About half the class rose to their feet, but because I was considered the top student—particularly in the natural sciences like physics and especially mathematics—she insisted that I remain seated while telling everyone else they could sit down. She began interrogating me about what we had been taught in religion class, clearly intending to mock the subject matter, yet I simply recounted exactly what I had heard during those lessons from a priest who was, by any standard, exceptionally well-educated: that the biblical account of creation is written figuratively and should not be taken as literal fact. Needless to say, she was absolutely livid at my response, as it provided her with absolutely no leverage for the mockery she had planned.

As a side note, later on in my time in a city similar to a mid-sized American suburb, the professors were significantly more cultured (and most were, professionally speaking, among the finest high school educators you could encounter), so even those who identified as atheists would offer Christmas greetings to those who celebrated it. On Christmas—which, mind you, was a regular working day just like any other—we didn't actually do any schoolwork with two of my professors; instead, we simply shared a few drinks with them. We had some non-alcoholic options alongside wine, though nobody got intoxicated or behaved indecently. We even played guitars, though we stuck to the "new wave" hits of the era rather than any hymns.

Back then, as a believer, I found that non-dogmatic atheists were perfectly fine, and I hold them in the highest regard, just as I do now that I have transitioned to being an agnostic (and an atheist), particularly when dealing with non-dogmatic theists. I tend to have, if I may say so, certain "issues" with the stubborn extremists on both sides—much like in politics, whether it's the clash between far-right zealots and hardline leftists, or those self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" who turn a blind eye to the fascist-leaning atrocities committed by those claiming to fight against them.

bluemason3 said:On the other hand, setting aside the aliens for a moment, young creationists seem more internally consistent to me than Christian evolutionists. I posted about this earlier in the Catholic Q&A section, and honestly, the answers didn't impress me much. Not to be biased, but who am I to judge? They clearly see things differently.

To be honest, I find it pretty tough to connect the dots between the exclusively human (though not animal) souls of Adam and Eve—as they are dogmatically defined and therefore unchangeable—and Original Sin, alongside evolution. It feels like you have to stretch rationalizations quite far to bridge that cognitive dissonance. With creationists, the alignment between their religious myth and theological foundations seems much clearer.

Of course, that approach completely ignores scientific facts and common sense, which would shrink and radicalize the flock. So, it’s in everyone's interest to play a little dumb. But even so, the logic of Christian evolutionism still feels "internally" strained if we are talking about full-blown scientific evolution rather than some repackaged version with a hidden agenda.

Not necessarily, because believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible where the Earth is a flat disc only about 6,000 years old is patently bizarre.

Regarding evolution, one could maintain a rational perspective that while evolution is indeed a fact, it isn't the "whole story" and doesn't explain everything—much like how Newton's physics doesn't account for every single nuance of motion; reducing everything to Newton's physics would be an oversimplification and ultimately inaccurate, even if it remains approximately correct and useful for everyday applications.

Materialistic beliefs (held by a significant portion of atheists) often lean toward the idea that the universe emerged ex nihilo or similar concepts. There are various religious positions held by both theists and atheists alike.

Daniel Chase13 said: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.

No one is claiming that man equals an ape, just as no one claims a giraffe equals an antelope or anything of the sort; rather, according to evolutionary theory, we are talking about the existence of common biological ancestors.

Daniel Chase13 said: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.

No matter how you slice it, a literal interpretation of the Bible—such as believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that it is a flat plane—is equally bizarre and runs contrary to obvious reality. Even the Church's dispute with Galileo wasn't about whether the Earth was round (it was clearly understood even then that it was), but rather focused on whether it moved; back then, he couldn't provide sufficiently robust evidence, though he logically connected everything, and it has long been indisputable to any educated person that Galileo was right. As far as I know (unless I am mistaken?), Pope Francis has offered an apology in the spirit of Jesus' teachings for the Church's crimes—including those against scientists.

Daniel Chase13 said: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.

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.

Daniel Chase13 said:Come on now, please—take a closer look at the specific points I made regarding those college professors.

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.

Daniel Chase13 said:Wait, who brought up the flat Earth theory or university professors in the first place? Where did you get that from?

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.

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

Daniel Chase13 said:
This is a perfectly legitimate belief for a devoted Catholic, and even Pope Benedict XVI.

From an outsider's perspective, however, this does nothing but damage the reputation of the Church; it fuels the perception that we are uneducated or narrow-minded... which is quite ironic considering the Church founded so many—including some of the most prestigious universities in the country...

...furthermore, that whole dispute with Galileo roughly four hundred years ago wasn't actually about whether the Earth was round—that had been established ages ago—but rather about whether it actually moved... and at the time, Galileo simply couldn't provide sufficiently robust or definitive evidence, even if his intuitive grasp of the situation was spot on...

And now, we have certain pseudo-intellectuals like Elvis Presley, peddling their bizarre theories as if they were somehow dragging the Church back centuries. It’s almost as if some smug atheist set them up just to make the Church look ridiculous.

A true genius of physics, astronomy, and geography. Perhaps we can even hope he’ll be our next Secretary of Education.

The discovery that the Earth is actually flat, finally shattering millennia of delusions regarding its three-dimensional curvature—one might even argue this stands as the single greatest revelation of the last thousand years.

hiddeneagle98 said:I can't quite remember if I've seen it—it sounds familiar, but the memory isn't clicking. But look, what are you actually getting at here? Are you suggesting that we can NEVER be one hundred percent certain about anything?

Being 100% certain doesn't actually mean I'm right.

Do yourself a favor and watch the movie; it is genuinely worth your time (assuming we're talking about the original '57 version, of course). It is easily one of those top ten films I would personally mandate as part of the standard American school curriculum.

hiddeneagle98 said:Sure, all those scenarios are possible, but they aren't the rule. I’m still sticking to my guns on this: reasonable doubt has to be demonstrated within the context of an individual case. You can't just take broad, general statistical data and try to manufacture reasonable doubt for a specific, concrete situation—that's just pure nonsense. I honestly don't know why we even need to debate this. I mean, fine, go ahead and argue if you want, but I've got much better things to do with my time.

My entire commentary was actually centered on that specific sentence of yours which stated:

hiddeneagle98 said:But honestly, you're mixing up different levels of reasoning there. Reasonable doubt needs to exist on an individual, case-by-case basis to free a person; you can't just derive that kind of doubt from broad statistical averages applied to everyone. Besides, for certain criminals, you don't even need a trial to be 100% sure—they've confessed, or they're caught red-handed on a high-def security camera, and that's that.

And that is precisely why I shared that film link with you, as it serves as the perfect illustration of why such a statement is fundamentally problematic. If you haven't seen it, you are truly missing out, as it is a genuine masterpiece in every sense of the word—a cinematic triumph.

I wasn't engaging with statistics at all, nor did I attempt to address them; I was merely addressing the very thing I intended to address.

hiddeneagle98 said:But honestly, you're mixing up different levels of reasoning there. Reasonable doubt needs to exist on an individual, case-by-case basis to free a person; you can't just derive that kind of doubt from broad statistical averages applied to everyone. Besides, for certain criminals, you don't even need a trial to be 100% sure—they've confessed, or they're caught red-handed on a high-def security camera, and that's that.

One should certainly revisit the classic— one of the greatest cinematic achievements ever made.

hiddeneagle98 said:But honestly, you're mixing up different levels of reasoning there. Reasonable doubt needs to exist on an individual, case-by-case basis to free a person; you can't just derive that kind of doubt from broad statistical averages applied to everyone. Besides, for certain criminals, you don't even need a trial to be 100% sure—they've confessed, or they're caught red-handed on a high-def security camera, and that's that.

It seems almost every individual possesses someone in their life who mirrors them. Furthermore, a confession isn't always an absolute truth; it can be coerced. It doesn't even require physical torture or blatant intimidation to happen. Sometimes, someone simply frames you for a crime, and you find yourself in such a precarious position that you confess just to secure a ten-year sentence instead of facing twenty years or life behind bars.

hiddeneagle98 said:To my mind, a "criminal" is someone who treats crime like their actual day job. You have dentists, you have criminals, and you have beggars. Not everyone who breaks a law is a "criminal" in the way we actually use the word in daily conversation; sure, legally speaking you might classify them that way, but colloquially, we don't usually call someone a criminal unless it's their lifestyle.

The other figures we're talking about—Joseph Stalin, Ronald Reagan, and Nat Turner—are essentially revolutionaries rather than common criminals. By their very nature, revolutions seek to dismantle the existing order, which means they are inherently illegal under the current system.

And let me just add this: the line separating a criminal from a revolutionary can get incredibly thin sometimes, even if in the specific cases of Joseph Stalin, Ronald Reagan, or Nat Turner, the distinction feels pretty obvious to us.

Hmm... if we consider figures like Tit, Stalin, Pavelić, or Hitler, calling them "criminals" feels like quite an understatement; they were mass murderers and war criminals, plain and simple. The only outlier in that group is Stalin, who wasn't actually the revolutionary himself—that distinction belongs to his predecessor, Lenin. The others were insurgents and revolutionaries who triggered massive shifts in the social order... though, to be perfectly clear, they were also monstrous criminals.

From a strictly legalistic standpoint, Oskar Schindler was essentially a criminal. He masterminded the production of forged documents and engaged in all sorts of other illicit activities. Similarly, Nat Turner would have been branded a criminal; by today’s modern standards, I suppose he might even be labeled a terrorist. Even Robin Hood would likely face criminal charges if he weren't merely a figment of our imagination...

bluemason3 said:It’s not a stretch to say that WW2 was essentially an anomaly. When you look at the entire timeline of human history—from our earliest beginnings through the long stretches of peace followed by various smaller conflicts—those two wars stand out as massive outliers. If you follow your own logic and look at the bigger picture over much longer periods, they’re just statistical deviations.

Even if we brought them into the equation, I’m not sure it would change much. For instance, during WW2, only about 3% of the population was lost. Compare that to the Stone Age—some archaeological findings suggest violent deaths consistently hit double digits, sometimes even topping 50%.

While modern technology certainly serves to obstruct or discourage individual acts of violence, it simultaneously provides the tools necessary for mass slaughter. If one chooses to practice selective blindness regarding the nature of these consequences, one inevitably arrives at flawed conclusions.

bluemason3 said:It’s not a stretch to say that WW2 was essentially an anomaly. When you look at the entire timeline of human history—from our earliest beginnings through the long stretches of peace followed by various smaller conflicts—those two wars stand out as massive outliers. If you follow your own logic and look at the bigger picture over much longer periods, they’re just statistical deviations.

Even if we brought them into the equation, I’m not sure it would change much. For instance, during WW2, only about 3% of the population was lost. Compare that to the Stone Age—some archaeological findings suggest violent deaths consistently hit double digits, sometimes even topping 50%.

Vague references to 'some archaeological data' are, frankly, remarkably imprecise... and I would venture to say that your sudden reach for Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons feels like a rather desperate attempt to salvage your standing in this debate.

One should really compare the frequency of violent deaths in the 20th century to those of the 19th, 18th, or 17th centuries.

And besides, we have barely scratched the surface of the 21st century, yet a certain Nobel Peace Prize winner has already managed to ignite several conflicts... so I truly struggle to identify the source of your manufactured optimism.

Ultimately, if humanity ends up technologically enslaved like drones within the Borg system—which is precisely where current control mechanisms seem to be heading—those individual murders might indeed vanish, but looking at the broader picture, that is hardly something we should celebrate as "progress."

bluemason3 said:https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/h...western-europe

Data here excludes war-related figures (though some reconstructions and extrapolations were used)

And why on earth would one bother excluding wars? If we are witnessing mass slaughter on a global scale during mega-conflicts, are we really expected to find solace in the fact that people are killing each other "in smaller amounts" during peacetime?

While modern technology has gifted us with high-definition cameras and advanced DNA forensics—tools that certainly give many a reason to hesitate before committing a solitary murder—it has simultaneously handed us devastating bombs and automated killing machines, which make it all too easy to "balance out" these statistics and far exceed them in a single stroke...