₦airaland Forum

JMAN05: i never said ALL are literally true. but not just a story told for relogious reasons.

So tell me which part is literally true and which is not.

quote author=JMAN05]
it is really what happened some thousand years ago. the cardinal that wants to link it with evolutionary discovery is trying to agree to the theory that life started billion years ago as against the genesis account. this is my point.[/quote]2 Peter 3:8
8 However, let this one fact not be
escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that
one day is with Jehovah * as a thousand
years and a thousand years as one day. +

Since you know the bold that St Peter said, isnt that proo4f that the thousands of years might be billions of years?

quote author=JMAN05]
both physically ad spirutually, they died that day. 2peter 3:8[/quote]Hahaha...you're joking right?

Adam and Eve physically died that day.

Then the serpent gave birth to Cain and Abel?

mazaje: Dictionary.com. . .

From www.dictionary.com

myth

- noun 1. legendary story, person, etc. 2. false popular belief

leg·end

- noun 1. story handed down by tradition 2. person

Going by dictionary.com a myth is not necessarily false.

Do you have another dictionary?

Or do you want to force dictionary.com to say what you want it to say?

italo: I'm not sure that Priestly vocations are dropping woefully. Do you have any facts or reasonable sources to back that claim up?

I was watching EWTN recently and Bishop Dami Mamza of Yola was there and he said every year he receives 100 applications for the priesthood but unfortunately, he can only take 10 due to shortage of funds and facilities for their formation. A priest from Panama also said the same on the same program.

God will always raise up shephrrds for his flock.

And bear in mind that we are talking about Yola here...Adamawa...Boko Haram...

Yet they have 100 men in 365 days.

It's remarkable.

turnstoner: Your beloved catholic church is dying.

Aww! Poor you...so that is your dream. Well if your dream is about to come true, you wouldnt be so bitter, scatter-brained and agitated, would you?

Could it be that you are so sad because it is YOU who will be dead and gone in a very short time?

turnstoner: Don't let the couple of likes you get from your companions in delusion deceive you!

I have 'likes?' I didnt notice. You did?

From which dictionary...the mazaje dictionary?

mazaje: Myth means

1.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
2.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
3.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

How does the genesis account resemble reality?. . .Myths are fictitious. . .genesis account is a myth. .Stop fighting yourself. . .

@ turnstoner,

What am I deluded about? Lmao.

You just go around saying what you know nothing about. You dont know the meaning of "myth," "dichotomy," "delusional."

You dont know that Galileo failed to prove his theory conclusively and that part of it has been proved to be false. You dont even know what parts are those.

You dont know that it was Fr Georges Lemaitre that first proposed the major theory behind the big bang.

You know nothing but to throw around big words that mean nothing in the context of the argument.

I will advice you again: READ MORE; TYPE LESS.

Thanks for reading. Yes, it doesnt give a precise explanation for human evolution...even science is speculative on Human Evolution. It shows that if indeed, evolution is accurate, it is compatible with Catholic teaching. The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific or entirely literal story.

Can you tell me what "history" you have been reading that tells you that all Catholics feared science?

adeaugustus: Thanks for sharing this. Although it did not give a precise (reasonable) explanation to Human evolution.
BTW: History has it that, early catholic was against the development of science with the fear of contradiction to the religious teaching of procreation.

I'm not sure that Priestly vocations are dropping woefully. Do you have any facts or reasonable sources to back that claim up?

I was watching EWTN recently and Bishop Dami Mamza of Yola was there and he said every year he receives 100 applications for the priesthood but unfortunately, he can only take 10 due to shortage of funds and facilities for their formation. A priest from Panama also said the same on the same program.

God will always raise up shephrrds for his flock.

Uyi Iredia: Good. The Catholic church is evolving. But can is their system still sustainable given my suspicion that priest initiation is dropping woefully ?

Mazaje, stop trying too hard. The Genesis account is a mythological account. It happened and is true...The Cardinal stated it...Why are you fighting yourself...

...instead of looking up the meaning of "myth"

mazaje: Italo stop trying to hard. . .The genesis account is a myth. . It never happened and it is not true. . .A cardinal that knows better than you has stated it. . .Why are you still fighting yourself?. . .

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment. On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form. But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.  

Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use. 

 Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism). In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).  

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

The Topical ReadingThis leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment. On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form. But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.  Real HistoryThe argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.  Adam and Eve: Real PeopleIt is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism). In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).  Science and ReligionThe Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Share on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing ServicesThe controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others. People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.  The Catholic PositionWhat is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.  The Time QuestionMuch less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago. Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.  Chronological ReadingAccording to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days. Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account. That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others. People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.  

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.  

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago. Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.  

Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days. Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account. That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

F00028: your bible is a collection of 73 BOOKS yet you christians still call it A BOOK.

so who's the dumb one, you or .....you?

quit playing word games. you got a point to make, get to it.

What did Muhammad mean by "the book?"

You say "taurat and injeel."

I have never heard of a book by that name. Can you show me...so that we can read from the book God was telling Muhammad about.

"Catholics are not Christians" but all so-called "churches" came out of Catholicism.

They read the Bible it canonized.

Bunch of envious jokers

F00028: the "taurat" and the "injeel"

Muhammed said "the book"...

You are mentioning two books...

Who is the liar between you and him?

lilbakar: YOU ARE INSULTING AND ACCUSING MUHAMMAD OF WHAT YOU KNOW NOT, MAY GOD FORGIVE YOU, AS YOU OWN IT TO YOURSELF TO READ HIS LIFE, LEGACY SEE WHO HE WAS, AND THEN AFTER THAT I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ANY WHERE IN HISTORY WHO'S LIFE AND LEGACY COMPARES TO MUHAMMAD (PBUH), AND I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT .....

THE MOST PROFOUND BIOGRAPHERS OF THIS AGE CAME TOGETHER TO DO THE SAME THING AM CHALLENGING YOU TO DO, AND THEY CAME UP WITH WHAT THEY CALLED "THE 100 MOST PROFOUND HUMAN BEINGS IN HISTORY",(ITS A BOOK) AND THEY MADE WHAT THEY CALL A CATEGORICAL CRITERIA, THE LIST OF PEOPLE INCLUDE JESUS CHRIST (PBUH), AND WHO DO THINK THEY CHOOSE AS NUMBER 1, IT WAS MUHAMMAD(PBUH), AND THE PRINCIPLE PERSON AMONG THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THAT RESEARCH WAS MICHEAL J. HURD, WHO WAS A CHRISTIAN, SAID IN TIMES MAGAZINE THAT "BASED ON THE CATEGORICAL CRITERIA WE SET,MUHAMMAD WAS THE MOST PROFOUND, HUMAN IN HISTORY, AND AS A CHRISTIAN MY SELF, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED JESUS, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS AND OBJECTIVITY THERE WERE 5 CATEGORY THAT JESUS DID NOT FULFILL IN OUR CRITERIA. 1-HE WAS NOT A FATHER,MUHAMMAD WAS. 2- HE WAS NOT A HUSBAND, MUHAMMAD WAS, 3-HE WAS NOT A STATES MAN,MUHAMMAD WAS. 4-HE DID NOT LEAVE A LEGACY THAT BECAME AFTER HIM A WORLD GOVERNMENT,BUT MUHAMMAD(PBUH) DID.

MUHAMMAD IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PERFECT HUMAN SENT TO MANKIND TO TRY AND EMULATE.

GO TO GOOGLE OR WIKIPEDIA AND PUNCH THE NAME "M U H A M M A D" AND TELL ME IF HE IS A FRAUD AND AN IMPOSTER!!

THERE ARE MANY EVIDENCES TO PROVE HIS PROPHETHOOD OF MUHAMMAD EVEN FROM YOUR BIBLE, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE THE QUR'AN IS TOO ELOQUENT, TOO SUPERB, TOO GREAT, TOO FULL OF WISDOM, FOR ANY MAN,INFACT FOR AN UNLETTERED MAN TO JUST COOK UP.
God said in the Quran q2:23 "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a verse the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful".

To call a thief "thief" is never an insult.

I have told you why I believe Muhammad is a fraud and you havent been able to address it.

The man said God told him to believe the gospels. The gospels tell us that Jesus is God. Muhammed says he isnt. Muhammad has to be the liar because if the gospels lied, God would not have told Muhammmad to believe the gospels.

lilbakar: OK LET ME MAKE IT CLEARER, WE BELIEVE IN THE GOSPEL THAT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN TO JESUS BY GOD, (AS YOU HAVE SAID IN HEBREW SCRIPTURE, IT WAS LATER REVEALED IN GREEK LANGUAGE),

YES THE BIBLE HAS UNDERGONE SOME ALTERATION TO SUPPORT THE INVENTED DOCTRINES OF PAUL, AND THOSE WERE THE MAJOR CHANGES IN THE BIBLE, AN THOSE ARE THE MAJOR THINGS MUSLIMS TOTALLY DISBELIEVE IN, AND THROUGH OUT HISTORY IT HAS GRADUALLY UNDERGONE OTHER CHANGES TO SUITE THE DESIRE OF THE CHURCH, WHILE OTHER CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATIONS TO OTHER LANGUAGES, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL PARTS OF THE BIBLE HAS UNDERGONE ALTERATION........... AND THIS IS WHY MUSLIMS TODAY AND EVEN SOME CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES CANNOT GRADE TODAY'S BIBLE AS 100% AUTHENTIC.

SO IN SUMMARY WE BELIEVE IN THE GOSPEL AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY REVEALED IN HEBREW SCRIPTURES (BEFORE PAUL CAME WITH HIS ASSUMPTIONS)

MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN TODAY'S BIBLE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, AS IT STILL CONTAINS SOME TRUE WORDS AND LIFE OF JESUS.

MUSLIMS TOTALLY DISAGREE, DISAPPROVE, AND DISBELIEVE WITH WHAT THE FOUNDER OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY (PAUL) HAS INVENTED INTO IN THE BIBLE

AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD THE GOSPEL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADULTERATED, BECAUSE GOD REVEALED A VERSE SAYING; IN QURAN4:171 "O People of the Book (CHRISTIANS)! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs".

HOPE THAT CLARIFIES YOUR QUESTIONS..........

No!

You say the bible was adulterated by Mohammed's time. Why then did God tell Mohammed to seek clarification from the people (christians) that read the book (bible) before him?

Which parts of the Bible did Muhammad encourage you to believe in...and which version?

The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Do you believe in the original Greek and Hebrew Bible?

You say the Gospels were written in Hebrew. This show how little you know of Biblical history...and that is why you say Paul is the founder of modern Christianity.

Please just give me direct answers.

JMAN05: sorry if u cant decode the trux between Pell's comment and what evolution believes.

he is telling u that the account is a myth. is it not partly what evolution has been saying? from his comment can you now say that life began some six/seven thousand years ago?

If you call it a myth, you can hardly affirm all the story therein as a real life story, it can only be viewed as a cooked story for religious reasons. which is what your cardinal is saying.

I know that catholic likes merging any belief, even paganism to their belief. I dont know whether they wont to do the same for evolution. thats there business, the bible's account is not just a religious story but it is PURE truth. maybe science will understand later as there theory continues to receive enlightenment.

So the entirety of the Genesis story was literally true?

Adam and Eve truly died when they ate the fruit?

@ Evil brain. I think we can safely conclude that the Cardinal hasnt said anything contrary to Catholic teaching...that is what this thread is about.

We know that some of you, in your perpetual bitterness, are always wanting to argue without focus so as not to deal with the matter at hand.

I encourage you to open another thread to discuss the role of Catholicism in the world...and if you do, arm yourself with evidence for all the lies you have told here already.

I have never been a mass server but I have many friends who are. I hope to have sons who will be.

You guys are there at every occasion. Masses, funerals, stations, processions, etc. You make great sacrifices to do God's work...I remember one day at mass, a mass server collapsed, we were confused and worried, we found out after the mass that he had been ill even before mass...yet he served.

God bless you guys.

Jonah (Yunus) 10:94, Late Meccan."If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..."

Which book is being talked about here?

F00028: Jesus Christ, yes. the bible, no.

Jesus Christ never wrote a word, he didn't ask anyone else to write and while he was around not a single word was written.

you should research the history of the bible.

@ lilbakar, I dont understand you and/or Muhammad. To answer your question, I dont believe in Muhammad and the Quran because based on the reasons below, I believe he is a fraud and an impostor.

You say you believe in the Bible...

Then you say the Bible has been adulterared...

Yet you quote from the (adulterated) Bible to support your argument.

Which parts of the Bible did Muhammad encourage you to believe in...and which version?

Muhammad lived in the 6th century. Do you believe in the Bible as it was in Muhammad's day?

The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Do you believe in the original Greek and Hebrew Bible?

[quote author=mikedaniel76@gmail.com]Hey!!! And who says the church is nat one body.[/quote]Who says the above mentioned places of worship are one body?

My friend, you will be well advised to read more and type less.

I'm not keen on a entering a focusless shouting match with one who doesn't know half of what he is talking about.

This thread is about the cardinal and his comments and so far no one has been able to prove that he said anything that contradicts any part of the 2000year old Catholic teaching.

The first thing we Catholics ask for at every mass is God's Mercy and Pardon.

Lenten period is for all Christians. Strictly speaking, Catholicism is Christianity.

...then some people decided they wanted to practise Christianity their own way...and they have been confused ever since.

Does the Quran encourage you to believe the Bible?

Yes or No.

lilbakar: STOP BEEN BRAIN WASHED BY THE MEDIA OR FALSE TEACHERS

turnstoner: Just so you know:
The catholic church is not a path to arrive at any truth.

Historically,what the catholic church does is to align itself with prevailing powers or forces and tries to legitimize(preserve) itself by so doing.

Not true. Historically, the Catholic Church has undergone and endured countless and continual persecutions from the most powerful governments in the world. America and China are just two of today's examples. I will expantiate if you need it.

turnstoner: Equating catholicism with science is a hilarious deceit. So catholicism agrees with the theory of evolution? Then it can be safely assumed that it does not agree with the biblical account of the origin of man. I wonder how catholics can still refer to themselves as christians.

Catholicism is not equal to science. It is far superior.

turnstoner: Does catholicism also agree with the big-banng theory?

The big bang theory and evolution are not conclusive and they are not incompatible with Catholic teaching.

You surely do not know that the basic theory behind the Big Bang (although he didn’t call it that) was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist.

turnstoner: Why was Galileo persecuted by the catholic church?

Because he wanted the Church to change the way they interpreted scripture based on a theory that he was yet to prove conclusively. Indeed, parts of that theory have been scientifically proven to be wrong.

Do research. You seem to know so little for one who asserts so much.

I cant teach you everything.

Evil Brain: Stop talking rubbish abeg. When did the bible describe any of those things? Why was it only when secular science discovered them that christians noticed that they were in the bible? Whenever a scientific idea becomes too obvious to dismiss, you people go and look for a vague verse that you can twist to make it look like the bible said it all along. The same bible that spent chapter after chapter on useless advice about what was "clean" (locusts, cockroaches) and what was unclean (menstruating women, and women who give birth to girls) but couldn't tell people to boil water before drinking it.

Why were christians persecuting scientists and free thinkers who questioned their superstitious beliefs? Why did the church try to kill Galileo for proving that the earth goes round the sun and not the other way round?

Keep deceiving yourself that your holy book isn't just a bunch of fables and superstitions. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The Church did what it could to urge caution. Galileo did not conclusively prove his proposition but was trying to proclaim it as truth already.

Are you aware that Galileo said sun is the centre of the universe and it does not move?