The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[noy]

---

Is ressurection day falls on sunday?

Yes, as far as biblical and historical basis are concerned bai

as per Scripture,Jesus died on the afternoon before Sabbath, Sabbath starts at Friday sundown(Jews had a different way of starting their days.which means murag mag una ang gabie sa ilang adlaw kaysa buntag..hehe) on the 3rd Hebrew day from His death comes the resurrection..which would be a Sunday for our normal calendar days...

Furthermore, Jewish Sabbath Day(which is saturday sa atoa karun) should be the last day of the Hebrew week..as per Scripture, Jesus resurrected on early on the 1st day of the week which is the day after sabbath and is Sunday sa Gregorian Calendar(recent calendar)..

[TheClockworks]

i do not believe what atheists are claiming about evolution, that it's suppose to prove that God does not exist..because of visible traces how everything came into being..i reasoned against Atheistic view on evolution with the argument of design and not evolution itself.

Murag sa imuha lang ko kadungog ani, Paki explain nag maayo nang "visible traces" og "argument of design" nimo kay akoa nang gubaon.

[slabdans]

Naa mai ka LQ si slabs diay...

ayg saba

- - - Updated - - -

Murag sa imuha lang ko kadungog ani, Paki explain nag maayo nang "visible traces" og "argument of design" nimo kay akoa nang gubaon.

liahy number 132 sus nagpaila nasad kag kinsa ka hahaha, paniubaga sa ng pangutana ni noy usa ka mo raise ug laing pangutana

[Xian120]

did i explicitly say that i did not not believe in evolution?
i believe you misunderstood bai..
i do not believe what atheists are claiming about evolution, that it's suppose to prove that God does not exist..because of visible traces how everything came into being..i reasoned against Atheistic view on evolution with the argument of design and not evolution itself.

you explicitly did not believe in random selection, which is the main idea behind evolution, therefore you do not believe in evolution, that it is a change due to adaptation rather than following a premeditated grand design.. i did not misunderstood you bay noy,.

The Church never had any official interpretation about how exactly creation accounts are to be interpreted as well as for the genesis flood.
even early Church Fathers differ from their understanding on the subjects..

therefore, this shift that you speak of never took place..
and there is no burden of conscience when the Church should refine their understanding on certain subjects because the church never made anything dogmatic in the first place..

even St. Augustine a 5th century Church Father argued that God created
everything instantaneously only that creation unfolded in a much longer process..
which is one of the point of views i made an example earlier..
far more different from the young earth creationism views...actually bai, kanang grabe ka mga literal kaayo nga take sa creation accounts started to surface after na sa protestant reformation..no offese meant sa mga protestant Christians but that's also the reason why most young earth creationists are non-Catholic Christians.

Allah? Allah is arabic for God..the creator of all things..the equivalent of the God of Abraham for the Jews....the first person of the Trinity for Christians..
of course..i wouldn't have problems with Allah creating the heavens and the earth..

the Church is not saying now that there's no official position..
the Church is saying that it never had an official position..maski pa imung i research..hehehe

before the theory of evolution surfaced bai, unsa pud kahay understanding sa Scientific community regarding our origins? basin genesis pud 'cause most thinkers in the past are religious..but i am inclined to believe that it should not be the same with how young earth creationists interpret genesis accounts on creation..

"Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason."
Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then the catechists were teaching their point of view if that were the case and not of the Church.

on the other hand, if i were the catechist, though i'm not sure that i could do better..i wouldn't teach the kids in a conflicting manner which would appear that they would have to choose between Science and Religion..

despite all that is said about it, you do realize right nga literal ang pagtuo sa mga Kristyanos ani?

aw naa rman diay na, yet sa inyong mga bible wala may disclaimer nga dili diay na literal ang genesis.. even adam and eve are treated as real because you can trace the line of succession from them to jesus.. all this talks about allegorical interpretations yet naa gihapon mga madre ug mga katekista nga motudlo ani as if literal.. tsk tsk.. your church should have doctrinated them first before they send them to schools..

[noy]

you explicitly did not believe in random selection, which is the main idea behind evolution, therefore you do not believe in evolution, that it is a change due to adaptation rather than following a premeditated grand design.. i did not misunderstood you bay noy,.

well in that case, you are correct. i would have to reject random selection..
because anything that is random cannot produce specific results bai..
but it doesn't mean i reject evolution...just the way Atheists see evolution..

now by observing nature, we can see that everything in creation are somewhat working towards a certain goal or purpose in the sense that each creation have their roles in sustaining creation..what makes it even more amazing is that humans only came in the picture at a later time in creation..where creation is already in tact despite of the fact that there was no intelligence governing Nature
but there were natural Laws...

Therefore it is because of the Natural Laws governing creation why the universe functions the way it does..

the question is, how is it that the universe is able to put up specific Laws if everything was supposed to be a product of chance? can something random really produce specifics?

Evolution may be random for us but not to God.

despite all that is said about it, you do realize right nga literal ang pagtuo sa mga Kristyanos ani?

Some.but we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church's perspective on these matters as the thread suggest..
Though nothing is dogmatic but the church holds the theistic evolutionism perspective..

aw naa rman diay na, yet sa inyong mga bible wala may disclaimer nga dili diay na literal ang genesis.. .

there's no disclaimer that we should either.. and there are reasons why we
shouldn't.

even adam and eve are treated as real because you can trace the line of succession from them to jesus..

the church believes they are real people..probably the first modern men.

all this talks about allegorical interpretations yet naa gihapon mga madre ug mga katekista nga motudlo ani as if literal.. tsk tsk.. your church should have doctrinated them first before they send them to schools..

did they explicitly said that evolution is False? or perhaps they were teaching the kids according to their learning capacity?
'cause if its the latter kay murag prehas ra na kung pangutan.on ta sa atong anak kung giunsa paghimo sa parents ang mga babies..
instead of answering them directly with the biological details..
we'd rather say, prudokto mu sa gugma namo ni mama nimu...LOL
wala ta namakak ug nagbinuang..we're just telling them a different side of Truth.

[miket07]

Kapila na nako na gi tubag tanan, As i've said, Learn proper reading comprehension first.

Match match raman mong slabdans,SioDenz sa mga mag lisod ug sabot sa ilahang gipangbasa.

BUGO UTO UTONG KRISTIYANO, Pag tuon sa ug sabot sa imong gi basa oi.

May the flying spaghetti monster bless you too "bro"

Bro ako question nimo wala lagi nimo tubaga sa mga previous posts? I'm sure dali ra to nimo matubag siguro kay straight forward kaayo to.

[heartthr0b]

2. Posts should be composed in such a manner that respects persons of all races, religions, cultures, and sexualities.

kusog kaau mo mo-criticize sa atong government, mga pulitiko, mga artista, mga kumpanya, etc..

nganong exempted man imong religion??

paghilom dira oi

[TheClockworks]

now by observing nature, we can see that everything in creation are somewhat working towards a certain goal or purpose in the sense that each creation have their roles in sustaining creation..what makes it even more amazing is that humans only came in the picture at a later time in creation..where creation is already in tact despite of the fact that there was no intelligence governing Nature but there were natural Laws...

Therefore it is because of the Natural Laws governing creation why the universe functions the way it does..

the question is, how is it that the universe is able to put up specific Laws if everything was supposed to be a product of chance? can something random really produce specifics?

Evolution may be random for us but not to God.

Wala nimo gi tubag akong pangutana, pero e assume nako na mao ning pasabot nimo sa "Visible Traces" og "Argument of Design"

Cge kag gamit ug word na "creation" which is wrong, kay dili ni siya creation but a product of billions of years of Natural Selection, sa akong pag sabot nimo murag na amaze ka because of how things work mao you jumped in to a conclusion na naay "creator" ani tanan, But you really just lack the knowledge.

[slabdans]

Wala nimo gi tubag akong pangutana, pero e assume nako na mao ning pasabot nimo sa "Visible Traces" og "Argument of Design"

Cge kag gamit ug word na "creation" which is wrong, kay dili ni siya creation but a product of billions of years of Natural Selection, sa akong pag sabot nimo murag na amaze ka because of how things work mao you jumped in to a conclusion na naay "creator" ani tanan, But you just lack the knowledge.

tubagaa sa lagi to iyang kanhi pangutana nimo

pang 176 nga lihay nani nimo

[Xian120]

well in that case, you are correct. i would have to reject random selection..
because anything that is random cannot produce specific results bai..
but it doesn't mean i reject evolution...just the way Atheists see evolution..

now by observing nature, we can see that everything in creation are somewhat working towards a certain goal or purpose in the sense that each creation have their roles in sustaining creation..what makes it even more amazing is that humans only came in the picture at a later time in creation..where creation is already in tact despite of the fact that there was no intelligence governing Nature
but there were natural Laws...

Therefore it is because of the Natural Laws governing creation why the universe functions the way it does..

the question is, how is it that the universe is able to put up specific Laws if everything was supposed to be a product of chance? can something random really produce specifics?

Evolution may be random for us but not to God.

exactly, you cant proclaim that you believe in evolution at the same time denying random selection which is the fulcrum of said branch of study,.. when you begin to know more about random selection, you'd find that it is not at all that random and chance driven like what you think it is., rather it is a change due to circumstances that might affect it., one example perhaps is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it's starting point is from the vagus nerve below the brain and ends just few inches down to the larynx., a giraffes vagus nerve however takes an average of 15 ft detour from below the brain down to its heart crisscrossing between organs and bones and back to the larynx, now that is not intelligent design, intelligent design would make it just a few inches and takes away those needless detours.. that's a result of evolution, a product borne out from the giraffe's genetic history,..

but you can look at it the way you do now, that's up to you..

Some.but we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church's perspective on these matters as the thread suggest..
Though nothing is dogmatic but the church holds the theistic evolutionism perspective..

there's no disclaimer that we should either.. and there are reasons why we
shouldn't.

the church believes they are real people..probably the first modern men.

did they explicitly said that evolution is False? or perhaps they were teaching the kids according to their learning capacity?
'cause if its the latter kay murag prehas ra na kung pangutan.on ta sa atong anak kung giunsa paghimo sa parents ang mga babies..
instead of answering them directly with the biological details..
we'd rather say, prudokto mu sa gugma namo ni mama nimu...LOL
wala ta namakak ug nagbinuang..we're just telling them a different side of Truth.

did they explicitly said that evolution is false?.. no but they explicitly mean to say that it is true,. saying nga sauna before ni exist ang tanan, blah blah blah... it's different when you're just simplifying to your kids, here the cathecists really mean it, they themselves actually believe in this,, nya you dont underestimate the learning capacity of an elementary student, much less the high school's.. depende lang na sa pagpasabot, i should know coz im a teacher myself..