Author Topic: Biblical Commission Of 1909 (Read 8307 times)

claudel · « **Reply #105 on:** December 20, 2013, 04:56:24 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist

… there is nothing for us to learn from them.

Do you ever use zeros when you're trying to calculate the tax on your Whopper Jr. and shake? I still have a headache from the last time I tried to figure out how much VIII-point-V percent of IX dollars and XXXVII cents was on the new Gladiator III model of my Labienus brand tablet with IV-G wireless. When I flip the switch to Greek mode, things get even worse.

Besides being grateful to Arabs, Saracens, Almoravids, and similar Mohammedan nasties and polygamists for giving me Arabic numerals, I tip my hat to them for naming many of the stars the Greeks couldn't be bothered with naming or perhaps simply couldn't see in their humid, overcast homeland. Think of Alcor and Mizar for starters, and we've barely begun our trip down Ursa Major Avenue. Call me vehemently suspected of heresy if you like, but I'm glad we have stars with permanent Arab designations. Otherwise you can bet they'd be named for Aunt Zeituni, Uncle Omar, and Archhero Mandela.

More seriously though, Soldier,* how do you read the Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Wheat and the Tares, if not as Our Lord's formidable dismissal of a Catharist lifestyle as possible or desirable and frank encouragement to learn what we can wherever we can while we hew, as best we can, to the line of right He has laid out for us?
__________________

*Commissioned officer? Enlisted man? Warrant officer? DoD-contracted mercenary with a License to Kill Error? Just asking. Merry Christmas.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #106 on:** December 20, 2013, 07:24:28 PM »

Quote from: claudel

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist
… there is nothing for us to learn from them.

Do you ever use zeros when you're trying to calculate the tax on your Whopper Jr. and shake? I still have a headache from the last time I tried to figure out how much VIII-point-V percent of IX dollars and XXXVII cents was on the new Gladiator III model of my Labienus brand tablet with IV-G wireless. When I flip the switch to Greek mode, things get even worse.

Besides being grateful to Arabs, Saracens, Almoravids, and similar Mohammedan nasties and polygamists for giving me Arabic numerals, I tip my hat to them for naming many of the stars the Greeks couldn't be bothered with naming or perhaps simply couldn't see in their humid, overcast homeland. Think of Alcor and Mizar for starters, and we've barely begun our trip down Ursa Major Avenue. Call me vehemently suspected of heresy if you like, but I'm glad we have stars with permanent Arab designations. Otherwise you can bet they'd be named for Aunt Zeituni, Uncle Omar, and Archhero Mandela.

More seriously though, Soldier,* how do you read the Parables of the Unjust Steward and the Wheat and the Tares, if not as Our Lord's formidable dismissal of a Catharist lifestyle as possible or desirable and frank encouragement to learn what we can wherever we can while we hew, as best we can, to the line of right He has laid out for us?
__________________

*Commissioned officer? Enlisted man? Warrant officer? DoD-contracted mercenary with a License to Kill Error? Just asking. Merry Christmas.

So Arab equates with heretic apostate now? I don't even know how to respond to this. Not only did the zero exist in Arab culture before the advent of mohammedanism, but it existed in other cultures before that. Merry Christmas.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #107 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:18:01 PM »

.

The history of the bad hypothesis of evolution (it's not a theory) is rife with the self-contradictions and exposure of falsehood that you have there, S'C.

One after the other, as their contrived fables were presented to the world, they became shown for what they were: fakes. But that made no difference when the Freemasonic press and public opinion funded by atheists kept alive the fable fantasy that so-called evolution was still a viable "theory" (it's not a theory).

It's a very embarrassing history, which explains why supporters of the bad hypothesis of 'evolution' are ashamed to talk about it, like jaundice, for example.

No sooner was one "Piltdown man" shown to be a phony and another "Java man" rose up to take his place. The nefarious heretic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ran around the world seeking pig's teeth to file down and stain with shoe polish so that the Freemasonic-Yid press could parade the news from the International Date Line to Greenwich meridian.

And so it was in America, from sea to shining sea.

Meanwhile, all of the fundamental THEORY upon which those fables relied was hidden and overlooked. What THEORY was that?

Well, what THEORY was it, anyway, that said that the age of the cosmos is measured not in thousands of years but in millions or billions or whatever?

What THEORY was it that said that the age of the earth is determined by the "observable" evidence?

What THEORY was it that said that radiometric dating of fossils is reliable because the 'established' age of surrounding rock formations and alluvial deposits was 'known'?

WHOSE THEORY was it that said we can know the age of sedimentary rocks, gneiss, feldspar, carborundum, shale, red limestone, clay, granite, metamorphic rock, conglomerate, earthquake faults, and dinosaur bones merely by inspection and consultation of revered volumes of forgotten lore?

Don't ask jaundice, because he's never heard of the guy, and he's too yellow to bother finding out.

.

icterus · « **Reply #108 on:** December 21, 2013, 05:27:20 AM »

Damnit, man. Learnt he definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' before using them.

SJB · « **Reply #109 on:** December 21, 2013, 03:08:16 PM »

Quote from: icterus

Quote
I have an acquaintance who's high school aged child has fallen in this very way. Those who start "studying the theory" are almost never sufficiently educated and even in a position to investigate such things. They fall rather easily into naturalism and sometimes complete atheism.

Because they are presented with your false dichotomy of scientific knowledge versus biblical literalism. That is not orthodox Catholicism.

It's EASY for the world to take people away from the faith when the faith is presented in these terms. It's been working on the children of Proetstant fundamentalists for 100 years, and now it will work again on the children of Traditional Catholics.

Well, that's not what happened at all. Evolution was presented as coming from natural science ( the only science that was truly interested in the truth) and the Faith conflicted with the "truth" of that science, and thus associated with error.

For this very reason, I wouldn't let you anywhere near my children. It's not "my false dichotomy" that caused this, it was those who taught evolution who did it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #110 on:** December 21, 2013, 03:14:43 PM »

.

If the Church in 1909 had known then what we know today the commission would not have come out with the answers that it did then. All they did was to allow discussion to take place, which was a very risky move, really. The problem with "discussions" is, like on this forum, for example, when certain participants tenaciously adhere to falsehood as the basis of their argument, if they persist in a most unrelenting way, they might be able to garner some ostensible credibility, but it will be artificial and contrived, due to the fact that its foundation is in falsehood.

Since so-called evolution has just such a basis, in falsehood, it cannot be a theory, but is merely a bad hypothesis. The truth is, there is nothing true about it, and it is ALL LIES. Its only consistency is in its consistent falsehood.

It is not a theory.

It is a bad hypothesis.

And it has no basis in truth.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #111 on:** December 21, 2013, 03:41:19 PM »

.

Quote from: SJB

...
Evolution was presented as coming from natural science (the only science that was truly interested in the truth) and the Faith conflicted with the "truth" of that science, and thus associated with error.
...

The deceivers who pander their lies as 'evolution' take a special pleasure in corrupting innocent minds. They're eligible for the "millstone necklace treatment" according to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

It has always been this way, and it always will.

This so-called 'evolution' doesn't come from natural science.

It comes from the depths of hell.

Like all lies, it is ultimately from the father of lies who was a liar from the beginning and there is no truth in him.

If anyone hangs on tight to evolution to his consequent loss of faith in divine revelation, it will take him (or her) straight to hell. And hell is without end.

To reject God's revelation and the truth that the Church infallibly transmits to us in Tradition (which BTW includes the Bible) is the worst of all sins, because it is a sin against faith, and there is no greater sin than the sin against faith. It is the definition of separation from God, and it is the essence of eternal damnation, as such.

Maybe the commission of 1909 was a little confused or overwhelmed with conflicting data, but under a Pope Saint, it had what it needed to be cautious, nonetheless, it was not cautious, but opened the doors to discussion instead. So what did we get but two world wars, Communism, atomic warfare, government corruption, AIDS, Vat.II, the abominable Newmass, the stupid Newcode of Canon Law, 5 apostate popes in a row (or perhaps 6 but we really don't know about JPI), corruption in the highest levels of the Church that now even threatens to proclaim Modernists as "saints," and the openly indifferentist Assisi's I, II and III.

For it's Assisi I, II, III, what are fightin' IV?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Viet-Nam.
And it's V, VI, VII, open up the pearly g-VIII-s.
No time to wonder why,

Whoopie! ---------

We're all gonna fall into hell with the evolutionists if we believe like they do!

.

roscoe · « **Reply #112 on:** August 10, 2015, 01:47:36 AM »

Quote from: icterus

Quote
If true this puts an end to any idea that E being 6xxx yrs old needs be taken as Dogma.

Don't get your hopes up. I've been here before, and I have experienced the 'magical infallibility reversal (TM)' more than once. That which supports our side of the debate is infallible. That which does not support our side of the debate is merely disciplinary.

It's an amazing feature of Catholic thought.

You mean Prot thought........ :confused1: