Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, roseelvira said:

I get the feeling  that  NO MATTER who i  put someone would have found fault.

Yes, and that is partly what the internet does to EVERYTHING, probably just ask anyone who is famous.  We could be here "googling" conflicting stories until infinity with the internet no matter what browser really and about anything.

But, the press does this time and time again to propagandize us.  I won't get into a "google" debate here because I know it would be useless and endless.  

Love God and people; that's all that's really asked of us.  Because if the internet is twisting stuff and everything, then the same has happened to the Bible as well by men to manipulate us, and I believe that these writings are not entirely on the up and up and are corrupt.  

My father was a psychologist and a Social Worker, having his Masters in Social Work, and I'm sure he found in his work that having to conform to the heterosexual model and live a lie was hurting and harming others.  I'm also sure he talked about it with my Mom decades before my cousin was an adult.   It took great courage for my Mom to go against what the Roman Catholic church taught about same sex relationships.  There are liberal American Catholics, however they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic church any longer as far as I know.  To be Roman Catholic, one must conform with what the Pope says.  My Mom became a liberal catholic.  I'm not sure many people even know what that is.  But, she was free and reformed from the traditions among other things.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

giving out hugs and candy to all ,,,,, i saw a cute dinosaur stuffed toy  with a green leprechaun hat  .

Questions back on topic     how long for  the evolving mans brain to go from uggg to sewing skins from  dinosaurs  or  animals ,,, or did man when he evolved have  that mental ability ,,and in any way  are we evolved from rabbits???

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roseelvira said:
5 hours ago, TDD123 said:

Meet the devil's advocate ( pro bono ) during said Canonization :

I did not know who he was  but after reading  he had dislike for GOD.

HE WAS NOT OR EVER  THE DEVILS ADVOCATE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH  OR DID ANY PRO BONO WORK FOR THE CHURCH ,,,,, THE CLIP IS HIS OPINION,,,,,,,  .SO THAT IS VERY MISLEADING  TITLE 

He was indeed invited by the Vatican to her beautification to give his opinion:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-over-sainthood/

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roseelvira said:

I can say my  belief in GOD and Jesus  has always  brought  me through  so many  horrible unspeakable times.

 I am not  a scholar or  expert, just  a simple person trying to do the right thing  always w love ,kindness , respect and understanding

Note  at no time have i ever told anyone  to believe in my beliefs.

Yes my belief in God or Love has gotten me through the bad times too.

Nobody is trying to take your belief in God & Jesus away, or questioning your right to read the Bible and apply it to your own life.

What is primarily being questioned in this thread is whether it is okay to replace Science (discoveries in evolutionary Science, in this case) with anyone's interpretation of any religious text, and insist that it be given the same weight or greater where matters of Science are being evaluated.

Religious Fundamentalists who believed in Creationism as an explanation for how human life emerged managed to prevent evolution from being taught in schools for 40 years (up until the 60's) until this was deemed by the supreme court as unconstitutional due to its religious nature. Now, under the guise of Intelligent Design (pretending no religious motivation) they continue to push their agenda. 

The above is what Nalatas & Arielle are championing in this thread -- a denial of the Science and a substitution of Christian Fundamentalist beliefs for the explanation of human origins.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FairreLilette said:
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well you know lots of feminist recovery groups don't like the higher power stuff..

I've never heard of that.  But, what also really helped me and not by myself, I had substance abuse counsellors in several hospital stays after nearly poisoning myself to death with alcohol and went into a coma or a blackout, was them telling me I have a disease and explaining things to me.  12-Step, imo, needs to focus on the disease.

I'm glad you were able to overcome that.

Yes some feminists don't like the hierarchical structure of religion inherent in 12-stop programs, surrendering to a higher power when they were forced to surrender to men and society and subvert their own wishes for so long. So they like to focus on empowerment or strengthening the self.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

6000 years ago? 4000 BC was the beginning of the Bronze age. A period when the first cities were starting to form.

Perhaps you forgot to add a few zeros ?

Approximately 600,000,000 yeas ago the Cambrian Explosion.

 

Zircon.Timeline-min.thumb.jpg.428243563494952077b7ec62b63dbc79.jpg

 

Ooooops  😵 ...... Edited to correct the attribution of the quote. See @Rowan Amore post below.

The Cambrian explosion was an older creation event in Earth's history. The fossil record shows there were several extinctions and then subsequent rapid replenishing events with no credible theory as to how an explosion of new life forms came into being. The last significant extinction event happened 11,000-13,000 years ago and 6000 or so years ago, new life started up again.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Addressing the link  from tttd 123 

In fact i have    read   the link before you posted it  . And there are  many reports good and bad  articles  written about Mother Teresa.

 I am being very respectful and in gentle voice  saying to you 

 "  i do not have to believe that  the link tttd123 posted. 

Nor do i believe  the negative  written about   Mother Teresa    . My choice .

  My choice .My free will....

The person the one who wrote very negative  things in that article   about Mother Teresa  was very biased and seemed it was not just a dislike of any one who believes in GOD but a hate for GOD and anyone who believes .as his writings come across,  Example  reading his opinion when a certain  person of good moral character  was very ill and his  response  was a very cruel unkind  statement hoping for that person to not recover  and no it was not about the last president..

Just as you say when some one puts up a link and you say   O that is not believable because it is Christian publication  or from a certain  publisher because you feel they are biased  so you give little credence to what they write or say as it is not an objective   un biased view.

  Same applies  here.

And just because someone says it ,,,i have free will to chose  to believe and agree or  ignore , disagree or toss it into  the  they are  trying to control and influence waste garbage bin  {  been  doing that a lot lately}   regardless of who the writer or speaker or person is.  

Note Wikipedia is not the go to place for all truth. It is a a point of reference / anyone can write something so no i do not depend on that for exact.

Nor do i   believe anything on the web /internet is 100  percent truth /   and sadly  the  media and news  are very biased .

  I cannot tell you the number of  times i had to go to the all the  networks   and see the different  spins.   To my surprise and sadness the major news stations  networks and all of the major  networks   proved to be very biased one sided  and trying to lead  sway peoples opinions and decision   note  at   times doing a  cut and chopping out   footage  be it an interview or news   or  happening at the moment   so you are not seeing the total  footage of the  situation . they chop/ cut  /edit   just to suit their agenda ..

{. NOTE i have a relative who works at one of the major   stations }

Then i turn on the  stations   that people say are fake news and see what that  station footage is and news  and the full clips  and then go to the bbc channel and see their report and then go to the Catholic and Christian   news  watch their news  report  and at the end     i make my own decision. !!!

 When a reporter or anchor is very disrespectful of   or attacks  verbally  any one they   are interviewing    be it pre recorded or live   ,,,the  i really cannot believe this reporter or anchor kicks in   and   that  anchor reporter  loses credibility.  I have see that on the major stations and the snarks remarks.

CNN   or MSNBC  I  really  do not trust or believe !!!  Felt that way a number of years ago .I grew up when news reporting was  getting the facts the correct facts,  the truth , and presenting them plain and simple  !!!  Not putting your opinion / personal agenda spin along with what you are reporting.   

Looks like those days are long gone.

So  is there any trust in the news  on any station ,,,, nope ,,,,  

NOTE-  i had hoped we could have  returned to topic but sadly  it has not.  

Again i respect you and your position .

 And i am sure no matter what one posts  the individual  will find their own answers to their search . 

Just as the reader will make their own decisions .  

5 Responses to the Ridiculous Rancor of Some Toward Mother Teresa (aleteia.org)

Edited by roseelvira
clarify and spellcheck and grammar checker still not working sorry i tried
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Religious Fundamentalists who believed in Creationism as an explanation for how human life emerged managed to prevent evolution from being taught in schools for 40 years (up until the 60's) until this was deemed by the supreme court as unconstitutional due to its religious nature. Now, under the guise of Intelligent Design (pretending no religious motivation) they continue to push their agenda. 

The above is what Nalatas & Arielle are championing in this thread -- a denial of the Science and a substitution of Christian Fundamentalist beliefs for the explanation of human origins.

No, it is what you dragged the thread into being about. Initially had you read the opening post and  the supplied links, you would have realized it was about some challenges to aspects of the traditional evolutionary theory that had nothing to do with God or creation.

Edited by Arielle Popstar
toned down
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

giving out hugs and candy to all ,,,,, i saw a cute dinosaur stuffed toy  with a green leprechaun hat  .

Questions back on topic     how long for  the evolving mans brain to go from uggg to sewing skins from  dinosaurs  or  animals ,,, or did man when he evolved have  that mental ability ,,and in any way  are we evolved from rabbits???

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roseelvira said:

giving out hugs and candy to all ,,,,, i saw a cute dinosaur stuffed toy  with a green leprechaun hat  .

I want one, I'm half Irish and half dinosaur!

1 hour ago, roseelvira said:

Questions back on topic     how long for  the evolving mans brain to go from uggg to sewing skins from  dinosaurs  or  animals ,,, or did man when he evolved have  that mental ability ,,and in any way  are we evolved from rabbits???

I'll surely get some of this wrong, but I'll start with whether we've descended from rabbits. Curiously, the answer is... yes!

Here's a chart that was constructed from genomic analysis of primates (the paper's topic of interest) and species from three other "orders" (one of the branch points in the evolutionary tree). The further left you go, the farther back in time you go.

image.thumb.png.6c8af6a40d575a596bc03c6e1afba505.png

Humans are the "Homo" entry in the second line of the second group of names, in purple. If you trace backwards to the left, you'll see that we share a common ancestor with Pan (Chimps) and Gorillas at H. Step back again and those three groups share a common ancestor with Pongo (Orangutans) at G. Those four groups comprise the Hominids.

Step back again (it's not marked, but between G and C, and we share a common ancestor with the Hylobates (Gibbons)

Step back again to C, and we share a common ancestor with Cercopithecines (old world monkeys: monkeys, baboons, macaques).

Step back to B and we share a common ancestor with the New World Monkeys: Cebidae, Atelidae and Pithecidae

Step back to again and we share a common ancestor with Tarsiidae (Tarsids). Those cute li'll buggers are the only member of their branch.

Step back again and we share a common ancestor with Lemurs and their branches of decendants.

Step back again and we share a common ancestor with the Loris and their branches.

That comprises all of the primates.

Step back again and we share a common ancestor with Dermoptera, little things that look like flying squirrels.

Step back again and we share a common ancestor with Scandentia (shrews).

That common ancestor is the furthest left line in the chart, Lagomorpha

Lagomorphs are... wait for it... RABBITS!!!

Our path branched from rabbits around 90 million years ago. That chart doesn't show what else Lagomorpha branched out into, but you might expect a similar looking branch structure, ending in all kinds of well known mammals, including modern bunnies.

Many people will look at a rabbit, then look at us, and say "There's no way we evolved from that." That's 100% true and 100% missing the truth. We not descend from modern rabbits. We descended from the same ancestor as modern rabbits, both of us taking very different evolutionary paths over the last 90 million years. Yet, if we could find the exact creature that produced that split between our paths, it would look much more like a rabbit than we do.

We got lucky.

Timetree.org is a very cool website that will trace back through the evolutionary record (compiled from many sources), to locate the most likely branch point between any two species. Type "human" and "rabbit" into the Taxon 1 and Taxon 2 boxes and you'll see that we probably shared a common ancestor around 90 million years ago.

Type in "human" and "chimpanzee" into the Taxon 1 and Taxon 2 boxes and you'll get 6.7 million years.

Human/Cat = 96 million years
Human/Western fence lizard = 312 million years
Human/Australian jumper ant = 797 million years

You get the idea.

If you chose a species name that's not specific enough, you'll get another set of Taxon boxes with suggested specific species to the right. Just go with that and click "Show Time" to get the data.

Now, for your last question, if you follow that branch diagram from left to right, ending at "Homo", you'll see 90 million years of our evolution. According to Timetree, we went one way (walking upright) and chimpanzees went another (walking on all fours) about 6.7 million years ago. That might be a good time to mark the starting point for humanity, though it's only been about 200,000 since the first recognizably human human first appeared. Along the way, we evolved bigger and more capable brains, eventually arriving at our current state of affairs.

Going from "ugg to sewing skins" actually involved two kinds of evolution. Once we evolved the ability to communicate efficiently through spoken language, we became able to pass extensive knowledge to each other, and to preserve knowledge through folk lore for future generations and thereby consciously evolve our social structures.

Since then, even the sky hasn't been our limit.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

hat common ancestor is the furthest left line in the chart, Lagomorpha

Lagomorphs are... wait for it... RABBITS!!!

Our path branched from rabbits around 90 million years ago. That chart doesn't show what else Lagomorpha branched out into, but you might expect a similar looking branch structure, ending in all kinds of well known mammals, including modern bunnies.

Many people will look at a rabbit, then look at us, and say "There's no way we evolved from that." That's 100% true and 100% missing the truth. We not descend from modern rabbits. We descended from the same ancestor as modern rabbits, both of us taking very different evolutionary paths over the last 90 million years. Yet, if we could find the exact creature that produced that split between our paths, it would look much more like a rabbit than we do.

 So there is truth  then  to the old  saying of  mating or ..........like rabbits ,,,,,,  😜😉

Edited by roseelvira
spell grammar check is broken ,,,,,
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, roseelvira said:

Many of the criticisms in that article are valid. As an atheist, I do measure Mother Theresa differently than would a Catholic. I also measure the Catholic Church differently. Her canonization is consistent with her role within the Church.

The mention of Theresa and the other nuns living in the same abject poverty as the afflicted they cared for is true. Curiously, in my own local church, the nuns lived lives as spartan as any parishioner, but the priests lived in relative luxury. That gave me a very bad feeling about how the church used the money it collected.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roseelvira said:

So there is truth  then  to the old  saying of  mating or ..........like rabbits ,,,,,,  😜😉

Now I'm remembering college and why I was so glad to be a commuter student who went home every evening.

;-).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I'll surely get some of this wrong, but I'll start with whether we've descended from rabbits. Curiously, the answer is... yes!

Now I know how Hasenpfeffer made it into a Bugs Bunny cartoon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this LUCA thing>  Last Universal Common Ancestor?  I've never heard of that but have sort of although not by that name.  LUCA - what all current life on Earth has, a last universal common ancestor.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roseelvira said:

when some one puts up a link and you say o that is not believable because it is Christian publication  or from a certain  publisher because you feel they are biased   etc      same applies here ,,,

I agree with you, Rose.  How many publications whether right/left, conservative, liberal could have agendas?  How are we possibly to know, out of all the publications in the world, who has agendas and who does not?  We cannot.  So, while I remain a skeptic about the press in general I cannot say I distrust all the publications in the world.

As far as my Mom, she was a real saint to me.  She took in people who needed serious help and never turned anyone down.  Often times it was family friends who most of the time needed surgery.  My Mom's home was open to anyone really though.  That might sound unsafe to some today and maybe it is, but it was perhaps more innocent in my Mom's day and these were long-time family friends who really did need surgery and had surgery.  She housed them at times when medical bills would have been just too much and/or they had no one there to help them as most surgeries are barely a day in the hospital.  My Mom did so much for others just because of the way she was.  Did I witness a saint?  Well, to be a saint my Mom would have needed miracles.  Did I ever see my Mom do miracles?  No.  But, to me, still a saint.  I don't know how else to describe this amazing woman.  One who didn't judge is the best I can do.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

As far as my Mom, she was a real saint to me.  She took in people who needed serious help and never turned anyone down.  Often times it was family friends who most of the time needed surgery.  My Mom's home was open to anyone really though.  That might sound unsafe to some today and maybe it is, but it was perhaps more innocent in my Mom's day and these were long-time family friends who really did need surgery and had surgery.  She housed them at times when medical bills would have been just too much and/or they had no one there to help them as most surgeries are barely a day in the hospital.  My Mom did so much for others just because of the way she was.  Did I witness a saint?  Well, to be a saint my Mom would have needed miracles.  Did I ever see my Mom do miracles?  No.  But, to me, still a saint.  I don't know how else to describe this amazing woman.  One who didn't judge is the best I can do.

You are sooooo blessed.

  Your mom was the miracle !!!!   Of unconditional love!!!      And yes she is a saint!!!

 Thank you for  posting this  , this made my heart sing  and thank you ,,, hugs and love 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FairreLilette said:
17 hours ago, roseelvira said:

when some one puts up a link and you say o that is not believable because it is Christian publication  or from a certain  publisher because you feel they are biased   etc      same applies here ,,,

I agree with you, Rose.  How many publications whether right/left, conservative, liberal could have agendas?  How are we possibly to know, out of all the publications in the world, who has agendas and who does not?  We cannot.  So, while I remain a skeptic about the press in general I cannot say I distrust all the publications in the world.

In evaluating the merits of Mother Teresa I think we need to go beyond determining whether this source or that source is biased, as most of the pros or cons regarding her case are simply IDEAS that we can choose to agree or disagree with when considering that idea on our own.

For example, one of the cons Hitchens puts forth is that it's wrong for colonizers of a country to attempt to help others in a country they conquered (India in the case of Mother Teresa). This is an idea anybody can research and draw their own conclusion from. Personally, I don't take a 'black and white approach' and do believe we can help but we must be careful not to impose to the point of being more destructive than actually helping. 
Case in point, the way we "helped" Native Americans in this country is shameful -- forcing the children away from their families and making them adopt White standards. Yet there are SOME programs today that Whites can participate in that do help Natives.

Another con Hitchens levels against Mother Teresa is in blaming her for the poverty she claims to want to alleviate. I have to agree that much of the poverty (especially in less-developed countries, and especially Catholic ones) is caused by mothers having too many children due to the view that contraceptives and abortions are bad. I fault the stance of the Catholic church on this one, and while her religious beliefs on contraceptives may have increased poverty to a degree she also dedicated her life to helping the poor and those in their last stages of life. So I cannot label her 100% wrong and totally trash her as Hitchens does.

The Catholic church is very patriarchal, elevating men above women on many levels. Should I think less of Mother Teresa for participating in such a system? Not really -- my general stance is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when evaluating most anything, and I admire the Catholics fighting for equal rights within their chosen religion.

The most annoying attitude I see in Hitchens' dislike of Mother Teresa is his insistence that all people involved in religions are simply trying to selfishly increase their own power, a kind of "do-gooder" mentality, converting others to their religion only for selfish reasons. He seems to believe all people in general attempting to do good are actually, deep down inside, selfish slobs trying to push their views on others.
While the above dynamic (wanting others to be just like us for our own perceived safety in numbers as opposed to wanting the other to know 'love') is indeed something to be cautious of in all religions, I don't see it with Mother Teresa. I really think she believed in love, in helping others and in spreading love, despite some of the trappings inherent in the religion she belonged to.

Do I believe she worked miracles, like something supernatural?  Probably not, but then someone who dedicated her life to helping others is actually a kind of miracle in itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...