I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-04-2019, 02:13 PM)Jeeter Wrote: Serious question cassini, but how does the theory of the universe being formed via an explosion contradict the Faith, so long as one accepts that it was willed and guided by God?

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.
Reply
(07-05-2019, 05:19 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.

I read this essay by Pera, and came away with the opposite conclusion.  To me, he seemed to be setting up the argument of "how can one believe in God, because SCIENCE!!"  

Plus, this quote from a secular, atheist philosopher didn't answer the fundamental part of my question: if I believe in God, and believe that he created everything, visible and invisible, what we've discovered and what we have yet to discover, in His own way, how does a theory regarding the method He chose to do so impact my faith?  Contrast that with the statements of a Catholic (not atheist or prot) pope, who said we can believe in the theory of Big Bang, of a not-literal 7 x 24 hour days of creation.

Forgive me if this comes across the wrong way, but it seems almost cocky to accept that God created everything, to include what we call "science", which could help us understand creation to a degree, but we cover our ears and scream, "NO, NO, NO! The universe couldn't have been created some other way despite the clues you've left us...!"
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jeeter's post:
  • Stanis
Reply
(07-05-2019, 08:25 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 05:19 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.

I read this essay by Pera, and came away with the opposite conclusion.  To me, he seemed to be setting up the argument of "how can one believe in God, because SCIENCE!!"  

Plus, this quote from a secular, atheist philosopher didn't answer the fundamental part of my question: if I believe in God, and believe that he created everything, visible and invisible, what we've discovered and what we have yet to discover, in His own way, how does a theory regarding the method He chose to do so impact my faith?  Contrast that with the statements of a Catholic (not atheist or prot) pope, who said we can believe in the theory of Big Bang, of a not-literal 7 x 24 hour days of creation.

Forgive me if this comes across the wrong way, but it seems almost cocky to accept that God created everything, to include what we call "science", which could help us understand creation to a degree, but we cover our ears and scream, "NO, NO, NO! The universe couldn't have been created some other way despite the clues you've left us...!"

Let us see what the Church ruled dogmatically on the doctrine of Creation? First we had the Lateran Council’s confirmation of it:
    
‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.
 
Lateran IV opposed the belief:

  1. of the world being eternal, as proposed by many Aristotelians – thus the definition states the world was created in the beginning of time to make clear the exact meaning of finitude.
  1. by the Manichees of the visible material world not being within God’s power, by declaring that “all  visible…things…were created from nothing” de nihilo (i.e. instantly).

  2. that the world was not created solely (unum) by God’s omnipotent power omnipotenti virtute (i.e. without cooperation of instruments) [ like Big Bang evolutionism} as believed by the medieval Neo-Platonists.
These beliefs are precisely those advanced either severally or individually by the theory of evolution or progressive creation. 

Vatican I decreed:

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) ‘This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which he bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.’--- Vatican I.

One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if all evolved bit by bit and continues to evolve. ‘Substance,’ classic philosophy says, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Did the Lord not say His creating was finished on the last day?

Finally the dogma says God FINISHED His creation. Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing.
Reply
(07-05-2019, 09:12 AM)cassini Wrote: Vatican I decreed:

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) ‘This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which he bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.’--- Vatican I.

One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if all evolved bit by bit and continues to evolve. ‘Substance,’ classic philosophy says, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Did the Lord not say His creating was finished on the last day?

Finally the dogma says God FINISHED His creation. Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing.

Practically every Catholic theologian of any repute, after Vatican I, allowed for some form of theistic evolution. Even Garrigou-Lagrange. That alone should suggest that you're misinterpreting this. The Vatican I statement is affirming that God created the universe out of nothing. It doesn't exclude the views of several of the Fathers (including St. Augustine) that some things were created in their causes, and appeared later.
Reply
@Cassini you're missing a lot (I mean all) of the philosophical background to the statements you're quoting. "without the use of instruments" does not mean that creation never developed or evolved after the point of its creation. It means there were no intermediary creators; some of the Neo-Platonists thought that an angel or angels were the ones who actually created while God caused them to do what they did. That's what the Lateran Council is condemning.

This has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
[-] The following 3 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, MagisterMusicae, Stanis
Reply
Isn't this thread done yet?
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

Vos omnes amatores pulcherrimae linguae ecclesiae nostrae, videte filum quo de rebus sanctis profanisque colloqui possumus.
Reply
(07-05-2019, 11:06 AM)Stanis Wrote:
(07-05-2019, 09:12 AM)cassini Wrote: Vatican I decreed:

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) ‘This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which he bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.’--- Vatican I.

One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if all evolved bit by bit and continues to evolve. ‘Substance,’ classic philosophy says, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Did the Lord not say His creating was finished on the last day?

Finally the dogma says God FINISHED His creation. Evolution is never finished, it is ongoing.

Practically every Catholic theologian of any repute, after Vatican I, allowed for some form of theistic evolution. Even Garrigou-Lagrange. That alone should suggest that you're misinterpreting this. The Vatican I statement is affirming that God created the universe out of nothing. It doesn't exclude the views of several of the Fathers (including St. Augustine) that some things were created in their causes, and appeared later.

Every post 1900 theologian of the Catholic Church had to follow the leader and become a heliocentrist. Once their Solar-system was said to have evolved, Satan's trap was sprung, all theologians thereafter had to try to make their heliocentric evolved universe Catholic. This goes on to this very day with Fr Robinson's SSPX book.

Personally I prefer the Creation as described below:

29. ‘I learnt also to understand the quality of these perfections of the highest Lord: that He is beautiful without a blemish, great without quantity, good without need of qualification, eternal without the duration of time, strong without any weakness, living without touch of decay, true without deceit, present in all places, filling them without occupying them, existing in all things without occupying any space….Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them….I understood that this order comprises the following instants. The first is: God recognizing his infinite attributes and perfections together with the propensity and the ineffable inclination to communicate Himself outwardly… The second instant was to confirm and determine the object and intention of this communication of the Divinity ad extra, namely… to set in motion his Omnipotence in order that He might be known, praised and glorified…The third instant consisted in selecting and determining the order and arrangement, or the mode of this communication, so as to realize in an adequate manner the most exalted ends….The fourth instant was to determine the gifts and graces, which were to be conferred upon the humanity of Christ, our Lord, in union with the Divinity….In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed.…To this instant also belong the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of his infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestination by his free will and by his merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by his justice those who would rise up against his Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered self-love. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of his glory and the reward of the good; also the Earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; also in the centre or depth of the Earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels….In the sixth instant was decreed the creation of a people and the congregation of men for Christ, who was already formed in the divine mind and will, and according to his image and likeness man was to be made, in order, that the incarnate Word might find brethren, similar but inferior to Himself and a people of his own nature, of whom He might be the Head. In this instant was determined the order of creation of the whole human race, which was to begin from one man and woman and propagate itself, until the Virgin and her Son should be born in the predestined order….In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily did He create the heaven and Earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them. Secondarily the intention and decree included the creation of the members, of which Jesus was to be the Head, and of whom He would be the King; in order that with kingly providence, all the necessary and befitting arrangements might be made beforehand….Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men; and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2). The heavens in their beauty manifest His magnificence and glory, because in them is deposited the predestined reward of the just. And the earthly firmament announced that there would be creatures and man to inhabit the Earth and that man should journey upon it to their Creator. Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights….God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned. The Lord was presently to divide the light from the darkness and to call the light day and the darkness night. And this did happen not only in regard to the natural night and day, but in regard to the good and bad angels; for to the good He gave the eternal light of his vision and called it day, the eternal day, and to the bad, the night of sin, casting them into the eternal darkness of hell. The angels were created in the empyrean heavens and in the state of grace by which they might be first to merit the reward of glory. For although they were in the midst of glory, the Divinity itself was not to be made manifest to them face to face and unveiled, until they should have merited such a favour by obeying the divine will. The holy angels, as well as the bad ones, remained only a very short time in the state of probation; for their creation and probation with its result were three distinct instants or moments, separated by short intermissions. In the first instant they were all created and endowed with graces and gifts, coming into existence as most beautiful and perfect creatures. Then followed a short pause, during which the will of the Creator was propounded and intimated, and the law and command was given to them, to acknowledge Him as their Maker and supreme Lord, and to fulfil the end for which they have been created. During this pause, instant or interval, Saint Michael and his angels fought that great battle with the dragon and his followers, which is described by the apostle Saint John in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The good angels, persevering in grace, merited eternal happiness. The disobedient angels, rebelling against God, merited the punishment, which they now suffer….During the whole first week of the creation of the world and its contents Lucifer and the demons were occupied in machinations and projects of wickedness against the Word, who was to become incarnate, and against the Woman of whom He was to be born and made man. On the first day, which corresponds to Sunday, were created the angels. Laws and precepts were given to them, for the guidance of their actions. The bad ones disobeyed and transgressed the mandates of the Lord. By divine providence and disposition then succeeded all the other events, which have been recorded above, up to the morning of the second day, corresponding to Monday, on which Lucifer and his hosts were driven and hurdled into hell. The duration of these days corresponds in the small periods, or delays, which intervened between their creation, activity, conquest and fall or glorification…. The most High looked upon His Son, and upon His most holy Mother as models, produced in the culmination of his wisdom and power, in order that They serve as prototypes according to which He was to copy the whole human race. He created also the necessary material beings required for human life, but with such wisdom that some of them act as symbols, to represent, in a certain way these two Beings. On this account He made the luminaries of heaven, the sun and the moon so that in dividing the day and the night, they might symbolise the Sun of Justice, Christ, and His holy mother, who is beautiful as the moon (Cant: 6, 9) for these two divide the day of grace and the night of sin.     

The sun illuminates the moon; and both, together with the stars of the firmament, illume all other creatures within the confines of the universe…. He created the rest of the beings and added to their perfection, because they were to be submissive to Christ and the most holy Mary and through them to the rest of men. Before the universe proceeded from its nothingness, He set it as a banquet abundant and unfailing, for he was to create man for his delight and to draw him to the enjoyment of his knowledge and love. Like a most courteous and bounteous Lord He did not wish that the invited guests should wait, but that both the creation and the invitation to the banquet and love by one and the same act. Man was not to lose any time in that which concerned him so much; namely, to know and to praise his almighty Maker….’
On the sixth day he formed and created Adam, as it were of the age of thirty-three years. This was the age in which Christ was to suffer death and Adam with regard to his body was so like unto Christ, that scarcely any difference existed. Also according to the soul Adam was similar to Christ. From Adam God formed Eve so similar to the Blessed Virgin that she was like unto her in personal appearance and in figure. God looked upon these two images of the great Originals with the highest pleasure and benevolence, and on account of the Originals He heaped many blessings upon them, as if He wanted to entertain Himself with them and their descendants until the time should arrive for forming Christ and Mary. But the happy state in which God had created the parents of the human race lasted only a very short while. The envy of the serpent was immediately aroused against them, for Satan was patiently awaiting their creation, and no sooner were they created, than his hatred became active against them. However, he was not permitted to witness the formation of Adam and Eve, as he had witnessed the creation of all other things: for the Lord did not choose to manifest to him the creation of man, nor the formation of Eve from a rib; all these things were concealed from him for a space of time until both of them were joined. But when the demon saw the admirable composition of the human nature, perfect beyond that of any creature, the beauty of the souls and also of the bodies of Adam and Eve; when he saw the paternal love with which the Lord regarded them, and how He made them the lords of all creation, and that He gave them hope of eternal life: the wrath of the dragon was lashed to fury, and no tongue can describe the rage with which that beast was filled, nor how great was his envy and his desire to take the life of these two beings. Like an enraged lion he certainly would have done so, if he had not known that a superior force would prevent him. Nevertheless he studied and plotted out some means, which would suffice to deprive them of the grace of the Most High and make them God’s enemies….’
 
Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.

Not much evolution in there Stanis, is there? Try getting 15 billion years of creation to fit into such a beautiful account of God's creation. Tell me the last time you heard anybody express they see almighty God in their evolved world? 
 
As regards the idea that some things not existing in the six-day or immediate creation came later, well that to me is Modernism personified. It demonstrates how the Galilean reformation completyed in 1835 led to Modenism.
Nothing was created after the sixth day. Creation was finished. Anything DIFFERENT after that came from what was already created. For example, the micro-evolution God inbuilt into some created living things allowed different species come from kinds created. No new kinds ever occurred in traditional Creation.

it is all very well saying 'that some things were created in their causes, and appeared later.' Perhaps you would like to give us a few examples rather than justy saying it happened. 

Day 7: So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.- (Douay Rheims, Genesis 1)
 
For if you did believe Moses, you would believe me also;
for he wrote of me.(John 5:46)
Reply
(07-05-2019, 04:05 PM)cassini Wrote: As regards the idea that some things not existing in the six-day or immediate creation came later, well that to me is Modernism personified. It demonstrates how the Galilean reformation completyed in 1835 led to Modenism.
Nothing was created after the sixth day. Creation was finished. Anything DIFFERENT after that came from what was already created. For example, the micro-evolution God inbuilt into some created living things allowed different species come from kinds created. No new kinds ever occurred in traditional Creation.

Congratulations. You just admitted that some things were created in their causes and only appeared later "from what was already created". And apparently that's "Modernism personified".
[-] The following 2 users Like Stanis's post:
  • Jeeter, MagisterMusicae
Reply
(07-05-2019, 04:05 PM)cassini Wrote: Every post 1900 theologian of the Catholic Church had to follow the leader and become a heliocentrist. Once their Solar-system was said to have evolved, Satan's trap was sprung, all theologians thereafter had to try to make their heliocentric evolved universe Catholic. This goes on to this very day with Fr Robinson's SSPX book.

I see two choices here:

1) Every post 1900 theologian had to bow to heresy and falsehood. Meaning the Church is spreading heresy, meaning the gates of hell have prevailed and Christ is not with His Church until the end. Or...

2) The gates of hell haven’t prevailed, Christ is with us, and perhaps the Father has allowed us a glimpse into how He chose to create everything, and how the earth was formed has jo bearing on my faith.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jeeter's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(07-05-2019, 03:03 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Isn't this thread done yet?

*long sigh*

Yes, I’m pro life, but this thread should’ve been aborted.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 2 users Like Jeeter's post:
  • Augustinian, Filiolus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)