Jesus on evolution and Darwinism

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
As revealed to Maria Valtorta(http://valtorta.org/darwin_and_monkeys_defaultpage.asp )

Jesus says:

"One of the points at which your pride founders in error--which, above all, degrades precisely your haughtiness by giving you an origin that, if you were less corrupted by pride, you would repudiate as degrading--is that of Darwin's theory.

In order not to admit God, who, in His power, was able to have created the universe from nothing and man from the already created mud, you take the paternity of a beast as your own.

Don't you realize you are diminishing yourselves, for--consider this--won't a beast--no matter how exemplary, selected, improved, and perfected in form and instinct, and, if your wish, even in mental formation--always be a beast? Don't you realize this? This testifies unfavorably regarding your pride as pseudo-supermen.

But if you fail to realize, I will not be the one to waste words to make you aware of it and converted from the error. I ask you only one question which, in your great numbers, you have never asked yourselves. And if you can answer Me with facts, I will no longer combat this degrading theory of yours.

If man is a spin-off from the monkey, which by progressive evolution has become man, how is it that over so many years in which you have maintained this theory you have never succeeded, not even with the perfected instruments and methods at present, in making a man from a monkey? You could have taken the most intelligent offspring of a pair of intelligent moneys and then their intelligent offspring, and so on. You would now have many generations of selected, instructed monkeys cared for by the most patient, tenacious, and sagacious scientific method. But you would still have monkeys. If there happened to be a mutation, it would be this: the beasts would be physically less strong than the former ones and morally more degenerate, for, with all your methods and instruments, you would have destroyed that perfection of the monkey which My Father created for these quadrumans.

Another question. If man came from the monkey, how is it that man, even with grafts and repugnant forms of cross-fertilization, does not become a monkey again? You would be capable even of attempting these horrors if you knew that it could give approvative sanction to your theory. But you do not do so because you know that you would not be able to turn a man into a monkey. You would turn him into an ugly son of man, a degenerate, perhaps a criminal. But never a real monkey. You do not try because you know beforehand that you would get a poor result and your reputation would emerge therefrom in ruins.

For this reason you do not do so. For no other. For you feel no remorse or horror over degrading a man to the level of a beast to maintain a thesis of yours. You are capbable of this and of much more. You are already beasts because you deny God and kill the spirit, which distinguishes you from the beasts.

Your science causes Me horror. You degrade the intellect and like madmen do not even realize you are degrading it. In truth, I tell you that many of the primitive are more men than you are."
 

Davidee

Village Elder
#2
I agree with the fact that evolution degrades man as a supreme being.but i do not agree with the assertion that these are the words of our lord Jesus christ.The above argument and way of reasoning resembles that of a person with no deep understanding of the theory of evolution.clearly Jesus would have understood that evolution claims to occur over millions of years before presenting such an argument, he would not have reasoned this way.The mind of christ is revealed in the bible and i can say that such low reasoning cannot come from Him.
 

Shaka

Village Elder
#3
The theory of evolution is true, it is only that it is not well understood. The similarity and diversity between and within species clearly shows that they had one origin. I think God used evolution method to make the species as they are today. If you read the story of creation in the bible you will notice that the chronology of the events goes with the theory of evolution with man being the ultimate product of creation. But the bible talks of each event of creation lasting one day (24 hours) which is may be misunderstood, probably a day was meant to refer to every milestone achieved in the process of creation. When man was created God made him special from other animals in that He breathed a spirit into him through his nostrils.
 
Last edited:

danji1

Village Elder
#4
The theory of evolution is true, it is only that it is not well understood. The similarity and diversity between and within species clearly shows that they had one origin. I think God used evolution method to make the species as they are today. If you read the story of creation in the bible you will notice that the chronology of the events goes with the theory of evolution with man being the ultimate product of creation. But the bible talks of each event of creation lasting one day (24 hours) which is may be misunderstood, probably a day was meant to refer to every milestone achieved in the process of creation. When man was created God made him special from other animals in that He breathed a spirit into him through his nostrils.
Did the author of Genesis know that evolution took place? It's said the authors were inspired by God, how comes he decided the account of creation was to be in terms of days and never mentioned evolution or single- celled thingies turning into complex THINGIES?
 

Shaka

Village Elder
#5
Did the author of Genesis know that evolution took place? It's said the authors were inspired by God, how comes he decided the account of creation was to be in terms of days and never mentioned evolution or single- celled thingies turning into complex THINGIES?
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#6
Beware of people who try to tell you that there is something wrong with you that needs to be corrected by total submission. Its an age old trick. Ati, "you are sinners and you can only be redeemed by prostrating yourself before me and begging", upus. The above published issue seems to me to be just from someone reading books where people claim things happened without any substantiation or logical proof. Evolutionary theories began with Darwin, Linnaeus and contemporaries. So where is Darwin coming in here 2000 years ago?

Secondly, I feel people are presenting stupidity and criticizing evolution by natural selection without understandig it. I think only about 0.1% of people jabbering about natural selection know anything about it. Man is not the ultimate evolutionary result. And we are not on a linear evolutionary path according to theory of evolution, NO. And evolution isnt goint in any particular direction. And neither are monkeys trying to become human. those books carrying half truths are by people who mmisrepresent evolution.

natural selection means that genetic mutation is random and is constantly there if you know what is "random" from stats. even now mutation is there, and fullspeed.These random mutations result in different phenotypic characteristics. Environmental conditions then favour the phenotype that best survives in the immediate environment "selection". Over thousands of generations certain characterics are continuosly reinforced. So there is no internal force pushing an organism in a certain direction. Who knows if after some time the earth doesnt favor intelligence as an adaptation, those with smaller brains will be selected continuosly instead of those with large brains? and later generations will be less intelligent?

So if you expect monkeys will become people, NO, they wont. they might beccome lizards or elephants. mutation is random. Dont assume that a Tiger and a Leopard and a Cheetah are from the same ancestor or that the tiger is leading in evolution while others are following. It could be that certain environments favour charateristics seen in those animals, and certain phenotypes were selected repeatedly to come up with similar animals from different ancestors. it could be tiger was some form of a dog while leopard was some form of a mongoose.

Evolution does not seek to answer creation shit, although it does partly explain. Evolution explains what happens here, and not where the world came from or where life came from. Again evolution has its gaps and questions, but it makes most sense
 
Last edited:

pingulitto

Village Elder
#7
the idea that God could only forgive our sins by having his son tortured to death as scapegoat is surely,from an objective point of view,a deeply unpleasant idea.if God wanted to forgive us for our sins..
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#8
the idea that God could only forgive our sins by having his son tortured to death as scapegoat is surely,from an objective point of view,a deeply unpleasant idea.if God wanted to forgive us for our sins..
True. Why would an all powerful god, perfectly good god, omniscient god need to sadistically torture and kill someone to forgive sins? Bullshit
 

danji1

Village Elder
#9
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
God knew but he decided not to complicate the matter since they could not understand at that particular time
There's an explanation for everything. We can concoct a tale for kids, regarding this stuff.
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#10
Those who wrote the bible were utterly ignorant. They thought the world walked on stilts(supporting poles) and that flora and fauna such as humans are one large unit instead of being a collection of a vast amount of cells. Similarly, they never knew about the microscopic organisms that are the majority here, and therefore never mentioned them. Just some ignorant guy writing how he wants people to think.
 

danji1

Village Elder
#11
Those who wrote the bible were utterly ignorant. They thought the world walked on stilts(supporting poles) and that flora and fauna such as humans are one large unit instead of being a collection of a vast amount of cells. Similarly, they never knew about the microscopic organisms that are the majority here, and therefore never mentioned them. Just some ignorant guy writing how he wants people to think.
Is it that easy to compose a spiritual book? There's the bible, the Koran, Hindu book, budhist writings...Those who wrote the bible must have had a lot of time considering all those tiny verses and creativity.
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#12
Is it that easy to compose a spiritual book? There's the bible, the Koran, Hindu book, budhist writings...Those who wrote the bible must have had a lot of time considering all those tiny verses and creativity.
The bible is written by many people. it has been revised over and over by politicians and clergy. Jewish scripture, bible, Quran have the same background and they werent invented spontaneously, but over hundreds of years. And ofcourse Buddha and hindu inventors had their whole lifetime to figure out their shit. most founders never wrote anything, but later scholars did, and had to becreative if people had to buy into their theories.
 

danji1

Village Elder
#13
Their creativity is astounding. I also wonder who decided what books were to be included in the bible, there could be the gospel according to Judas, Book of Pontius pirate, haha. There must have been lots of books, considering the Apocryphal collection.
 
#15
The bible is written by many people. it has been revised over and over by politicians and clergy. Jewish scripture, bible, Quran have the same background and they werent invented spontaneously, but over hundreds of years. And ofcourse Buddha and hindu inventors had their whole lifetime to figure out their shit. most founders never wrote anything, but later scholars did, and had to becreative if people had to buy into their theories.
no wonder there is not a single line in the bible or the quran that could not have been authored by a first century person.there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals,keep slaves and who to kill..there is nothing about electricity,DNA,infectious disease.nothing particularly usefull just lots of barbarism in there and superstitions,.i can go into any barnes and noble blindfolded and pull a book off the shelf which is going to have more relevance, more wisdom for 21st century.everyone of our specific sciences have superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture..
when god of the bible creates adam and eve without knowledge of the difference from right and wrong and then purnishes him for eating from the tree of knowledge.its kinda like finding a wild wolf putting a steak infront of it,and telling it not to eat it.then wen it does you toture it and any other wolf for eternity..
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#16
no wonder there is not a single line in the bible or the quran that could not have been authored by a first century person.there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals,keep slaves and who to kill..there is nothing about electricity,DNA,infectious disease.nothing particularly usefull just lots of barbarism in there and superstitions,.i can go into any barnes and noble blindfolded and pull a book off the shelf which is going to have more relevance, more wisdom for 21st century.everyone of our specific sciences have superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture..
when god of the bible creates adam and eve without knowledge of the difference from right and wrong and then purnishes him for eating from the tree of knowledge.its kinda like finding a wild wolf putting a steak infront of it,and telling it not to eat it.then wen it does you toture it and any other wolf for eternity..
On point. I cant expound it better.
 

Ingia

Village Elder
#17
Their creativity is astounding. I also wonder who decided what books were to be included in the bible, there could be the gospel according to Judas, Book of Pontius pirate, haha. There must have been lots of books, considering the Apocryphal collection.
haha...book of pontius pilate. However, you know the fellow is guilty as hell of crucifying Jesus. After all Jesus had been telling the colonised Jewish people not to pay tax to Roman authorities. He had the power to order or revoke crucifixion. Pilate even sent Roman soldiers to oversee the crucifixion. Never mind efforts to sanitize him. Roman empire would never accept the idea of they having crucified Jesus.

Politicians decided which book is to feature and which is to be banned. Constantine did a good job of putting priests who were telling different stories together and demanding that they come up with a single version of the collection that was acceptable to all people for better political organisation and control ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea ). The Roman empire had a fundamental role in developing catholicism, from which most of all other churches have developed. The paradox is Romans persecuted christians early on, and 1st century Roman emperor Nero resisted christian influence and is said to have used christians as candles.
 

aviator

Village Elder
#18
There is the Gospel of Judas. Also the book of Giants. These two are worth reading.

However, the council of Nicaea felt they shouldn't be included in the bible. I always wonder how the Songs of Solomon wasn't expunged.
 

danji1

Village Elder
#19
There is the Gospel of Judas. Also the book of Giants. These two are worth reading.

However, the council of Nicaea felt they shouldn't be included in the bible. I always wonder how the Songs of Solomon wasn't expunged.
They wanted the Roman electorate to be romantic maybe, to create distraction probably. Haha. I remember Dan Brown's fictitious work 'The Da Vinci Code' claiming existence of the book of Judas.
 

danji1

Village Elder
#20
haha...book of pontius pilate. However, you know the fellow is guilty as hell of crucifying Jesus. After all Jesus had been telling the colonised Jewish people not to pay tax to Roman authorities. He had the power to order or revoke crucifixion. Pilate even sent Roman soldiers to oversee the crucifixion. Never mind efforts to sanitize him. Roman empire would never accept the idea of they having crucified Jesus.

Politicians decided which book is to feature and which is to be banned. Constantine did a good job of putting priests who were telling different stories together and demanding that they come up with a single version of the collection that was acceptable to all people for better political organisation and control ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea ). The Roman empire had a fundamental role in developing catholicism, from which most of all other churches have developed. The paradox is Romans persecuted christians early on, and 1st century Roman emperor Nero resisted christian influence and is said to have used christians as candles.
If the banned books were to be available I'd surely read them. Did the council also approve the Apocryphal books in the Catholic bible? Am also curious about the book of Revelation; says no word should be removed or added to the book. Could the Romans have contravened that order, or was it their way of maintaining their book?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top