[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Creationism/Evolution See other Creationism/Evolution Articles Title: Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator' Source: telegraph.co.uk URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor ... tible-with-divine-Creator.html Published: Oct 28, 2014 Author: By Nick Squires Post Date: 2014-10-28 13:42:04 by Ferret Mike Keywords: None Views: 61875 Comments: 132 Theory universe born in cosmic explosion 13.7 billion years ago 'doesn't contradict' divine Creator but 'demands it', says pontiff The theory of the Big Bang is compatible with the Catholic Church's teaching on creation and belief in both is possible, Pope Francis has said. The Pope insisted that God was responsible for the Big Bang, from which all life then evolved. The Big Bang - the theory that the universe was born in a cosmic explosion about 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and evolved since - "doesn't contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it," the Pope said. The beginning of the world was not "the work of chaos" but part of a divine plan by the Creator, he said. The Jesuit Pope made the remarks during an address to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature". "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve," he told the meeting. God should not be regarded as some sort of "magician", waving a magic wand, he said. "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," he said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one so they would reach fulfilment." The Pope's remarks were in line with Catholic Church teaching of the last few decades. As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII said that there was no intrinsic conflict between Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution, provided that Catholics believed that the human soul was created by God and not the result of random evolutionary forces. That stance was affirmed in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. "The Pope's declaration is significant," said Giovanni Bignami, the president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics. "We are the descendants of the Big Bang, which created the universe. You just have to think that in our blood we have a few litres of hydrogen, which was created by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. "Our blood is red because it contains iron, which was created by the explosion of a star millions and millions of years ago. Out of creation came evolution." Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 108. #48. To: (#0) This isn't really NEW. The Church's position regarding evolution has been that it isn't incompatible with Catholic faith as long as one acknowledges the ultimate creator, and that man originally sinned. In the frontspiece to my 1978 edition of the New American Bible was an essay that included the language "No well educated person any longer disputes that man has descended from primates" and that we are to understand Genesis 1 as an allegory. Being a scientist by training and mindset, I found that position to be good: it made it possible for me to BE a Christian at all, of the Catholic variety. It is only with direct encounters with the divine that my eyes were opened to the rather more radical reality of God not as simply the organizing principle of the universe, but as a thinking person, and angels (and demons) as real beings. THAT provoked a complete rethink on my part, but nothing SHORT OF that would have ever done it, at least not for me. Obviously Pope Francis has never spoken directly with God or has his face grabbed by angels and such. (I also note that later editions of the NAB have significantly toned down that rather obnoxious and dismissive language in the frontspiece, and not longer suggests that people like me, who have come to realize that Genesis 1 is a whole lot more than a poem or an allegory, am not well-educated.) Catholic schools have taught basic evolution, not creationism, in science class for decades. The caveat (I didn't go to Catholic school, but had a Catholic biology prof) was simple: after going through evolution, and going through the medieval belief in spontaneous generation and demonstrating how spontaneous generation has been disproven and discarded, the prof made the simple point that spontaneous generation had been discarded as the basis of life...except at the origin of life. Well, having just seen all the reasons why spontaneous generation was not viable - to then have all of life itself suddenly hang upon spontaneous generation is obviously not intellectually viable either, especially when one considers that decaying meat and plantlife already have all of the amino acids for life already pre-formed in them, so even with all of the elements for life RIGHT THERE, life still doesn't spontaneously generate from dead things. To have it spontaneously generate, then, from disorganized atoms - well, THAT'S a beaut. What Pope Francis said isn't anything new. And maybe it will bring eyes like mine were to focus on the Church and find out they can walk with THIS form of Christianity. Unfortunately, evolution isn't TRUE, so unless God reaches down and grabs THEIR faces too, I don't know how the step to the actual TRUTH of the matter is closed. But I don't think it really ultimately matters either. Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test. And it isn't as though the Christian creationists are perfectly right in their theories either. THEY don't read the verb tenses of Creation right. Stuff wasn't CREATED on day X, it BEGAN TO BE created, on day X, and that's a key difference. (And it wasn't actually CREATED on any of those days, it was made substantial. FIRST it was created in the head of the Elohiym, then it began to be unfolded in 3D. That's really what Genesis 1 SAYS, but you cannot see that unless you leave off English and read the Hebrew and the ancient pictographs. So, truth be told, EVERYBODY fighting about evolution, on ALL sides, is wrong in some pretty fundamental things. The secularists are wrong: life didn't spontaneously generate. And the creationsts are wrong about the exact timeline. The Catholics are wrong: it's not an allegory or a poem on creation. The right answer: God made it all, on a staccato timeline (that is written into Genesis, but the key question of animal life (which is really the issue): THAT was brought forth quickly, in a couple of days. The piece most scientists are missing is the slowing of the speed of light. Once that is factored into the Standard Theory, there is a lot less time, and without the time, evolution as understood naturalistically simply couldn't happen. But just TRY to have a reasonable talk to correct the record with ANYBODY - Protestant, Catholic, Atheist...what one believes about origins is what one believes about science, and that is probably the central contention in religion today. Science is the "indulgences" of old. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-01   9:54:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#48) Catholic schools have taught basic evolution, not creationism, in science class for decades. The caveat (I didn't go to Catholic school, but had a Catholic biology prof) was simple: after going through evolution, and going through the medieval belief in spontaneous generation and demonstrating how spontaneous generation has been disproven and discarded, the prof made the simple point that spontaneous generation had been discarded as the basis of life...except at the origin of life. In other words, your bio prof concluded that Genesis IS true and NOT the "basic evolution" he was compelled to teach as per RCC school teaching? The "Big Bang" theory -- and it IS just a theory -- conflicts with the literal 6-Days Creation account of Genesis. Thus IF this Pope or any Believer insists on Selling a "Big Bang" Creation, they also have to account for the rapid daily placement of ALL Creation. IN SIX DAYS. Truth be told, EVERYBODY fighting about evolution, on ALL sides, is wrong in some pretty fundamental things. The secularists are wrong: life didn't spontaneously generate. And the creationsts are wrong about the exact timeline. The Catholics are wrong: it's not an allegory or a poem on creation. The right answer: God made it all, on a staccato timeline (that is written into Genesis, but the key question of animal life (which is really the issue): THAT was brought forth quickly, in a couple of days. You seem to be validating Genesis 6-Day Creation -- correct me if I'm wrong. If so, how are Creationists "wrong about the exact timeline"? Liberator  posted on  2014-11-01   15:15:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: Liberator (#51) You seem to be validating Genesis 6-Day Creation -- correct me if I'm wrong. If so, how are Creationists "wrong about the exact timeline"? Do you REALLY want me to do this. You're not going to like where it comes out. So ask yourself before you answer whether it matters, ultimately. I myself have decided that it really DOESN'T. Jesus never bothered admonishing anybody about it. He spent his time telling people what to DO and not to do, in order to be pleasing to the Father. So I think that THAT'S what is ULTIMATELY important. And so when in a room with headstrong and vehement Christians, of differing views on creation, I usually put in a placeholder (like I did), but then let it go because, after all, Christ called for UNITY, and here's a really good opportunity for Christians to start banging the furniture, tearing their hair out, yelling at each other and finding a new source of disunity...and thinking that it's IMPORTANT. I don't think it's important, but I DO think that there is an answer, and I DO think, further, that the scientific evidence of artifacts and experiments actually SHOWS us the answer, when the revealed Genesis template is laid alongside of it. It's very comforting to me to see this. The Catholic Church doesn't really CARE. But it's GOING to cause anguish to some Protestants who have invested a lot in the subject, because even though the outcome is that, yes, the world really is only a few thousand years old, some of the key arguments that Protestants use are actually quite wrong, and they're wrong on SCRIPTURE. They're taking ENGLISH and making assumptions, but they have to take Hebrew and pictographs instead, to actually get the template. I'm...somewhat...willing to do it, to show the template and the language and the facts. BUT I'm not willing to generate heat, or take abuse for it. If there must be heat and abuse, then I'd rather leave that scroll sealed, because it doesn't ultimately MATTER to the final disposition of the spirits of people - what one believes about creation is not on the list of things that Jesus said would get one thrown into the lake of fire. So, those who really love philosophy, theology, history, science, language and truth might enjoy the read. I'm really hesitant to start posting over here and to get in an hellacious fight with my fellow Christians on the first day. I'd rather clean out the garage or get my teeth cleaned than that. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-01   16:59:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Vicomte13 (#65) It's very comforting to me to see this. The Catholic Church doesn't really CARE. But it's GOING to cause anguish to some Protestants who have invested a lot in the subject, because even though the outcome is that, yes, the world really is only a few thousand years old, some of the key arguments that Protestants use are actually quite wrong, and they're wrong on SCRIPTURE. They're taking ENGLISH and making assumptions, but they have to take Hebrew and pictographs instead, to actually get the template. I'm...somewhat...willing to do it, to show the template and the language and the facts. BUT I'm not willing to generate heat, or take abuse for it. If there must be heat and abuse, then I'd rather leave that scroll sealed, because it doesn't ultimately MATTER to the final disposition of the spirits of people - what one believes about creation is not on the list of things that Jesus said would get one thrown into the lake of fire. I always appreciate your honesty, effort, and sincerity -- even if we don't happen see eye to eye. What IS important is the bottom line of Salvation, true... That said, opening the Vic Scrolls is entirely up to you. Protestants are more heavily invested in Genesis because it happens to provide the foundation for the rest of Scripture. Genesis sez God's Creation took exactly 6 Days. He rested on the seventh. I don't know if there's much to debate other than whether one believes Genesis' Creation is an allegory, believes "one day" is figurative, or chooses to believe some parts of Genesis, but not others. Liberator  posted on  2014-11-01   17:40:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: Liberator (#72) Protestants are more heavily invested in Genesis because it happens to provide the foundation for the rest of Scripture. Genesis sez God's Creation took exactly 6 Days. He rested on the seventh. I don't know if there's much to debate other than whether one believes Genesis' Creation is an allegory, believes "one day" is figurative, or chooses to believe some parts of Genesis, but not others. To me, the issue is to read EXACTLY what Genesis says. Now, to REALLY do that, you have to do it in Hebrew, and you can't even look at just the words, you have to look at the old hieroglyphic-pictographic letters in which it was originally written. Each word is composed of pictographs, and those pictographs THEMSELVES spell out a sentence. So, the words have a surface meaning, but the words are themselves sentences that also carry the meaning of the pictographic sentence of which the word is composed. And the pictographs themselves are words that convey a meaning. When one looks at these three levels of meaning, a fractal picture emerges. God inspired this text, and God has a divine mind and can do things at multiple levels that we can see if we look, but that we could never do. Especially not in the first piece of literature written in a given language. So, where there is ambiguity in meaning on the surface, the pictures beneath the surface bring what is meant into sharp relief, and the sub-pictographic words do too. Translation erases all of this. If the translation is good, the surface meaning is conveyed. The surface meaning is important - the fractal sub- meanings don't contradict it but amplify and clarify it - so if we just look at a good English translation, we have the surface meaning, but we don't have the clarification support, so we have to be careful not to drift. Some assertions can be made that are plausible on the surface meaning in English, but that don't hold up when the deeper Hebrew details are examined. Still, in the case of creation, the surface English meaning serves us reasonably well. "Day" is defined on the first day of creation as "Light", and "Night" is defined as darkness. A day is the evening and the morning. IF we read that to mean the period of darkness and light, then we do have the alternation of dark and light on the first day, second day, third day, fourth day and thereafter, but something changes completely on the fourth day. This is important for understanding time. A "day" is always the alternation of darkness and light, but the Sun and Moon and stars are not placed in the sky to regulate the day and night and times and seasons. There is no yardstick by which to measure the passage of time until the fourth day. After the fourth day, the alternation of day and night in a day is the result of the earth turning and the sun passing overhead, the seasons are measured out by the moon, etc. But before the fourth day none of those things exist. A "day" is the period of darkness and light, but there is no celestial clock for its measurement. So, there is no basis at all in Scripture to conclude that the first four days were 24 hour solar days. They were periods of light and dark, to be sure, but how long the light or dark lasted is not told to us. It is wrong to take the English word "day" and say that a "day" to US is 24 hours, and THEREFORE that means that the first 4 days were 24 hours. That is quite ridiculous. For God DEFINED "day" as meaning "the light". He didn't give a time span for the light. So, what Genesis actually says (in English) is that there were four alternating periods of light and dark in which light was made, the sky was stretched out, land and sea were separated, the beginnings of plant life were placed into the land, and the sun, moon and stars were placed. How LONG those days were is not said, and cannot be surmised. Specifically, to assert that a solar "day", OUR use of the word" is what existed before the fourth day is imposing upon the text and adding a strict detail to Scripture without any authority at all. God DEFINED what a day was, and he didn't define it like that. So, whomever asserts that the first four days were 24 hour solar days is flat out wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. The solar day did not, and could not, exist until God made the sun, and he didn't do that until the FOURTH day. The fourth day ENDED with the Sun being there, but it did not BEGIN so, so we don't have any concept of its length either. The first four days are of unknown length. They were periods of alternation of light and dark. That's all we know from the English. For evolutionary purposes, all of the animals came to be on the fifth and sixth days, and those WERE solar days. So, by Scripture, the flying creatures and swimming creatures began to be made on one day, and the land animals, including man, began to be made on the very next day. All of this was completed on the seventh day, which was a solar day. So, when you say that Genesis sez God's Creation took exactly 6 days, I say that's not right. It took six days and PART OF the seventh, for Genesis, in the English, tells you that on the seventh day God COMPLETED the creation he had begun to make. In the Hebrew this is even clearer, for on all of the earlier days of creation, the verbs are imperfect verbs, meaning that God began to create thus and so, not fully created. Creation wasn't complete until the 7th day, and then God rested. Otherwise, it is true that there are 7 days, but days 1 through 4 are periods of light and dark, not 24 hour solar days. Only after the creation of the sun on the 4th day were solar days visible and possible. The first complete solar day, that began and ended as such, was the fifth day. We cannot say that solar days were exactly 24 hours then. They may have been somewhat faster (18 hours). So yes, Genesis does indeed have all animal life beginning to be created on two solar days (and completed on a third). And those days are probably somewhere in the ballpark of 24 hours. But we can't state how long the first four days were, because there was no sun, moon and stars by which to measure out time as we experience it. The first four days may have been seconds long, or they may have been eons long. There is no way of knowing. That they were periods of evening and morning, light and dark - THAT we know. When the animals were created, then we're talking about recognizable solar days. This doesn't offer any solace to evolutionists at all: animals were created over the course of three days (fifth, sixth and part of the seventh). But it also means that we have to stop short of creationists who go past Scripture and assert things that Scripture doesn't say (in English or otherwise). The earth and stars MAY be billions of years old, if those first days, light and dark, were long periods. But animals came to be on three solar days. Now, when we go into the Hebrew, we discover that the word we translate as "light" is the word AWR, which we'd transcript as "OR". This is the root of "order", "ordinance", "ordain". Pictographically, this is God - El - linked to the head. There are overlapping concepts here. The fundamental message is that from the original conditions of God's spirit hovering in blackness over the primordial chaos, the mem, God said "let there be ORDER", and God brings order out of the chaos. The order and organization is the period of day. What is "light"? Light is the visible form of energy. And what is necessary to overcome entropy and chaos? Energy. A trilogy of ideas come together here, and link to God's breath/spirit over the chaos of the dark mem, the abyss. Now consider of what the universe is composed. Mostly hydrogen and helium. And at absolute zero, in the complete absence of energy (or at extremely low levels - after all, God's spirit was moving the surface of the waters - think of the foam at the level of Plank's Constant), what are hydrogen and helium? They are a liquid. Now think of the "earth" land - matter -being dissolved into that mass of liquid - unformed, invisible, "void" - waiting to be divided out of it. Here, to see the deeper features, we'd have to go into the Hebrew. Just sticking with the English, though, there's a striking set of facts in the text that correspond to much of the physics. The abiogenetic evolution of species, however, simply did not and could not occur in the 3 days of animal life being created and completed in the Genesis account. Genesis IS important. I don't personally believe that it's an allegory. I think it's revealed history. But what is actually REVEALED is the history, and what is actually revealed is different on the granular details than what is said to be revealed by some of the Protestant creationists. Do these differences in details matter? As far as the details go, no, they are irrelevant. God made it all. God made the animals. But the way of looking at Scripture does matter. The Scripture says what it says, and I am very stubborn about insisting that it means what it SAYS. It does not say that creation was done in six days. It says six and part of the seventh. And it does not say six 24-hour periods. Functionally, that latter thing shouldn't matter because it DOES say that animals were made on two solar days (and part of a third), but there could be billions of years of planetary globules floating around in the dark before the fourth day. The length of the early days, before animals, is NOT said, and the it is NOT a solar day, because the solar days don't exist until the fourth day and afterwards. This sort of punctiliousness about Scripture matters, because later on, when we get into Christian doctrine, we're going to be wrestling over a few lines of Paul versus lines of Jesus, and arguing about authorities. So, Genesis is the testing ground. What it says, as far as it goes and where it stops, is really pretty clear. Traditional interpretation has run past what the text actually SAYS, and that's a bad habit of mind that I think should be cut off with Genesis. Example: Christians say how hard the law is, that we can't follow it. Really? Jesus said that the following things will get you thrown into the fire: Murder, sexual immorality, lying, dealing drug "magic", idolatry and cowardice. I don't think that's such a hard law to follow, and I think it's a lie to say that we can't follow that. I follow that. It is not hard to not murder people, not deal in drugs, not follow magic, not worship false gods. It can be harder not to engage in sexual immorality, not to lie and not to be a coward., but it isn't all THAT hard. I recall the honor code at Annapolis, how lying would get you expelled. I recall being very conscious of it all, and I recall wondering how I could possibly get by without fibbing. The answer is, pretty well. I told no lies nor fibs, nor lying by omissions, throughout my time there. In fact, not lying greatly enhances your courage. You tell the truth, you get yelled at sometimes. And the world does not end. Sexual immorality? You have to look at what God said sexual immorality is. Is it hard not to have gay sex? Is it hard not to have sex with animals? Is it hard not to cheat on your wife? Actually, no, really it's not hard. So, I dispute - I deny outright - that it is all that hard to follow the Law of Jesus. Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light", and for the most part that's right, unless you're addicted to drugs or power or money or flesh or lies. So, what's all this endless business about how the law is too hard and nobody can follow it. That's not true! What has happened is that people have decided that The Law of Moses, given at Sinai to the Hebrews, is "the law". It's not. That was the law FOR THE HEBREWS. Are you a Jew? No. It never applied to you. Christ's coming didn't MAKE it apply to you. The covenant with Abraham was that his descendants would fill that land forever. Arabs and Jews are both descended from Abraham, and that's who fills that land. So, God upheld those covenants, both with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and also with Hagar and Ishmael. And none of that has a thing to do with a Sami Basque Celt like me, or with whatever sort of Gentile you are either. And then there's the Law of Moses: all of you circumcised Hebrews here at Sinai - do this all and I'll give you a secure farm in Canaan and prosperity. Refuse to obey and I'll take it away. Not one word in that about eternal life. Nothing. Are you a circumcised Hebrew, or a descendant of them? Even if you were, do you want a farm in Israel? You won't have it regardless unless a certain number of other similar circumcised Hebrews follow all the laws with you. Are all of those Hebrew commandments - 613 of them by tradition (I could fewer) - really "impossible" to do? I don't know, and I don't care either, because even if I did all of them, I'm not a Hebrew and all that covenant ever offered was a farm in Israel. The deal I'm interested in is Jesus' new covenant. He said I had to follow HIS commandments. And he gave a "bare minimum" list at the end of Scripture. On the last page of Scripture he twice gave the list of things that will earn you the fire and lose you your life: Murder. Not committing murder isn't hard unless you take up the sword as a profession. Sexual immorality. Not committing buggery or bestiality is not a hardship. There is certainly a temptation to adultery and to harlotry, but it is a temptation that men certainly can master. I've mastered it. This is hardly an overwhelming demand for normal people. Lying. Not lying is demanding. It goes hand in hand with not being a coward. Not engaging in pharmakeia. What's that? It's purveying mind-altering drugs to bring on magical hallucinogenic states. I've never done drugs and don't have to resist that temptation. I feel for those who are addicted. They have opened themselves to demons. But note well, pharmakeia isn't being a drug ADDICT, it's being a drug PEDDLER. The poor addict was stupid and got himself infected with devils. But the pharmakon is the guy who sold it to him. Jesus forgives people who have fallen into addiction. He hurls the dealers into the fire though. No, you are NOT FORGIVEN BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST if, being a Christian, you continue to SELL mind-altering drugs to infect people with demons. Not engaging in idolatry. Well, I believe in God, in El Elyon, God most high, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible or invisible. And I believe that Jesus was his only begotten son - the only one he FATHERED in the FLESH, and that one has to follow Jesus by doing what Jesus said. And I believe that God breathes out his spirit upon the world. That is what I believe. Jesus told me to pray to the Father, so that's who I pray to. I walk with Jesus, and I pray with him to the Father. This is not idolatry. There is nothing remotely idolatrous about it. And that is obeying the laws that will get a man thrown into the fire if he breaks them. The rest - well, that determines one's status and proximity to God in the City at the end. Those who didn't commit the damnable offenses but who were sour, bitter, unloving, uncaring and hectoring of others - they don't get the fire, they followed Christ, but they didn't follow him well, so they end up in a little apartment in the far corner of the City of God. It's eternal life in the city, and that's wonderful, but it's at a level appropriate to their relative lack of compassion and forgiveness. Those who give all and do all, they are much closer to the head table and the throne. None of this should be surprising. It's all there IN Scripture, right out Jesus' mouth. I don't like it when I hear that the law of Jesus is impossible to follow. No it isn't. That's calling Christ a liar! "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" is what HE said, and that means that NO, it is NOT TRUE that his law is brutally hard to follow and his yoke is heavy. Jesus wasn't lying to us. His yoke is easy. But it IS still a yoke. And there are rules. The things that are most important he listed twice at the end of the Scripture. THAT is the law you have to follow if you want to see heaven. And no, it is really not that hard. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-03   10:16:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: redleghunter (#104) See above. This shouldn't be as hard as it always is. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-03   10:17:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: Vicomte13, liberator (#105) This shouldn't be as hard as it always is. There are two "operatives" in our (many posters not just you and me) discussions. The first being God's redemptive Grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Which we are taught Christ is the propitiation for our sins the mercy seat. The second being the holy standard required of Christians as commanded by Christ and exhorted and instructed by the apostles in the NT. So yes the above is foundational to the Christian faith, and are not mutually exclusive. They can't be. Of all the apostles who we have epistles from, John communicated Trust and Obey in the same thought or "paragraph". So it is not easy to pluck isolated verses from John to come up with a "works based" soteriology nor a disobedient faithless "walk." AKA antinomian belief structure. And you are right. The changed heart and mind seeks the things of God, His Son and strives to walk in the footsteps of Christ. That is our sanctification. And we are to have the same trust and obedience in sanctification as we did as being justified by His Grace. As we are to have the faith, hope and love of our eventual glorification with Christ at His second coming. So yes not difficult. It's all there in the text and written on our hearts and minds. Trust and Obey, there is no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey. redleghunter  posted on  2014-11-03   12:08:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 108. #109. To: redleghunter (#108) Thanks. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-03 13:33:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 108. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com