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: 61640
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
Comments (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#42. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc (#41)
Evolution has become the "gospel" for the eugenics crowd. +100. Interpreted perfectly.This SAME crowd are also Atheists. Coincidence? These cultist self-anointed demigods actually believe in the "ethics" and "morality" of culling the human population ("by whatever means necessary.") They have moved into tactical positions i8n World gubmint to enforce their warped fantasy and ethic.
"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." Dear Giovanni Bignami, The Pope is an idiot who ought to stick to wearing elaborate hats and costumes designed by Liberace, and waving from a balcony. That said, what is REALLY "significant" is how this "blood" found its way into the "Big Bang"? And INTO living, sentient creatures. OR, Dr. Bignani, that hydrogen? Moreover, Prof. Bignami, can you or any of your enlightened scientific communitah provide a molecule of proof that "evolution" has occurred? Didn't think so. Graci...ciao.
Gee...Pope Frank actually read GENESIS?? Believes in an omnipotent God (Oh wait) "The Jesuit Pope: "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." WHAT. A. BOOB. And a fraud. This guy is the Chief Inspector Clouseau of Popes. Chyeah -- The Creator of the Universe, God got stumped and was overwhelmed. DAY SIX: "Now where wuz I?? Oh yeah...figuring out how to make the Universe look as though it's really 13.7 BILLION years old. ABRA-CADABRA!! HA! I can't believe I did it!! That'll drive my puny earthlings crazy!"
PING to above
You ever going to respond to the above questions? You said several things which I responded to. Do you have answers?
Thanks. I really miss the fashionable Pope Benedict.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
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.
Vic good run down for those not acquainted with your posts on LP. Thanks. Oh and CZ82 is none other than Uncle Siggy. If you were wondering:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Tater/Gatlin at this very moment: Meggy/Homo-San:
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"?
He rocked that Pope Hat better than any Pope I've seen. Doesn't get much credit from the fashionistas for that.
More than that for sure. Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? I presume our Father's specs will slide down his nose, he'll bite his lip as He peruses our Life File -- despite noting high scores on Tests #2 and #3.
Also Moderator http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=35507&Disp=37#C37
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Oh no I've been outed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
As well you should. The deity, Elohiym, is female, and male, both. YHWH is masculine. The Holy Spirit and the Glory of God are feminine. Jesus is masculine. Of course he existed: you can see what he looked like and get a sample of his blood from the Shroud of Turin.
What is "death"? Jesus said that God is the God of the living, and spoke of those whose bodies had died as nevertheless living. Don't become fixated on PHYSICAL death, because physical death isn't DEATH. Physical death isn't what came into the world with sin. Real death is what did, and real death is entirely of the spirit. The body is not the issue.
But Scripture does not actually SAY that. What it SAYS is that none come to the Father except through Jesus. That's true. But that does not mean that one must "ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins". That is the interpretation supplied by human tradition. And it's not quite right. Look at the last page of Scripture, where Jesus himself, enthroned in Heaven, says that men will be judged by their DEEDS, and then lists the deeds that will earn a trip to the lake of fire.
If we believe that Genesis tells us that, then we are not reading carefully enough. Genesis doesn't say that.
Also Moderator http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=35507&Disp=37#C37 HA! That thread is HILARIOUS!! And yup -- there is "moderator" Tater Tot/Gilligan pretending to be an authoritah. Both you and cal fired off lines I'm still chucking over.
The flaw in all radioactivity dating methods, whether Carbon-14 or Uranium isotope, is they all rely on a uniform rate of decay. However, radioactive decay rates are a function of "C", the speed of light. If C has decayed over time (and there is experimental evidence that it has, parabolically, since early times - it was tens of thousands of times faster in distant ages), then the "clock" of radioactive decay rates used to run much, much faster. If the clock ran 1,000,000 times faster 20,000 years ago, then 100 million years, at the current rate, ran in 100 years. That is how you can end up with an earth that radioactively measures at "billions" of years old that is, in fact, only tens of thousands of years old. It's also why the light coming in in all directions from distant galaxies is all red-shifted, and why the red-shift is quantized. The slowing of the speed of light is actually observed BY the red-shift, and has been calculated using the various calculations of the speed of light over the past 300 years. The consist drift is about 1% decay in 300 years. Fitted to a curve, we get a parabola with light a billion times faster a couple of tens of thousands of years ago. That is probably the real truth behind all of this, which is why putting it together as I have, which actually shows you the MECHANISM, and EXPLAINS both the celestial phenomena AND the radioactive dating phenomena all together, is certain to raise vehement and explosive anger in some. Wait and you'll see it.
LOL! Oh noes! Hiri Kiri, Siggy-San! (Or is it now 82-San?) P.S. -- Was that Samarai you in the vid, Vic? ;-)
What is "death"? Jesus said that God is the God of the living, and spoke of those whose bodies had died as nevertheless living. Yes, but we must still consider the context of the here and now which affect the then and there. Don't become fixated on PHYSICAL death, because physical death isn't DEATH. Physical death isn't what came into the world with sin. Real death is what did, and real death is entirely of the spirit. The body is not the issue. I agree. To a degree. Jesus noted the death of the physical realm. But we are still hardwired to avoid death, aren't we? The "fear" has more to do with the suffering part. Even if we know there's the next Life....(or Death or some.)
Never heard of this.
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.
But Scripture does not actually SAY that. What it SAYS is that none come to the Father except through Jesus. That's true. But that does not mean that one must "ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins". That is the interpretation supplied by human tradition. And it's not quite right. Regarding "human tradition" not being "quite right," I agree with you -- which is coincidentally what many Protestants find objectionable about the RCC rites, creeds, and Marian addenda. In THIS case, my assertion of "accepting the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for my sins" may not be scriptural verbatim, but the interpretive context is the same when I acknowledge Jesus' words to He and the Father. Look at the last page of Scripture, where Jesus himself, enthroned in Heaven, says that men will be judged by their DEEDS, and then lists the deeds that will earn a trip to the lake of fire. Let's assume you're right on the swan dive into the Lake of Fire... You've asserted, "Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test." Well, we are sinners even though that IS true. Do the "morals and deeds" tests trump considerations acknowledging Jesus as my personal Savior?
Follow me and don't let go. This is not heresy. The word "Elohiym" - "God" - remember, is a PLURAL. The singular is "El or Al", masculine, or "Eloah or Alah", feminine. Both the masculine and feminine singular forms appear as place names or as parts of the name of the Deity (El Shaddai literally means "The Mighty One of My Teats"; El-Elyon - literally means the Mighty One - Mighty One whose Arm generates over the chaos). Elohiym is a unitive noun and takes the masculine singular verb when speaking of GOD; otherwise it means "gods" (really "mighty ones") when it takes a plural verb. Next, there is the "Breath of God" - the "Ruach Elohiym", or the "Holy Breath". We translate "Breath" in Greek as "Pneuma" - and this is the word Spirit. In Hebrew, the Spirit of God (that hovers over the water) is a feminine singular noun. The "Spirit" in Hebrew is feminine. Likewise, the Shekinah, the Glory of God that radiates around holy things, and out of the Ark of the Covenant, is a feminine singular. All of these things: YHWH, Ruach, Shekinah, El and Eloah are all unitively referred to as the plural "Elohiym": God. Now look at the 6th day: In Elohiym's image he made man; male and female he made them. Elohiym is both male and female. El is male. YHWH is male. Jesus is male. But the Holy Spirit is female, and so is the Glory of God. This is so grammatically. It's also right there in the text: in Elohiym's image, male and female both. Eloah, Ruach and Shekinah are female. And all "part" of Elohiym. Elohiym takes a masculine singular noun, but when being self-referential, Elohiym frequently employs "WE". YHWH only employs "I". It's all right there, if one unpacks it carefully. This should be a source of joy, because all of a sudden all sorts of strange and messy loose ends in Scripture make sense, and we realize that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all right there in the very first SENTENCE of Genesis. Indeed, it's pretty obvious when one looks at the words, the plurals. It's easy to see the Trinity, and Christians love to see this. Some Christians become stubborn and don't like seeing the femininity of God ALSO right there in Genesis, particularly the femininity of the Holy Spirit. That is disturbing, because it's not the Christian tradition. Throw out the bad tradition, then, just as Jesus says to, and embrace what the Scripture SAYS on its face, in the inspired Hebrew. It's perfectly obvious in Hebrew that the Spirit is feminine. It's a feminine word. We don't HAVE masculine and feminine gender of nouns in English, so we don't see it. But a translation is just an echo - God didn't reveal these things in English, he did it in Hebrew.
I don't know if it's more about reading carefully enough or again, context and interpretation. Genesis 2:17 -- "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." What did God mean by "die?" Didn't God curse Adam with both physical AND spiritual death? Can't we conclude Adam's act affected all of God's original plan -- and that death begat all His Creation? Pork chops and steak weren't eaten until after the fall. So, what is your interpretation or belief about "Death" as per scripture?
Some Christians become stubborn and don't like seeing the femininity of God ALSO right there in Genesis, particularly the femininity of the Holy Spirit. That is disturbing, because it's not the Christian tradition. No Bible scholar am I, but frankly, the concept wasn't "strange" or the ends "loose" until now :-) The reason it's disturbing is that it feeds into pagan concepts of Mother Earth and "Goddesses." I'll have to further examine your thesis, Vic, because I've never heard of your translation related to in gender terms other than "God the Father." We have the Father, Son...and yes, "Holy Spirit." Of note: Man (Adam) was created first; Jesus (the Father's Son, in His place) also male. I hope Mary doesn't play into this equation somehow.
LOL sorry thought everyone knew. The same Rangers and Cowboys threads etc.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
There is no demand to acknowledge Jesus as personal savior. What Jesus SAID was "follow me" and "do as I say" and "you will be judged by your deeds" and "nobody comes to the Father except through me". So, let's be clear: Jesus' deal, his judgment, is going to be personal to each person. None of us has been appointed the judge of the world, or guardian of it, or bearer of its weight. We've each been charged to look after ourselves and our immediate family, firstly, primordially. The formula demanding a particular mouthing of belief isn't in the Bible at all. It's a doctrine of a Church that seeks to answer the question "What about all those others", and it leads to an answer that isn't true. And it's irrelevant anyway. You're going to be judged on what YOU do. So, whether you mouth that Jesus is personal savior or not isn't going to HELP you if you don't do as he said. Now, the notion that the Law is too hard to follow is also wrong. Gentiles, like you and me, NEVER were under the JEWISH law at all. We ARE under the law of Jesus. What HE said was that if you murder people, engage in sexual immorality, engage in pharmakeia, traffic in lies and fraud, worship idols or are a coward he rejects you and will throw you in the fire. He does forgive those who slip - but he said that he only forgives them TO THE EXTENT that THEY are forgiving of other men for the sins other men do. So, Jesus has a high standard, but it is not impossible to keep. If you slip, you're on your way to the lake of fire...BUT there's still a save for you: you'll be forgiven IF you're forgiving. If you forgive others the evils they do you and turn the other cheek and let it go, then Jesus will let it go, but if you refuse to do that, if you are proud and arrogant, you are establishing the standard of your own judgment. Since you'll probably slip on something, if you're not forgiving, you're not going to enter the City because YOU set a rule of harsh and condemnatory judgment which you, then, will experience yourself. Some Christians have taught the doctrine that Jesus forgives everything if you believe he was the Son of God and that his sacrifice forgave all sin. That's a wonderful doctrine, but it isn't what Jesus SAID. In fact, he said things pretty baleful for those who cry "Lord, Lord!" but who don't DO what he said to do. And he asked, quite testily: "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?" Christians like to throw up that Torah list of laws and say they're off the hook for that. This is a false doctrine. It is ILLITERATE. Read the Torah: who does it apply to: HEBREWS, who were THERE. And what was promised? A farm in Israel. Nowhere in the Old Testament does God EVER ONCE promise the Hebrews "Eternal Life" or anything like it if they follow his laws. He promises them a farm in Israel and security during life - that's IT. So, the whole business about being "relieved of the burden of the Law" is a red herring. Sure, JEWS like Peter and Paul and the Apostles and early disciples were relieved of the Law, but they were JEWS. Gentiles like you and me, though, were never under the Law in the first place. If we placed ourselves under it and did it all, it wouldn't give us eternal life, because God never PROMISED eternal life in exchange. It would give us a farm in Israel while we lived, and nothing more (and then only if enough of the rest of the community also obeyed). So when we see all of the JEWISH anguish over "The Law" in the Gospels and Epistles, we need to remember that none of that has one thing to do with us. We were never under the law in the first place, and adherence to the law never promised eternal life. For us, it's easier: what are JESUS' Commandments. Jesus' sacrifice does NOT release us from obeying THOSE. He'll forgive us our past sins, but if we keep on sinning - with sin defined as what Jesus said would damn us - then we'd better be FORGIVING OF MEN, because if we're not, we're dead. Up in Scotland there were some hard-bitten leaders who "did not suffer a witch to live". They enforced, in the 1500s and 1600s, a law given to ISRAELITES, never Gentiles, and burnt 20,000 witches. They were harsh and unforgiving and very Christians, and they very probably will all be thrown into the lake of fire because they committed MURDER (God never once authorized GENTILES to kill witches - the Torah was EXCLUSIVELY for Hebrews under the Covenant - that the Jews were given the right to kill the Canaanites does NOT mean that the English were given ANY right to go kill the Welsh to take their land), so that's one strike against them. They did it on the basis of a law that did not apply, so they lied and twisted Scripture to authorize them to do evil. Strike two. And, having captured sinners, they were harsh and judgmental and unforgiving. Strike three. They committed murder, deceit and their own form of idolatry by putting people into the fire, and they were unforgiving, and Jesus - on the standards he stated - will probably throw them all into the fire. They will say "But we prophesied in your name!" And he will say "Into the fire, you evildoers". Being a "Christian" does not get you out of the fire. You have to be good, and if you're not, you have to be forgiving. Those are JESUS' terms, and Christians don't get to make up a doctrine that contradicts him and makes his blood more powerful than his own commandments at forgiving them from doing whatever the Hell they please. This is all obvious on the text. So, circling back to us. Do we murder, lie, commit sexual immorality, indulge in pharmakeia or idolatry? Are we cowards? If yes, then STOP IT. When we converted, all before was forgiven, but sins since are not forgiven so easily. Now we have to ask for forgiveness from God, and we have to temper ourselves to be very forgiving of others. And until we've done all that, we had best not waste our time looking over the hedge to cluck at what is in somebody else's mind, because we are so obviously lost ourselves that nothing very useful will come out of our mouths. After all, those "Christians" burning Scottish witches thought they were purifying their land, but really they were just murderous assholes condemning themselves to hell, and committing crimes against humanity that have made people ever since disgusted with Christians and Christian religion - their crimes and evil barred the bridge to others by making Christ disgusting. We still here today about all of the crimes of Christians in their Churches, and those accusations are JUST. Christians need to take care of their own gardens first. And be forgiving. That's load enough.
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.
They were not supposed to be eaten until after the Flood.
I've seen much of what you have to say on this subject. I don't think the Christians here will start a flame war. I'm up for it.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Good question. Adam lived for hundreds of years after he ate the fruit, so if we take the English translation literally: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Did God change his mind? Did Adam die, or didn't he, on the day that he ate of the tree? The Hebrew verbs make a difference here. The way this has been translated, God changes his mind, doesn't do what he said he was going to do. Either that, or something DID die, but it wasn't Adam's body. The Hebrew partially answers the question - and in the process demonstrates that whole translation issue front and center. The Hebrew imperfect verb tense does not translate well into English. The Hebrew says merely that in the day that Adam eats it, he WILL die - which can be understood as "he will BEGIN to die", or he will eventually die. So, in the Hebrew, death means his physical death. And indeed, when we read the genealogies, we see the antediluvian patriarchs all dying. "And he died." So, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, death is physical death, and God does not reveal life after death and resurrection until very late in the prophets (with increasing clarity in the books that the Protestants don't accept as canonical). This is why the Sadduccees did not believe in the resurrection or life after death. Remember: the Sadduccees were the hereditary priests. Nobody was closer too or more consistently bathed in Hebrew Scripture than they were, their whole lives (Pharisees were not priests), and yet THEY did not see the resurrection or eternal life in the Hebrew Scriptures at all. The Pharisees saw resurrection in their. It's JESUS who gives a new meaning to "death", when speaking of people reputed dead, such as Abraham and Isaac, and says that God is the God of the LIVING, when referring to them. He also refers to those who are dead (physically) as having fallen asleep. So it's with Jesus - who is the one who promises eternal life and resurrection (not the Torah) - that the veil is peeled back and we begin to see that after physical death, the spirit lives, and that the spirit IS the person. But Jesus doesn't give this to us in nice scientific terms.
That is true. But consider this. Psalm 11:3King James Version (KJV) 3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? The religion of evolution seeks to destroys the foundation of the Bible. The story of Adam and Eve. The reason Jesus came. So if someone believes in evolution and tries to take the Bible literally. Then they see a conflict. If they then believe in evolution. It makes it more likely they will not believe the Bible. We have to restore the foundation. Genesis. Because if it is under attack and not to be taken literally. Then why would they believe in Jesus if he came because of something that Adam and Eve, which they believe to be fiction. That is one of the reasons I see it as important. There is somewhere in the Bible that says you have to preach to the greeks different then the Jews. Because the Jews had a a foundation in the Bible and the greeks didn't. So you have to reach different people with different methods. So if you destroy the lie of evolution, many people will have the door opened to possibly seeing the light of Gods word found in the Bible.
The death that God said would surely come over Adam and Eve it they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So because there was no physical death before that time. Natural selection would be incompatible because you would have Adam and Eve standing on a pile of bones of dead things.
It was a load, but enjoyable load to read. Plenty to consider that I'll expound upon when my battery isn't so low. For now my commentary will be on the following related bits of you dissertation... "IF you're forgiving. If you forgive others the evils they do you and turn the other cheek and let it go, then Jesus will let it go, but if you refuse to do that, if you are proud and arrogant, you are establishing the standard of your own judgment....For us, it's easier: what are JESUS' Commandments. Jesus' sacrifice does NOT release us from obeying THOSE. He'll forgive us our past sins, but if we keep on sinning - with sin defined as what Jesus said would damn us - then we'd better be FORGIVING OF MEN, because if we're not, we're dead." Two themes are struck: Lack of "Forgiveness" and continued "sinning." The end result of which will be Judgement by our own standard. Vic, IF we as fallible sinners are not capable of quelling sin 100%, where does that leave us? Answer: As sinners. Period. ONE SIN, TWO SINS, 100 SINS, 1000 SINS. You are NOT leaving this world without a tab. Neither am I. So either the Blood of Jesus for Believers meant...EVERYTHING or NOTHING. Which is it?? That said, this isn't to discount the importance of good deeds and forgiveness either. I'm now going to back up the WIDE LOAD truck and re-quote you: "So, let's be clear: Jesus' deal, his judgment, is going to be personal to each person. None of us has been appointed the judge of the world, or guardian of it, or bearer of its weight. Yes, I'm going with your "Jesus deal" as a consideration because ONLY the Lord knows our unique, respective heart, road, trial, and tribulations. The kid in Sri Lanka can't possibly be judged the same as the guy in Seattle; OR, the girl in Galilee, 5 B.C. with the Jew in Jerusalem 2014 A.D. Same with the Catholic sinner in CT and Baptist sinner in Jersey. Do we murder, lie, commit sexual immorality, indulge in pharmakeia or idolatry? Are we cowards? If yes, then STOP IT. When we converted, all before was forgiven, but sins since are not forgiven so easily. Now we have to ask for forgiveness from God, and we have to temper ourselves to be very forgiving of others. And until we've done all that, we had best not waste our time looking over the hedge to cluck at what is in somebody else's mind, because we are so obviously lost ourselves that nothing very useful will come out of our mouths. Of course we can't continue to indulge routinely in your above sins...especially and importantly, without repentance. I know you don't agree with me here, but through my belief in the Blood of Jesus Christ, I *know* I am the Lord's. Far from perfect, a wretched sinner, a liar, holds grudges, lusts, hates, etc. Yes, sins ARE forgiven. Through the grace of Jesus Christ. Thus I am NOT condemned. I will ask and pray for mercy and strength from the Holy Spirit to repel contain my sins and repent when I am weak (which frankly is often.) Here's the primary problem with Catholicism and your perspective and criteria for reaching Heaven: In practice...IT. IS. AN. IMPOSSIBLE. STANDARD. This standard is what causes many Catholics or potential Christians to TOTALLY give up on maintaining ANY standard, surrender ALL hope, and toss their hands up in futility and frustration. The thought process (infused by Satan) is..."See? You can't meet God's ridiculous standard, so GIVE UP!" And guess what? They DO give up completely. I know such people. They become narcissists who ignore the soul, caring only about satisfying the flesh since Heaven (they've been told) is such a long shot. Merely eating, drinking, and being merry...until they die, as they readily accept their inevitably swan dive into Lake Hell. Speaking of "forgiveness," why does the RCC insist that ONLY clergy can act as intermediary between man and God? Where in Scripture is it written that we become sin-less the moment man exits that Confessional Box? Were the sins on that tab REALLY erased after muttering a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers, and Act of Contrition as "penance"? Because of this, do you want to know what my first and only thoughts after swinging wide the doors open from the Church afterward? "Gee -- IF I get hit by a bus RIGHT NOW, I'm in Heaven!!"
Was it? And then after that, not even pork chops ;-)
We have to restore the foundation. Genesis. Because if it is under attack and not to be taken literally. Then why would they believe in Jesus if he came because of something that Adam and Eve, which they believe to be fiction. That is one of the reasons I see it as important. Hear ya, Stoney.
So it's with Jesus - who is the one who promises eternal life and resurrection (not the Torah) - that the veil is peeled back and we begin to see that after physical death, the spirit lives, and that the spirit IS the person. But Jesus doesn't give this to us in nice scientific terms. Onboard, Vic.
Comments (82 - 132) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYes the eugenics crowd is married to the global warmists and Darwinists. When one only has "self" as a god, those who pose a threat to what they call diminishing resources call on population control.
#43. To: Ferret Mike, Carl Sagan, Pope Francis, Giovanni Bignami (#0)
"The Pope's declaration is significant," said Giovanni Bignami, the president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics.
#44. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, Don, out damned spot, A K A Stone, 4 givan 1 (#0)
The beginning of the world was not "the work of chaos" but part of a divine plan by the Creator, he said.
#45. To: redleghunter (#44)
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#45)
#47. To: Liberator (#45)
#48. To: (#0)
#49. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, liberator, out damned spot, CZ82 (#48)
#50. To: redleghunter, CZ82, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, out damned spot, Tater (#49)
Oh and CZ82 is none other than Uncle Siggy. If you were wondering:)
#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.
#52. To: redleghunter (#47)
I really miss the fashionable Pope Benedict.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test.
#54. To: Liberator (#50)
Tater/Gatlin at this very moment:
#55. To: redleghunter (#49)
Oh and CZ82 is none other than Uncle Siggy. If you were wondering:)
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
I believe in a female deity and question whether a Jesus Christ even existed.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#11)
The Bible says that there was no death before sin.
#58. To: Liberator (#53)
Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins?
#59. To: Liberator (#21)
IF -- as Genesis tells us - we indeed believe that there was "NO DEATH" before the sin of Adam and Eve,
#60. To: CZ82, calcon (#54)
Tater/Gatlin at this very moment:
#61. To: Liberator (#28)
If your reservations are about "Dating" methodology -- especially the bread and butter of Old Earthers -- Carbon-14 dating
#62. To: CZ82, Vicomte13 (#55)
Oh no I've been outed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#63. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#57)
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
As well you should. The deity, Elohiym, is female, and male, both. YHWH is masculine. The Holy Spirit and the Glory of God are feminine. Jesus is masculine.
#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"?
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins?
#67. To: Liberator (#64)
As well you should. The deity, Elohiym, is female, and male, both. YHWH is masculine. The Holy Spirit and the Glory of God are feminine. Jesus is masculine. Never heard of this.
#68. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
If we believe that Genesis tells us that [No Death before Adam's sin], then we are not reading carefully enough. Genesis doesn't say that.
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
This [Masculine/Feminine Godhood] should be a source of joy, because all of a sudden all sorts of strange and messy loose ends in Scripture make sense, and we realize that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all right there in the very first SENTENCE of Genesis. Indeed, it's pretty obvious when one looks at the words, the plurals. It's easy to see the Trinity, and Christians love to see this.
#70. To: CZ82 (#55)
#71. To: Liberator (#66)
"Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test." Well, we are sinners even though that IS true. Do the "morals and deeds" tests trump considerations acknowledging Jesus as my personal Savior?
#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.
#73. To: Liberator (#68)
Pork chops and steak weren't eaten until after the fall.
#74. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, liberator (#65)
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.
#75. To: Liberator (#68)
What did God mean by "die?"
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
what one believes about creation is not on the list of things that Jesus said would get one thrown into the lake of fire.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
What is "death"? Jesus said that God is the God of the living, and spoke of those whose bodies had died as nevertheless living.
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
They [Pork chops and burgers] were not supposed to be eaten until after the Flood.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#76)
The religion of evolution seeks to destroys the foundation of the Bible. The story of Adam and Eve. The reason Jesus came. So if someone believes in evolution and tries to take the Bible literally. Then they see a conflict. If they then believe in evolution. It makes it more likely they will not believe the Bible.
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
It's JESUS who gives a new meaning to "death", when speaking of people reputed dead, such as Abraham and Isaac, and says that God is the God of the LIVING, when referring to them. He also refers to those who are dead (physically) as having fallen asleep.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]