Posted on 10/27/2014 1:47:14 PM PDT by RaceBannon
The Big Bang “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it,” Pope Francis said Monday morning, because the beginning of the world “is not the work of chaos.” The Pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, gathered in the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.” God is not some sort of wizard, said Francis, but rather “the Creator who brought all things into being.” The origin of the world derives directly “from a supreme Principle of creative love,” he added. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
>>This is an “open” thread in the Religion Forum meaning posters may argue for or against deities, religious authorities, beliefs, etc. That statement condemns a group not another Freeper personally and therefore is tolerable under the RF guidelines for open RF threads.
Click on my profile page for more on the RF guidelines.<<
I am understandably cautious.
And respectful herein...
If there was no water, how did the Holy Spirit move over it?
Creation is a matter of faith....by ‘believing’.... ‘we know’ ....By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible....For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm...and through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water....Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Nothing Big Bang about it...that is man’s trying to prove what he cannot understand without God.
False choice, and beside the point. However, just for fun, where did god come from? See, you don't really solve anything with that, you only kick it down the road one step.
>> “stop eating the red ones with white spots” <<
.
Don’t worry, we all know how much you love them, and how hard they are for you to obtain in your cell, so we’ll save them for you, as usual.
.
If it were it wouldn't make your particular brand of unsupported belief correct by default.
However, that wasn't the point.
We do not take everything literally, of course. I’m almost certain, though that a Catholic radio host suggested we do, in that he said Catholics, unlike evangelicals, will read figures of speech as just figures of speech. This radio host knows the truth about evangelicals but misled listeners.
Now, language wise, even when one person or thing is said to be another, that does not necessarily mean that they actually are. Jesus said He is a door and a branch, and that His followers are sheep. None of that is literally true.
Jesus also was there at the Last Supper, and could have given His disciples some of His actual flesh and blood, if even in a small quantity. But that’s not what He offered them, and would they have wanted some of His actual flesh and blood?
In some spiritual sense, I believe Jesus is a door, and a vine, and that we eat His flesh and drink His blood, and we are His sheep. But it has to do with the supernatural realm, which we don’t understand much about right now.
no
go over the events of what happened from the big bang till now
record in order what was made, what was formed, when it was formed
then, compare it to th days of creation
they are different, so different they are not comparable
If it's possible to have knowledge about the beginning of the universe at all, it is certainly not through faith. Faith is not a path to any knowledge at all. You can't know anything just because you choose to believe it, and such an absurd idea would be rejected out of hand in any field except religion.
Does faith tell you how gravity works? Or nuclear fusion? Or how to drive your car to work?
#2 Penny says Oh God! many times when she gets the big bang.
Just a theory.
...”You can’t know anything just because you choose to believe it”....
Sure you can...we do that every day of our life....explain the workings of love?
You said further...” such an absurd idea would be rejected out of hand in any field except religion.”
Which of course is why it’s not accepted by some as with others ....this issue you’re presenting is “knowledge” as opposed to “believing”. I am saying you can ‘Know’ through ‘belief’....you’re disputing this ..is that right?
Are you atheist?
Thanks for the ping!
All the Church fathers for the last 2,000 years believed in the Real Presence and that includes Paul. Have a nice night.
Such crass ignorance of Christianity.
The problem is NOT with sola Scriptura, but with how people define what it means. Most who reject the doctrine get it wrong. As the ONLY resource we have that is 100% Divinely-inspired, God-breathed, Holy Spirit revealed truth, the Scriptures ARE the authority by which all truth claims must be measured. If someone declares Christians MUST believe the universe revolves around the earth or they cannot be saved, we could reject it because it is NOT something God's word teaches us nor is it something God tells us is a major tenet of the faith - not to mention it cannot be shown to be something Jesus or the Apostles taught nor can it be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament writings.
Since the first century, Christians have believed in basic doctrines that define the Christian faith and they are ALL proven BY sacred Scripture. Scripture DOES interpret Scripture and the heresies that arose from the start WERE disputed BY Scripture. God's word is the highest authority we have because nothing else is Divinely-inspired truth. It was good enough for Jesus, His Apostles and the early Christians, it is good enough for us and IS our authority to which we owe obedience. The church (believers) is not in authority over God's word - just the opposite.
No, the difference between "adaption" and "evolution" is nothing but word definition games -- in fact, they are exactly the same thing, short term versus longer term.
Evidences for short-term "adaptions" can be found everywhere in nature and DNA analyses.
DNA changes can be measured for more-recent versus more-distant-past times.
So the point at which "adaption" slides into "evolution" is strictly a matter of word definitions.
If you’re implying something has evolved, please let me know what that might be.
You take things too literally. Nothing I say would satisfy your need to make every universal physical reality into something that can only be covered by the one book that was written for the spiritual and not the physical.
Good luck
Spirited: You have it backwards. The Revealed Word is true Truth. Evolutionary conceptions are the folly of worldly, meaning paganized, men.
All evolutionary cosmologies originate in ancient pagan conceptions of the universe. With respect to Darwin’s theory in particular, Darwin is not its’ inventor. He received the idea from his neo-pagan grandfather Erasmus Darwin, an important name in European Masonic anti-Christian Church organizations engaged in destructive revolutionary activism. Erasmus mentored his grandson Charles:
"Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which were later to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species." (Scarlet and the Beast, Vol. II, John Daniel, p. 34)
According to anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History, ancient pagans are the inventers of modern evolutionism. In the introduction to his history of evolutionism Osborn wrote:
"When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory....I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C." (Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, p. xi)
By its’ nature evolutionism belongs to the category of naturalism (all that exists is nature or cosmos), making it antithetical, or in fierce opposition to the infinite Triune God, the supernatural dimension and special creation. The personal Triune God is outside of His creation---the natural dimension of space, time, matter and energy---thus He is not subject to the laws of science:
"....science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." (Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, pp. 62-63, 1977)
As "modern" evolutionary cosmologies such as the Big Bang originate in ancient Hindu and Greek conceptions of Cosmic Eggs, this makes evolutionary biology an attempt by neo-pagan "moderns" to explain how a universal life force variously known by ancient Egyptians as Serpent Power, by Greeks as Zoe, and by Eastern mystics as Krishna and Kundalini cause one kind of thing to transform itself into another kind of thing (macroevolution).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.