VATICAN CITY - Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero.
The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim of its Inquisition as a man of faith, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo's telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.
Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist Sunday, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works."
In May, several Vatican officials will participate in an international conference to re-examine the Galileo affair, and top Vatican officials are now saying Galileo should be named the "patron" of the dialogue between faith and reason.
It's quite a reversal of fortune for Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who made the first complete astronomical telescope and used it to gather evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
The church denounced Galileo's theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest.
The Church has for years been striving to shed its reputation for being hostile to science, in part by producing top-notch research out of its own telescope.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
But that apparently wasn't enough. In January, Benedict canceled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza University after a group of professors, citing the Galileo episode and depicting Benedict as a religious figure opposed to science, argued that he shouldn't speak at a public university.
The Galileo anniversary appears to be giving the Vatican new impetus to put the matter to rest. In doing so, Vatican officials are stressing Galileo's faith as well as his science, to show the two are not mutually exclusive.
At a Vatican conference last month entitled "Science 400 Years after Galileo Galilei," the Vatican No. 2, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said Galileo was an astronomer, but one who "lovingly cultivated his faith and his profound religious conviction."
"Galileo Galilei was a man of faith who saw nature as a book authored by God," Bertone said.
The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture, which co-sponsored the conference, went further. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi told Vatican Radio that Galileo "could become for some the ideal patron for a dialogue between science and faith."
He said Galileo's writings offered a "path" to explore how faith and reason were not incompatible.
The Rev. John Padberg, a church historian and the director of the Institute of Jesuit Sources at St. Louis University, said he suspected the Vatican's new emphasis on Galileo's faith came from the pope himself.
"Pope Benedict XVI is ardently convinced of the congruence of faith and reason, and he is concerned, especially in the present circumstances, of giving reason its due place in the whole scheme of things," he said.
While it is widely accepted that Galileo was a convinced Catholic, Padberg questioned whether he could ever be accepted as some kind of a poster child for the faith and reason debate. "That's going to be a long shot for an awful lot of people, on both sides, by the way," he said. Continue >>
RSS
"Happy New Year to all!
Putting on the mind of the Christ, we should spend New Year's Eve thanking God for the blessings He has given us the past year!
May God richly bless you in 2009! May He watch over you, guide and protect you, keep you healthy and happy, and keep you in His perfect will! Amen!"
To something we agree on! May the next year always be better than the last.
Tallguy
believer, Prophet, wbmoore, Online4Him, and myself have shown you over and over again what some of the heretical teahings of the Catholic Church are but you refuse to listen. What more can we do? Short of a miracle from God you cannot and will not repent towards God.
beliver, toss out that Baltimore Catechism, it was never an official publication of the Church.
Instead, you need to purchase a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or as you said Google it. It's also on the Vatican website, www.vatican.va Read through it, and try to find the supposedly "unbiblical" stuff if you can. Bet you can't! So until you read it, please quit flapping your lips, it's slander.
It's a well written book, great guide for any Christian. And I especially love the section on "Life in Christ" and the section on "Christian Prayer"
Happy New Year to all!
Putting on the mind of the Christ, we should spend New Year's Eve thanking God for the blessings He has given us the past year!
May God richly bless you in 2009! May He watch over you, guide and protect you, keep you healthy and happy, and keep you in His perfect will! Amen!
Why waste any money at all, you can type in Baltimore Catechism and see it online for free and be exposed to the many unbiblical teachings of the catholic church.
(In that way you will get the full snapshot of our (soon to be yours) wonderful Catholic faith!)
I have a copy and ummm, it is hardly the full snapshot . . . try reading your Bible without imposing your tradition into it and then you will get the full snapshot of our (hopefully to be yours) genuine Christian faith!
Have a Happy New Year my friend . . .
Tallguy wrote: "Have you got a copy of the Catechism? If not, go ahead, spend that $9."
Seriously? If one converts to catholism do they get a copy for free or do they still have to offer up the $9?
No way Wilderness, it doesn't work that way. You say something about someone's faith, you need to back it up. But still, and I'll say it again, I've noticed that you are reading Catholic material. That's great, keep it up! Have you got a copy of the Catechism? If not, go ahead, spend that $9. In that way you will get the full snapshot of our (soon to be yours) wonderful Catholic faith!
Peace in Christ and Happy New Year my Christian brother!
Listen guys, I have referenced the foot kissing before in other posts. At this time, please, do your own homework and personal research concerning the matter.
After diligent research, I will understand if you want to come back and share what you deem to be accurate or inaccurate concerning the matter. Thanks and have a good day.
Yeah Wilderness, where'd you dig that stuff up?
I don't know, if it's your evidence shouldn't you support it?
Dig a little deeper.
Judging by the articles that i actually REFERENCED, Pius IX was far ahead of his time, a good man and, quite frankly, an all-around good person! Not unlike Queen Elizabe- Oh wait... that's right...
On Pius IX
As liberal Europe applauded his election, he introduced political reforms on a broad scale. He initiated the construction of railways, and the installation of street lighting throughout Rome. He improved agricultural technology and productivity via farmer education in newly created scientific agricultural institutes. He abolished the requirements for Jews to attend Christian services and sermons and opened the papal charities to the needy of them.[11] He gave much to charities, living like a pauper. The new pope freed all political prisoners by giving amnesty to revolutionaries, which horrified the conservative monarchies in Austria-Hungary and elsewhere[11] Within one year of his election, he appointed an assembly of lay people to assist in the governing of the Papal States. His actions were applauded by Protestant statesman. He was celebrated in New York, London and Berlin as a model ruler.[
Wilderness I can't find anything of what you said. Odd.
"No it doesn't, it only presupposes life started (somehow), "
somehow, eh? That is called "faith" dude! You have no answer so you just believe in something unprovable which makes assumptions. This has been my point for 30 years. Evolution is a term used for two different things. One use is the study of changes which have occured in species. The other is a religion set out to disprove creation by elevating science to faith.
"Why was only certain forms of life preserved and not the intermediate stages?"
I am not sure what you mean by this, be more specific with the ones you have issue with as there are many examples of intermediates depending on which lineage we're speaking about.
star2,
Evolutionary gaps abound. Close the gaps by showing/explaining how non-living organic molecules took on life,"
We don't know enough about this part to provide an accurate description yet, again, this ISN'T evolution, this is organic chemistry, abiogensis, & astrobiology.
"how then this simple form of life (a bacteria) created more complex life when the necessary chemicals for that to happen were not present,"
Again Star, I thought last time you simply threw in the towel? I distinctly recall you saying you were threw. Ok, recap, have you comprehended those terms earlier mentioned, if not I will relist them for you.
"how simople forms of life gave birth to more and more comples forms of life."
Descent w/ modification via processes like natural selection coupled with genetic mutations which offer novel fitness in a niche.
"why there is a sudden explosion of more complex life when all the cyanobacteria produced enough oxygen in the atmospehere that caused the explosion of life in the cambrian age."
O2 is a metabolic fuel for higher (more complex) life forms, something they could use & compete for once it reached a sufficient level & the ecology allowed for it. NS would select those which would use it as opposed to others which couldn't, IE, new organisms evolved to take advantage of the more O2 rich ecology.
Blacksho89
"FACT: ALL life is dependent on DNA."
That does not compute. Actually, many microbial (most actually) use RNA for replication.
"Darwinism (I know you hate that term, prorudenezz!) does not attempt to explain from where the first living creature came. It cannot."
Bravo, evolution can't explain it as it doesn't pertain to it, just like how gravity can't be used to explain quantum mechanics although it operates with the realm of physics.
"Darwinism ASSUMES life came from non-life, sometime, somewhere. That it is patently impossible does not appear to bother the defenders of the evolutionary theory."
B/c we've been trying for what, 50 years, to create synthetic life then to you it's now impossible?
"Evolutionists now concede that the Earth cannot POSSIBLY be old enough for DNA to have been created from static, non-living chemicals."
Not really, the age of the universe & earth are plenty old, life appeared not too long after 1 billion years of earths formation.
"The theory of Directed Panspermia advanced by Dr. Francis Crick and famous atheist Richard Dawkins states that DNA arrived from an alien civilization. Of course, that only puts the question off. But I'll ask it: Where did the first living cell in THAT civilization come from?"
We don't know, they propose this alternative hypothesis as science is open to any natural explanation so long as evidence supports it, so we can't rule it out on face value.
Grace2 (star2?)
"They say the 7 identical ERV's prove it."
Uhhh, no, it's not simply that there are 7 shared ones, which prove it, it's those, plus many other lines of independent evidence which collectively conform to a pattern of descent w/ modification - evolution.
Using a similar type of argument:
My light bulb puts out light. The sun puts out light. Therefore, my light bulb evolved from the sun."
Neither your light nor the sun are living biological systems, they don't have offspring, don't use DNA/RNA for replication & hereditary so this is a strawman. As they say, the devil is in the details, you simply can't ignore all the critical properties of how organisms work and apply an analogy with a sun.
"But evolutionists know that children believe what they are taught."
I guess so, and the clergy know this as well, learning is after all a part of growing up.
Online4him,
"If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable"
Huh, what gave you that indication? What makes you think natural selection isn't testable?
DP, The problem is that the concept of evolution is flawed. It presupposes that something came from nothing."
No it doesn't, it only presupposes life started (somehow), it is not at all related to cosmology nor astronomy which are related to the BB theory which is sometimes (wrongly) conflated to mean 'something from nothing' as per the inception of the universe. The begging of the universe & how life diversifies are 2 totally different things.
Tallguy1000, "wilderness, are you talking about the way you butcher the Word of God to suit your own understanding? A little of this, a little of that?"
Pope Pius IX grants an "indulgence" for kissing the feet of a bronze statue representing Peter in the Vatican basilica. Later on, it was extended to small images of it if blessed by the pope himself. So, who is butchering the word of God and adding a little of this and a little of that?
i used to be. but they're not liberal enough.
"some of us aren't interested in answers. we just ask lots of questions cuz it annoys people. "
Oh, so you're a member of the mainstream media?
with my cat i always thought that the purr was it revving its engines gettng ready to rip my face apart. of course, continualy blowing in it's ear while it's laying on my lap doesn't help matters much.
some of us aren't interested in answers. we just ask lots of questions cuz it annoys people.
"I have been told its because he has a purr box "
A purr box in a fur ball....
If we had all the answers we wouldn't be interested in questions.
"There are many theories to explain how the purr is generated. One study determined that purring involves activation of nerves within the voice box. These nerve signals cause vibration of the vocal cords while the diaphragm serves as a piston pump, pushing air in and out of the vibrating cords, thus creating a musical hum."
http://www.petplace.com/cats/why-do-cats-purr/page1.aspx
My cats purr when they want something....
Tallguy1000, "wilderness, are you talking about the way you butcher the Word of God to suit your own understanding? A little of this, a little of that?"
Could you be a little more specific? Give me an example of me butchering the Word of God.
Yes DP, there always seems to be more questions, its great isn't it. The question I really want an answer to is , why does my cat purr? What is it in him that makes the noise? I have been told its because he has a purr box but I think that there is more to it than that.
Steve
(FACE THE TRUTH there is ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH founded and established by Jesus Christ)
You are right; they have been those who, throughout history who have been led by the Spirit:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).
The one true Church, which is made up from Christians from every denomination. Pentacost, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc, etc. Amen, and to God be the glory.
Why are you taking it so personal? There's no hatred. We are merely pointing out the fallacies of the RCC. You sound like a little kid that just got reprimanded. "You don't love me! You hate me!" Immature Christains really annoy me. It's not so much immature Christians, per se, as it is the Christians who don't want to grow.
"There has been one true Church that has been around for 2000 years, since the time of Christ, and no matter how you try, this FACT can't be denied!"
Oh, I don't deny that. I'm part of that Church so how can I deny that?
And the more you attack the Holy Catholic Church, the more I'm convinced that it's the one true Church founded by Christ. He said that Hell would not prevail against it, this Holy Church will not fold even with you fellows helping out!
The way the world attacks Christianity in general, it attacks the Catholic Church even harder, and you are helping this attack! Jesus said, if they persecute (hate) me they will persecute you. So go ahead, hate me and hate my church.... just be sure that you won't eventually have to answer to Jesus for it.
Besides, what harm has a Catholic or the Catholic Church ever done you? Why the hatred?
tallguy,
"And the more you attack the Holy Catholic Church, the more I'm convinced that it's the one true Church founded by Christ."
I say that about the protestant faith every single time Catholics belittle them, say they're apostate, say they don't have the "truth". Unfortunately, many protestants have Scripture on their side. Catholics have the traditions of men.
ll of you need to re-read Tim 3:15 and understand that the Church isin't your little truck stop. How was Christmas Eve by the way? How did you worship Jesus?
The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus' authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
FACE THE TRUTH there is ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH founded and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and it's not yours....
There has been one true Church that has been around for 2000 years, since the time of Christ, and no matter how you try, this FACT can't be denied!
It's not your little church of god on the corner, it's not your house, it's not your little truck stop cafe. .
Tallguy,
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Pr 30:6).
Why would you have a problem with verse?
No. We leave that up to the Catholics.
wilderness, are you talking about the way you butcher the Word of God to suit your own understanding? A little of this, a little of that?
Science: the art of having 10 times as many questions each time you think you've found an answer. :)
As for Cod Roe...not much of a caviar fan. Too hard to scramble with cheese.
DP, firstly, and most importantly, have you ever had battered cods roe?
Concerning plants question, two things. The first is that by the time plants appear on the Earth its rotation is pretty much what it is today, the second is that plant life(as with all living organisms) adapts to the prevailing conditions, this is natural selection and something that even the chaps at AIG have no problem with (its the next bit where the fun starts).
Steve
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081227/top-10-most-popular-news-of-2008.htm
"Hi DP hope your well."
Yep! I found an old pub recipe for fish n chips from your side of the pond! :)
The question still remains if the orbit of the Earth around the sun has stayed constant. The 400 day/year also raises the question of the effect on plant life due to the obvious shift in light hours per day. Although they may adapt it could shift the hardiness zones a bit.
"The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim..."
Has not the word of God been a victim also? "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Pr 30:6).
Forgivensinner,
Thank you, I appreciate that; pray for us . . .
Online wrote: "there is still hope."
There is always hope and it sounds like God is using you purposefully! God bless you and your cousin.
61 yrs . . . . WOW, that is unheard of these days.
star2, what I've found with many catholics is that they become a catholic when someone says something deragatory about catholicism, it's kind of like people who profess to to Christians but never appear to show it or share it until someone or something happens to get their dander up.
believer,
Yes, too true . . . The same cousin that I mentioned in my last post asked me to be one of the groomsmen at his wedding next month . . . he told me that he and his priest were discussing the arrangements and that he is having the ceremony altered a bit due to his disbelief in some of the things that would normally be said, so, again, there is still hope.
Yes. They have been married now for 61 yrs.
My aunt really is not a true Catholic in heart. My Uncle is one in name only.
Prophet, (God finally miraculously delivered her of her depression and suicide.)
PRAISE GOD!!!
online, protestants too, unfortunately all too true!
Online4Him,
LOL. She was chronic depressive and suicidal when I met her. I tried to attribute that to her being a Catholic (jokingly), but she said she was like that before. She was raised Presbyterian, and became a Catholic later. Then she got saved in a protestant church and hasn't looked back since! Two years after we got married, God finally miraculously delivered her of her depression and suicide.
Star2, (I see you read your bible)
If only more pastors and priests could recognize that their members are reading the bible . . . that would be something.
So, did she end up marrying him?
My Aunt was not Catholic but was wanting to marry a Catholic and had to go to Cathecism classes to becone one so she could get married. In the Class she asked the Priest who taught it why she had to addres him as Father beacuse the Bible said not to. His response was, "I see you read your bible."
(recovering Catholic) . . . lol
A cousin of mine (a Catholic) and I were having a discussion a couple of weeks ago and he told me that he could not believe in the Immaculate Conception due to the lack of biblical evidence . . . so there is still hope.
My wife is a recovering Catholic too. LOL.
believer,
This was my experience as a former Catholic as well; many of my family members who are Catholic still do not understand most of what they believe in . . .
believer, Online is a former Catholic also.
That could be said of both Protestants and Catholics . . .
online, as a former catholic and because I know so many catholics, I agree the saved and unsaved catholics alike do not have a good knowledge of many of the doctrines of the catholic church and many times they hear conflicting views on many of those doctrines if they hear them at all.
>>> I am also sure that most do not understand the depth of what the believe in . . . <<<
If you are talking about those who have been truly born-again by the spirit of God, sad to say, I agree with you.
I think we agree that the RCC teaches another gospel, however, I am also sure that most do not understand the depth of what the believe in . . .
The theology of the RCC does not result in lost people becoming Christian, thus the Church is not Christian, and hence not another denomination.
Yes, I agree Online. But to accept the RCC, Coptics, Orodox Churches as Christian and just another denomination is wrong for they are not.
There is no salvation in infantile baptism and agreeing to the teachings of the RCC at confirmation. The church teaches a different gospel. Let them be accursed (anathema).
Star, all we can do is present his word and allow the Holy Spirit do the rest . . .
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14).
I agree Online. But how can you belong to Jesus if you never have been saved to begin with?
prophet,
Yeah, I know; its seems that most believers are content to blindly follow their leaders without studying for themselves these days . . . most do not want to put in the effort to study anymore.
star,
I do agree that the RCC tends to be more "off" in their teachings than other denominations. Way more off. And I wish more of them would actually study the Bible themselves to find the truth. If every Catholic actually studied under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we would probably see such a exodus from the RCC that it would shake it to the very core. Unfortunately, most Catholics blindly follow, without testing the spirits. But then again, I can't count how many people in my own church that are guilty of that.
The Lord knows who belongs to him and I believe that his people can be found across denominational lines . . .
Yes, online I would say that evey ligitmate christian denomination has false teachings in it.
Star2,
I think we agree with prophets statement, (They each have doctrines and teachings that could be considered erroneous or even heretical). . . right?
Catholics hinge their salvation on infantile baptism (will of man) and mental assent to the teachings and practices of the RCC at confirmation (will of the flesh). According to John 1:12-13, neither method makes one a child of God. If a person is not a child of God then he/she is not saved.
The methods of salvation in the RCC is not scriptural; it is heretical. How can a Church be considered Christian if they don't get it right on how someone is born-again by the spirit of God?
John 1:12-13 (King James Version)
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Good night Steveh20 . . .
My last post was just piggy backing off what prophet said, (With my comment on why I call the Catholics a denomination, it was mostly jokingly. I do think of the Catholics as simply just another denomination in Christianity: like Baptists, SDA, Pentecosts, etc, etc. They each have doctrines and teachings that could be considered erroneous or even heretical)
I agree . . .
Okay its midnight here so I'm off to bed, see you all later.
believer,
Amen . . .
steve,
Yes you are quite correct. Now that you mention it, I remembered that.
Yes believer it is and the last time I used the name Dack(change the a for an i) van dyke in a comment (don't ask why) I too had a warning from cp. LOL
online, totally agree with those doctrines being used to determine a truly biblical Christian denomination.
steveh20, plus isn't a "fig" substituting the "a" for the "i" since CP warned me not to, a cigarette in the UK?
Prophet
We call that the V sign over here but what you do is turn the fingers the other way(so the knuckles are pointing out, not the same as the peace sign)
If we decided to evaluate every denomination one at a time we all would find something that we would disagree with. I think it is most important for us (from a Protestant perspective) to focus on the essentials of the faith:
Salvation in Christ alone:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).
Salvation through faith alone:
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God (Romans 5:1-2).
Salvation through grace alone:
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many (Romans 5:15).
Scripture alone:
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Timothy 3:14-17).
To God alone be the Glory:
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen (Jude 1:25).
Prophet, yes blody is a swear word over here when used in a particular way such as "I'm bloody sick and tired of that"
Prophet, 'piss' is used differently in the KJV than the way you were using it. The mention of it is in regard to a man peeing on a wall. You are not using it in that way.
Personally, the way you used it is offensive to me. I see it as a light form of profanity. But it apparently is not to you. It is between you and God.
Spot on star.
believer,
In some places in northern europe (I think), if you flash them the peace sign with your fingers, they take it as flipping them off. It's really odd how cultures differ. LOL.
My understanding is that in the US the word fanny means backside, bum etc.., in the UK it means a womans private parts. When the kids here watch programmes on Nickleodeon etc..they all giggle when that word is used(so do I, he, he).
steveh20, Pinky of "Pinky and the Brain" fame says "narf" a lot, but I don't know about naff. Plus a number of Americans don't understand that the term "bloody" is considered by some in the UK to be a very offensive word, the same as the "Hook-em Horns" sign could get you shot in Italy.
steveh20
according to dictionary.com
naff
Chiefly British Slang.
adjective 1. unstylish; lacking taste; inferior.
But I should point out to star, that the Bible uses the word "piss". At least the KJV does.
The word "naff" is "gay" here in the states. LOL. My son uses that phrase. "His car is so gay", meaning it's dorky or lame.
Prophet
In the UK these days the word gay tends to mean naff, an example being "that car is so gay" or "that blokes hair is just so gay". Hmmm, I wonder if the word naff is known across the Atlantic?
S
Thank you, sis! :-) I really didn't mean to offend you.
Yes, I forgive.
Prophet, if a church who calls themself Christian but teaches a way of salvation that goes contrary to what God says in His Word, is it really Christian?
star,
Fair enough. I apologize. I'll try not to use that phrase around you. I hope you will forgive me.
Prophet, I take the phrase 'pissed off' as vulgar. Apparently you don't. That is between you and God.
Does calling someone "gay" mean they're homosexual? Or just happy?
star,
LOL. With my comment on why I call the Catholics a denomination, it was mostly jokingly. I do think of the Catholics as simply just another denomination in Christianity...like baptists, SDA, pentacosts, etc, etc. They each have doctrines and teachings that could be considered erroneous or even heretical.
And as for my language. "Pisses them off"? That has nothing to do with bodily functions, and is not vulgar. Just because the word "piss" is in it? Would "ticked off" be more palatible? Even though it has nothing to do with ticks? When I was younger, I used to ski a lot. I was pretty bitchin' at it too. I guess it's all in how you use it.
There is no salvation in Catholicism and it is not a pathway to God Tallguy. The teachings and practices of the RCC are heretical and the Church is apostate.
Tallguy, what makes you think I am not trinitarian? I believe in the trinity. I confessed on 'Salvation Army Leader to Lose Job for Violating Marriage Policy' that I did.
Here is the post:
Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:10 pm : 0 : 0 Flag Delete
Please note the following
1) I am a trinitarian. I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Prophet, Jesus called it like it was. He didn't care who He offended. Why should you? If you see Catholicism as a cult then call it such. Also, you would have a better testimony for Jesus if you cleaned up your language.
I wonder how tallguy would do on explaining a God who has no beginning....
Understanding the trinity is equally daunting.
star,
"Prophet, why do you classify Catholicism as a denomination?"
Because Catholic's get pissed off when I call them a cult. So I'm trying not to hurt their sensibilities.
LOL. I get a kick out of tallguy. He gets all bent out of shape and then starts putting words in people's mouths, and then accusing them of things.
Star 2, 'Trinitarian Christian' look it up yourself. We have all discovered that you are NOT one...
Star3, sorry to take so long getting back to you, but I just returned from a solitary retreat at an old convent in northern Saskatchewan, just me and Jesus, it was great!
"How much longer are you going to deny your Lord who bought you when you gave your heart to Him in a Protestant Church as a young man, I think you said , in your 20's"
Star, how much longer are you going to deny Jesus when He calles to you as written in John Ch6 - eat my body, drink my flesh, he (she) who does this remains in me and I in him, he who eats my flesh will have eternal life!
Yes Star, part of my path in becoming a stronger Christian man lead me into the Evengelical and Pentecostal world for a while. But then as I re-discovered the treasuer of the Church Jesus Himself established, the Catholic Church, I realize that I needed to leave kindergarten behind.
Prophet, why do you classify Catholicism as a denomination?
Define what a 'Trinitarian Christian' is msnchris70.
msnchris,
I can tell from just listening to you what denomination you are. What denomination am I?
But I do agree with you. "You can debate anything you want, but everyone should know where your perspective comes from which is not a "Recognized" Christian denomination."
Duh! My perspective comes from the Word of God. I'm not like you. The Pope is not my god, and I don't jump on the bandwagon everytime he says something. I don't blindly follow the teachings of a corporation and it's CEO. I follow only God and His Holy Scripture.
Only you say so.
Prophet, You are not even a Trinitarian Christian. So who cares what you think?
You can debate anything you want, but everyone should know where your perspective comes from which is not a "Recognized" Christian denomination.
Clafify? What in the world is clafify? LOL.
Let me clafify....there is no one now, but Jesus, who we are to go to to ask for forgiveness of sins, unless we have sinned against another.
Jesus did away with the need of priests when He came as the ultimate sacrifice. There is no one now, who we are to go to to ask for forgiveness of sins, unless we have sinned against another. Then we ask for their forgiveness. If we need the priests to forgive us for certain sins, then the cross wasn't enough.
As I said before, the office of "priest" is not New Testament, and is just a continuation of the yoke of bondage from the Old Testament priesthood.
tliml,
"That's a priesthood that you just made up, not one officiated by Christ.'
I Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
I Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light"
So we see here that thelordismylight is wrong again. But that's what usually happens when you blindly follow a corporation and a man, instead of studying the Word for yourself.
tliml,
""Go ye and serve all nations and whose sins ye forgive, my father forgives."
Jesus also told his apostles to go forth into every country making disciples of men. So that means that apostles are the only one's allowed to spread the good news.
Hi DP hope your well.
I'm not sure that "evolutionists"(not sure which actual scientific discipline you are referring to there) claim that a 24 hour day is constant. We know from the rock record(looking at deposition from tides) that billions of years ago when the Earth was quite young there where at least 400 days in a year, which means at that time a day would have been shorter, you can do the calculations. The reason there has been a slowing down is due to the interaction between the oceans and the moon.
BW
Steve
Believer,
hi a belated thanks for your refutation of tlimm regarding Henry Drummond. I continue to appreciate that while we may disagree on some issues we do agree on the supremacy and grace of god, the neccesity of christ for salvation, and among other things the need for intellectual honesty and integrity in debate.
tliml, let me introduce a new word to your vocabulary, the word is discernment, the ability to know the difference between true and false, the ability to know if a person has truly repented of their sins, an ability that Christ gave to His Church via the Holy Spirit which is what He gave to His apostles and Church in the Gospel of John as well as what He gives to every believer at the moment they are saved and indwelt by God's Holy Spirit, in other words without the Holy Spirit in our life or the life of the Church we would not have this ability, plus I John 1:9 tells us that if we, you and I, confess our sin(s) God and God alone is faithful to forgive us our sins as well as the unrighteousness that is associated with our confessed sin. This means we don't need a human mediator since Christ and Christ alone is our Mediator who is presently in heaven advocating on our behalf before the Father.
"Oh right, well I wonder. What is a day? How long?"
After the 4th day God started creating the higher life forms such as land and sea animals. :)
A day is the time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation on its axis. So the question is...has a day always been 24 hours?
Let's look at that. If that were that case then an extrodinary amount of precision is in place. Man cannot even create a mechanical watch that can be that accurate yet the evolutionists hold that a 24 hour day is a constant along with a year. If not then the entire dating of earth would go out the window.
Yet the concept of that amount of precision happening by chance as the result of a bang in an ever changing universe would simply boggle the mind. If the universe is expanding then why isn't the Earth's orbit around the sun expanding. After all, by evolution it would have had billions of years to do so.
My answer to the original question? A day is however long God said it was.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16).
First, James says to confess your faults not your sins to one another. Second, he does not say, confess your faults to the Elders that they may forgive them, or prescribe penance in order to forgive them. No; the members of the Church are to confess their faults to each other (see Matthew 5:23; Matthew 5:24; Luke 17:4); therefore auricular confession to a priest, such as is prescribed by the RCC, has no foundation in this passage. Lastly, if it had any foundation here it would prove more than you wish, for it would require the priest to confess his sins to the people, as well as the people to confess theirs to the priest.
Oh right, well I wonder. What is a day? How long?
"Do you believe the Earth was made in seven days? Or six? "
Four.
Addressing the second quote:
When it says this will save you it is talking about the person FORGIVING the other. It means that by FORGIVING someone who trespasses against us we will be saved. By holding a grudge we'd be damned. That's what it's saying.
In John 20, verse 23, Jesus says to the apostles, "As the Father has sent me so I send you...receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained." Jesus clearly expected the successors of the disciples, the bishops and priests down through the centuries, to continue His work...to preach, to pray, to forgive our sins when we are truly sorry for our failures.
The New Testament tells early Christians, "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, and this will cure you (James 5:16)." The admonition is as important today as it was then.
Turns out I didn't have to call anyone after all :) And speaking of picking and choosing:
Answer these:
Do you believe the Earth was made in seven days? Or six?
Grace-
I will be right back. I have to call a friend. I know what to say, but not how to say it.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a royal preisthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellenies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the peole of God........AMEN!
Matt xxviii 20
"Go ye and serve all nations, whose sins you forgive my Father forgives."
Reference please. :D
You are right tliml, you are no theologian. Those commands given to the disciples after Jesus rose from the dead are the same commands that are given to all disciples of Christ.
Your interpretation or rather the RCC's interpretation of that scripture violates the other teachings of Jesus in regard to forgiving those who sin against God and man. This is not cafeteria style interpretation of scripture where you pick what you want to formulate a doctrine/teaching/practice. You must examine the whole council of God before you formulate a particular doctrine/teaching/practice.
One other main problem is that we define things based on our understanding. Anyone have a friend who is a computer geek who tells you what is wrong with your computer and you are waiting for the translation?
We are quite a bit smarter than we were 4000 years ago. Still, we know next to nothing.
How did God become matter?
"That was God INCARNATED as matter... God Himself isn't matter... "
But was not Jesus "God in the flesh". Look, you'll get no arguement from me. The nature of God is unexplainable based on our knowledge of the universe. My guess is that our understanding of what is energy is so limited that we cannot even begin to comprehend what being all powerful is.
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
We still don't comprehend it!
believer-
That's a priesthood that you just made up, not one officiated by Christ.
Grace-
"Go ye and serve all nations, whose sins you forgive my Father forgives." He was telling that to his apostles. His ADMINISTRATORS. Not the guy down the street that believed he was Christ.
thelordismylight
Your priest cannot forgive you of a sin that you did not committed against him. Only the one you offended can forgive you (Matt 17:4).
You have offended God (because all sin is against God: Psalm 51:4) and you have offended believer in your relationship with him. Thus, you must admit you did wrong to God and ask Him for forgiveness (example, Psalm 51:1-4) and you must admit to believer that you did wrong and ask him for forgiveness (Matt 5:23-24, Matt 17:4).
God will forgive you (1 John 1:9) and God obligates believer to forgive you if you ask him too (Matt 17:4). If believer doesn't forgive you when you ask him to then God will not forgive him (Mark 11:26).
Scripture:
1) All sin is against God.
Psalm 51:1-4
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
2) God will forgive you if you ask Him too.
1 John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
3) Go to the one you offended and make things right with him.
Matthew 5:23-24
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
4) An offended person is to forgive the offender if the offender sked him too.
Luke 17:4 - "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."
5) God will not forgive the offended if he doesn't forgive the offender.
Mark 11:26 - "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
tliml, as I said since every believer is a member of the royal priesthood of believers, I guess that means every believer has the power to forgive sins, plus if you would do a proper exegesis of the passage you cited you would see that Jesus was speaking to the Church and not just the Apostles and that He was talking about us being in agreement with God with regards to who is truly forgiven and who is not.
Daniel Paul-
That was God INCARNATED as matter... God Himself isn't matter...
Prophet-
Royal Fools maybe.
"I don't quite grasp how God can be a type of matter "
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Man in fact did "manipulate" God in a form when we nailed Him to a cross.
The problem is... trying to explain the nature of the existance of God is worse than someone from the days of Moses trying to explain the concept of a partical accelerator. They would have no knowledge or common frames of reference.
So, based on our limited ability to understand anything that exists outside of our space and time we can only compare to things we are familiar with which may or may not exist outside our space/time as the do within our space/time.
Anyone remember watching John Daly on What's My Line? I love the reruns....
Believer,
So the Catholic priests are Catholic priests, but we are royal priests? Hmmm....interesting.
Prophet-
It's strange, the government opposes moments of silence in school because silent leads to thinking and thinking leads to becoming Catholic. This is just such a case.
"Go ye and serve all nations and whose sins ye forgive, my father forgives." doesn't that just about sum it up? Jesus was telling his APOSTLES to go and forgive. He was giving them the power to forgive. And they pass it on through succession to priests.
tliml, since every believer is a member of the royal priesthood and since it's the Christmas season I guess I'll forgive you this one time!!
"Wait I'm sorry, you CAN'T forgive such a grave sin. Only a priest can do that."
....says the catholic puppet.
Priests have no more power to forgive thant I do. The office of priest isn't even acknowledged in the new church. God specifically points out five ministries that are for the edification of the saints...and "priest" isn't one of them. The Catholic priest is just a continuation of the jewish priest, both in name, and in errancy.
tlml wrote: "According to your reasoning, God is irresolute?"
Nope, I did not reason that. I do find the conversation interesting to follow. Many believe that God does not exist and use energy and matter to replace Him.
believer-
Wait I'm sorry, you CAN'T forgive such a grave sin. Only a priest can do that.
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The entropy of energy and matter will always increase.
So God will always get worse and worse? Daniel I'm going to use your idea as a springboard and say that, if anything, God is the OPPOSITE of energy. Since God is God he is always getting better and better, not worse and worse. And the definition of Godly Perfection is something that is perfect, yet makes room for its own improvement. :)
Forgiven Sinner:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy will always remain eternal and constant, but can change.
According to your reasoning, God is irresolute?
believer-
I apologize, I did not read his post correctly. The thing he was talking about regarding evolution, creation, and Christians, very much goes along with what Inherit the Wind revolved around. So it was easy for me to get confused. Will you ever forgive me, your highness?
Daniel-
I don't quite grasp how God can be a type of matter (lets classify energy as matter since it does have weight and you can't make any or destroy any) because if we classified Him as energy he could be manipulated by man, and so I do not think this is a proper definition at all. Although beautifully put, I think it's wrong. When you classify something as energy, it has no will of its own so to speak, so I don't think this would quite fit...
Daniel,
I do not know if anyone remembers the conversation with, I think, ICthe light, who stated that matter/energy was eternal. Humm, nicely wound up, Daniel....God is eternal...God is energy!
Daniel wrote: "Our limited science does believe that matter and energy are interchangeable. The Bible says God spoke and creation happened. It is interesting that the word used for spoke is for a simple 'utterance'. In our language it would be an expulsion which makes a sound. (This is where we go onto the hypothisis route.) I do believe God created the universe from His spoken utterance so in that light our primative understanding of matter and energy would suggest that God' spoken utterance was the 'energy' which contained the capacity of doing the work of creation and the force which became matter. Still, energy is such a broad yet simplistically defined term."
A thing of Beauty, Daniel! Simple beauty!
tliml, the Henry Drummond that viking was referring to was not a character in "Inherit The Wind", he was a protege of D.L. Moody who wrote "The Ascent Of Man" and lived in the 19th century, so before you start correcting other posters you might want to do your homework.
"So DP what you are saying is that God is energy?"
We have no idea exactly what God is! My point is many people do not believe that God could have always existed and yet one of the most famous evolutionists says it is so that something need no beginning or end.
Our limited science does believe that matter and energy are interchangeable. The Bible says God spoke and creation happened. It is interesting that the word used for spoke is for a simple 'utterance'. In our language it would be an expulsion which makes a sound. (This is where we go onto the hypothisis route.) I do believe God created the universe from His spoken utterance so in that light our primative understanding of matter and energy would suggest that God' spoken utterance was the 'energy' which contained the capacity of doing the work of creation and the force which became matter. Still, energy is such a broad yet simplistically defined term.
Is God energy? He took the form of a burning bush, He parted the Red Sea, He cursed a fig tree and it died but more astounding is the impact of His energy to change a life like mine.
"Energy can take a wide variety of forms" or so the dictionary says. I think in as much as our limited understanding permits I would say He is "energy".
HAHA! Who gave that comment a thumbs down? That's hilarious.
Oh yea and it was 20th century. Not 19th. Gosh, nothing like that was happening in the eighteen-hundreds.
viking-
Henry Drummond is a ficticious character from Robert Lee's "Inherit the Wind." The real-life person you are thinking of is Clarence Darrow. I would like to point out that the first person to suggest most of Galileo's ideas was Copernicus, a Catholic monk. Just to counter the many "Oh Catholicism hates science" and "Catholicism kept science back for thousands of years" which is quite the contrary, seeing as we have Catholicism to thank for preserving knowledge through the dark ages.
sorry for some reason it did not want to print as one quote. Hope all can piece it together.
d urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
sorry part cut off
The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelical lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain â۠"gaps which they will fill up with God" â۠and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
Thought this might help since the term keeps comming up
From Wikipedia:
God of the Gaps
The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelical lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain â۠"gaps which they will fill up with God" â۠and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
Best to all
So DP what you are saying is that God is energy? Or am I puting words into your mouth?
"Evolutionist Dr. Isaac Asimov who stated that matter/energy could not be created or destroyed, not me."
So, if God is all powerful then He could not be created or destroyed leaving Him to have always existed.
I went to the jungle to see the monkey god of gaps
Perched on a limb he showed me his evolutionary maps
A funny show indeed with slimy pools and burping gunk
He upchucked a banana when I didn't fall for his junk
So off with a scoff he was swinging to another tree
Still filled with hope to give his dope to those who cannot see
I look forward to it, your good company.
steveh20,
Thank you for answering my question honestly . . . I have to step out for a while . . . perhaps we can chat another time.
Take care
Online4Him
Thank you online, in relation to Mr Assimov, he may have been an evoluionist but there is is talking physics, and a point which all physicists agree on, wether they believe in evolution or not.
AS for writing about the universe and its beginning(which I did not realise you wanted, apologies), I can only speak about events after Planck time which is about 10-42 Sesonds, before than I can say nothing.
On the subject of life starting, I'm quite happy to admit I don't how that happened, along with the rest of the scientific community, though there is some excellent research into it. In fact I think it possible that we may never completly know for sure.
BW
Steve
Can I add Grace that as an incurable Romantic in the 19th century sense, of course "life" has many diffrent meanings.
Steveh,
Hello,
Again, my primary interest is to understand how life initially began according to evolutionists and I do not believe that their metaphysical answer is the end of the matter.
(I think you are confused when you write matter/ energy cannot be destroyed or created)
It was actually Evolutionist Dr. Isaac Asimov who stated that matter/energy could not be created or destroyed, not me. During my past conversations with some here both physics and biology have been discussed with attempts to answer my original question: HOW did it all begin? Pro believes that life began from particles from comets and yet he did not know where the comets came from. You begin by speaking of the universe: whether it is open or flat without mentioning how it began . . . now, if you wish to be taken seriously when you are speaking of the universe, comets, particles, matter and energy . . . then at least try to answer the original question.
Well as we are talking at just a physical level, I would take it to be some thing that at the least has metabolism and can reproduce.
Then explain why there is a sudden explosion of more complex life when all the cyanobacteria produced enough oxygen in the atmospehere that caused the explosion of life in the cambrian age.
Star,I'm lost, what doe the above mean?
I don't know what life is steve. It is a very complex and deep theological/philosophical question that exceeds my insight at the moment. What is your take on it?
What is life Grace?
"Gee, I didn't know that chemicals could breathe, eat, and drink."
Well, apart from atoms/molecules what else is your physical body made of?
Star, I was just talking about the God of the gaps as an approach some take to certain situations I was'nt quite expecting the fifth degree.
BW
Steve
steveh20
Life begats life. God, who is life, gave life to the inaminate.
God did not create a human from an ape. God created Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life.
steveh20
Evolutionary gaps abound. Close the gaps by showing/explaining how non-living organic molecules took on life, how then this simple form of life (a bacteria) created more complex life when the necessary chemicals for that to happen were not present, and how simople forms of life gave birth to more and more comples forms of life. Then explain why there is a sudden explosion of more complex life when all the cyanobacteria produced enough oxygen in the atmospehere that caused the explosion of life in the cambrian age. Produce the fossil evidence that shows that life evolved from a simple form of life to a more complex form of life. If it happened the way you believe then there would be fossil evidence to prove it. Why was only certain forms of life preserved and not the intermediate stages? Please explain.
Gee, I didn't know that chemicals could breathe, eat, and drink.
Gee steveh20, it sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. You are not your usual polite self.
Crikey star what did your last servant die of, look it up yourself :-P
Star, three that come to mind and I use as a persoanl example are, breathing, eating, drinking. Stop any one of these and see what hsppens after a while....it's not rocket science.
steve, define 'God of the gaps'.
Hello online
I think you are confused when you write matter/ energy cannot be destroyed or created as that subject comes under physics and not biology(as you write about it in relation to evolutionists. This fundamental law of physics, entitled, the law conservation of energy, states that in a closed system energy can be neither created or destroyed,as we don't the future state of the universe fully, That means that the energy within the universe whether presented as matter or not..always stays the same. So that is my position on that subject which I suppose is the view of physicists the world over, of religious views or none. As for the eternal bit, Yes ,if the universe is flat or open but not to sure what occurs if it is closed. Remember this is physics not biology, get your disciplines correct if you want to be taken seriously(I don't wish to sound harsh but to some of us it is important).
I have no problem with a belef in God I just don't like the God of the gaps, that approach dishonours him and shame on anybody who holds it.
Steve
steve,
>>>Life is the result of a particular of arrangements of atoms/ molecules it is not some mysterious force.<<<
In my post I said that when you die the arrangement of these chemicals (atoms/molecules) still exist yet they cease to operate. Something caused these particular arrangement of atoms/molecules to opeate. What is that something?
Hello Star
I think you have misunderstood something here. "Life" is not something given to chemicals, which I take you mean arrangements of atoms to form molecules. Life is the result of a particular of arrangements of atoms/ molecules it is not some mysterious force. Your approcah puts the cart before the horse.
Steve
steveh20 - something had to give life to these chemicals. When you die, those chemicals still exist in their arrangement yet they cease to operate. What imparted life to these chemicals that our body is composed of?
Steveh,
Good morning. I am kind of scratching my head here; in one of your earlier posts, you stated that you did not agree with Grace2s interpretation of scripture . . . so, I am assuming that you do believe in God, right? I am just trying to understand what it is that you truly believe in. How would you describe your worldview? (Non living material became arranged in such a way that what we term life processes became possible); how did the non living material come to be? This has been my primary interest in understanding pros and agentoranges worldview; I know that some evolutionists believe that matter and energy can neither be created nor annihilated, that is, they are eternal. . . is this also your position?
Sincerely
Online4Him
Hello online
It might intrest you to know that you are composed completly of non living material. Not one atom, not one molecule within you is alive. You are alive, but you are are composed of material that as you put it is non life. Its not that non living material became alive but that non living material beacame arranged in such a way that what we term life processes became possible. So the assumption that life processes originate with non living materials is a safe one, of which you and I are proof.
Kind regards
Steve
"Good for you. Now go read your Bible. It's life changing."
Oh aaron.e, your such a wag. Glad to see your keeping up the Christain Post contributer habit of believing one knows all about another persons life.
Hope you had a nice christmas.
Steve
"I've said it to you before. Quit hiding behind you keyboard insulting Catholics. Be brave, travel over to Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia and start spreading the Good News about Jesus to a groups of Muslims on the steets. I bet you don't have the nerve! But to insult Catholis from behind a keyboard..... chicken "
TG - do you have any idea what the will of God is? "Be brave"? YOU WOULD think that man has some part to play in the outworking of God's will, sovereignty and Grace. Do you not know that there is nothing a Christian can do apart from Jesus Christ? This is the most Biblically erroneous chunk of personal attack, judgment and heresy I've ever read from you. And in hindsight, I'm not surprised. Grow up. Step down off your high horse. Stop resorting being so condescending. Its supremely irritating to some, hurtful to others.
Stern rebuke? Amen. But nevertheless, God bless you.
Quite a few Catholics will be uncomfortable at the white throne of judgement with respect to how they treated and tortured many in the name of religion. But, they worship the Virgin Mary, so go figure.
"Magic."
Did someone say magic, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat or a man out of an ape species?
Steveh20 said: "We have something in common Grace, my bible also has the same verses in it."
You made me laugh as hard as I've laughed all day - thanks! Jeff
Wow, quite a bit has been discussed since my last visit . . .
(Darwinism ASSUMES life came from non-life, sometime, somewhere.)
This remains the question . . . how did life begin from non-life, from nothing to something?
(What if the Catholic Church is, as I believe it is, the one true Church founded by Christ?)
Yes, what if it is not . . . ?
The question is not "where did comets come from?", but "where did DNA come from?"
FACT: ALL life is dependent on DNA.
FACT: DNA can ONLY be produced in a living cell.
Darwinism (I know you hate that term, prorudenezz!) does not attempt to explain from where the first living creature came. It cannot. Darwinism ASSUMES life came from non-life, sometime, somewhere. That it is patently impossible does not appear to bother the defenders of the evolutionary theory.
Evolutionists now concede that the Earth cannot POSSIBLY be old enough for DNA to have been created from static, non-living chemicals.
The theory of Directed Panspermia advanced by Dr. Francis Crick and famous atheist Richard Dawkins states that DNA arrived from an alien civilization. Of course, that only puts the question off. But I'll ask it: Where did the first living cell in THAT civilization come from?
Yet ANOTHER alien civilization?
Tallguy1000
How much longer are you going to deny your Lord who bought you when you gave your heart to Him in a Protestant Church as a young man, I think you said , in your 20's, by embracing infantile baptism (salvation by the will of man), and mental consent to the teachings and practices of the RCC at confirmation (salvation by the will of the flesh)?
Infantile baptism and mental consent to a Church's dogma at confirmation goes against what the Word of God teaches about how one becomes born-again. It is heresy. I have shown you this many times in the past. To embrace this heresy is to deny your Lord.
John 1:12-13
12 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:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
No, Tallguy, Catholics who are trusting in infantile baptism and mental consent to RCC dogma for salvation are not saved, and they are not going to Heaven when they die.
Catholicism is not a legitmate Christian denomination. They preach a different gospel than that which is laid forth in the Word of God.
tallguy,
"What if the Catholic Church is, as I beleive it is, the one true Church founded by Christ?"
What if it ISN'T the one true church, and all your man made traditions and falst doctrines are indeed that? When you pass on you are going to have a lot of explaining to do to our Lord.
It's not a matter of "If protestants are wrong they're gonna have to answer for their beliefs, but if the catholics are wrong...well...God will understand." That's just the twisted, prideful attitude of Catholics.
Grace2, do most of the Catholic Church's teachings really violate the teachings of Christ? Are you sure about this? Which teachings of Jesus does the Holy Catholic Church violate? Peace of Christ, respect and dignity for all human beings, life from conception to natural death, we are all created in the image and likeness of God, we are all worthy of God's love. etc. This is my body, this is my blood, do this in MEMORY of ME....Which of these go against Christ?
Read the papal encyclicals, read the catechism before you make your flippant judgements....
Oh, OK steveh20. Thanks for the clarification.
I take God at His Word. He has been faithful to His Word in my life in areas that I can experience so I have no reason not to accept what He says in areas I can't experience.
Do you believe that there is a God?
I stand on the shoulder of scientific giants to better understand the natural world today, I know what I know not because I am a genius but because they were.
I reject your interpretation of the bible concerning the solar system.
Tallguy
How can the RCC be the one true Church founded by Christ when most of its teachings and practices violate the commands of Jesus?
Hey Tallguy1000, why don't you listening to that saying "if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all." yourself and stop speaking. Nothing in your post to star2 was much worth reading.
What are you talking about in your last post steveh20?
Gratus
"If a see the traffic light is green, I believe my eyes, and pass through. Now, is that reason or faith?"
It is based on reason because your eyes see the light as green and you know that you can go, and faith because you believe and have faith that the person who sees their light as red will stop.
Many a time I have not continued thru an intersection when the light was green because I didn't have the faith to believe that the car approaching the intersection who saw their light as red was going to stop.
I reject your interpretation of it much as Galileo rejected a particular interpretation of it in his day. I stand on the shoulder of giants.
Star, you are being insulting! How does that make you feel? Does it make you feel good? Childlike?
What if the Catholic Church is, as I beleive it is, the one true Church founded by Christ? If so, then when you pass on you are going to have a lot of explaining to do to our Lord. What if Scirpture is wrong and the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ? Let us be, we are good people who love the Lord Jesus Christ! Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy and do you giggle with delight whenever you put us down? Is that how you get your thrills in life? A fine example of a Christian!
There's an old say that says if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all.
I've said it to you before. Quit hiding behind you keyboard insulting Catholics. Be brave, travel over to Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia and start spreading the Good News about Jesus to a groups of Muslims on the steets. I bet you don't have the nerve! But to insult Catholis from behind a keyboard..... chicken
Glad to hear steveh20 that your bible has the sames verses in it.
Why do you reject the Word of God? Not judging you just curious.
OK, evolutionists think the human and the chimp share a common ancestor because of 7 identical ERV's. They say the 7 identical ERV's prove it.
Using a similar type of argument:
My light bulb puts out light. The sun puts out light. Therefore, my light bulb evolved from the sun.
Only a young child would argree or buy into that statement.
Same as it is with evolution.
But evolutionists know that children believe what they are taught. Teach a lie often enough to a young child and when he grows up he will accept as truth that lie without question.
We have something in common Grace, my bible also has the same verses in it.
Steve
Now that the RCC admited that they were wrong and Galileo is now back in good standing with the church does that mean Galileo can now get out of purgatory and go to heaven?
Gee, I wonder if Galileo recanted because the RCC threatened him with the loss of his salvation?
steveh20
[God thru Jesu Christ, created everything for His pleasure.]
Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created
Genesis 1:1-5, 14-19
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[Earth exist first before there was light and before astronomical bodies were created]
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
[Astronomical bodies created on 4th day of creation]
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[God stretched out the heavens by his understanding, He commanded all astronomical bodies to come into existance, and He did it according to His discretion.]
Jeremiah 51:15
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Isaiah 45:12
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Jeremiah 10:12
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Thank you Grace, its not an order of events I agree with, as with your interpretation of the word of God, but I'm grateful to you for sharing it with me.
BW
Steve
steveh20, my dear man, according to the Word of God the earth existed before any astronomical body existed. The Word of God says that God stretched out the heavens and spoke into existance the astronomical bodies according to His pleasure and discretion.
proscience - Evolution is magic. It takes an awful lot of magic for the ideas set forth in evolution to make a simple form of life somehow poof into existance and then become all the different forms of life we have today. None of that stuff will work. The evolutionary scientists think that evolution works but it is fantasy. They are delusional or they are lying to themselves inorder to find an excuse to reject God. Just spend a little time my man, I guess you are a man, and think for yourself for a change. You'll see how illogical it is to believe that the complexity of life evolved from some simple form of life. Evolution is a hoax perpretrated on young minds not capable of critical thinking. Tell a lie often enough and you will believe it. It is sad you fell for the greatest scientific lie known to man. If you really knew the truth about the lie of evolution you would be embrassed that you have defended it for so long.
I'd really like to hear from the person who gave me the thumbs down for the post on comets. I'd be intrested to know what within the post lead you to do that. I'd also be intrested to hear your alternative explanation to what I wrote.
Kind regards
Steve
So much for the Catholic's claim to "inerrancy in the interpretation of scripture." They just shot themselves in the foot.
I say neither Gratus, it is experience. Your question made me smile somewhat.
Gee, the RCC is finally admiting that they are not infallible.
The Pope believes in the congruence of reason and faith. I smile somewhat when I see that so many people, including the Pontiff, distinguish between reason and faith at all. If a see the traffic light is green, I believe my eyes, and pass through. Now, is that reason or faith?
The following paragraph is from a book that was recently published by the National Academy of Sciences.
"Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence."
Online4Him wrote "Darwins theory is exactly that, a theory . . ."
You don't understand the definition of a scientific theory.
This is from a book published by the National Academy of Sciences:
"Is evolution a theory or a fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words theory and fact".
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence."
"Scientists use the term 'fact' to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation.
Not so in science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
"A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence."
steveh20, thanks for that information.
Online4Him wrote: "Darwins theory is exactly that, a theory . . ."
steveh20, Would you mind explaining to Online4Him what a scientific theory is. I'll get to it later if you don't.
I'll happily explain(if nobody objects) where comets came from. Comets are bodies which are composed of mainly ice with some rock, a good way is to think of them as dirty snowballs. They are remnants from the early solar system as it formed from the accretionary disc. The bodies which form comets when they enter the inner solar system can be found in the Kuiper belt(past Neptune) and much further out in the Oort cloud.
BW
Steve
I have to step out this evening . . . will chat with you all later. Merry Christmas!
(Daniel Paul, if you want to invoke magic to explain how life got a foothold on earth, that's fine with me)
So, life originating from comet particles is not a magical explanation about how life began . . . you have yet to explain where comets came from my friend?
steveh20,
(Your spot on online, which makes Darwins theory even more insightful.)
Darwins theory is exactly that, a theory . . .
Daniel Paul, if you want to invoke magic to explain how life got a foothold on earth, that's fine with me. Hide your God-of-the-Gaps there if you want. Just don't be too disappointed when scientists chase it out of there.
Whatever process caused the first simple living cells to develop, biologists know that after that life branched out into millions of different species, thanks to natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, and other mechanisms of evolution. Biologists know supernatural intervention was not needed for any of these natural processes.
You can quote your worthless Bible all you want, but the evidence for evolution is not going to go away. In fact the evidence is growing rapidly and becoming more powerful every single day.
I will continue to claim the evolution deniers are willfully ignorant until somebody here at least tries to understand the ERV evidence I explained earlier, hopefully without running to their favorite Liar for Jebus, and hopefully trying to understand instead of looking for imaginary problems.
I noticed I have virtually every single biologist on my side, so your magical creation side looks awfully weak.
"Do you really think the first living cells, which developed almost Four Billion years ago, were as complex as they are today?"
The cells themselves? Yes. Our computer programs are far more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago but they still run on 1's and 0's.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
"They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell."
Your spot on online, which makes Darwins theory even more insightful.
So the Pope's own alma mater, the Office of the Inquisitions, rules that Galileo's ideas are "foolish," then Catholic theologians roundly denounce Galileo's discoveries on Church orders, then Ratzinger himself says in 1990 that he doubts Galileo's conclusions, and now they want to say that he's some hero of the Church? Is there any depth of moral depravity to which the Catholics will not descend in the name of satisfying their need to be taken seriously?
"Today, we know that there is no such thing as a (simple) cell."
Do you really think the first living cells, which developed almost Four Billion years ago, were as complex as they are today?
"random chance cannot explain the complexities of life."
I don't think you understand how evolution works. The natural selection of favorable mutations is NOT random. Mutations are random, but the survival of animals who have what it takes to live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation is not random.
Just to get back on topic:
"It's quite a reversal of fortune for Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who made the first complete astronomical telescope and used it to gather evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe."
Before the 17th century people believed the sun circled the earth. Today every educated person in the world agrees the earth circles the sun.
Ancient people had no understanding of science, so they made conclusions about what they saw, and they saw the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. So they thought the Sun was going around the Earth. They didn't know the earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours.
Today, the evolution deniers look at the complexity of life, and because they have an inferior education in biology (not their fault), they conclude the only possible explanation was the magical creation of every creature. They don't understand natural selection, and they don't understand any other facts of biology.
The difference between the ancient people who lived before Galileo, and the 21st century evolution deniers, is those ancient people had a good excuse for their ignorance. Today, there's no excuse for not understanding evolutionary biology. I admit America's science education is terrible, but anyone can get on the internet or go to the library and make an effort to understand the facts of evolution. Instead the 21st century creationists just completely ignore the massive evidence for evolution, and they refuse to make any effort to understand how evolution works. Willfully ignorant is a very fair description of evolution deniers.
One other thing I've found to be interesting is there are more 'Liars for Science' sites then there are religious sites on the subject.
Anyone remember the song "Let's Play Science Says"? After all, it takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than to believe God created the world.
I am seeing more and more the religious nature of proscience and his faith in evolution.
I've always found it interesting that science is now considers youtube to be 'publishing science'. I rank it right up there with the other entertainment.
The problem is that the concept of evolution is flawed. It presupposes that something came from nothing. This is not scientific. However, it is the only explaination when one rules out God. Science is about finding out the truth. One day science and Christianity will be the same. We will stand before God and go 'duh, why didn't we see that' when He explains how he created the world. :D
(So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them)
No need to get upset here my friend. Yes; this is more like it . . . random chance cannot explain the complexities of life. For example, each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Its certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isnt the random product of unguided nature, but its the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer.
Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when it was believed that a cell was just (a homogeneous globule of protoplasm.) They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell. Today, we know that there is no such thing as a (simple) cell.
Is your comet theory more believable than (In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth)?
(A better question would be why did you write; (If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable)
Is this not your premise . . . ? The (IF) should have given you the clue that I do not share the same understanding . . .
"If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable, why does the theory of biological evolution continue to dominate the field of biology?"
A better question would be why did you write "If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable"?
That concept has been tested for 150 years and it's passed every test.
Willfully ignorant is a fair description of creationists who refuse the understand the ERV evidence I explained in a previous comment.
Evidence-free claim: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
I got the evidence from molecular biology. Your Bible quotes are meaningless babbling.
"There's still no consensus on how the first simple living cells developed, but there is absolutely no question about the basic facts of biological evolution, which of course began after life got a foothold on earth."
Yes, life got a foothold, an immediate foothold. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Pro,
Come on now . . . surely you can have a mature discussion without name calling, right?
If the concept of natural selection is clearly untestable, why does the theory of biological evolution continue to dominate the field of biology?
"you have yet to explain how life began"
There's still no consensus on how the first simple living cells developed, but there is absolutely no question about the basic facts of biological evolution, which of course began after life got a foothold on earth.
The evolution deniers of the 21st century are no less wrong than the Galileo deniers of the 17th century. Science always wins.
I know this is wasted on the willfully ignorant who will just run to their favorite "Liars for Jesus" website for their usual Christian dishonesty. But this 10 minute video should be watched:
"Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution. Think about it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Pro,
I kind of had a feeling that you would stop by and comment here . . . lol. You said, (In every conflict between science and religion, science always has won and always will win.) Now, now . . . you have yet to explain how life began; it was comets, right? Where did the comets come from?
Most agree that the RCC blundered over Galileo and they have been trying to somehow reconcile their infallible proclamation with the facts of science . . .
(The Rev. Jose Funes wrote recently in Osservatore: The Church in some ways has recognized its errors.)
Better late than never I say . . .
"The church denounced Galileo's theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest."
Today Christian extremists are making the same mistake the Catholic Church made four centuries ago. Their denial of the facts of evolutionary biology is making them look like fools, no less foolish than the Catholics who criticized Galileo.
In every conflict between science and religion, science has always won and always will win. Religions must accommodate modern scientific discoveries, because scientists will never accommodate any medieval religious belief, including the childish idea a god fairy magically created people and other creatures out of nothing.
Here's a quote from the wife of Carl Sagan:
"And I would celebrate Charles Darwin for having the most revolutionary concept in human history, the one idea that could completely dethrone the patriarchal chains that kept us from seeing who we really are and for his undoing of what is I think the most nefarious lie and that is that we were created separately from the rest of nature."
-- Ann Druyan
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/12/advent-podcasts-day-19-ann-druyan.html
First Bob Jones U appologizes and now this!!! Truely, anything is possible.... :D