Pope: Evolution, Big Bang do not contradict belief in God

[DogmaHunter]

These quotes show a magnitude of apostasy in the catholic church.

Imagine the leader and most high priest of the whole catholic order stating the God is not divine being. WOW, that is a shot right to God's heart. If God is not a divine being what is He?

Then the whole rambling about God not being a magician that can wave a wand???? Really? As IF God had to wave a wand.....He mearly spoke, that's all, just said "Let there be" and there "was".

Sounds like a magician to me...
When I was a child, the magicians said "abracadabra" instead though.
Later, in my early teens, the magicians used spells in the language of elves.

What language did jawhe use for his magic spells? hebrew?

Was Jesus a magician when He cured the leapers, blind, lame and deaf.

That depends...
Did he do it through science? Then he was just a well educated medicine man ahead of his time.

Did he use "spells" or the "supernatural" to cure them? If yes, I'ld have to go with "magic" indeed. You are free to offer a third option if you have one.

And if you do, please explain how it's different from the 2 options I just gave you.

Was he a magician when He walked on water, turned water to wine, raised Lazarus from the dead, healed the sick child of a Roman officer from a distance?

Did he use technology to do it? Or supernatural magic?

NO. He was God made man. He had divine power.

Merlin had control over the divine power as well. He was a magician too.

To hear the Pontiff say this..Unbelievable.

Yes, how dare he accept the evidence of reality!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Was that before or after he invented the internet?


The kind of changes coming on the earth will make climate change seem like a bed of roses.

Some churches have moved into the final stages of apostasy..outright blasphemy and unbelief. That likely means that the changes are close at hand.

Yes, yes... the end is near, right?

Say, are you one of those folks who believe he will be raptured?
In that case, please contact me when you know that the rapture is at the verge of happening. I'ld like to have all your money. You won't need it anyway, right?

 

[botham]

It does seem to me, having read the Pope's comments, that he is accepting mainstream evolutionary teaching. His point seems to be the same as others who don't think it important as to how God created; just that He created. To me this something like another debate, it being in the realm of feminism. We all have mothers, sisters, aunts and other female friends and acquaintances. From that standpoint, if I may be so bold, we would all agree with the concept of equality of opportunity in all spheres. So if that was the extent of feminism, perhaps every Christian would say this is fine--it is good.
Now enter ideology, theology, every 'ology' and philosophy. People we now have problems. Feminism supports abortion on demand, homosexual rights, and in some quarters would relish the demise of Christianity in general with it's outdated and oppressive patriarchy. You get the drift.
So, likewise evolution on the surface seems a benign explanation about the development of life. The Pope does not challenge the Holy, Sovereign nature of God and many Christians agree with his take.
But I, along with other creationists, see some problems. The problems are well known, including the slippery slope of declaring Eden and Adam and Eve as allegory or myth. Fine, then what else is allegory--you know the debate. The Jesus Seminar is perhaps the best example of those who discuss the Bible in order to determine, by their criteria and standards, that which is reliable truth and that which is other than that.
Similarly, the Big Bank at face value is not a problem. We can believe that something unlike any other physical event took place in the beginning. But what do we make of it?
I think evolutionary approaches limit God. It seems anthropomorphic in my opinion, to need God to have a process that is logical and within our understanding. He needs no such process. You might just as well debate 'how could a good God allow evil'. This is beyond our brains of flesh, even with the aggregate of recorded thinking available these days to assist us. How could God just say 'let there be------'. Because He is I AM THAT I AM, the self existing Being who said to a man who was decomposing in the grave, 'Lazarus arise and come forth'. Do we need an explanation about how He did that. No, we just need to know He did it to demonstrate unequivocally that He is the resurrection and the life. So evolutionary approaches can undermine faith and the Pope will eventually recant in my humble opinion.

 

[dad]

Yes, yes... the end is near, right?

Another thing that believers cannot deny is that Jesus will return and we will live forever with Him.

 

[Davian]

Funny how even today they are trying to figure out how everything
started and they actually still don't know anything about nothing. Yet the
elephant is standing in the room.

Apparently not, says Robert Hogan, PhD candidate at KCL and lead author of the study published in Physical Review Letters. Recreating a scenario with cosmic inflation and Higgs boson mass, Hogan and his colleague Malcolm Fairbairn found that the young universe would have undergone a tremendous amount of quantum fluctuation, or jolts in the energy field. These jolts would have been so strong that they would have pushed the universe into the other valley, where it would have been consumed in its entirety and ceased to exist.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 201801 (2014) - Electroweak Vacuum Stability in Light of BICEP2

​

From that you got "our universe would have been pushed out of existence"? You did not realize that by "push" they meant "change the data values", and by "valley" they meant the curve of the data when displayed as a graph, and not that our universe would have actually been "pushed" anywhere?

Science. You are doing it wrong. But, you do entertain.

How is your Santa project going? If you are going to ask me to talk to your god, you will need to talk to Santa first.

 

[bhsmte]

Another thing that believers cannot deny is that Jesus will return and we will live forever with Him.

No need to expend energy to deny a claim based on faith alone.

You can believe it though.

 

[dad]

Well, considering modern science didn't exist at the time, that doesn't surprise me.

Then science is not a player. So? You thought it was??

Why not? If God exists, then He is in control of those laws.

The very essence of what create means is to do something deliberately. Like He created Adam and then Eve. The folks who pretend to accept the bible, should consider that Adam was here and created first, and had no woman..no mate. That is not something we see in evolution. We also had the earth created before the sun and stars. Not something that fits so called science claims.

Ps 148:5 -Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
Isa 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. The earth is not as science posits, some rock in space that happened to be able to spawn life.

Isa 45:18 -For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Eph 3:9 -And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Just because you don't want the science to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.

God disagrees, it is not only a pile of lies, but it is utter foolishness.

I guess so, because I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

Read it again without trying to read anything into it. I said No science opposes creation in the real sense. ANY aspect or branch of science that claims there was no creation, in any way, or no flood, etc...is NOT science, but only science falsely so called. You could not offer any science here for what you allude to. Neither could the pope.

 

[dad]

No need to expend energy to deny a claim based on faith alone.

You can believe it though.

It is easy to deny the claims of those pretending to have the bible on their side on basic issues actually.

 

[bhsmte]

It is easy to deny the claims of those pretending to have the bible on their side on basic issues actually.

Hey, have all the faith beliefs you want.

 

[dad]

Hey, have all the faith beliefs you want.

And you are welcome to your beliefs such as the present state past based alternate universe, thanks.

 

[EternalDragon]

From that you got "our universe would have been pushed out of existence"? You did not realize that by "push" they meant "change the data values", and by "valley" they meant the curve of the data when displayed as a graph, and not that our universe would have actually been "pushed" anywhere?

Science. You are doing it wrong. But, you do entertain.

How is your Santa project going? If you are going to ask me to talk to your god, you will need to talk to Santa first.

The last I knew, ceased to exist meant that it wouldn't exist anymore.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The last I knew, ceased to exist meant that it wouldn't exist anymore.

The universe as we know it would cease to exist

 

[EternalDragon]

The universe as we know it would cease to exist

That is not what they said. They said it would have been consumed. Zero particles left over. Nothing there.

"....where it would have been consumed in its entirety and ceased to exist."

 

[Davian]

The last I knew, ceased to exist meant that it wouldn't exist anymore.

You said "Actually if it had started with a big bang, our universe would have been pushed out of existence. According to the big bang computer model our universe should not be here."

All you did was find an article with the word "push" in it.

I asked, specifically, to substantiate the statement in your post, and if you have talked to Santa yet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is not what they said. They said it would have been consumed. Zero particles left over. Nothing there.

"....where it would have been consumed in its entirety and ceased to exist."

The Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion though.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion though.

A violent expansion outward from a central source is basically what an explosion is. An implosion would be the exact opposite, although not as violent.

 

[Loudmouth]

A violent expansion outward from a central source is basically what an explosion is. An implosion would be the exact opposite, although not as violent.

An explosion is when a force is applied to mass and accelerated outward. In the case of expansion, there is no force being applied to mass. Space itself is expanding. An explosion will have a center in spacetime. Universe-wide expansion will not have a center since all of spacetime is expanding.

 

[Aldebaran]

An explosion is when a force is applied to mass and accelerated outward. In the case of expansion, there is no force being applied to mass. Space itself is expanding. An explosion will have a center in spacetime. Universe-wide expansion will not have a center since all of spacetime is expanding.

Well, they call it the "Big Bang Theory". Sounds like an explosion to me, unless they're changing the very theory that "scientists" have been calling a "scientific fact" in recent times.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, they call it the "Big Bang Theory". Sounds like an explosion to me, unless they're changing the very theory that "scientists" have been calling a "scientific fact" in recent times.

The name of the theory actually came from Fred Hoyle who hated and rejected the theory. It was meant to be be sarcastic. It gave other scientists a bit of a chuckle, and the name stuck.

The theory has hypothesized an expansion of spacetime itself for quite some time now. Nothing has changed.

 

[Aldebaran]

The name of the theory actually came from Fred Hoyle who hated and rejected the theory. It was meant to be be sarcastic. It gave other scientists a bit of a chuckle, and the name stuck.

The theory has hypothesized an expansion of spacetime itself for quite some time now. Nothing has changed.

So when we go back in time to when matter was all in one tiny spot, how did it all go flying outward, if not as the result of exploding? That's the way I've always heard it described. One other theory I've heard is the "white hole" theory, in which case all matter in our universe originated from a central point linked to a black hole in another universe. This of course assumes matter falling into a black hole comes out someplace else via a wormhole.