What Say Ye, Creationists & Fundamentalists?

[Givemeareason]

You have got to be kidding.

The Ten Commandments are for all men and for all times. Hence the RCC says "God's action is the model for human action".

Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states:

Looks like the Pope forgot his own Catechism. And you forgot the applicability of the Ten Commandments to yourself, to creation, and to humanity.

Now you are trying to reinterpret me when you can't even interpret the bible. I suggest you read what I just posted above before you start playing kick the pope.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then what could be your attitude towards the Ten Commandments, and especially the fourth commandment and what it has to say about creation?
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If it were essential to read the bible as if creation were only possible to understand as happening in six literal days a few thousand years ago then we would know the bible was in error. It would be scientifically proven. But since God has provided some alternate views on how to handle the concept of a day, we don't have to claim the bible is in error. The bible remains inerrant . . . . when properly interpreted.

Ps 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.
NASU

2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
NASU

Those who insist we must deny the truth about the age of the earth in order to say we believe the bible are simply raising a false barrier between God and man.

 

[El' LeJeune]

Science has always struggled with religious zealots. Each time the zealots have been proven wrong.

In many cases scientific theory has been proven to be wrong. It is easy to say, "Oh well, the nature of science is to build upon previous failure and pursue truth", but before scientists continue to stand on their pedestals and pat themselves on the back they should take a keen look into all the tremendous and obvious failures of yesteryear. Roughly 130 years ago there was a scientific theory in place that absolutely forbid the idea of a divine creator. It claimed to have the answer for the appearance of all creatures and praised Darwin's work for it's help in establishing it's validity. The theory was so entrenched in scientific academia that it was included in almost all of the scientific textbooks of the time. The general scientific community was so cocky about it that a publication was passed around offering prize money for anyone who could discredit it. The theory wasn't evolution, it was spontaneous generation. As we all know a Christian chemist named Pasteur discredited it with what is possibly the simplest experiment ever performed.

My point? Naturalists have always looked for a discredit the idea of a creator and have sometimes fallen into the trap of developing ridiculous theories in order to do so. A review of the actual tangible evidence regarding the theory of abiogenesis has left me to believe that it is little more than another foolish attempt to remove God from the equation. But don't take my word for it, let's see what other scientists have to say.

See here: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

[El' LeJeune]

Also, this quote is very telling.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

 

[El' LeJeune]

Regarding the statement from the pope, my response is that he is a flawed and fallible man just like the rest of us and does not have access to divine information anymore than other Christians do. What he says, HE says.

 

[Givemeareason]

In many cases scientific theory has been proven to be wrong. It is easy to say, "Oh well, the nature of science is to build upon previous failure and pursue truth", but before scientists continue to stand on their pedestals and pat themselves on the back they should take a keen look into all the tremendous and obvious failures of yesteryear. Roughly 130 years ago there was a scientific theory in place that absolutely forbid the idea of a divine creator. It claimed to have the answer for the appearance of all creatures and praised Darwin's work for it's help in establishing it's validity. The theory was so entrenched in scientific academia that it was included in almost all of the scientific textbooks of the time. The general scientific community was so cocky about it that a publication was passed around offering prize money for anyone who could discredit it. The theory wasn't evolution, it was spontaneous generation. As we all know a Christian chemist named Pasteur discredited it with what is possibly the simplest experiment ever performed.

My point? Naturalists have always looked for a discredit the idea of a creator and have sometimes fallen into the trap of developing ridiculous theories in order to do so. A review of the actual tangible evidence regarding the theory of abiogenesis has left me to believe that it is little more than another foolish attempt to remove God from the equation. But don't take my word for it, let's see what other scientists have to say.

See here: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Before you start complaining about science you should probably learn what a theory is. It is a postulate on based on substantial evidence indicating a likelihood of a truth. By its own definition every scientist around wants to be the big man to shoot it down. Science advances from its own failures. I suggest you broaden your understanding of science.

 

[Givemeareason]

Also, this quote is very telling.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

And your point is...?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is science your religion? Not all science is enlightening. A lot of it is complete nonsense. When scientist talks about something they admit breaks all known laws of physics they are talking about something supernatural. Like a Nature editor wrote because of technology science has become a modern day religion.

When did a scientist talk about something they admit breaks all known laws of physics . . . . . and say it was science?

 

[crjmurray]

When did a scientist talk about something they admit breaks all known laws of physics . . . . . and say it was science?

He's probably referring to the big bang. More accurately he heard someone else say that it breaks the laws of physics and he's just repeating the claim.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Vatican rejects creationism

The Catholic Church champions the cause of Charles Darwin.

Sorry, but Protestants accepted Darwinism before Catholics.

Christianity and Darwinism
Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857.

Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism.

by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians

Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.

Beyond conservative Christianity, Darwin found other supporters in the liberal wings of the church. The Anglican clergyman Frederick Temple (b. 1821) accepted evolution and revised doctrine in its light. The liberal Congregationalist Henry Ward Beecher (b. 1818) extolled evolution and made it a core principle of his theology. A little later the French Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (b. 1881) went further, re-casting all theology in combination with evolution.

There were, besides these, many Christian critics of Darwinism as well. The Roman Catholic church was initially hostile towards Darwinism, not revising its official position until the 1960’s at Vatican II. It is worth noting however that these critics, unlike today’s creationists, frequently responded to Darwinism with mainstream scientific arguments. For example, Anglican clergyman George Henslow wrote scientific works critiquing Darwinism such as The Origin of Floral Structures (1888) and The Origin of Plant Structures (1895).
https://publicchristianity.org/library/the-history-of-creationism#.VYkNXxOqpBc​

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fundamental principle for all genuine Christians: IGNORE THE POPE AND THE VATICAN.

Implying that catholics are not "real christians" is a violation of the forum rules, if I remember correctly.

 

[juvenissun]

And what people think thst?

A good church turned cold.

 

[AV1611VET]

A good church turned cold.

We don't believe Peter ever set foot in Rome.[VERSE=1 Peter 5:13,KJV]The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.[/VERSE]Notice it is "Babylon," not "Rome."

 

[juvenissun]

We don't believe Peter ever set foot in Rome.[VERSE=1 Peter 5:13,KJV]The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.[/VERSE]Notice it is "Babylon," not "Rome."

Thanks. Your history is much better than mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks. Your history is much better than mine.

You're too kind! Thank you!

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

After staff review, it has been decided that this thread will be closed. Please review CF rules before posting, including

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers (there are no general apologetics forums on CF).



MOD HAT OFF​