Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Mountainmike]

Inside the Catholic church there are many opinions about topics and inside the orthodox church, too. Those churches seem more united from the outside, because they have few official public sources. The insider debate is hidden from the public eyes, compared to protestantism.

Not to mention differences between catholics and orhodox Christians in general.

Differences can hardly be blamed on protestantism, only.

it seems you misunderstand Catholicism and dogma.
The Vatican in a public source that produces a catechism of what it believes, and a magisterium that decides it.

For those who don’t agree the door is not locked.
On such as abortion it has held fast.

 

[Bradskii]

Take one of your issues abortion.
It’s not difficult. “ thou shalt not kill”

From the earliest writings - take the didache - Christian’s opposed it.
The church,that is the only church prior to the Millenium combining Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, which is also the biggest by far, has always opposed abortion and still does . No change.

Then along came the reformation, when people decided “ they knew better than the church”
Some like king Henry had reasons to prefer his own morality or lack of it, in his case.
So they made their church in their image not Gods.
What has typified post reformationist churches is they schism and schism again. If you don’t like the doctrine find a church you do like, and if you can’t find one in your own image , start your own!

Even Luther despaired of the monster he personally created : “ there are now as many doctrines as milkmaids” he lamented Even in his time. But that’s the trouble. In removing authority for all to interpret scripture how pthey wish, they make their own designer version. He let Pandora out of the box.

So as the leaders impose their own views on the church , rather than allowing the church to impose its views on them.
That house divided cannot stand, indeed on every matter of doctrine post reformation churches disagree.
They all became their own pope. So who do they speak for but themselves?

But on Abortion since the beginning THE church, the one traceable back to the apostles has unchanged views. So who speaks for Christianity? They do! The church given the power to “ bind and loose” so dictate dogma with authority. The “ pillar and foundation of truth”

it’s true, you can now find a designer church if you look that claims to be Christian , that has any permutation of doctrine you like. a church your image , not Christs, But it does not make their views Christian belief, nor does true Christianity speak with two voices. There is but one truth. Abortion is wrong.

I was wondering how long it would take...

'I am right, everyone else is wrong.'

 

[Bradskii]

I was wondering how long it would take...

'I am right, everyone else is wrong.'

So God's chosen people have even got it wrong. In passing, I'm a great believer in do what I do. Not what I say. Perhaps you could check which Christian denomination has the most abortions. What's that? They're not true Catholics if they don't follow the rules? Well, who am I to say who is Christian and who is not. That's something you can argue about with the rest of your fellow Christians.

What happened there..?

 

[Frank Robert]

But on Abortion since the beginning THE church, the one traceable back to the apostles has unchanged views. So who speaks for Christianity? They do! The church given the power to “ bind and loose” so dictate dogma with authority. The “ pillar and foundation of truth”

it’s true, you can now find a designer church if you look that claims to be Christian , that has any permutation of doctrine you like. a church your image , not Christs, But it does not make their views Christian belief, nor does true Christianity speak with two voices. There is but one truth. Abortion is wrong.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you but you are wrong. The CC changed its views on abortion several times. Abortion was first treated as a mortal sin and only changed to "taking a life" in 1965.

Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history ​

PIP: This article traces the history of the abortion policy of the Roman Catholic Church. The introductory section notes that the Church has consistently opposed abortion as evidence of sexual sin but has not always regarded it as homicide because Church teaching has never been definitive about the nature of the fetus. In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman's situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that a fetus first has a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a rational soul when the body was developed. The next period, 1500-1750, found anyone who resorted to contraception or abortion subject to excommunication (1588), saw these rules relaxed in 1591, and banned abortion even for those who would be murdered because of a pregnancy (1679). From 1750 to the present, excommunication was the punishment for all abortions (1869). This punishment was extended to medical personnel in 1917, but the penalty had exceptions if the woman was young, ignorant, or operating under duress or fear. In 1930, therapeutic abortions were condemned, and, in 1965, abortion was condemned as the taking of life rather than as a sexual sin. By1974, the right to life argument had taken hold and became part of a theory of a "seamless garment" representing a consistent ethic of life. The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases (except as the unintentional byproduct of another medical procedure). (Emphasis added.)​

​

 

[Diamond72]

And guidance from God. So why does He guide some people one way and others another?

When we put the peices of the puzzle all together it all makes sense. I am OEC, GAP, YEC all rolled into one because they are all pieces of the puzzle. OEC talks about the old earth, YEC talks about the New Earth. GAP keeps them separate from each other.

 

[Diamond72]

Whoever designed us should be sacked. Especially if they claimed omnipotence.

That is difficult to understand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When we put the peices of the puzzle all together it all makes sense. I am OEC, GAP, YEC all rolled into one because they are all pieces of the puzzle. OEC talks about the old earth, YEC talks about the New Earth. GAP keeps them separate from each other.

YEC is about the Earth being *Young*, not "new". There is only the one Earth. Gap theory (if that is what you mean by "GAP") is one of the ways OECs make the old Earth compatible with GEnesis 1.

OEC and YEC are mutually incompatible theological doctrines derived from Gen 1 and other sources. You can't be both.

 

[Bradskii]

When we put the peices of the puzzle all together it all makes sense. I am OEC, GAP, YEC all rolled into one because they are all pieces of the puzzle. OEC talks about the old earth, YEC talks about the New Earth. GAP keeps them separate from each other.

Well, there you go. Nobody can accuse you of backing the wrong horse. You've placed a bet on the whole field.

 

[Bradskii]

That is difficult to understand.

Yeah, it's got me beat, as well.

 

[Diamond72]

YEC is about the Earth being *Young*, not "new".

Bishop Ussher wrote his book 500 years ago. His book is a history of the last 5,000 years.

• Morris, H. M. (1994). The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth—Past, Present, and Future. Master Books.
• Numbers, R. L. (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. University of California Press.
• Ussher, J. (1650). Annals of the World. Lector House.
• Young, D. A. (1982). Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Zondervan.

These sources provide historical and theological context for Ussher's work and its influence on the development of young earth creationism as a theological and scientific perspective.

 

[Diamond72]

Gap theory (if that is what you mean by "GAP") is one of the ways OECs make the old Earth compatible with GEnesis 1.

OEC and YEC are mutually incompatible theological doctrines derived from Gen 1 and other sources. You can't be both.

I am both because YEC is simply a history of the last 6,000 years. A very small part of OEC goes back 14 billion years. When I was around 8 years old I had a dream where God took me to the center of the universe and showed me that the universe is expanding. He told me that the universe will shrink or all come back together again.

Years later I would read and study what science and men of science like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan have to say about this. They were both hosts of the PBS program Cosmos. Very public and very published men of science.

• "Neil deGrasse Tyson." American Museum of Natural History, https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/neil-degrasse-tyson.
• "Neil deGrasse Tyson Biography." Biography.com, Neil deGrasse Tyson - Books, Wife & Cosmos.
• "Carl Sagan." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carl Sagan | Biography, Education, Books, Cosmos, & Facts.
• "Carl Sagan Biography." Biography.com, Carl Sagan - Cosmos, Quotes & Books.
• "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage." IMDb, Cosmos (TV Mini Series 1980) - IMDb.
• "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey." IMDb, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (TV Mini Series 2014) - IMDb.

These references provide biographical information about Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, including their work as scientists and science communicators. They also provide information about the PBS program "Cosmos," which both Tyson and Sagan hosted at different times, as well as links to additional resources for further reading.

Here are some references that provide additional information about the development and history of the Gap Theory:

• Chalmers, T. (1814). "The Days of Creation." In Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, vol. 1. William Whyte & Co.
• Barnhouse, D. G. (1961). The Invisible War. Zondervan.
• Morris, H. M. (1994). The Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Master Books.
• Numbers, R. L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded ed. Harvard University Press.

Chalmers's lecture is significant because it represents an early attempt to reconcile the biblical account of creation with the emerging scientific knowledge of the time, and it reflects a growing awareness among theologians of the need to engage with scientific discoveries in a thoughtful and critical way.

 

[Diamond72]

'I am right, everyone else is wrong.'

here are some references that discuss the importance of having an open-minded approach in discussions and debates:

• "The Benefits of Debate" by Jonathan Zimmerman, The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-benefits-of-debate.html
• "The Importance of Intellectual Humility" by Mark Alfano, Scientific American, Sept. 22, 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-importance-of-intellectual-humility/
• "The Power of Listening in Helping People Change" by Michael P. Nichols, Psychology Today, Mar. 1, 2019. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../the-power-listening-in-helping-people-change
• "The Lost Art of Civil Debate" by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussim, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lost-art-of-civil-debate-11581197204

These articles discuss the benefits of having an open-minded approach in discussions and debates, including the ability to learn from others and consider multiple perspectives. They also highlight the importance of active listening, intellectual humility, and civil discourse in fostering constructive and productive conversations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bishop Ussher wrote his book 500 years ago. His book is a history of the last 5,000 years.

• Morris, H. M. (1994). The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth—Past, Present, and Future. Master Books.
• Numbers, R. L. (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. University of California Press.
• Ussher, J. (1650). Annals of the World. Lector House.
• Young, D. A. (1982). Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Zondervan.

These sources provide historical and theological context for Ussher's work and its influence on the development of young earth creationism as a theological and scientific perspective.

Theology is irrelevant to the study of the Earth. Creationism has nothing to do with actual science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am both because YEC is simply a history of the last 6,000 years.

That's not what YEC is. It is the belief that the whole of history only goes back about 6000 years. (For example your beloved Ussher chronology.)

A very small part of OEC goes back 14 billion years.

Not sure what "a very small part" is doing here, but OEC is a belief that the Genesis account is not from 6000 years ago, but much earlier. It is a way to make Genesis compatible with the scientifically measure age of the Earth and Universe. It is still not scientific.

When I was around 8 years old I had a dream where God took me to the center of the universe and showed me that the universe is expanding. He told me that the universe will shrink or all come back together again.

Well, so much for that. The universe will not shrink and come back together again. That cosmological model is dead.

Years later I would read and study what science and men of science like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan have to say about this. They were both hosts of the PBS program Cosmos. Very public and very published men of science.

• "Neil deGrasse Tyson." American Museum of Natural History, https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/neil-degrasse-tyson.
• "Neil deGrasse Tyson Biography." Biography.com, Neil deGrasse Tyson - Books, Wife & Cosmos.
• "Carl Sagan." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carl Sagan | Biography, Education, Books, Cosmos, & Facts.
• "Carl Sagan Biography." Biography.com, Carl Sagan - Cosmos, Quotes & Books.
• "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage." IMDb, Cosmos (TV Mini Series 1980) - IMDb.
• "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey." IMDb, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (TV Mini Series 2014) - IMDb.

These references provide biographical information about Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, including their work as scientists and science communicators. They also provide information about the PBS program "Cosmos," which both Tyson and Sagan hosted at different times, as well as links to additional resources for further reading.

And when I was about 8 I read Cosmos.

Here are some references that provide additional information about the development and history of the Gap Theory:

• Chalmers, T. (1814). "The Days of Creation." In Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament, vol. 1. William Whyte & Co.
• Barnhouse, D. G. (1961). The Invisible War. Zondervan.
• Morris, H. M. (1994). The Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Master Books.
• Numbers, R. L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded ed. Harvard University Press.

Chalmers's lecture is significant because it represents an early attempt to reconcile the biblical account of creation with the emerging scientific knowledge of the time, and it reflects a growing awareness among theologians of the need to engage with scientific discoveries in a thoughtful and critical way.

I've heard people try to lecture or argue from these sources before, it is, shall we say... amusing, in a "train wreck" sort of way.

 

[Diamond72]

Well, so much for that. The universe will not shrink and come back together again. That cosmological model is dead.

The big crunch is not popular right now. But there are mathematical models to demonstrate it.

• • The Beginning to the End of the Universe: The Big Crunch vs. The Big
  • week6
  • "The fate of the universe: The Big Crunch" by Kate Ravilious, Physics World: https://physicsworld.com/a/the-fate-of-the-universe-the-big-crunch/
  • The Big Bang
• The concept of the Big Crunch and how black holes would play a role in the final stages of the universe's collapse. They also explain the current evidence and theories surrounding the fate of the universe, including the possibility of a Big Crunch.

 

[Bradskii]

here are some references that discuss the importance of having an open-minded approach in discussions and debates:

Except when you truly believe that you have been guided by God. And really, did you need to post a list to make that point?

 

[Diamond72]

amusing, in a "train wreck" sort of way.

GAP is based on a series of sermons that got published. There is not much to it and very little effort went into it. But it is an attempt at reconciliation. Dispensationalism has a lot more support.

I forgot to add Theistic evolution. Which like GAP has support, but not much effort has gone into Theistic Evolution to develop it. Frances Collins did write a few books, but I find his effort to be somewhat of a "train wreck" attempt at trying to make money selling popular books.

He recently resigned (retired) actually I think Biden fired him.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph. D., is the former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and former director of the Human Genome Project.

 

[Diamond72]

did you need to post a list to make that point?

yes, I am constantly being asked for references.

 

[Diamond72]

Except when you truly believe that you have been guided by God.

This forum requires evidence from Science. What does Science say about it? Although a lot of science is popular opinion and not as fact-based as people claim it is. I was 8 years old so God used the word shrink. But more popular team are big crunch. Different theories have different names.

 

[Bradskii]

This forum requires evidence from Science. What does Science say about it? Although a lot of science is popular opinion and not as fact-based as people claim it is.

This kinda sums up your position, I guess. Most of science is just opinion.

I think we're done...