The Pope accepts Big Bang Theory?

[Newby]

That self-proclaimed Pius people aren't always necessarily pius.

And that's news how? It's been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way until the sun goes out. That's the reality of life, that's humanity.

It's not "news," and every sentence everyone says isn't "news," but when people say things like "that's news how?" that's news to me. Thumbs up.

Well, cute response, but still doesn't explain how you associate pedophilia with christianity with an implication that christianity is somehow the cause of it. People fail to uphold their own moral standards every day, that's not 'news' either, and a lot of those people have other ideologies that define them other than being Christian. I'd rather see people at least have moral standards to try to live up too, than to have none at all so that when they fall from grace they're not ridiculed. I mean, your point seems to be that it's bad to have moral standards or to be pious, because then you're just a hypocrite when you don't live up to your own standards. What's your alternative? To have none at all?

 

[G.T.]

And that's news how? It's been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way until the sun goes out. That's the reality of life, that's humanity.

It's not "news," and every sentence everyone says isn't "news," but when people say things like "that's news how?" that's news to me. Thumbs up.

Well, cute response, but still doesn't explain how you associate pedophilia with christianity with an implication that christianity is somehow the cause of it. People fail to uphold their own moral standards every day, that's not 'news' either, and a lot of those people have other ideologies that define them other than being Christian. I'd rather see people at least have moral standards to try to live up too, than to have none at all so that when they fall from grace they're not ridiculed. I mean, your point seems to be that it's bad to have moral standards or to be pious, because then you're just a hypocrite when you don't live up to your own standards. What's your alternative? To have none at all?

I still didn't imply they were pedo because of their Christianity, you're reading into the Christian part and not the pius part, which was the original intent which was clarified for you after you had asked. There's no point in telling you this again, I mean, if you want the floor to rail on people who feel Christianity leads to being pedo, you obviously took it.....but it doesn't apply to G.T. >>just FYI, again.

My alternative is not to be a phony, that's all. Don't be a politician that rails against being gay, if you're a closet gay.

Don't rail against "pork," if you've got a long history of "pork."

Don't preach that you're a man of God, in a decent-minded Religion mind-you, if you're molesting children.

That's my point.

 

[G.T.]

If you want to just plain argue, f*ck the Steelers.

 

[Newby]

If you want to just plain argue, f*ck the Steelers.

You're allowed to say fuck without the special characters.

 

[Newby]

It's not "news," and every sentence everyone says isn't "news," but when people say things like "that's news how?" that's news to me. Thumbs up.

Well, cute response, but still doesn't explain how you associate pedophilia with christianity with an implication that christianity is somehow the cause of it. People fail to uphold their own moral standards every day, that's not 'news' either, and a lot of those people have other ideologies that define them other than being Christian. I'd rather see people at least have moral standards to try to live up too, than to have none at all so that when they fall from grace they're not ridiculed. I mean, your point seems to be that it's bad to have moral standards or to be pious, because then you're just a hypocrite when you don't live up to your own standards. What's your alternative? To have none at all?

I still didn't imply they were pedo because of their Christianity, you're reading into the Christian part and not the pius part, which was the original intent which was clarified for you after you had asked. There's no point in telling you this again, I mean, if you want the floor to rail on people who feel Christianity leads to being pedo, you obviously took it.....but it doesn't apply to G.T. >>just FYI, again.

My alternative is not to be a phony, that's all. Don't be a politician that rails against being gay, if you're a closet gay.

Don't rail against "pork," if you've got a long history of "pork."

Don't preach that you're a man of God, in a decent-minded Religion mind-you, if you're molesting children.

That's my point.

So, in a nut shell, self proclaimed pious or christian people shouldn't be hypocrites but it's okay for everyone else to be one? Whatever makes you hapyy I guess.

 

[asterism]

You have to read the Bible in the context of its historical references to ascertain a timeline. Most creationists, which was many a Pope, believed that to have been 6K years ago. I'm not going to debate that, because my lack of belief in Christianity has absolutely squat to do with it.

But I will reference a SPECIFIC TIMELINE referenced in Genesis, since I presume you'll reject using Historical references in order to ascertain one. Here we go:

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves."
Day 7: God rested.

And with this, a question: How could day one, come before day four?

it was explaining a complex system to people with simple minds
IE, it was figurative
not literal

It can be figurative, and that's fine, and even oversimplified due to the lack of knowledge at the time; however; it's still out of order.

That would depend on the definition of "oceans" and "sky."

 

[G.T.]

If you want to just plain argue, f*ck the Steelers.

You're allowed to say fuck without the special characters.

I was trying to be fucking cordial to lighten your apparent dislike of my posts

 

[Newby]

If you want to just plain argue, f*ck the Steelers.

You're allowed to say fuck without the special characters.

I was trying to be fucking cordial to lighten your apparent dislike of my posts

Cordial? By saying fuck the Steelers???? Yeah, right...

And I didn't dislike your posts, I was just trying to get them into the right perspective.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

#1. Not an Atheist. /fail.

Didn't actually say you are, though I did assume it.

#2. I didn't tell you how to read the Bible, you asked how anyone gets a time line from it, and I gave you an article. /fail.

I asked what biblical time line you are referring to, not how someone can make false assumptions and create one out of thin air. So far all you have done is shown me the latter, because the former does not exist.

#3. Myself, personally, I don't have a theory on a time-line in the Bible. My question was for those that do. /fail. [/quote}

Yet you are still trying to prove that something you do not believe in exists in a way that makes it convenient for you to mock, instead of opening your mind to the possibility that you might not know everything.

#4. At no point was I lecturing, but in fact if you read your own posts, you're doing the lecturing. /fail.

I never said you were lecturing, I said you have no idea what you are talking about. You are attempting to lecture me know, and failing dismally, but that is actually irrelevant to the discussion.

#5. I had already told you that a time-line has zip zilch zero to do with why I don't believe in Christianity, regardless, and so you're arguing a moot point in that a. I do not care and b. my question in this thread itself obviously does not apply to you. c. being that a&b have happened, I tried to be cordial and ask you a differing question in my two posts-ago, (to you.)

Then why attempt to disprove Christianity by pointing to it?

Anyways, I posted in numbered form because chessiswars is an obsessive compulsive format poster and I was hoping he'd read this and cringe.

And I though you were just demonstrating all the places you are wrong. How silly of me.

 

[Annie]

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope - Yahoo! News

So now he says that God was behind the Big Bang.

This is telling to me, in that he's by proxy dismissing Biblical timelines and also the Creation story. No?

Anyways, I though that it was pretty intriguing.

I will edit to add, for clarity, that this question does pre-suppose that you're one of those that believes the Bible actually has a time-line in regards to Creation.

The Catholic Church is not a literalist organization regarding the bible, unlike many Protestant churches. While the gospels are recognized as the Word of God, the rest of the Bible is considered divinely inspired to help man understand what God wants us to do regarding our own behavior towards our God, our family, others, and ourselves.

 

[asterism]

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope - Yahoo! News

So now he says that God was behind the Big Bang.

This is telling to me, in that he's by proxy dismissing Biblical timelines and also the Creation story. No?

Anyways, I though that it was pretty intriguing.

I will edit to add, for clarity, that this question does pre-suppose that you're one of those that believes the Bible actually has a time-line in regards to Creation.

The Catholic Church is not a literalist organization regarding the bible, unlike many Protestant churches. While the gospels are recognized as the Word of God, the rest of the Bible is considered divinely inspired to help man understand what God wants us to do regarding our own behavior towards our God, our family, others, and ourselves.

Seems atheists believe otherwise, while professing to actually not believe in anything. Go figure.

 

[Booster Bob]

If the pope accepts the big bang theory, how does that fit into the "made in 6 days" bs?

 

[asterism]

If the pope accepts the big bang theory, how does that fit into the "made in 6 days" bs?

In my opinion the 6 days is metaphorical, much like other references in the Bible about God's timeline:

2 Peter 3:8

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

2 Peter 3 - PassageLookup - New International Version, ©2010 - BibleGateway.com

 

[DiveCon]

If the pope accepts the big bang theory, how does that fit into the "made in 6 days" bs?

In my opinion the 6 days is metaphorical, much like other references in the Bible about God's timeline:

2 Peter 3:8

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

2 Peter 3 - PassageLookup - New International Version, ©2010 - BibleGateway.com

and that is figurative as well
the "created in 6 days" was not meant to be taken literally

 

[Annie]

If the pope accepts the big bang theory, how does that fit into the "made in 6 days" bs?

If the bible isn't taken literally, easily.

 

[Booster Bob]

Si how many days did it take god to create the world...? Is he a slow worker or what?
So you shouldn't take the bible literally? No ark, no divided ocean...?

 

[G.T.]

Si how many days did it take god to create the world...? Is he a slow worker or what?
So you shouldn't take the bible literally? No ark, no divided ocean...?

No immaculate conception....no Jesus miracles...no rising from the dead..........

The bible is only meant figuratively when it's disproven. When it's convenient (i.e. unprovable), it's to be taken quite literally.

 

[DiveCon]

Si how many days did it take god to create the world...? Is he a slow worker or what?
So you shouldn't take the bible literally? No ark, no divided ocean...?

No immaculate conception....no Jesus miracles...no rising from the dead..........

The bible is only meant figuratively when it's disproven. When it's convenient (i.e. unprovable), it's to be taken quite literally.

the bible contains both literal and figurative parts
its knowing the difference is what changes "logos" to "Rhema"

 

[G.T.]

Si how many days did it take god to create the world...? Is he a slow worker or what?
So you shouldn't take the bible literally? No ark, no divided ocean...?

No immaculate conception....no Jesus miracles...no rising from the dead..........

The bible is only meant figuratively when it's disproven. When it's convenient (i.e. unprovable), it's to be taken quite literally.

the bible contains both literal and figurative parts
its knowing the difference is what changes "logos" to "Rhema"

There's no real purpose, in scripting a Religion, to switch from being literal to figurative back and forth without a clear tell.

If the "outrageous-ness" of certain writings in the Bible should lead one to "figure" that it's figurative, then I'd have to........Dive...I'd have to.......toss immaculate conception, the miracles.....Noah's arc, etc. all into the figurative category.

 

[asterism]

No immaculate conception....no Jesus miracles...no rising from the dead..........

The bible is only meant figuratively when it's disproven. When it's convenient (i.e. unprovable), it's to be taken quite literally.

the bible contains both literal and figurative parts
its knowing the difference is what changes "logos" to "Rhema"

There's no real purpose, in scripting a Religion, to switch from being literal to figurative back and forth without a clear tell.

If the "outrageous-ness" of certain writings in the Bible should lead one to "figure" that it's figurative, then I'd have to........Dive...I'd have to.......toss immaculate conception, the miracles.....Noah's arc, etc. all into the figurative category.

The purpose is Faith.