Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Sincere Reconciliation of Science With God

Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 2:50:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Great post! I miss the fellowship of being Catholic, but I can't reconcile because of what I've discovered to be true of my relationship with God after being an independent non religious Christians for so many years now. In other words I don't believe that a priest has any closer of a relationship with God than any person who seeks to have a relationship.

I did give the priests a hard time in grade school, not intentionally. I was an inquisitive kid who asked alotta questions, like, "how come the bible says the earth was created in 6 days but in science class we learned it was millions of years and that we evolved." The priest responded with a similar answer that you described.

I also liked that even in second grade, we deeply studied who Christ was and what he taught for almost a year in religion class before receiving First Communion. Those teachings inspired me to read the Gospel as an adult.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:07:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:50:14 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Great post! I miss the fellowship of being Catholic, but I can't reconcile because of what I've discovered to be true of my relationship with God after being an independent non religious Christians for so many years now. In other words I don't believe that a priest has any closer of a relationship with God than any person who seeks to have a relationship.
Thanks for a rare positive response on debate.org :) As to the position and sanctity of the priesthood, etc., those are things I would happily explain and discuss with sincere people, as you seem to be, if it was invited. I spent some time in a Catholic seminary prior to changing direction.

I did give the priests a hard time in grade school, not intentionally. I was an inquisitive kid who asked alotta questions, like, "how come the bible says the earth was created in 6 days but in science class we learned it was millions of years and that we evolved." The priest responded with a similar answer that you described.
I don't really see that as giving a priest a hard time. Children have to be inquisitive; it shows you were thinking.

I also liked that even in second grade, we deeply studied who Christ was and what he taught for almost a year in religion class before receiving First Communion. Those teachings inspired me to read the Gospel as an adult.
It's good you have good memories of all of it.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:26:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 3:07:48 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:50:14 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Great post! I miss the fellowship of being Catholic, but I can't reconcile because of what I've discovered to be true of my relationship with God after being an independent non religious Christians for so many years now. In other words I don't believe that a priest has any closer of a relationship with God than any person who seeks to have a relationship.
Thanks for a rare positive response on debate.org :) As to the position and sanctity of the priesthood, etc., those are things I would happily explain and discuss with sincere people, as you seem to be, if it was invited. I spent some time in a Catholic seminary prior to changing direction.
Yes, I'd be interested when you have time. I don't have time to give it my complete attention at the moment, I still have laundry to do - lol.

I am disappointed in the Catholic Church for another reason. The archdiocese decided to close many inner city parishes in the late 80's, one of which was the church and school I had attended from K-8th grade. I loved my church, and never found another catholic Church that was multi-cultural and somewhat interdenominational, and never felt I had a home church to return to. Most other Catholic Churches I tried were way more formal than the one i attended as a kid.

I did give the priests a hard time in grade school, not intentionally. I was an inquisitive kid who asked alotta questions, like, "how come the bible says the earth was created in 6 days but in science class we learned it was millions of years and that we evolved." The priest responded with a similar answer that you described.
I don't really see that as giving a priest a hard time. Children have to be inquisitive; it shows you were thinking.
They were always accommodating to questions from students and didn't discourage independent thinking. It's what I miss about Catholicism. I fell away from belief in my early teens, for very distressing reasons, and when I returned to "faith" in my early twenties I explored some evangelical denominations that almost forbade the questioning of anything, as if it resulted from an insincere desire to know God. So I read the Gospel independently, and found "redemption" through applying Jesus' teachings to my circumstances in life. I did have a very "Spiritual" experience in a Gospel music tent at a festival in 1996, that reaffirmed my faith in what I was diligently studying in the Gospel.

I also liked that even in second grade, we deeply studied who Christ was and what he taught for almost a year in religion class before receiving First Communion. Those teachings inspired me to read the Gospel as an adult.
It's good you have good memories of all of it.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:39:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 3:26:47 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/12/2016 3:07:48 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:50:14 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Great post! I miss the fellowship of being Catholic, but I can't reconcile because of what I've discovered to be true of my relationship with God after being an independent non religious Christians for so many years now. In other words I don't believe that a priest has any closer of a relationship with God than any person who seeks to have a relationship.
Thanks for a rare positive response on debate.org :) As to the position and sanctity of the priesthood, etc., those are things I would happily explain and discuss with sincere people, as you seem to be, if it was invited. I spent some time in a Catholic seminary prior to changing direction.
Yes, I'd be interested when you have time. I don't have time to give it my complete attention at the moment, I still have laundry to do - lol.
I understand-I tell my wife I'll make someone a great wife someday!

I am disappointed in the Catholic Church for another reason. The archdiocese decided to close many inner city parishes in the late 80's, one of which was the church and school I had attended from K-8th grade. I loved my church, and never found another catholic Church that was multi-cultural and somewhat interdenominational, and never felt I had a home church to return to. Most other Catholic Churches I tried were way more formal than the one i attended as a kid.
Anytime, you call it. I enjoy discussing the original Christian faith. I also can address your disappointment in the Churches you attended. I am what some refer to as 'Traditional Catholic', which is actually a redundancy.

I did give the priests a hard time in grade school, not intentionally. I was an inquisitive kid who asked alotta questions, like, "how come the bible says the earth was created in 6 days but in science class we learned it was millions of years and that we evolved." The priest responded with a similar answer that you described.
I don't really see that as giving a priest a hard time. Children have to be inquisitive; it shows you were thinking.
They were always accommodating to questions from students and didn't discourage independent thinking. It's what I miss about Catholicism. I fell away from belief in my early teens, for very distressing reasons, and when I returned to "faith" in my early twenties I explored some evangelical denominations that almost forbade the questioning of anything, as if it resulted from an insincere desire to know God. So I read the Gospel independently, and found "redemption" through applying Jesus' teachings to my circumstances in life. I did have a very "Spiritual" experience in a Gospel music tent at a festival in 1996, that reaffirmed my faith in what I was diligently studying in the Gospel.

I also liked that even in second grade, we deeply studied who Christ was and what he taught for almost a year in religion class before receiving First Communion. Those teachings inspired me to read the Gospel as an adult.
It's good you have good memories of all of it.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:06:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.

These are the retorts given by those who seek to justify their position in error, rather than seek to knowledge. Sincere questions in regard to faith beg an answer. Yours do not.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 3:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 3:06:32 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.

These are the retorts given by those who seek to justify their position in error, rather than seek to knowledge. Sincere questions in regard to faith beg an answer. Yours do not.

That's just a pathetic lame excuse because you're incapable of responding.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 4:38:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 3:17:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 3:06:32 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.

These are the retorts given by those who seek to justify their position in error, rather than seek to knowledge. Sincere questions in regard to faith beg an answer. Yours do not.

That's just a pathetic lame excuse because you're incapable of responding.

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 4:42:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 4:38:07 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/13/2016 3:17:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 3:06:32 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.

These are the retorts given by those who seek to justify their position in error, rather than seek to knowledge. Sincere questions in regard to faith beg an answer. Yours do not.

That's just a pathetic lame excuse because you're incapable of responding.

OK

So, now that you agree it was a lame excuse, what is your response?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:00:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 4:42:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/13/2016 4:38:07 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/13/2016 3:17:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 3:06:32 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/12/2016 1:38:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

It is a fallacy to say God is knowledge.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge.

Except in the Bible.

There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Where exactly?

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none.

Kind of like seeing gods where there is none?

The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period.

The Bible makes clear in Genesis the definition of a day, a morning and an evening, just like a day would be loosely defined now. 6 days is 6 days, one day shy of a week.

There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible.

Why not? In fact, if God is knowledge, why didn't God share any of that knowledge in the Bible?

What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict.

What physical evidence?

We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient.

I don't know anyone who thinks that way other than those believers who try to tell us all about their gods.

Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

Maybe that's because the facts of our surroundings don't agree with Scriptures.

These are the retorts given by those who seek to justify their position in error, rather than seek to knowledge. Sincere questions in regard to faith beg an answer. Yours do not.

That's just a pathetic lame excuse because you're incapable of responding.

OK

So, now that you agree it was a lame excuse, what is your response?

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.

You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 12:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.


You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.

It's too bad you can't even acknowledge the changing use of the language over time, the manner of speaking in us changing significantly over significantly long periods of time. I don't think acknowledging that many years ago in that part of the world where these books were written to say 'a day' may or may not have been meant literally, is to surrender your atheism. I don't know why you need to be so insecure that you must deny linguistic history.

Just one more example of this is in current usage, 'to know' someone means generally to have some information regarding that individual. In Old Testament biblical usage, contemporaneous with the writing in question, 'to know' someone meant to have intercourse with them. Pretty significant variance in meaning.

As the creation is described in Genesis, a day could not have meant a 24 hour period. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you have to admit the author was promoting it,which means the author was proposing a period before time was established, before day and night, etc. So, in his relation of events, whether true or false, a day would not have had meaning as a 24 hour period, a time frame established by the separation of day and night and man developing a means to mark time over long periods. There is no reason the author would refer to days meaning what we narrowly mean today when he is postulating days did not exist under that definition.

Again, this is not decisive against your beliefs; you could claim he was lying. But when you deny those things you defend your case with false arguments and do yourself no favor.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 12:48:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.


You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.

It's too bad you can't even acknowledge the changing use of the language over time, the manner of speaking in us changing significantly over significantly long periods of time. I don't think acknowledging that many years ago in that part of the world where these books were written to say 'a day' may or may not have been meant literally, is to surrender your atheism. I don't know why you need to be so insecure that you must deny linguistic history.

Just one more example of this is in current usage, 'to know' someone means generally to have some information regarding that individual. In Old Testament biblical usage, contemporaneous with the writing in question, 'to know' someone meant to have intercourse with them. Pretty significant variance in meaning.

As the creation is described in Genesis, a day could not have meant a 24 hour period. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you have to admit the author was promoting it,which means the author was proposing a period before time was established, before day and night, etc. So, in his relation of events, whether true or false, a day would not have had meaning as a 24 hour period, a time frame established by the separation of day and night and man developing a means to mark time over long periods. There is no reason the author would refer to days meaning what we narrowly mean today when he is postulating days did not exist under that definition.

Again, this is not decisive against your beliefs; you could claim he was lying. But when you deny those things you defend your case with false arguments and do yourself no favor.

I do not have "beliefs" and I have no case to defend.

You just confirmed my point. The bible is full of absolute codswallop that can be and is interpreted any way one wants to.
For example; Mathew 15:32 when Jesus supposedly fed 4000 people with fish. What this really means is that Jesus contacted 10 million people using a lobster telephone. Any idiot can see that.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:21:48 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/14/2016 12:48:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.


You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.

It's too bad you can't even acknowledge the changing use of the language over time, the manner of speaking in us changing significantly over significantly long periods of time. I don't think acknowledging that many years ago in that part of the world where these books were written to say 'a day' may or may not have been meant literally, is to surrender your atheism. I don't know why you need to be so insecure that you must deny linguistic history.

Just one more example of this is in current usage, 'to know' someone means generally to have some information regarding that individual. In Old Testament biblical usage, contemporaneous with the writing in question, 'to know' someone meant to have intercourse with them. Pretty significant variance in meaning.

As the creation is described in Genesis, a day could not have meant a 24 hour period. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you have to admit the author was promoting it,which means the author was proposing a period before time was established, before day and night, etc. So, in his relation of events, whether true or false, a day would not have had meaning as a 24 hour period, a time frame established by the separation of day and night and man developing a means to mark time over long periods. There is no reason the author would refer to days meaning what we narrowly mean today when he is postulating days did not exist under that definition.

Again, this is not decisive against your beliefs; you could claim he was lying. But when you deny those things you defend your case with false arguments and do yourself no favor.

I do not have "beliefs" and I have no case to defend.

You just confirmed my point. The bible is full of absolute codswallop that can be and is interpreted any way one wants to.
For example; Mathew 15:32 when Jesus supposedly fed 4000 people with fish. What this really means is that Jesus contacted 10 million people using a lobster telephone. Any idiot can see that.

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:19:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:23:40 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:21:48 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/14/2016 12:48:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.


You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.

It's too bad you can't even acknowledge the changing use of the language over time, the manner of speaking in us changing significantly over significantly long periods of time. I don't think acknowledging that many years ago in that part of the world where these books were written to say 'a day' may or may not have been meant literally, is to surrender your atheism. I don't know why you need to be so insecure that you must deny linguistic history.

Just one more example of this is in current usage, 'to know' someone means generally to have some information regarding that individual. In Old Testament biblical usage, contemporaneous with the writing in question, 'to know' someone meant to have intercourse with them. Pretty significant variance in meaning.

As the creation is described in Genesis, a day could not have meant a 24 hour period. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you have to admit the author was promoting it,which means the author was proposing a period before time was established, before day and night, etc. So, in his relation of events, whether true or false, a day would not have had meaning as a 24 hour period, a time frame established by the separation of day and night and man developing a means to mark time over long periods. There is no reason the author would refer to days meaning what we narrowly mean today when he is postulating days did not exist under that definition.

Again, this is not decisive against your beliefs; you could claim he was lying. But when you deny those things you defend your case with false arguments and do yourself no favor.

I do not have "beliefs" and I have no case to defend.

You just confirmed my point. The bible is full of absolute codswallop that can be and is interpreted any way one wants to.
For example; Mathew 15:32 when Jesus supposedly fed 4000 people with fish. What this really means is that Jesus contacted 10 million people using a lobster telephone. Any idiot can see that.

OK

You mean by "ok" is that you can dish it out but but won't tolerate an ounce of it back.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Okay, I would agree that science and God are compatible.....in the sense that what science studies is the creations of God, the natural universe. So Theism and science are compatible in that there are no contradictions in the definition of science and God, so there needs to be no rejection of science as long as there is no attempt to attach atheism to it, because science is not an authority regarding the existence of God.

Now here is where the problem arises and when science becomes incompatible with God....
When a person such as an atheist for example, develops an interest in science and then comes to the conclusion that no God exists because there is no "scientific/physical" evidence for the existence of God this is where the two become incompatible, not because God does not exist but rather science studies a different nature, which is the material/natural, not the spiritual (at least currently).

Here is the next problem, since spirituality is the medium in which the reality of the spirit is accessible, this creates problems for those who adopt a materialist mindset, from believing that science is the only authority on that which exists..... if that were true science would have always had the answers, always had all knowledge and always has known what exists, but that is a pipe dream.
Science is simply our OWN study of the world God created, it is something that has developed from our own interests but it has become an instrument of confusion for those who reject religion or the existence of God.

So if you ever hear me say "science is not compatible with God, it's not because I reject science (the study of the natural world), but the attempt to attach atheism to science, which is absurd, inappropriate and a misleading event.
In other words, atheists attempt to utilize science as a means to reject God, or foolishly claim that because "science" has not shown God to exist, He doesn't.

So maybe let's say science and spirituality are not compatible? since science is the study of the physical....would you agree with that? because we can't get to God or experience His reality through science, which in this case is incompatible.

Just so we are on the same page, I'm saying that science is compatible with the creation of God, but it is not compatible with the reality of God's existence, because that is not physical, it's spiritual.... in other words there can be no "physical" evidence for God, such as finger prints, hair samples, blood, foot prints ect...

http://sciencespot.net...

Do you see the line I'm trying to draw here? atheists attempt to use science as a means to reject the Creator, they don't realize this is to their demise.
willbedone
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 4:05:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Science is derived from the Latin for knowledge (scientia). Science is simply the search for knowledge. Catholicism has never opposed man's quest for knowledge. There have been some really glaring examples of this principle getting lost (Galileo), but those were errors of humans. Catholicism sees God and scientia as inseparable.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture. : :

Psalm 92
5: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!
6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:

Psalm 94
7: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."
8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?
9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge,
11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.

Psalm 139
17: How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 4:09:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 1:00:31 AM, Throwback wrote:
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Translation:
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply admitting defeat.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 4:16:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:58:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Do you see the line I'm trying to draw here? atheists attempt to use science as a means to reject the Creator
No they don't.
Theists claim that gods exist, theists have always failed to provide evidence that their claim has veracity. Science has nothing to do with atheists rejecting the unsubstantiated claims of theists that gods exist.
Nothing is needed to reject theist claims other than the theists inability to support their claim.
Theists prove that their gods don't exist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 4:56:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 3:19:24 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:23:40 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:21:48 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/14/2016 12:48:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:38:00 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/12/2016 2:16:11 AM, Throwback wrote:
A Catholic perspective:

As God is the lord and creator of all things, He is also supreme over that which we can discern. It is a fallacy to say that God and science are incompatible. God is knowledge, and all knowledge comes from Him.

Ridiculous, arrogant and illogical nonsense. Make no bones about it, spirituality has no part whatsoever in science.

Those things a Catholic must believe (de fide definata) may at times seem to contradict knowledge gained through study of our surroundings. Our limited human understanding sometimes sees contradiction where there is none. The notion that Catholics believe there were no dinosaurs because the appear to have lived millions of years ago, which seems to contradict the biblical dating of the earth, are not contradictions. Do we really know how long the "6 days of creation" lasted? Those books were written thousands of years ago, when people would refer to long periods of time as a day; each day could be an era or an period. There is no chronology of every moment contained in the bible. What we do know as Catholics is, both the physical evidence is real, and the original meaning of scripture is real, and two real, truths cannot be in conflict. We have to stop thinking ourselves omniscient. Sometimes we see the facts and draw the wrong conclusions about the relationship to the truths of our surroundings and the truths in Sacred Scripture.


You have to come to terms with the fact that the bible is full of incorrect nonsense. It is totally absurd to try and state that a day thousands of years ago could be five billion years long. Do you really expect anyone (except naive followers in your institution) is going to accept that.
A day is a day, full stop and it is long past time for you people to wake up and face the fact that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes big time.

You have a faith, that is all it is and there is no such thing as God or any other spiritual presence.

It's too bad you can't even acknowledge the changing use of the language over time, the manner of speaking in us changing significantly over significantly long periods of time. I don't think acknowledging that many years ago in that part of the world where these books were written to say 'a day' may or may not have been meant literally, is to surrender your atheism. I don't know why you need to be so insecure that you must deny linguistic history.

Just one more example of this is in current usage, 'to know' someone means generally to have some information regarding that individual. In Old Testament biblical usage, contemporaneous with the writing in question, 'to know' someone meant to have intercourse with them. Pretty significant variance in meaning.

As the creation is described in Genesis, a day could not have meant a 24 hour period. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you have to admit the author was promoting it,which means the author was proposing a period before time was established, before day and night, etc. So, in his relation of events, whether true or false, a day would not have had meaning as a 24 hour period, a time frame established by the separation of day and night and man developing a means to mark time over long periods. There is no reason the author would refer to days meaning what we narrowly mean today when he is postulating days did not exist under that definition.

Again, this is not decisive against your beliefs; you could claim he was lying. But when you deny those things you defend your case with false arguments and do yourself no favor.

I do not have "beliefs" and I have no case to defend.

You just confirmed my point. The bible is full of absolute codswallop that can be and is interpreted any way one wants to.
For example; Mathew 15:32 when Jesus supposedly fed 4000 people with fish. What this really means is that Jesus contacted 10 million people using a lobster telephone. Any idiot can see that.

OK

You mean by "ok" is that you can dish it out but but won't tolerate an ounce of it back.

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 4:58:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 4:09:57 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/14/2016 1:00:31 AM, Throwback wrote:
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Translation:
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply admitting defeat.

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.