 |
|
|
|
|
October 2nd, 2010
11:15 PM ET
Washington's 'Red Mass' attracts top government leaders, controversyCNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears filed this report from Washington: The beautifully ornate Catholic church in the nation's capital has seen its share of history and controversy. In 1963, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle was the site of John F. Kennedy's funeral. After the service, on the steps outside, the slain president's young son famously saluted his father's memory. But the church is also the site of an annual Mass that has drawn criticism for what some see as an unhealthy mix of politics, law and religion. Washington's 57th annual "Red Mass," which celebrates the legal profession, will be held on Sunday - the day before the Supreme Court begins its new term. Several justices traditionally attend, along with congressional leaders, diplomats, cabinet secretaries, and other dignitaries. Past presidents have also attended, though Barack Obama is not expected to appear this year. It is a Catholic Mass, but power brokers of other faiths are asked to attend the invitation-only event. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, is a regular. The Mass "takes its name from the color of the vestments. ... (It) goes back centuries, to Rome, to France to England," Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl told CNN. "There was the idea (to) bring all the people who are involved in the law... once a year so that together, they can simply pray for the wisdom of God." The church, built starting in the 19th century, is considered one of Washington's hidden gems. Tucked between modern office buildings a few blocks from the White House, it is a mix of architectural styles - a hint of ancient Rome, a splash from the Italian Renaissance and a definite Byzantine flavor. St. Matthew, noted Monsignor Ronald Jameson, was the patron saint of civil servants - appropriate in a city where the federal government dominates the workforce. A record six justices attended last year's Red Mass - including then-new member Sonia Sotomayor. Critics of the service, however, find the attendance of leading decision-makers - including members of the highest court in the land - to be inappropriate. "The truth is, this was set up as a way to basically lecture and give information to the justices," said Rev. Barry Lynn, President of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is no other institution that has this special way to talk to the justices on the Supreme Court." The Red Mass was started in Washington in 1952 by the John Carroll Society, a lay Catholic group of prominent lawyers and professionals. Chief Justice John Roberts' wife Jane is currently an officer of the group. Lynn, an ordained minister with the United Church of Christ, noted that the Mass was begun following several high court decisions disapproved of by the archdiocese. "They figured if they got all the justices together and chatted them up in a worship service, they might be able to convince them to see the law their way," he said. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington strongly objects to that explanation of the Red Mass' beginnings. Past homilies by Mass speakers have lamented the high court's ruling legalizing abortion and the constitutional separation of church and state. Last year, U.S. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo made an unspecified reference to the rights of the unborn, saying those represented by lawyers are "more than clients... In some cases the clients are voiceless for they lack influence; in others they are literally voiceless, not yet with tongues and even without names, and require our most careful attention and radical support." Other recent Red Mass events have been free of discussion on hot-button social and political issues, focusing on universal themes. In 2008, Cardinal John Patrick Foley noted that many parts of the Bible "sound very much like American ideals" and urged members of the high court to build a society "of justice, of peace and of love." One member of the court who no longer attends is Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, like Breyer, is Jewish. Ginsburg said she grew tired of being lectured to by Catholic officials. "I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion," Ginsburg said in the book Stars of David: Prominent Jews talk About Being Jewish, by Abigail Pogrebin. "Even the Scalias - although they're much of that persuasion - were embarrassed for me." Six Catholics now sit on the high court: Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. Newest Justice Elena Kagan, like Breyer and Ginsburg, is Jewish. She is not expected to attend the Red Mass. Church officials insist that they do not attempt to persuade anyone who attends the service. Wuerl says the event provides a place to put aside the partisanship and troubles in the world to seek comfort in a shared community and a sacred place. Americans have "been very careful about ... not allowing any one tradition or church to become the state church," he said. "But from the very beginning, we've always said we need to hear the voice of faith in all the discussion that is a part of determining what we want to do." Lynn takes a different tack. "I don't think there is any doubt that people in that congregation - including the Supreme Court justices - are going to listen to what is said," he said. "They might hear something phrased in a way you might never hear it in the court, but it might become a lingering factor in their decisions," Lynn said. "People who are concerned about the Red Mass worry about this kind of undue influence." |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I think it's a great idea. Nothing wrong in trying to draw some kind of wisdom from the Creator to help guide your thoughts and actions. I am an American Muslim and in these harsh and trouble times I find great comfort in see people of power humbled by God and seeking his help. As long as the sermon does not have a political agenda or aim's to draw supports of one particular faith or another, I see only benifit from uniting people under God reguardless of what Book or Prophet they so choose to fallow. Maybe there is still some reason and humility within our goverment.
Matthew...
I think it's clear that your suppositions are false. The homilies are not about "wisdom" – as if pedophiles and their protectors had any of that! And they do support a narrow view ... that a zygote has the same moral status as an adult human being! Eeeegad!
Bozole Clun,
At what point did you 'turn into a human? Aren't you glad you are already born, and not waiting to be born?
@CatholicMom
At what point did you 'turn into a human? Aren't you glad you are already born, and not waiting to be born?
Actually, it would be a lot like dieing. You just would not exist.
Unbridled power is never unseen the eye within the eye sees all and makes justice from that place.
If the priest avoided partisan political rubbish like abortion & theocracy it might be harmless. Religious freedom makes America great, and it can't exist without separation of church & state. Let Rev Lynn give the homily, and get the antiamerican Catholicking out.
Wish I could attend. I KNOW it is a beautiful service.
If you've never attended, how do you KNOW?!
Bozole Clun,
If you have ever attended a Mass or attended one in this Cathedral, you would know.
I think I would be thinking about all those kids and all those priests...
I would end up puking in the holy water.
I'm confused. Are we mad that they attended a church, or that they attended it together? So they go to a church service? What is the problem? A good portion of government officials in this country attend a church of one religion or another. If they want to pray to God let them.
How about living up to your handle? Puhlease?!
Acceptance of others is impossible without first accepting ourselves.
Being better means not being bitter
Relax see the beauty in peace. Respect our elders of the court and places of office they are the powers that be. If you're civil and speak with an open heart you may see the changes that are needed to bring forth a better world.
please dont try and hand me that garbage.
Basically the whole situation is a total upheaval. Let us find our center and return to how it really is a place of peace the place of rebirth.
Eat well dear writer enjoy the plenty God has given to the good Americans whom stand up for good and disarm evil. May the war of terroe end soon with our faces satisfied and our bellies full.
No post about religion would be complete without Barry Lynn's whining. Why am I not suprised that Obama (who might as well be Jewish with his celebrating of Hanukkah instead of Christmas) and Kagan would choose not to be there? And God forbid that Ginsburg would have to suffer through a homily calling on people to respect life. HOW HORRIBLE. Does her rabbi call on everyone to kill babies at the synagogue? Do they perform mass abortions there?
Always changing the subject, eh? Being anti-abortion is not "respect for life". It's disrespect for the values of adult human beings in favor of a human zygote!
It is a nice question of what amount of change in the protoplasm makes for a significant ethical change. But the RCC has preempted that discussion by fiat.
Bozole Clun,
So when do you start to respect human life?
How did you get your start? Add a little time and all of a sudden you became human? No, you were human right from the moment you were conceived.
Why would human values be different for an adult human than a baby human’s values? [Just because the baby cannot voice ‘a value’ does not mean that an adult cannot voice ‘a value’ which would be consistent with ‘life’ for the baby]. When should the parents step up and be that voice? You can call it ‘ human zygote’ but I think it is fair to ask, ‘Aren’t you happy that you are already born and not just waiting to be born…if your parents are pro-abortion?’ After all, they might want a new car instead of you….
frank-you are a complete catholic moron. your religion has murdered, tortured and sodomized millions of innocent people for the last two thousand years.
@Frank
Your really sound antisemitic.
Bozole:
A 'human zygote' is a human being at an early developmental stage. I don't care what fancy words you want to use to bend reality. A human being is a human being. Case closed.
Don:
That's not 'my religion'. People will find any excuse to carry out evil. Even in the Holy name of God. Jesus warned us against hypocrites. No person escapes judgement for evil deeds, especially deeds carried out in the name of the Creator.
David:
I am not an 'anti-Semite'. I am a firm anti-Zionist. I have said before that those people are not real Jews. I have respect for Torah true Jews who see through the lie that is the State of 'Israel'. I harbor bigotry toward no group.
I guess the writer of this article needed a payday or his submission was late so he came up with this (he must have read this on a blog some where). A mass that has gone on since 1952. Did anyone reading and commenting on this article even know this existed? I am sure of all you making comments have been thinking, "I wonder how many justices are going to church and are they all really christian?" Why would it matter and since when are justices doing anything a matter of politics? This is NOT about religion, this is NOT about politics, this article is about a payday--, the writer's.
Doesn't anyone remember the Catholic's have always wanted to be the first to put their two cents in. I'm surprised that anyone would take offence one way or another. our Founding Father's did not have any trouble with God being included in law or politics. I would say this the rest of the religious groups will follow with their tow cents as well. With the Islamic Faith on the rise here in the USA, and the extremist pushing it's agenda, I would worry more about their influence and how the extremist want to influence our laws and politics.
Care to mention so-called extremist Islamists who are "pushing their agenda"? Or do you just want to use scare words?
Catholics put more than two cents in...it takes a lot to build schools, universities, hospitals, orphanages....but, I guess, you don't want to think about that right now...Catholic bashing is way to "in" to remember the good the church has done.
BTW, I'm not Catholic. I'm just not ignorant of history, either.
Sara Brau,Sara Brau,
Just a little info about Red Masses held around the country.....
On Sunday, Oct. 3 at 9:30 a.m. at Holy Family Cathedral, Archbishop
Roger Schwietz will celebrate the annual Red Mass, and all are invited.
Held annually in many American cities, the Red Mass is a special Mass at
which the church prays for all who practice law, especially asking the
Holy Spirit's guidance for attorneys, judges and politicians.
After the Mass in Anchorage, there will be a brunch at the Marriott
Hotel. Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, Attorney General Dan Sullivan and
Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner are the keynote speakers.
The origins of the Red Mass are traced to the 13th century, when the
first known Red Mass was offered on behalf of the supreme court of the
Catholic Church, the Roman Rota. Clerics wear red vestments, since the
color signifies the Holy Spirit. The annual Red Mass celebrations in
Anchorage are sponsored by the St. Thomas More Lawyers' Society of
Alaska.
All were invited....
Let's eat some roe and wade through later.
I do hope that security is extremely tight for this gathering. I'm surprised the event hasn't been cancelled because of the increased 'terrorist' chatter. It's a bad idea to have so many officials and judges and other prominent persons in the same place at the same time with such alerts being issued.
We eat countries like yours Sydney for a midnight snack$
religion+ politics suks :(. Even worse with law
Really?
Christianity (the religion in this case) preaches peace, justice and morality.
It is amazing to me that people look at religion as something that's bad, but can fill their mind with all the garbage on cable and elsewhere in our society, and think it's good.
I think their problem is that they want to feel good about themselves and religion doesn't let them do that. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable.
@kyle
You said, "Christianity (the religion in this case) preaches peace, justice and morality."
Hmmm... lots of death and pain have been visited upon the world in the name of Christianity.
You said, "It is amazing to me that people look at religion as something that's bad, but can fill their mind with all the garbage on cable and elsewhere in our society, and think it's good."
There are those that try to control society through religion. Hell was invented to keep people in line. We hate gays and other religions. Yes, Religion poisons everything. – C. Hitchens
People watch television. For the most part, no one suggests the programs are real. But I suppose the Religious Right could tell us what we are allowed to watch.
You said, "I think their problem is that they want to feel good about themselves and religion doesn't let them do that. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable."
People do everything they do to "feel good". We seek pleasure and avoid pain. People convince themselves they have a special relationship with a god and then feel great. This is true of every religion, every god. There is no one god who produces these feelings. Members of every religion report this. The feelings are all in your head (brain).
You are right, the truth is sometimes not comfortable. The truth is, you or anyone else does not have a shred of proof your god is real. There is much evidence to suggest He is not.
Cheers!
David Johnson,
You said, ‘You are right, the truth is sometimes not comfortable. The truth is, you or anyone else does not have a shred of proof your god is real. There is much evidence to suggest He is not.’
You were on such a ‘roll’…why did you stop…you should have given us your ‘much evidence’ so we could be enlightened by you!
@CatholicMom
Actually I did give some. Read my post the Kyle.
David Johnson,
Assumptions and theories are not evidence.
@CatholicMom
Now, you are starting to understand! You have no proof for your claim that there is a god.
Tell me, If god created man and all the other organisms, why are there transitional fossils? Did god have to keep trying until he got it right?
Note these facts:
Man has the genes for a fully functional tail.
Whales have the genes for making legs
Chickens have the genes for teeth
These genes are simply not activated.
Yep, we evolved. We have genes that are vestiges from previous more primitive organisms.
If god created organisms, they would not have these vestiges.
You are making the claims there is a god. It is your responsibility to supply proof.
Proving god is Job #1.
David Johnson,
You said, ‘If god created organisms, they would not have these vestiges.’
No one can claim to know the mind of God! Your assumptions are unfounded!
What I can tell you is…. I have a conscience which is an inner Truth that does not come from anything you can dissect. Everyone has this to one degree or another. Some listen to their conscience, others claim they don’t have one. But science has yet to say it is not from God.
David,
There are no transitional fossils. Evolutionary scientists have been trying to find them since Darwin spouted his theory. In fact, Darwin, himself, said this would be a problem. Similarities in fossils does not mean the "missing link". There are species and sub-species, but never has it ever been observed for an organism to jump that species line. In other words, Cat can't become dog, fish can't become frog, chicken can't become hog (hey, that rhymes).
There are similarities in all created beings. Do think God would have to rethink the genome for every animal, fish and bird? Just because you can create things differently, doesn't mean you do.
Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists have the same evidence. They just apply their individual bias to it and come out with two completely different theories. Science is used in both to achieve the answer to the questions. Each side is trying to prove their theory from a completely different starting point. Try to look at it from an objective viewpoint. Which one is using the scientific method most closely? Can you really call it scientific fact, if you can't observe it? Are any scientific laws being broken to try to prove a point (law of abiogenesis, second law of thermodynamics, etc.)?
David, I've answered all the comments you've made to me. They are just waiting moderation from CNN. We'll see if they post them. Just didn't want you to think I was wimping out on you.
@Kyle
There are many transitional fossils.
Here are some of the transitional fossils:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Ffaq-transitional.html&ei=OyuqTKevPJS6sQO8k6iRDQ&usg=AFQjCNGPGdozCEk75QjWVS-ySuuQrQHoSg
@CatholicMom
You said, "What I can tell you is…. I have a conscience which is an inner Truth that does not come from anything you can dissect. Everyone has this to one degree or another. Some listen to their conscience, others claim they don’t have one. But science has yet to say it is not from God."
Your conscience, your evaluation of what is good and evil is not from god. As man's intellect evolved, so did his sense of right and wrong. This has to do with survival of our species.
Parents teach their children the parent's morals, as well as their religion. Society stamps each us with its values. ~83% of Americans are Christian. We all have many Christian values. If we lived in Iran, we would have many of the values of the followers of Islam.
Do you see how, if there was only one god, and he was giving us our morality, loading our conscience so to speak, we would all have the same sense of right and wrong? But we don't.
Morality is subjective.
The U.S. developed and used the atomic bomb. We didn't feel guilty. We were defending ourselves.
Religion tortured and killed to "save the immortal souls" of its victims. They're conscience never bothered them. They were doing the Lord's work. Jesus never bothered to tell them, they weren't.
They have found natives in the rain forests. They feel it is fine, even pleasing to their gods to collect heads.
Your/my conscience is a product of our brains. It has nothing to do with god.
You like to believe in all the silly superst itions. Stop it! Think.
Here is a test for you:
If you knew, absolutely knew, that there is no god, would you still do good things? Would you feed the poor? Not murder or want to hurt? Would you still want to help people who are victims of disasters?
If you would still do these things, then your morals do not come from god.
CatholicMom,
David Johnson is correct regarding 'conscience'.
You said, "But science has yet to say it is not from God." Then the fallback (default) position is not that it *is* from a God. The most you can say is, "I don't know". If science has yet to say that there are not demons in your water, would you take the fallback position that they *are* there until proven otherwise?
You are certainly free to believe in your fantasy, but please, please don't proclaim it as Truth, with a capital "T" (or even close).
@Kyle
You said, "Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists have the same evidence. They just apply their individual bias to it and come out with two completely different theories. Science is used in both to achieve the answer to the questions. Each side is trying to prove their theory from a completely different starting point. Try to look at it from an objective viewpoint. Which one is using the scientific method most closely? Can you really call it scientific fact, if you can't observe it? Are any scientific laws being broken to try to prove a point (law of abiogenesis, second law of thermodynamics, etc.)?
There is no law of abiogenesis. See my post on this. The second law of thermodynamics is not a problem. Tell me why you think it is, and I will enlighten you.
Creationists have no evidence at all. All they have is a flawed bible and faith. Dude! Did you read my post about humans having the genes for a tail?
Here is what an article from the Times said about that:
Los Angeles Times
What our tails tell us
Atavistic incidents, such as humans born with tails, actually bolster the case for Darwinism.
February 15, 2007
HUMAN BABIES BORN with tails? That may sound like a headline from the Weekly World News, but it was the respected New Scientist magazine that recently published a cover story about the phenomenon of evolution "running backward." Entertainment value aside, the article represents a new twist in the politically charged debate about evolution.
The author of "The Ancestor Within," Michael Le Page, cited the babies with tails as a likely example of atavism, a phenomenon in which ancestral traits suddenly reappear after thousands or even millions of years. Another example, one remarked on by Charles Darwin, is the appearance in some human mouths of large, ape-like canine teeth. (Stephen King, call your office.)
It's not just humans who experience these altered states. Le Page also cites the less cringe-making example of a humpback whale with leg-like appendages that was caught off Canada's Vancouver Island in 1919.
These and other throwbacks might seem to call into question the validity of evolution, which has been on something of a roll lately, with a federal judge's decision last year against a Pennsylvania school district that wanted to teach "intelligent design" and, only this week, the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to repeal guidelines that said there was "considerable scientific and public controversy" over human origins.
In fact, Le Page suggests, atavisms like tails on humans are the exceptions that prove the evolutionary rule. Atavisms are possible, he says, because genes for primitive traits haven't disappeared from the genome; they simply have been switched off. In rare cases, they are switched back on (and then the tails are promptly snipped off). Sometimes, Le Page adds, so-called reverse evolution serves the cause of improving a species by allowing it to adapt to a changed environment.
Atavism isn't the only explanation for the reappearance of a seemingly extinct trait or body part. It's also possible that some life forms that have lost a certain trait evolve it again "from scratch," through the same mutations that produced it in the first place. After all, different species sometimes develop similar features separately – a process known as "convergent evolution."
But the existence of atavism complicates the case against evolution. Far from undermining Darwinism, throwbacks challenge the creationist idea that every living species emerged full-blown in its present form. Atavism is impossible unless there's something to throw back to – like an ancestor with a tail that nobody wanted to snip off.
Borrow Dawkins latest book from the Library – "The Greatest Show On Earth". I stayed up until 2:00 AM, on a work night, reading it. I was spellbound.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is in constant decay. Entropy always increases. Never decreases.
Principles in evolution defy this, saying that everything is evolving (getting better). Added genetic material, added information, natural creation of the universe (big bang), adding, adding, adding...the opposite of entropy. Mutations, in real life, are almost always harmful. Superbugs have less genetic material than the common variety or the genetic information is deactivated.
We all look at the same evidence, but we bring our worldview with and make assumptions from our world view. This is called bias. You can look at organisms that look similar and say "It must have evolved." I would look at the same two organisms and say "Looks like a common designer." We have the same principles of science to work under. We are marching to two different hypothesis, but we need to follow the rules of science. I believe creation does that and evolution doesn't...from the very start. In science, you must observe through experimentation, then make your statement. Macro-evolution (an animal of one species forming into one of another species) has never been observed (through experiments or in nature). In our universe, you cannot have life come from non-life (the Law of Biogenesis). The Big Bang to the primordial soup to the frog sequence is a big law-breaker for this.
Creation goes along with science. The evolutionary scientists are now saying that lifeforms appeared pretty suddenly (Punctuated equilibrium) from how the evidence is presenting itself. I would say "of course! God created it in six days." That's pretty sudden. The second Law of Thermodynamics would go right along with the Bible's teaching that we are in a constant state of decay (our sin nature). It says the whole creation groans (Romans 8:22). It is a common thread throughout the Bible. Genesis states that God created things after their kind and that he created them male and female. This is why organisms stay within their species. And also states how the species was to continue to exist. This is a big problem with evolution. It is already an impossible job to evolve from one animal, but to have male and female? It would have the same problems a horse/donkey/jacka$$ would have with mating.
As for atavism, doesn't science usually take the rule rather that the exception? Did the offspring of these individuals have these traits?
David,
I meant donkey/horse/mule.
It's o.k. for oil lobbyists & the hordes of greedy interests to ply their trades?? The sad reality is the almost total lack of MORALITY in our government. Anyone who tries to remind the justices of JUSTICE is welcome in my book. Let them ALL hold services. God help America.
Agreed.
God has no business in American Government. We should do what's best for society.
Do you worry what Zeus or Isis thinks of anything? The Christian god is no more real than these.
David, David, David...
You keep stating there is no God. How do you know? Because you haven't experienced Him? Have you experienced outer space? Does it exist? You seem to BELIEVE what Christopher Hitchens and all the other anti-theists say without questioning or checking things out on your own, but, if it's in the Bible you will QUESTION it without checking it out...hmmm
Does it pain you to see someone that doesn't believe exactly like you do?
@kyle
I have seen pictures of outer space. The U.S. has put a man on the moon. Science has put rovers on Mars. Satellites have been sent to take pictures of planets and moons.
Yep, outer space is real.
Never seen a picture of god. Not one. Learned men tell me there is no need of a god to produce the universe. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. If evolution is true, then no Adam, no original sin, no need for a redeemer.
Studies have shown that prayer does not work.
What proof do you have for a god?
Yes, I question the bible. It contains errors. It is comprised of myths:
God created Adam from a handful of dirt; Talking snakes; trees that bear fruit, that imparts knowledge and eternal life; a global flood, that required a pair of each organism on earth, be stuffed onto a boat; people who lived hundreds of years; a man who was swallowed by a fish, only to be spit up 3 days later, unhurt; a tower god was afraid might reach heaven; a woman who is turned into a pillar of salt; talking donkeys; unicorns; satyrs; a leviathan god creates and then does battle with; a zombie messiah, who predicts his return in the 1st century and hasn't been heard of for 2000 years; belief in a circular, flat earth.
David,
We all know outer space is real. I was trying to make a point. Maybe a better example would be the atom. No one has ever seen one, yet we believe (without seeing) that they exist. The scientists have written and made computer models, but they have not even seen them. We do this in many aspects of our lives...this belief in the unknown, or unseen. That is my point.
Learned men can be wrong. If you are a genius about all the wrong stuff, you turn out to be the dumbest. Evolution is a theory, as is creation. They are two competing schools of thought. No one is sure, because they weren't there. Evolution has problems with the scientific method from the start. The law of abiogenesis states that life cannot come from non-life. That is a problem when you put all your faith in science without any outside movers. I believe God created the universe along with the orderly laws of science we live with today.
When have they ever observed macro-evolution which requires addition of genetic material? Never. The scientists have tried so hard with all the "right conditions" and have even added things to seed life and have gotten nowhere. Yet, people still believe, so rabidly, this theory.
So all of this universe points to a God. A creator could very easily have created the diversity and complexity this world has. Many people look at evolution because the animals have similarities. A single designer many times has a common theme or look to his work. I have personally witnessed this many times. The flood would also explain the fossils and the many layers of sediment all over the earth. The fossils had to happen pretty quickly for them to be preserved in the way they were. Otherwise the animals would have decomposed before the fossil was made. Did you know that there is not a perfect geologic column found on earth. Yet, it is preached by the evolutionary scientists as fact? In science, you cannot preach something with such surety without observing it. This is only one example.
Science is only one proof for God. The personal lives of millions of people will attest to it, as well. All in much the same way. People come from many different backgrounds and levels of crime or not, to the same point of a changed life in the same way as millions of others. It's not made up or in my head. I have experienced it. And prayer does work. I've seen it happen. I don't know how you can measure if prayer works with science.
It seems you put a lot of FAITH in science. Not everything can be explained by science.
Then, there are the prophecies in the Bible. Specific prophecies that no one could know hundreds of years before they happened. There were over a hundred specific prophecies about just the crucifixion of Christ. That's just one example.
There is archaeology. Archaeologists that have set out to prove the Bible in error have been proven time and time again to be in error themselves.
-Adam was created of dust. What happens to our bodies when they decompose? They turn to dust.
-A God that can create the universe, can make a snake talk. Or turn a woman into a pillar of salt.
-The math has been done to calculate the square footage it would take to hold all the land animals on earth, and it fits within the dimensions of the ark. The fish and sea animals would not need to be (and were not) on the ark.
-There are scientists today that cannot explain why we cannot live much longer.
-Jonah is not the only man to be swallowed by a fish to be found later – alive. It happened to James Bartley in 1891. I've read of others.
-Unicorns and sea monsters have been recorded by many cultures in many different eras, independent of each other. CNN just wrote aboout a single-horned dear last week and called it a unicorn. Unicorn just means "one-horned animal". Could these sea monsters have been animals that are now extinct? Animals go extinct every year.
-Jesus is a historical figure, who's life is recorded in the Bible, as well as extra-biblically. People that didn't even believe in Him said there was something up with this guy that should have been a nothing in society. If you want to call Him a revolutionary political leader, there were many before Him that didn't stick. How was He different? The people around Him knew He was who He said He was because of the things he did. He wasn't only talk, but action. But there were many things that the people around Him didn't quite understand. One of them was His return. We, as Christians, look at his return as imminent (could happen any time), not necessarily immediate.
-The oldest book in the Bible (Job) calls the earth a sphere. So you're way off on the last point.
@Kyle
You said, "We all know outer space is real. I was trying to make a point. Maybe a better example would be the atom. No one has ever seen one, yet we believe (without seeing) that they exist. The scientists have written and made computer models, but they have not even seen them. We do this in many aspects of our lives...this belief in the unknown, or unseen. That is my point."
You can't see an atom, in the same way as you would looking down a microscope. . The wavelength of light is far too large compared to the size of an atom.
However, using an electron microscope, you can get images like this of silicon nitride, where individual atoms of the molecule can be made out. However, this is based on electrons hitting the atom and a computer analysing the results, rather than light waves. Atoms are simply too small to be seen directly.
If you get atoms and smash them together at high speeds, then you can analyse the particles within the atom. You can study the electrical charge of electrons and protons by performing experiments such as Rutherford's classic nineteenth century experiments where he proved that an atom must have a negatively charged outer shell and a positively charged nucleus.
Atoms exist. God does not.
Wrong again fundie! LOL
You said, "Learned men can be wrong. If you are a genius about all the wrong stuff, you turn out to be the dumbest. Evolution is a theory, as is creation. They are two competing schools of thought. No one is sure, because they weren't there. Evolution has problems with the scientific method from the start. The law of abiogenesis states that life cannot come from non-life. That is a problem when you put all your faith in science without any outside movers. I believe God created the universe along with the orderly laws of science we live with today."
If man was created and did not evolve, why are there transitional fossils? Did god have to keep creating prototypes until he got it right?
Why would these be true?
Man has the genes for a fully functional tail.
Whales have the genes for making legs
Chickens have the genes for teeth
These genes are simply not activated.
Yep, we evolved. We have genes that are vestiges from previous more primitive organisms.
If god created organisms, they would not have these vestiges. Why would they?
The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, is time. Macro can take thousands or millions of years.
There is no law of abiogenesis stating that life cannot come from non-life. You are truly ignorant.
In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.
You said, "So all of this universe points to a God."
No, All of the universe can be explained without god. After the Big Bang, the entire universe can be explained with only gravity and inertia.
You said, "The flood would also explain the fossils and the many layers of sediment all over the earth. The fossils had to happen pretty quickly for them to be preserved in the way they were. Otherwise the animals would have decomposed before the fossil was made. "
The flood would have deposited all the organisms in a heap. That is not what science has found. You don't understand the layers. You don't understand the geologic column. The organisms are always found in their own layers. No fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. If this would be found, it would falsify the entire theory.
There is no evidence for a global flood. Only an idiot believes this ever happened. There are several civilizations that existed before, during an after the flood was supposed to have occurred. None reported that they drowned. LOL
You said, "The personal lives of millions of people will attest to it, as well. All in much the same way. I have experienced it.
That is another strike against there being a god. Every religion, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist Judaism, all report they can feel their god in their hearts. They "know" their god is real. But which god is the one true god? Yours? What proof do you have? There are over 1000 different Christian denominations. Each denomination can show you scripture that "proves" their god is the real McCoy. Why is that? Because those feelings are generated by the brain. The heart is a pump.
People once worshipped Zeus and Isus and Ra. They loved and feared and prayed to these gods. They felt the gods in their hearts. You god is no more real than theirs. Or do you have proof otherwise?
You said, "prayer does work. I've seen it happen. I don't know how you can measure if prayer works with science"
I have never met a religious person who hasn't seen prayer work. LOL.
Give me one doc umented example of a person regrowing a missing limb. Just one. Or does you god hate amputees? Do they creep Him out?
A fairly recent study was done showing prayer on the sick does no good whatsoever. It is fake.
you said, "It seems you put a lot of FAITH in science. Not everything can be explained by science."
Maybe not today, but in time I think science will explain everything. There was a time when people thought the gods drove the sun across the sky. Just because science doesn't yet have an answer for something, does not mean god did it.
Actually Stephen Hawking is working on a theory of everything. He doesn't see a need for god. LOL.
You said, "Then, there are the prophecies in the Bible. Specific prophecies that no one could know hundreds of years before they happened. There were over a hundred specific prophecies about just the crucifixion of Christ. That's just one example."
Umm... The prophecies of the Old Testament were well know to the authors of the New Testament. The New Testament was written after the Old Testament. There is no miracle here.
The New Testament was written to "prove" Jesus was the Messiah. Mathew even admits to Jesus riding on a colt for the sole purpose of fulfilling a prophecy.
Mathew 21: 1-11
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”
All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
“ Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘ Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey."
It isn't really very hard for the writers of the New Testament to have Jesus fulfill the prophecies. LOL
There were prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. This was part of the reason the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
The fundies claim Jesus will fulfill the prophecies when he returns the 2nd time.
The Jews say, the real Messiah will not need two trips.
This is getting way too long. Jesus did predict he would be back in the 1st century. Fundies just won't admit it.
The biblical authors thought the earth was flat and circular. Note when Satan took Jesus to a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world. The earth is a sphere. Wouldn't matter how high the mountain. How come god didn't catch that?
"There is one verse in the OT, however, which has often been cited at least by laymen as a proof that the earth was understood to be a globe. I refer to Isaiah 40:22 which speaks of God as the One sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which necessarily implies anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.' "
You have no proof for there being a god. There is tons of proof that god does not exist.
LOL
There is archaeology. Archaeologists that have set out to prove the Bible in error have been proven time and time again to be in error themselves.
-Adam was created of dust. What happens to our bodies when they decompose? They turn to dust.
-A God that can create the universe, can make a snake talk. Or turn a woman into a pillar of salt.
-The math has been done to calculate the square footage it would take to hold all the land animals on earth, and it fits within the dimensions of the ark. The fish and sea animals would not need to be (and were not) on the ark.
-There are scientists today that cannot explain why we cannot live much longer.
-Jonah is not the only man to be swallowed by a fish to be found later – alive. It happened to James Bartley in 1891. I've read of others.
-Unicorns and sea monsters have been recorded by many cultures in many different eras, independent of each other. CNN just wrote aboout a single-horned dear last week and called it a unicorn. Unicorn just means "one-horned animal". Could these sea monsters have been animals that are now extinct? Animals go extinct every year.
-Jesus is a historical figure, who's life is recorded in the Bible, as well as extra-biblically. People that didn't even believe in Him said there was something up with this guy that should have been a nothing in society. If you want to call Him a revolutionary political leader, there were many before Him that didn't stick. How was He different? The people around Him knew He was who He said He was because of the things he did. He wasn't only talk, but action. But there were many things that the people around Him didn't quite understand. One of them was His return. We, as Christians, look at his return as imminent (could happen any time), not necessarily immediate.
-The oldest book in the Bible (Job) calls the earth a sphere. So you're way off on the last point.
David,
You are smart enough to have an educated debate without the name calling. Things like "ignorant" or "idiot" are not needed to make your point. We have two different points of view. It doesn't mean one is smarter than the other.
With the electron microscope, you have to account for the possibility that the computer analysis could be off. Computers are a product of man and man is flawed. We could have a completely different picture of what atoms look like than what they actually do. I have faith that they are probably correct, but there is a possibility that they are wrong because we can't verify with light waves.
Try to look at the "transitional fossils" in a different light. Is there a possibility that these could be individual organisms that are not a step to another? We have lost many animals in our lifetime to extinction that have been pretty similar to ones that still live, both in look and genetic makeup. Science is based on the scientific method. A major part of the scientific method is observation. when has it ever been observed that any species has jumped the species line. When has it ever been observed that a species has added genetic material? Never. So, the evolutionists have a hypothesis, but they have a huge problem, because they know that this does not happen. They have even tried to add catalysts to this process, without avail.
Why are the genes that you speak of not activated? Because they were designed that way. Just because God didn't create these animals the way you think he should have, doesn't mean automatically that they evolved. If it were left up to the chance of evolution, wouldn't we commonly find glitches like a man in a business suit with a tail hanging out his suit leg, or a chicken with a nice smile, or a whale in shorts, ready to run a marathon?
Sorry, I misstated. It was the Law of Biogenesis. The Law of Biogenesis states that life cannot come from non-life. Louis Pasteur is the attributed scientist. The studies of abiogenesis and biopoesis is just as you said. They are really just trying to get around a major law of science. By the way, a law of science is a fundamental, universal principal of science. Neither evolution or creation has achieved that status, and never will. They are theories that are under these laws.
Amino acids on their own are pretty far from a living organism. There are over 2,000 types of amino acids, but only 20 are used in life. You have to get pretty specific (right-handed, and in the right order) to get the start of a piece of life. The Miller–Urey experiment got a mixture of right and left-handed, and they had chemistry they knew might achieve their goal. They left out oxygen, because they knew amino acid bonds on their own cannot survive with it present. There is no evidence of this reducing atmosphere on earth, it is just an assumption (or part of their hypothesis) to help their experiment go well. In fact the earth's "oldest rocks" contain evidence of being formed in an atmosphere WITH oxygen. By the way, where did the chemical ingredients for the first evolution come from? What created those?
Macro-evolution requires addition of genetic material. Micro-evolution does not. Micro-evolution (through natural selection) has been observed. Macro-evolution has never been observed...but throw a billion years in it, and it's true? Micro-evolution stays within species. Macro-evolution requires animals in one species to form into animals of another species. It's never been observed. It's quite a leap.
All of the universe DOES point to God. Look at the complexity and design of everything around you. If you found a piece of artwork in the woods, you wouldn't think that it evolved, you would wonder who created it. Nature is so much more complex and designed than a piece of artwork. Organisms have a specific purpose and usually rely on one or more organisms that are designed with a specific purpose. The small details and organs of each organism are well designed.
Also the amount of redundancy designed into each organism is astounding. Evolution would not create redundancy, a designer would. Evolution would stop where it is good enough. Why do we have two eyes and ears? Why can we breathe through our mouth AND nose? Why can a person live with a significantly reduced windpipe? Why do we only use less than ten percent of our brain? What do we need the other ninety percent for? Why not just have one pipe into the heart?
A global flood has been recorded by many civilizations unconnected to each other. In fact there are over 270 stories from diverse cultures in different parts of the world – Hawaiian, Cherokee, Aztec, Syrian, Chinese, Italian, Egyptian, etc. The flood would explain the fossil record and how it's presented in the layers. A global flood would not have deposited the organisms in a heap and would also explain the spread of like organisms around the globe. After a local flood you can see layers of sediment deposited in the same way.
Organisms are commonly found outside of "their layers" and the scientists extend the stratigraphic range. The geologic column, as presented neatly in the school textbooks rarely exists. Only a minority of fossils are confined to rocks found only in one geologic period.
Getting to religion...Many religions believe that one really can't know God. Christianity believes that you can. This is where faith comes in. A person has to check into a set of beliefs (religious or non-religious), do his homework and make the choice that seems to be true. There is only one truth. Either there is a God or there isn't. I believe, based on evidence I've found, that there is. You can't question what I've experienced, because you're not me. You can't question if prayer has worked in my situation or any other person. You can't know that.
Just because there are multiple beliefs, doesn't mean one isn't true. That's flawed logic. There are more proofs that God is real than "just" the Bible.
Your example of regrowing a missing limb is lame (no pun intended). I have personally seen healing in a cancer patient when the doctors don't know what to do. But that is not the only thing prayer is good for. Prayer helps in many other ways.
By the way, God doesn't always answer, yes, either. ...And one study does not disprove prayer.
So science will explain everything, huh? Why are you attracted to a certain person? What is love? Why do some people like broccoli and some people don't? Why do some people believe in God, when others don't? Why does one guy have a different personality from the next?
Prophecies. Many prophecies were fulfilled by people that didn't believe and would be unwilling participants in anything that would prove that Jesus was who he said he was. Crucifixion, for example was not used as a form of execution, when the Isaiah was written. Isaiah 50 says that the messiah wold be beaten and spit upon. The Romans carried out the crucifixion and beating, hardly followers of Jesus. Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. It happened in 70 AD. His disciples didn't do it. There is such a long list.
Jesus, in Matthew 24, is talking about the generation that would experience the horrific events in the end times, as the time when he would return. His contemporaries DID misunderstand. We believe, as they did, his return is imminent (could happen at any time).
By the way, there is an estimate that 80% of Jerusalem followed Jesus after his death. They didn't believe him while he was alive, but they sure did after the crucifixion. And Christianity spread like wildfire. I think it might have something to do with people seeing someone risen from the dead. It just doesn't happen everyday. Something would have to explain an explosion of Christianity like that under such adversity that happened toward the new sect.
The Bible clearly states that the earth was a sphere. Your example in Isaiah 40:22 is a correct use for sphere. The Bible also states that God will remove our sins as far as the East is from the West. Why not North from South? Because they knew that East and West never meet (which could only be true with a globe). Satan taking Jesus up to a mountain to view the nations of the world proves nothing. They could have viewed that from a valley if they wanted to. The spiritual world is not confined by physical matter.
So what is your proof there is no God?
In God we trust. God bless America! For the love of God and country! We're guided by God our manifest destiny as a nation is real. God is on our side.
God isn't on anyone's side. Especially America. He appears to be on vacation and I, for one, can't blame Him.
If I was Him, when it came to the Flood, I would've wiped everyone out! But, luckily, I'm not God and God much more Merciful than I am.
Will you quit with that b.s.? Oh, I'm sorry. I that that was your pie-hole making all that noise.
@Frank
God isn't on anyone's side, is true. Its because there is no god.
Do you think about yourself, as being god a lot Frank? LOL.
Would you have drowned everyone? LOL
Guess we're lucky you aren't god. I guess you missed being god by a smidgen huh?
LOL! LOL 'till my sides ache.
Please don't stop posting!
God isn't on any one side because He does not play the divide and conquer game with people. He wills unity between His children. It is people who wish to divide us up.
And, no. I don't think of myself as God a lot. The question is moot. I'm merely pointing out that the Creator is far more Merciful than any human is.
Will you laugh until your stomach bursts open like Judas' did when he suicided?
@Frank
Judas is the most popular Bible contradiction. Matthew records that Judas “went and hanged himself” after betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (27:5), Luke records that “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 1:18).
Some fundies try to smooth this over, by saying Judas was first hanged and later burst open. Fundies always engage in theological gymnastics to try to explain-away mistakes in the good book. LOL!
Your bible is a joke, Frank. It is flawed.
David,
People try to say this about the whole crucifixion. They say. "One gospel says this. The other says this..." This is true, but it is a STRENGTH of the accounts. Each individual has his own perspective of what he heard. As you take the four gospel accounts and put them together, you get the entire account. The same thing happens with multiple witnesses to an accident. Each one remembers a different part of the accident, but usually get the main part of the event right. The police piece it together for the whole account. Same thing with the Judas hanging. Many times when people hang, their heads become detached from their bodies. This is actually the reason why many people protest this form of capital punishment.
"Judas is the most popular Bible contradiction. Matthew records that Judas “went and hanged himself” after betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (27:5), Luke records that “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 1:18)."
Ropes do break, you know. Or whatever he hung himself on may have broke. No reason that both verses cannot be true.
So long as tax dollars aren't used, there is no violation of Church and State. The Justices are also American citizens who can choose to attend a religious service when not exercising their duty as members of the Court.