 |
|
|
|
|
September 21st, 2013
11:41 AM ET
Can Pope Francis make his vision a reality?By John L. Allen Jr., CNN [twitter-follow screen_name='@JohnLAllenJr'] ROME (CNN) - Pope Francis has sketched a vision of a Catholic Church that’s more welcoming – to women, to homosexuals, to divorced and remarried believers, to pretty much everybody –- and less invested in the culture wars. In a now famous interview published Thursday, the pope said he knows some militants want him to toss around more fire and brimstone. But he insists that Catholic positions on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage are already well known, and anyway, “Ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.” None of that implies a change in church teaching, but it does suggest a fairly serious shift in tone. The question now becomes, is this just the pope talking? Or is he capable of bringing the rest of the church along with him? Despite the mythology of Roman Catholicism as a top-down monolith, the truth is that it’s actually one of the most decentralized institutions on Earth. There are only about 3,000 personnel in the Vatican directing the affairs of a church that counts 1.2 billion members, which means that Rome doesn’t have the manpower to micromanage anything but exceptional cases. Probably 90% of the decisions that matter – what pastor will be assigned to which parish, or what tithes will be used for –- are made at the local level. Popes trying to steer this colossus in a new direction, therefore, need middle managers as well as the rank and file to pull in the same direction, and experience suggests they don’t always fall in line. MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays Pope John Paul II, nearly 27 years, exhorted the church to be more evangelical, more daring about taking its message to the streets, and while he unleashed powerful new energies – think about World Youth Days, for instance – that missionary aspiration still remains a work in progress. Similarly, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI desired a church more appreciative of tradition and more focused on its core identity, and again most observers would say the end result over eight difficult years was a mixed bag. If Francis is to bring the Catholic Church into line with his more pastoral and compassionate vision, two fronts seem especially critical. First is personnel. Nothing a pope does to shape culture in the church is more important than naming the roughly 5,100 bishops of the world, who set the tone in their own backyards. A new papal direction may be invigorating, but if people don’t pick up the same vibe from their local bishops and pastors, over time it will only seem like sound and fury signifying little. To date Francis hasn’t made many flagship picks except for his own successor in Buenos Aires, Argentina, but he’ll have to do so soon, since archbishops in critical locales such as Madrid, Cologne and Chicago are all older than 75, the normal retirement age. Popes typically rely on their nuncios, or ambassadors, around the world to recommend new bishops. In June, Francis gave his nuncios their marching orders, saying he wants bishops who are “close to the people, fathers and brothers” as well as “gentle, patient and merciful.” He also said they shouldn’t have “the psychology of princes.” How well he spots talent to fit that profile will help determine whether his dream of moving past what he called “a church of small-minded rules” becomes reality. MORE ON CNN: The pope said what? Six stunners from Francis The other key test is structural reform, beginning in the Vatican and radiating outward, perhaps especially on financial transparency and the fight against child sexual abuse. Scandals in those areas have plagued the Vatican and the wider church in recent years, making it difficult for many people to see Catholicism as a vehicle for compassion. Francis has set up three commissions to ponder reform, including a body of eight cardinals from around the world set to hold its first meeting in Rome from October 1-3. If those groups don’t deliver significant recommendations, which are embraced and implemented by the pope, once again his rhetoric about reforming the church may ring hollow. Popes play many roles, including prophet and CEO. Francis has delivered a stunning debut as the church’s voice of conscience and spiritual guide; now he has to get down to the brass tacks of management to make sure it doesn’t go to waste. John L. Allen Jr. is CNN’s senior Vatican analyst and senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.
Next entry »Ex-pope breaks silence, denies cover up
« Previous entryConservatives 'disturbed' by pope's remarks
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Believing in there being a "Big Bang Universe" such as the one we find ourselves in, then just exactly how many "Big Bang Universes" will it take to fill up the infinity of Space itself..? Was our Big Bang Universe the first universe to be established or were there millions maybe even billions of Big Bang Universes created before our Big Bang Universe finally came into being..?
Godless Vagabond
I've told you before, Lame Lamb. The answer is 17!
after months of research I have also concluded that the correct answer is 17.
I thought it was 42 but I like where you are going with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWB6Yhxqy5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWB6Yhxqy5k
..
Man, her face looks as blank as her brain must be.
Stan or Kyle: What do ManBearPig droppings look like?
Al Gore: Kind of like pig droppings but more man-bear like.
The denial never seems to end.
You provide evidence that humans came from a common ancestor with other apes, you provide evidence that a common designer is true, and brainwashed people ignore it and make inane analogies to water comprising most of life.
Wow.
Godless Vagabond
It's futile to argue with people like that. They're wrong on such a basic level that they'll never understand the more subtle concepts. It's like trying to explain quantum theory to someone who doesn't even know basic arithmetic.
The sad part is, evolution is not abstract, it is observable. QM is extremely abstract and I can understand why it is hard to grasp.
I will examine your evidence, post it.
Hard to do, Robert. Evidence might be presented that you have a common ancestor with modern apes and it could be rejected, even though the same sort of evidence might be accepted if it showed you have a common ancestor with modern Swedes.
The most simplest evidence to support evolution I can think of is drug trials (show the similarity between species) and immunity to drugs that certain organisms develop over time (survival of the fittest?).
RB,
There are entire libraries filled with evidence, but below a few examples were provided.
Human and Chimpanzee DNA is more than 98% the same. 18 of our chromosomes are almost identical. One of our chromosomes is the fusion of 2 Chimpanzee chromosomes,...
All evidence is that there is no designer. If there were, our bodies wouldn't have scores of design errors in them (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve).
Not evidence but an endorsement: Dr. Francis Collins, a devout fundamentalist Christian and a brilliant scientist (led the Human Genome Project), has definitively stated that evolution is a fact, new species through evolution is a fact, and intelligent design is false.
Frankly, I don't think you have the innate intelligence to evaluate the evidence, Robert Brown.
robbie, you post your evidence that there is a "god", and we will examine it
Would you like to meet God, Sam?
It is useless to talk to a person like LoA.. a person who puts fingers in ears and yells "LALALA" and then complains that he can not hear anything..
But hey, I can not help take a stab at him either.. LoA, Since you seem to support there is a creator, I think that creator is Zeus and you are DEAD WRONG to put you marbles on this Charlton called Jesus. You should be ashamed to follow a false god. You MUST repent and forgo that false god or you will BURN in HELL for ETERNITY. Is that what you want? why won't you see the reason and GIVE UP the false god. Don't you want to save your soul?
🙂
bostontola
"The denial never seems to end......................."
Do YOU deny the possibility that the evolution fairy tale could be part of the "strong delusion"??
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
5 pope articles in a row (OK, one ex-pope) after 4 Rick Warren articles. Hmm, wassup, CNN. Is that what produces ad views the best?
Maybe you should do an article on how the Pope and Rick Warren are betrothed to each other. That'll get you some views!
Pope's new rules: there aint no rules. Anything goes. let us welcome sin AND sinners. they have always said "love the sinner hate the sin". guess that wasnt enough for the PC crowd.
What would be your plan for "sinners"?
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Paul's quotes in Romans:
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
5 pope articles in a row (OK, one ex-pope) after 4 Rick Warren articles. Hmm, wassup, CNN. Is that what produces ad views the best?
Maybe you should do an article on how the Pope and Rick Warren are betrothed to each other. That'll get you some views!
Good Tom, you're on the right track, keep reading.
Rather than slap at Tom, Robert Brown as you just tried, you are clearly the one who needs to do more critical reading of your Christian book of nasty. Atheists generally know your horrid bible better than Christians do. Some choice selections from the horrors demanded of you or threatened by your human rights abusing sky fairy in your nasty bible:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Bob
"evils are sufferable"
" reduce them under absolute Despotism"
"absolute Tyranny over these"
"fatiguing them into compliance"
"compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny"
"undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions"
These are the words of your founders taken from the Declaration of Independence, your sico representatives who unanimously signed what was written. I know it makes sense to you Bob
fred, you are apparently incapable of making sense to any reasonable person.
Bob
Get real, when you pull 8 verses out of 31,583 verses and believe that represents the God of Abraham you are the one with a reality issue.
I did exactly to the Declaration of Independence what you do to the Bible. Do you get the picture?
Somehow, Bob has the power to 'selective reasoning', whole passages makes no sense to him, only incomplete sentences and verses.
I am looking forward to fred telling us in what context he thinks it is acceptable to commit genocide, except of course you don't have to kill the v.irgins.
Bob
How lucky for our country that they prayed and asked for Gods approval before signing the Declaration:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
Would the Supreme Judge of the world give you two thumbs up on the rectitude of your intentions when you post such evil as you do?
fred, the Declaration of Independence is not claimed to be the word of a god, and your comparison is invalid for that and other reasons. Note my prior comments about "context" in view of the purported work of a divine being. Here they are below, again, since you did apparently not read them the first time. Note also that I am only present a few out of hundreds of quotes from your horrid holy book that demonstrate that your sky fairy, if it existed, would be a human rights abuser and murderer, as well as an aide to heinous crimes:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
fred, the Declaration of Independence is not claimed to be the word of a god, and your comparison is invalid for that and other reasons. Note my prior comments about "context" in view of the purported work of a divine being. Here they are below, again, since you did apparently not read them the first time. Note also that I am only presenting a few out of hundreds of quotes from your horrid holy book that demonstrate that your sky fairy, if it existed, would be a human rights abuser and murderer, as well as an aide to heinous crimes:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Joey
They context is found in Romans 8:28 where all things work to the good of those who believe in Christ. The context is found throughout the Bible beginning with the light God spoke into the darkness of an abyss which set loose the creation we call existence. All of creation continues its miraculous expanse of awe before your presence as the glory of God reaches its fullness. That is the context.
If you are an atheist then extinction of entire species is not genocide it is simply a process. You cannot argue against God while embracing the process you claim is neither good or bad. An atheist has no footing to create their vision of God without knowledge or facts concerning God. If God does not exist there is no good or bad and by extension evil. Thus whatever negative quotes Bob thinks he has found cannot apply to God because there is no evil and no genocide simply the process moving forward without purpose or meaning.
Apparently as long as the person committing genocide believes in Jesus then Fred is o.k. with it. That seems pretty messed up to me.
Bob
Sorry but atheists cannot have it both ways.
"your sky fairy, if it existed, would be a human rights abuser and murderer, as well as an aide to heinous crimes"
=>God as known by those who knew God better than you or I ever could (Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Saul of Tarsus etc) is not anything like the vision you attempt to paint. If I paint a picture of a pink flying elephant for you and say look here is a picture of a pink elephant that fly's therefore pink elephants fly that is nonsense. This is what you do. You show your vision of God then say see God is evil.
=>The existence of God is not a function of your poor painting or visualization skills.
=>If you want to slap the God of Abraham around at least slap the God of Abraham around not the god of Bob
Joey
No, if the Bible gives us the correct vision of God then the only "genocide" was that brought about by the evil ways of man (such as Stalin) not God. The Bible is about Gods way which is pure. Those in Christ are part of an eternal life in unity with God which is the purpose of creation.
Genocide does not fit that picture unless evil is allowed to continue. The Bible says the light was shinning in the darkness but the darkness did not comprehend it. Genocide does not stand up to the light of Christ.
I will wipe away every tear says the Lord. This means the evil that is genocide will be wiped away.
In the New Testament we see Jesus so that we can relate to the goodness of God. The love the is God is clearly displayed. Genocide is note part of that picture. What is part of that picture is how painful the things men do to others is to God.
fred, both your religion and your "reasoning" are very messed up. Your belief in your genocidal, human rights -abusing, hateful sky creature and your support of the blood cult around it is an embarrassment to humanity.
Godless Vagabond
It's the battle of the bible-quoters, folks. Place your bets.
I hear you, but I'll note that even one error in the bible (actually there are many), or one instance of a lack of mercy by god (many examples of that too) blows away Christian claims that it is the word of the deity that they claim exists and is in their claims so benevolent.
Bob,
Justice called and mercy answered.
Again, Robert Brown, read my quotes from your Christian book of nasty above. That is the "mercy" of your fictitious ass hole in the sky, so no thanks, please keep your disgusting god delusion to yourself. Silently.
I would not have the arrogance to have a "plan" for sinners. I would just pray for them, and the group or church would lead them in the right direction if they are willing. Sins are forgiven but only if there is sincere repentance.
Soldier, What do you get out of this?
Satan: Then, at midnight for dessert, I was thinking we could bring out a giant chocolate fondue fountain.
Hotel owner: Oh yeah. P. Diddy had his birthday here a couple of years back and he had one of those.
Satan: Oh, screw that then. I don't want a fondue fountain if P. Diddy had one.
Satan's minion: Does it matter?
Satan: Yes, it matters! I don't want to do it if Diddy did it.
Satan's minion: How about a donut machine?
Satan: [to hotel owner] Did Diddy do it?
Hotel owner: Diddy did do it.
Satan: A full ice cream bar!
Hotel owner: Diddy did it.
Satan: Dammit, what didn't Diddy do?!
I'll take a good rationalization over denial any day. The Ptolemaic epicycles to preserve the Geocentric worldview is preferential to flat out denial of a Heliocentric system. It's amazing that in the 21st century, fact denial persists, especially when perfectly good rationalizations exist.
Evolution is a fact, it is directly observable in nature and the laboratory. Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact, it is a scientific model to explain the observable fact. As in most (if not all) scientific models and theories, there are simplifications, details left out (i.e. it is incomplete), and sometimes even errors. That doesn't negate the observable fact that living things evolve.
Just claim your god uses evolution to do it's work of creation, denial is most unbecoming.
Organisms adapt. Fish do not turn into amphibians, pigs don't sprout wings, and frogs don't turn into princes. In kindergarten they call that fairy tales, in evolutionary classrooms, they call that fact.
It's true. Evolution doesn't even stand up to the basic standards of science.
Topher, neither does religion so you can't really use that argument.
Joey
Depends on which religion and which part in that religion you're talking about.
Dr. Francis Collins, a devout fundamentalist Christian and a brilliant scientist (led the Human Genome Project), has definitively stated that evolution is a fact, new species through evolution is a fact, and intelligent design is false.
bostontola
Perhaps then you can provide evidence of a new species through evolution. (Note: I'm against "intelligent design", too.)
Well, I do not know who this Collins is, but the two ideas of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. IF this person claims Christianity, then he's not getting that definition from the Bible. To claim to be a Christian is to be a "Christ's Ones" and Jesus affirmed Genesis...
Human and Chimpanzee DNA is more than 98% the same. 18 of our chromosomes are almost identical. One of our chromosomes is the fusion of 2 Chimpanzee chromosomes,...
There is tons of evidence, and no evidence to the contrary.
Bostontola, humans are chimps are 98% the same? Well, watermellons are 99% water, does that make them the same? What about jellyfish, they're 99% water, does that mean they're related to watermelons? What about clouds... Don't be ridiculous.
That is not evidence for a common ancestor. IT's evidence for a common DESIGNER...
bostontola
"Human and Chimpanzee DNA is more than 98% the same."
Not quite true. The DNA is 98% of 2%.
"There is tons of evidence, and no evidence to the contrary."
You'll have to do better than that. Please give evidence of one thing becoming a new thing.
False analogy, Lawrence. Water does not encode information to the degree that DNA does. We can deduce inheritance and species lineage from DNA and other evidence, and the resultant picture is very far from the biblical creation myths.
LoA,
All evidence is that there is no designer. If there were, our bodies wouldn't have scores of design errors in them (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve).
Topher,
what I stated was solid evidence. I don't understand you % argument.
Lawrence,
You're mixing your arguments. 98% of Human DNA matches Chimp DNA. Humans are 60% water.
That is evidence for a common ancestor. Only someone who is wilfully deluded could believe it is evidence for a designer.
Wht do you think scientists experiment on chimps, dogs, rats, fish, etc.? It's because they are in the human line of descent.
Topher, Give evidence for water into wine, person into salt, Noah's flood, person living in fish, etc.
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for creationism and most bible stories.
Evolution is easy to observe in simple systems. Conway's Game of Life is a favorite. Random patterns give rise to patterns with features that obviously improve survival and stability. More complex systems depend on evolution in obvious ways – such as genetic algorithms that "breed" solutions to optimization problems (and have other applications as well).
"Humans and chimps have 98% common DNA"
-cyto-C is just one of the thousands of sequences and is not proof of common ancestry, a study of the amino acid make-up reveals that man is closer to lamprey than are fish.
–what does this prove that man evolved from lamprey rather than fish???
'evolution is easy to observe'
-Micro-Yes, Macro-No!
Try to distinguish evidence and proof. Science isn't in the proof game.
bostontola
"I don't understand you % argument."
It's 98% of protein DNA, which is only 2% of DNA.
So it's 98% of the DNA that codes for our construction, and 98% of the DNA tested. Very compelling evidence.
bostontola
You still haven't provided proof of evolution. What can we show was one creation that became a completely different creature?
Topher
An animal that has shown evolution is the dog (canids familiaris) is a direct descendant of the wolf (canis lupis). They are clearly similar but different, and the dog would not exist if not for HUMANS interfering with EVOLUTION, creating the variety of dog varieties we have toiday.
Humans domesticated the wolf, and through selective breeding has created the dog.
Topher,
Science is not in the proof business. It generates ideas that explain nature (theories, models, etc) and tests them. When there is a lot of testable evidence consistent with the theory, and no evidence conflicting with the theory, it is accepted (not proven). No theory describing life on earth has evidence as huge as evolution (any evidence at all), and there is no conflicting evidence to evolution.
Richard Cranium
"An animal that has shown evolution is the dog (canids familiaris) is a direct descendant of the wolf (canis lupis)."
So your evidence is that a canine became a canine? That's not evolution. That's natural selection.
Topher
Yes one type of animal became another type of animal. Continue the process....after a long period of time, you will not be able to recognise the two were once one. It is an example of evolution. Deny all you want, but it is PROOF positive that time and external sources CHANGE species.
Keep denying all you want. The rest of the world has already moved on, continue to be wrong.
bostontola
"Science is not in the proof business."
That's not true.
"It generates ideas that explain nature (theories, models, etc) and tests them."
Right. Science is when something is testable and repeatable. Nothing about evolution meets those requirements. And as far as the "generates ideas" part ... reminds me of the saying, "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do."
"When there is a lot of testable evidence consistent with the theory, and no evidence conflicting with the theory, it is accepted (not proven)."
There's no testable evidence consistant with the theory. And thus the evidence conflicting with the theory is ... that there's no evidence consistant with the theory.
Yeah, and lions and tigers and cheetahs and leopards are all just cats.
There is no observable evidence for evolution, that is why it will remain a 'theory' till another 'theory' takes over!
Richard Cranium
"Yes one type of animal became another type of animal."
They did? Which ones?
"Continue the process....after a long period of time, you will not be able to recognise the two were once one. It is an example of evolution."
I can't tell my lab puppy and a wolf are related? Ridiculous.
"Deny all you want, but it is PROOF positive that time and external sources CHANGE species."
There are changes, yes. But it's not evolution. For that you need a change of kinds, and you don't have that in wolves and labs.
"Keep denying all you want. The rest of the world has already moved on, continue to be wrong."
I guess I just don't have as much faith as you do ....
Typical Christian
"Yeah, and lions and tigers and cheetahs and leopards are all just cats."
Felines. Yes.
Topher
There's no testable evidence consistant with the theory of creationism. And thus the evidence conflicting with the theory is ... that there's no evidence consistant with the theory.
Topher,
Your assertion that there is no evidence is baseless. I have given you a sampling. Your rejection of evidence that you don't like doesn't invalidate it, it demonstrates your bias. The incredible vast majority of scientists regard evolution as a scientific fact, recognize mountains of evidence. Many of these scientists are religious. If that vast majority of scientists say it is fact and conforms to the scientific method, why do you think you are more qualified to judge that? There are physicists and chemists that have switched to biology, they all agree, it's not like only evolutionary biologists are off the reservation.
bostontola
"Your assertion that there is no evidence is baseless. I have given you a sampling."
No, you haven't. All I've seen so far is that we have a small amount of common DNA and that wolves became dogs. Neither proves a thing and the dog-thing is NOT evolution by its most basic definition.
"Your rejection of evidence that you don't like doesn't invalidate it, it demonstrates your bias."
I'll admit I'm biased. I have a presupposition to it just like you do. But I demand proof. Which there isn't any.
"The incredible vast majority of scientists regard evolution as a scientific fact, recognize mountains of evidence."
Then they should provide some.
"Many of these scientists are religious."
That has no relevance.
"If that vast majority of scientists say it is fact and conforms to the scientific method, why do you think you are more qualified to judge that?"
But it doesn't conform to the scientific method. We just discussed this. And if the majority of scientists tell me it does, I question their credentials.
fake darwin, Look up what a theory means in the scientific sense. Then explain why evolution is not a theory. The evidence for evolution is so vast that it is accepted as fact; there is no evidence for creationism including the fundamental requirement – a creator.
What qualifies you the qualifications to question the credentials of almost every evolutionary biologist?
Topher,
What I provided is evidence. Maybe you are thinking of proof. I already said, science isn't in the proof business.
Human and Chimpanzee DNA is more than 98% the same. 18 of our chromosomes are almost identical. One of our chromosomes is the fusion of 2 Chimpanzee chromosomes,...
All evidence is that there is no designer. If there were, our bodies wouldn't have scores of design errors in them (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve).
Not evidence but an endorsement: Dr. Francis Collins, a devout fundamentalist Christian and a brilliant scientist (led the Human Genome Project), has definitively stated that evolution is a fact, new species through evolution is a fact, and intelligent design is false.
bostontola
"What qualifies you the qualifications to question the credentials of almost every evolutionary biologist?"
Anyone should question what they are told. I don't need qualifications. And if a biologist tells me something has met the scientific method, when it has not, then they are a liar. And thus why SHOULDN'T I question them?
"What I provided is evidence. Maybe you are thinking of proof. I already said, science isn't in the proof business."
But what you've provided is not evolution. A wolf over a lot of generations becoming a dog is natural selection. There isn't a change of kinds. They're still canines (or dogs, if you will).
"Human and Chimpanzee DNA is more than 98% the same."
Again, that's misleading. It's 98% of only 2% of DNA.
"All evidence is that there is no designer. If there were, our bodies wouldn't have scores of design errors in them (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve)."
There's plenty of evidence of a creator. And our bodies aren't perfect due to the fall. (You'll have to explain to me what a laryngeal nerve is.)
"Not evidence but an endorsement: Dr. Francis Collins, a devout fundamentalist Christian and a brilliant scientist (led the Human Genome Project), has definitively stated that evolution is a fact, new species through evolution is a fact, and intelligent design is false."
If it's a fact he should be able to demonstrate it. Until he can, it's not a fact. What's sad is there isn't even evidence to suggest it's worth having faith in.
Would you agree that in the evolutionary theory it says our evolution is continuing to make us better than our previous generations?
A wolf becoming a dog is artificial selection. That is also evolution.
98% of protein coding DNA is not misleading at all, it is compelling evidence. I also question everything. To question the credentials of entire population of a scientific field with no basis is just absurd.
Here you go Topher. This is an example of one species of e-coli evolving into another species in a lab.
In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in the population called Ara-3: the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment. Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions, referred to as a Cit- phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found clones in this population could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition.
Now please read this sentence again: Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions, referred to as a Cit- phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella
There you have one species becoming another species. Of course you will just claim they are both e-coli, but you are a moron so.
Yes, question everything. Except for the Bible, it is the Word of God and doesn't need to be questioned.
Topher
The laryngeal nerve goes from the brain to the larynx. The distance from the brain to the larynx is about 4 inches. The nerve actually runs all the way down to the heart, loops around the aorta, and then back up to the neck – that's nearly 2 feet. What is worse is that in a giraffe the recurrent laryngeal nerve is 15 feet long. Evolution explains that this detour is the result of our aquatic ancestors, fish.
Read Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" for a better explantion and much more evidence of evolution.
bostontola
"A wolf becoming a dog is artificial selection. That is also evolution."
Artificial?
It's microevolution, sure. But not Darwinian evolution. It's still a canine. Evolution says it becomes a different KIND. You don't have that here.
"98% of protein coding DNA is not misleading at all, it is compelling evidence."
All I ask is that you make it that specific. It's usually stated as "98% of DNA" which is completely misleading. Because that 98% makes up only 2% of DNA.
Topher there is no such thing as "kinds" in science. Wolves and dogs are two different species and therefore an example of evolution. You can't just make up a new classification system that nobody uses and then use it to try and prove that evolution doesn't happen.
Typical Christian
"Yes, question everything. Except for the Bible, it is the Word of God and doesn't need to be questioned."
You can question the Bible. Look into it for yourself. I did. That's why I believe it to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. And at least the Bible doesn't change its stance every year or two. It is unchanging. And thus can be trusted.
Joey
"Topher there is no such thing as "kinds" in science."
http://www.biology-online.org ... KIND — Race; genus; species; generic class; as, in mankind or humankind.
"Wolves and dogs are two different species and therefore an example of evolution. You can't just make up a new classification system that nobody uses and then use it to try and prove that evolution doesn't happen."
Wolves and dogs are both canines. You can even interbreed them. Sorry, I'm not making this stuff up. I thought you guys were supposed to be the ones so involved in holding up science.
Topher,"
That's why I believe it to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. And at least the Bible doesn't change its stance every year or two. It is unchanging. And thus can be trusted."
So you've never improved your knowledge? The bible reflects the knowledge of Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribes; we know much more than that now. That the bible doesn't reflect current knowledge is not a desirable state.
Topher,
The domestication of plants and animals has been named artificial selection since Darwin's time.
Topher
"All I ask is that you make it that specific. It's usually stated as "98% of DNA" which is completely misleading. Because that 98% makes up only 2% of DNA."
If stated the way you prefer would you be convinced about evolution?
Topher,
See my comment near the top of the page showing that evolution stands up to the basic standards of science.
In Santa we trust
"So you've never improved your knowledge?"
I'm an avid reader. I "improve my knowledge" all the time. What is it that you are implying?
"The bible reflects the knowledge of Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribes; we know much more than that now. That the bible doesn't reflect current knowledge is not a desirable state."
The Bible reflects history and what God revealed to man about Himself. What knowledge would you like the Bible to be updated on?
In Santa we trust
"If stated the way you prefer would you be convinced about evolution?"
No. There's still no evidence that it's true. And even if it WERE 98% of DNA, all that proves is that we have similar traits. Doesn't prove my grandfather was an ape.
Topher, I didn't mention your grandfather. Humans appeared maybe 200,000 years ago. There is no evidence for creationism. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. The bible incorrectly states many things that our knowledge shows are not correct – creation of the universe, creation of life on earth, Noah's flood, all kinds of miracles, Lot's wife, Jonah, etc.
Our knowledge shows that the superstitions of Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribes is incorrect and not a valid basis for our beliefs.
In Santa we trust
"Topher, I didn't mention your grandfather."
You didn't have to. I know what evolution teaches.
"Humans appeared maybe 200,000 years ago."
Where did you get that number?
"There is no evidence for creationism."
That's subjective.
"There is a mountain of evidence for evolution."
OK. Then let's see it.
"The bible incorrectly states many things that our knowledge shows are not correct – creation of the universe, creation of life on earth, Noah's flood, all kinds of miracles, Lot's wife, Jonah, etc."
Miracles would be something outside of the natural, so you really can't use that in your argument. And I'd disagree there's no evidence of a worldwide flood. But that other stuff ... that's historical science. It's not testable nor repeatable — thus it's not really science. So it hasn't disproven anything. Granted you can believe them to be true, but it takes faith on your part.
"Our knowledge shows that the superst.itions of Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribes is incorrect and not a valid basis for our beliefs."
Logical fallacy. The fact they lived a long time ago does not prove their beliefs false.
evolution does not stand up to science?
let me guess, gopher, your belief does
you have been blathering about evidence since you have been on these blogs, but have not provided any
are you going to do it this time, or are you going to honor your gopher nickname and hide?
sam stone
"evolution does not stand up to science?"
How could it? You've got no physical evidence and it's something that happened millions of years ago. How is it then testable or repeatable?
"let me guess, gopher, your belief does"
You can't just throw all of my beliefs in and say yes or no. You'd have to take each thing and see if it can be put to science's test.
bostontola among others has pointed to loads of evidence: geographical distribution, DNA, tree of life, common descent, etc.
I understand that you must cling to your Bronze Age myths but you can't honestly believe that your dishonesty is not obvious. The only "evidence" for creationism is the bible yet despite the mountain of evidence for evolution you choose to believe in creationism which clearly does not meet any scientific standards; it doesn't even meet your standard of being reproducible before you'll believe.
Topher, Where is your evidence for creationism?
In Santa we trust
"bostontola among others has pointed to loads of evidence: geographical distribution, DNA, tree of life, common descent, etc."
The only thing that MIGHT be used as evidence for evolution in this discussion was that we have less than 2% DNA in common with chimps. Not something I'd be shouting from the rooftops for my position. And even if you did use all that as evidence, the fact is evolution isn't proven. Yet you teach it as fact. You teach it to children, yet complain when we teach Creation in the same manner. Face it, you don't have a single piece of evidence that demonstrates one thing becoming a completely different thing — a change of kinds. So believe it if you want to, but admit its taken on faith.
"I understand that you must cling to your Bronze Age myths but you can't honestly believe that your dishonesty is not obvious."
I haven't been dishonest in anything. What are you saying I lied about?
"The only "evidence" for creationism is the bible yet despite the mountain of evidence for evolution you choose to believe in creationism which clearly does not meet any scientific standards; it doesn't even meet your standard of being reproducible before you'll believe."
That's just fallacious that the Bible is the only evidence. But yes, I do believe in Creationism because I think it makes more sense. However, it is your side's position that shouts through a bullhorn "Science! Science! Science!" Yet the very thing that is your god in your worldview — evolution — can't be proven by science. In fact, can't even meet the standards of the scientific method.
Topher "The fact they lived a long time ago does not prove their beliefs false."
That's true but that's not what I said. Their myths about creation have been proven incorrect by our advanced knowledge – Big Bang, evolution, geology, paleontology, etc. etc. etc. We know that an eclipse, an earthquake, a tsunami, etc. are not signs from a god but are explained by our knowledge of our environment which is far superior to theirs.
In Santa we trust
"Their myths about creation have been proven incorrect by our advanced knowledge – Big Bang, evolution"
Both Big Bang and evolution have NOT been proven. They are historical science and thus can't be tested or repeated.
" ....geology, paleontology, etc. etc. etc."
Too generalized.
"We know that an eclipse, an earthquake, a tsunami, etc. are not signs from a god but are explained by our knowledge of our environment which is far superior to theirs."
We can explain how these things happen in nature, yes, but that doesn't disprove that God made those things happen.
Just...wow. You folks missed a couple of years of high school bio.
You didn't pay attention in class, Lawrence. Evolutionary development occurs extremely gradually over hundreds of millions of years. Animals don't "sprout" anything.
Show me the vid.
Billy, I just laughed out loud. To bad there isn't a like button on here.
Robert, welcome to the lol fan club. Pithiest? I say yes.
humor's funny. I get the same hollow feeling from lol I get from watchuing the three stooges. Apearently allnthe folks who engage with him actually think he's serious. His humor seems to have a very narrow audience.
I'm starting to thing Lawrence is having us on, too.
Your assertion is based on nothing, the contrary view is based on mountains of fact based data. Those fairy tale classrooms generate scientists that create the medical drugs and equipment saving lives every day. How do you explain all the success of science that our society lives off of, if it believes in fairy tales?
Now that insult doesn't even make sense... Are you going to now discount all of the scientific discoveries and advances made by Christians?
And there is no evidence for evolution... There are data that can be observed in nature that point to one of two conclusions: either they did it themselves or God did it. The glasses you look through determine your response, and since the majority of those in biology are atheistic, since their desire to enter the sciences is to formulate a hypothesis for our existence without God, their bent is going to be towards the naturalistic explaination.
You didn't answer my question, and no, many scientists are Christian and the vast majority of them consider evolution a fact.
Besides it's not like anybody has ever used their Christianity to make any scientific discoveries.
I agree with Topher on this one. What does evolution have to do with creating drugs? OK, so we know how organisms can adapt to medications with immunities, how is THAT evolution? I'm talking about the "molecules to man" idea of evolution. Adaptation is built into our makeup, it's how we were created. But organisms do not change "kinds." and to follow evolution, that's what you must believe, that it's at least possible for a pig to be able to develop wings. After all, they believe that dinosaurs turned into birds, right?
Bostontola, your argument is false because you think that I believe that if they are enamored with fairy tales, then it is impossible for them to make any scoentific advances. That's not true. I can be a Star Trek fan, and still preach a sermon that is Biblically correct. Likewise, a scientist can be a fan of evolution, but still be able to make my flu shot this year.
Lawrence. ".. no evidence for evolution.." what are you smoking? There is so much evidence for evolution – tree of life, DNA, geographical distribution, viruses, etc. I'm pretty sure you meant to say "there is no evidence for creationism".
Lawrence,
"Likewise, a scientist can be a fan of evolution, but still be able to make my flu shot this year."
Evolution is why there is a different flu shot each year.
I wonder what new species humans will evolve into.
Loa
How is an organism that shows immunity to a drug evolution?
Simple. I I erradicate all but a small portion of a group of organisms with any external force such as a chemical or drug, the remainder of the organisms will resist that chemical. ALL that could not are dead, theones that could are still alive, and have a resistance to that chemical. You HAVE changed the organisms fate, desrtroying all with a certain weakness, making the ones that survive stronger. Do this enough times over a long period of time and the organism will change from the original to the point where it is a new species. You seem to want to see things evolve in a day (and you can with single celled organisms, but in more complex organisms, the mutations and changes occur at a very slow rate.
You might find an instance where a pig grew wings, but it unlikely they would function since the pig is not evolved for flight, it would not give any benefit to the pig, and would not likely be passed down as an advantage.
@Robrt brown
We are evolving into atheists.
Hopefully humans will eventually become cyborgs.
What does evolution have to do with creating drugs?
You have trouble following a simple argument. You said science classrooms are teaching fairy tales. How do people create medical advances if they are learning fairy tales?
Although I do believe evolution is a fairy tale, I'm not the one who said it. Second, I don't need to know jack about evolution to study chemicals and the like to create medicine.
Star Trek is not taught in a science classroom. That is your problem, you can't distinguish fiction from fact.
That has NOTHING to do with what I just said.
replied to the wrong string.
DNA and the fossil record tell a different story.
People don't live to be 900. People can't live inside a fish. People don't turn into salt. Water cannot be transformed into wine. People cannot walk on water, etc, etc. yet you believe it!!!
Miracles were for a sign to unbelievers to authenticate the message of those who spoke for God. Since we have the Word of God in written form now, we have that to authenticate any message, therefore miracles – although possible – are no longer needed.
Are you under the impression that your fairy tales have convinced the world's population? You're wrong on that score. You only have the circular logic of the believer – the bible is the word of god and god must exist because the bible says so.
It is useless to talk to a person like LoA.. a person who puts fingers in ears and yells "LALALA" and then complains that he can not hear anything..
But hey, I can not help take a stab at him either.. LoA, Since you seem to support there is a creator, I think that creator is Zeus and you are DEAD WRONG to put you marbles on this charlton called Jesus. You should be ashamed to follow a false god. You MUST repent and forgo that false god or you will BURN in HELL for ETERNITY. Is that what you want? why won't you see the reason and GIVE UP the false god. Don't you want to save your soul?
🙂
frogs don't turn into princes.
In a recent comment we observed that an ape was dreaming of kissing its "handsome boss" hoping to turn into something more pleasant 😉
Good and evil play out on planet earth. Ain't nobody else. You are in the center, so vote yer soul.
big E Evolution ex. monkey to man, land animal to whale, disparate irreducibly complex things like bacterial flagella, is just a THEORY.
small e evolution, llke black moths succeeding more after industrial revolution may be true but its on so small a scale.
big E E-volution ex. monkey to man, land animal to whale, disparate irreducibly complex things like bacterial flagella, is just a THEORY.
small e evolution, llke black moths succeeding more after industrial revolution may be true but its on so small a scale.
I see the board mod is deleting posts again.
Or it is malfunctioning.
Either way, I am tired of the same old tired arguments the believers keep floating up to try to justify the unbelievable.
Face it believers, god does not exist, and you have zero evidence to prove me wrong.
Billy da kid
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Well, leave then instead of killin' posts. It is a belief blog.
Same here now. Almost all of my post are flagged "waiting moderation" now. Atheists cannot seem to take the heat.
That is becuase the moderator doesn't like to see people make a fool of themselves on the internet. I would leave all of your posts up just so people could see how dumb religion can make them if they let it.
L4H, this happens to everybody; please stop acting as if you are somehow suppressed, or that atheists are doing it. What an inflated ego you have. Get over yourself.
Lol?? Self-moderates when s/he doesn't like the answers s/he's getting. Does it all the time.
Can any of you christians explain why Galiloe was charged with heresy twice?
If the bible didn't claim the world was flat and the sun moved around the earth, Galileo would not have had any dissagreement with the pope.
He should have had a LOT of disagreements with the pope.
Topher,
Yeah, like that The Bible is the words of any god!
Of course it's the Word of God.
Religion: the word of man trying to convince other men that it is the word of God...
* yawn *
I agree with Topher, the bible is pretty boring.
Ha! So what you're saying is you've never read it.
Of course I have read. How could I declare that it is boring if I hadn't?
Because I don't think anyone who has read it could declare it boring. You might reject it, but it's certainly NOT boring.
Well Topher, I find it to be incredibly boring. If you need to tell yourself that I haven't read it so that you will be able to sleep at night then that is fine by me, but having spent my entire life in Christian schools I can tell you that I have studied every chapter in the bible in some detail.
Like I've been saying, christians can't even admit to what their bible says.
What does the Bible supposedly say?
@topher
My most recent posts involve the bible saying te world is flat, and that souls are sent to hell forever through no fault of their own.
Which would you like to discuss?.
Alias
"My most recent posts involve the bible saying te world is flat, and that souls are sent to hell forever through no fault of their own. Which would you like to discuss?."
The Bible never says the world is flat and I've defended that over and over again. Let's go with the other topic. I apologize for not catching what you've said before, so do you care to give me a quick synopsis?
Topher,
The bible clearly says that the only way to heaven is through jesus.
Many people have lived and dies without ever hearing of christianity or jesus.
Therfore, they are all in hell.
Alias
"The bible clearly says that the only way to heaven is through jesus. Many people have lived and dies without ever hearing of christianity or jesus. Therfore, they are all in hell."
OK, but you said they are in Hell through no fault of their own. That's not true. They are in Hell because they broke God's laws and deserved to be punished.
I'm not sure i understand your reasoning.
Let me try a specific example – before the Europeans arrived in North America, none of the local population ever heard of jesus. Any native anerican that lived and died before 1482 is in hell. It doesn't matter how they lived. When god out sould into those babbies, he condemned them to hell forever.
What am I missing here?
Alias
"I'm not sure i understand your reasoning."
OK. I'll try to help there ...
"Let me try a specific example – before the Europeans arrived in North America, none of the local population ever heard of jesus. Any native anerican that lived and died before 1482 is in hell. It doesn't matter how they lived."
Actually it DOES matter. The Bible says ALL have sinned. You take any of those native peoples and peer into their lives, they've lied, stolen, looked with lust, created idols, didn't respect their parents. If they've done any of those things, they deserve to be punished. And that's why they are in Hell. Not because they didn't hear about Jesus.
"When god out sould into those babbies, he condemned them to hell forever."
Sorry dude ... not sure what you are trying to say here.
Topher
I have trouble beleiving a typo has you that confused-
When god PUT those souls into those people, he knew they would be spending eternity in hell.
They had zero chance for salvation.
That is not justice. That is not the act of a loving, caring god.
Topher, some of the Native Americans could be in heaven if god had bothered to let them in on the whole Jesus thing. YOu seem to think that is somehow fair? Everyone is a sinner, and you can't get to heaven unless you believe in Jesus, but god doesn't even give you a chance to hear about Jesus during your lifetime, and you go to hell. You are o.k. with that scenario?
Alias
"When god PUT those souls into those people, he knew they would be spending eternity in hell."
True enough. God knows the future for everyone, so He knows where you'll ultimately spend eternity as well.
"They had zero chance for salvation."
I'm not sure I can completely agree with that. By that standard, you'd probably have to say that anyone in the OT would be in Hell, too, but we know that's not the case. Those people before Christ were credited grace based on their faith God was going to provide a Savior. It's all over the OT and those people looked forward to that day.
"That is not justice. That is not the act of a loving, caring god."
Again, I disagree. If you go to prison because you didn't pay for hundreds of parking tickets, it's just for the judge to punish you for the crimes you committed even if someone could have paid the fines for you.
Topher,
You are intentionally avioding the point.
If you think eveyone who lived before jesus is also in hell, fine.
My point is that according to your bible, many souls were condemned to hell as soon as they were born. It does not matter how they lived or how many sins you want to assume they committed.
Do you really think that is acceptable?
Alias
"You are intentionally avoiding the point."
I don't believe I avoided anything. I answered your question.
"If you think everyone who lived before Jesus is also in hell, fine."
I don't think that at all. Maybe you need to reread my post.
"My point is that according to your bible, many souls were condemned to hell as soon as they were born. It does not matter how they lived or how many sins you want to assume they committed."
No. The Bible says that God gave us the Creation and a conscience to know He exists, so we are without excuse. And it says that if we seek Him, we will find Him.
"Do you really think that is acceptable?"
You should probably be more specific with the question. Do I find it acceptable that God punishes lawbreakers? Yes. It's just.
This again? Topher, how about babies that are born that are only a few hours old that die? How in the holy hell have they sinned? How in the holy hell can you justify them being sent to Hell?
Yesterday you accuse me of a strawman argument, (and I have my doubts you even know what that is) because you insisted that Billy Boingo Boingo HAD to have sinned somehow; the Bible says so. So what are the sins of babies who breathe only for an hour before they die? Are you saying that it is now a sin even being BORN?
Anon
"Topher, how about babies that are born that are only a few hours old that die? How in the holy hell have they sinned? How in the holy hell can you justify them being sent to Hell?"
I don't justify sending them to Hell. Babies and children are given grace and allowed into Heaven based on the age of accountability.
"Are you saying that it is now a sin even being BORN?"
The Bible does say we are born in sin, but I'm pretty sure that has to do with being born with a sin nature. So ... see my answer above. Babies and children are given grace.
Topher, why did god not want to give the Native American's a chance to get into heaven by telling them about Jesus? Why did he let 1,500 years go by before he let them in on the secret to ever lasting life?
Godless Vagabond
What is the age of accountability? One year? Five years? 10 years? Does god keep track of this? Or does he have some helpers? Inquiring minds want to know, Topher. Please answer.
Joey
My earlier answer ..."The Bible says that God gave us the Creation and a conscience to know He exists, so we are without excuse. And it says that if we seek Him, we will find Him." So I couldn't definitely say for sure no native americans were saved.
Billy da kid
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You talkin' 'bout Galileo Galilei, the famous rap artist??
@Alias : Galileo would not have had any dissagreement with the pope.
So you think mocking another person's view is NOT grounds for a disagreement? Strange. When Galileo's character presenting the Pope's viewpoint was named "Simpleton", it was obvious to all that Galileo was mocking the Pope.
What is your proof that his scientific discovery was just mockery?
Galileo's error is that he didn't confine his theories to the scientific. At a time when the Church controlled large swaths of education as well as governmental concerns, he arrogantly insisted his theory of heliocentrism be declared dogmatic and he publicly insulted the hierarchy of the Church which had previously been his supporters and patrons. While his theory that the sun is the center of the universe is technically an upgrade from previous models of an earth centric universe, he was still incorrect and the Church was right to refrain from placing a papal imprimatur on his work. Otherwise, everyone would be saying how the Church got it wrong. The human element enters the equation due to the public ridicule Galileo laid on the pope but the charge of heresy was dropped and Galileo lived in relative comfort the rest of his life although under house arrest and was never excommunicated.
"Galileo's error is that he didn't confine his theories to the scientific"
Way to blame the guy who was telling the truth, Bill.
He wasn't telling the truth Richard. He claimed the sun was the center of the universe. Is that the truth?
Bill, With the technology available then all they could measure was the solar system. The church didn't resist because they thought Galileo wasn't thinking about the universe, they resisted because he challenged their dogma.
My sense is that they resisted because they are inclined to change slowly and prudently and in the face of an uncertain theory decided to stick with what they already had. A natural conservative tendency in organizations. Had Galileo played his hand a little more subtly we might not be having this conversation again and again.
Bill that is a bunch of nonsense. They did it because the church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the church thought they could never be wrong so instead of admitting they were wrong they tried to shut him up.
Thank you Bill.
You just admitted that hs theory did not comform to the teachings of the church.
That means either the sun is not the center of the solar system or the bible is wrong.
That is not what I admitted but it's a nice twist. What I said was that Galileo wanted the Church to declare his theory to be the teaching of the Church and they properly refused. He got his panties in a wad and threw a fit.
Bill,
Twisting statements is the practice of christians.
His theory was not accepted by the church because it did not match what the church was teaching. Don't use the fact that his theory was incomplete as a red herring.
His theory proved the church wrong about the sun, just like evolution proves the church wrong again.
Galileo proved the earth was not the center of the universe physically but I suspect no one had developed the discussion that the earth was the center of creation as far as human life was concerned. It was just accepted that the center meant the center. But if you know all the answers, why did you bring up this tired old question anyway? I thought you wanted an explanation from a Christian perspective. Seems as if you just want to dredge up ancient history as if it's evidence that the Church is anti science, which is demonstrably false.
Christian doctrine actually contradicts itself regarding the shape of the earth (and on many other subjects). It isn't even self-consistent.
Galileo's error is that he didn't confine his theories to the scientific. At a time when the Church controlled large swaths of education as well as government, he arrogantly insisted his theory be declared dogmatic and he publicly insulted the hierarchy of the Church, which had previously been his supporter and patron. While his theory that the sun is the center of the universe is technically an upgrade from previous models of an earth centric universe, he was still incorrect and the Church was right to refrain from placing a papal imprimatur on his work. Otherwise, everyone would be saying how the Church got it wrong. The human element enters the equation due to the public ridiicule Galileo laid on the pope but the charge of heresy was dropped and Galileo lived in relative comfort the rest of his life although under house arrest and was never excommunicated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowc
Billy da kid
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Don't see no cigars or ashtrays. You want me to play a vid of girlymen BS'en??
christians that don't believe in evolution -
the world was made by magic is a better explanation for you?
XD
magic/ miracle = tomato/ tomato
Of course Funkybooty, make believe land is so much more fun then the real world.
Because in make believe land, anything is possible.....
Apparently, "I don't know" is a better explanation from you?!?
It is better than just making up an explanation with no evidence to back it up.
Yes, that is a better answer, because it is the truth.
We don't know, yet, how everything in the universe works and how the big bang started.
But the evidence, from every field of science is overwhelming that no creator or god as in the babble exists.
If you believers want to keep your imaginary friend alive, fine.
But don't try to pass it off as fact, because it is not.
Hell, you believers can't even decide which of your various myths you want to go with as the "truth" of a god(s).
There are so many to chose from it is mind boggling.
"I don't know" is infinitely better than "I don't know, so majik!!".
Modern christians are fighting against evolution hhte same way the pope fought against astronomy when Galileo invented his telescope.
The biggest difference is we don't live in a theocracy and can't be charged with heresy.
Not yet anyway, Ailswives.
But the believers on this board would want nothing more then to bring back blasphemy laws and then go out and hunt us atheists down and kill us.
In fact, they would be giddy at the thought of doing that, all to prove how much they are loving followers of jeebus.
@Bootyfunk : the world was made by magic is a better explanation for you?
The explaination of magic is best left to evolutionist.
1) How did matter, energy and time originate naturally? Magic
2) How did life begin naturally? Magic
3) What guided the ebolution process that limited the transitional species to a few million speces? Magic
Well, each to their own.
The difference Die4him is that the scientists have actual facts to back up their magic claim, whereas you believers have nothing but your faith.
They also don't try to force their magic on you, like you believers are always trying to do to us with your magic.
btw, could you please get your deadbeat houses of worship to start paying their fair share of local and federal taxes?
We believers in scientific magic are tired of supporting them and you.
Billy da kid
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
"Bootyfunk
christians that don't believe in evolution –......"
Correct, the rest was you jumpin' off the cliff with the other piggies.
nope. don't need faith when you have facts and evidence.
Billy da kid
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Funkster, why'd you hijack the definition of faith?? You sound gayish.
Depends on whether his vision is aligned to the will of Almighty God.
perhaps he would have better luck if he made reality his vision and disavowed invisible sky fairies altogether.
Eventually all Biblical prophecies must be fulfilled.
like when jesus told his disciples that he would return before all of them died - but he didn't.
jesus + the bible = fail
You will know that when you meet Him on the day of judgment.
that's right, when we die, according to your crazy cult beliefs, we go to magic cloud land where everything is great and i even get to see my old dog Spot. gee, that sure sounds swell.
now how about you come back to the really-real world?
@joe:
do be so kind to fill us in when your "jesus" rebuilds the temple he was suppose to have done before his death.
oh and FYI; i doubt the muslims are willing to move their mosque to allow him to do so. XD
biblical prophecies = B.S.
The only BS is YOU.
As I understand it, the fact the Jesus didn't rebuild the temple is proof that he is not the Messiah.
@ Joe
"The only BS is YOU."
Oooh, burn!
*snerk*
@Joe-YHBT 😉
want some honest answers?
"I see lots of post on here by self-described atheists stating many problems they see with the bible. Is this the main reason you don’t believe?"
+++ no, the main reason is because the idea of any god is silly in this day and age. it's the same reason you don't believe in Ra, Odin or Zeus.
" If God revealed himself to you, the way he reveals himself to believers, would you believe then?"
+++ yes, which shows how open-minded atheists are. if god appears in front of me, i will believe in him.
now same question to you – what would it take for you NOT to believe?
I see lots of post on here by self-described christians ignoring the probems they see with the bible. Is this wht it takes to believe? If Allah revealed himself to you, the way he reveals himself to muslims, would you believe differently? You want so badly to hear the word of god, you listen and suddenly feel guilt and shame for you have been told you should, you suddenly realize that Thor is as real as any god and you will go along with anything that makes you feel saved. Do you recognize this as reason or continue with your delusions?
It took you all morning to work that up?
Good job Bill,
just throw out an insult. Isn't that what you acuse non-christians of doing when they have no arguement?
Not an insult, just your effort is lame.
Judgement is wrong when it is used to condemn but useful in separating good work from mediocre. This was mediocre. Not really your fault. The premise you stole was mediocre to begin with.
The more BD posts the more he proves how unchristian like he actually is. He maybe a devout follower of the catholic catechism but that is all. He reminds me of the incensed nun's that abused their students just because they could.
OKfine,
I hear ya'; but why on Earth would you put an apostrophe in the word "nuns"?
Nuns, not nun's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0N09hR_m9I
^^ footage of a crazy cult leader ^^
Where are all the churches now who were mentioned in Revelation?? Churches ain't the body of Christ.
the bible mentions unicorns, satyrs, c.ockatrice and dragons. there's talking snakes and talking donkeys in the bible. a guy lives in the belly of a whale for 3 days in the bible.
not sure the best place to look for reality is a book of myth.
First off, you're quoting from the KJV, and I could go into a discussion about the difficulties of translating Hebrew into English and how the KJV was actually written, but, to suffice it to say, you have a very elementary understanding of scripture, and your grasp of reality can only be described as superficial.
Lawrence, KJV was not translated from Hebrew to English.
It was translated from the Latin to English, the latin having been translated from Hebrew and Greek... Modern translations like the NASB show "unicorn" as "wild ox" which is a better rendering of the word used... For brevity, I had in passing mentioned BOTH how the KJV was translated, and Hebrew to English... The English translation has a long and bloody history beginning with William Tyndale... Long story, maybe for another day.
I imagine they changed it to wild ox because people don't believe in unicorns anymore, and it made the bible look dumb. Basically just another example of men changing the bible.
Any way you translate it, it still sends innocent souls to hell.
You need to either accept the truth about your religion or stop preaching and defending it.
@Joey : I imagine they changed it to wild ox because people don't believe in unicorns anymore, and it made the bible look dumb.
You obviously don't understand that double-translations tend to be the least accurate translations in literature.
Poor JM, he thinks the fake jews are special. Watch out for the cwooks that invented Dispensationalism. They steal from their mother-in-laws.
Hi lol??
it's good to see the pope finally admit the bible is wrong and not inerrant.
the bible is very clear that g.ays are abomination and to be put to death.
i'm glad the pope can see how cruel and ignorant such instructions are.
it's good to see the pope stand strong against the bigotry of the bible.
A zombie funketh speaketh about a popeth. That'll work.
don't forget zombie jesus! when he comes for you, shoot for the head!
Funketh, you have too much lead on yer plate, and not enuff in yer belly.
try thinking for yourself - you won't regret it!
Silly Roman who luveth Greek s*exeth. How's ye ol' evolution wurkin' out??
evolution - don't use words you don't understand.
An asshole by any other name is still lol??.
Trollspotter, lol?? lol!! 🙂
Bootyfunk, if he is not allowed to use words he doesn't understand then he would be a mute.
XES = FREEDOM
...and Jorge Bergoglio's vision is based on his belief in freedom of reights, freedom of all religions.
BUT it is Only Christ that will rule.
christ couldn't even save himself, let alone anyone else.
Echoes from a zombie temple??
taunts from a centurion?
at least centurions actually existed...
Sure they did. Just like every other blade of grass.
Willful stupidity is a dead end.
Hsa 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Killa Kommie Mamas with Girlie Men as Hubbies.
You have done nothing to justify your continued existence on this earth. Please eat a bullet. Just don't take out innocent people because you truly are batshit crazy.
Marx's dad was a fake jew that became a fake christian. The wurld luved it.
there is more knowledge in any Dr. Seuss book than the entirety of the bible.
Post some. We know you've worked your way through about half of them by now.
too high of a reading level for you, bill? lol.
BD and the snide remark, you love Booty because your myth tells you that you must. Try and be a good catholic and live up to your supposed beliefs.
The story begins as the Sneetches with stars are discriminating against and shunning those without stars on their bellies. A "fix-it-up chappie" named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears and offers the Sneetches without stars the chance to have them with his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their special status. McBean then tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars, and the Sneetches who originally had stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special. However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who."
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch," the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends.
Organized religion is the Sylvester McMonkey McBean of today. It makes you think you are super special, which you are, until all your money is gone...
@Just the Facts – You are my new favorite sneetch on the belief blog
More of a Sendak fan myself