 |
|
|
|
 Catholics attend Mass in Seoul, South Korea. When Pope Francis visits the country this week, he will find a thriving Catholic community .
August 12th, 2014
05:08 PM ET
Why South Korea could be the church of futureOpinion by Candida Moss, special to CNN [twitter-follow screen_name='CandidaMoss'] (CNN) – When Pope Francis arrives in South Korea on Wednesday for a five-day visit, he’ll get a look at just the kind of church he’s been trying to create worldwide. The trip, planned to coincide with Asia Youth Day, marks the first time a pope has visited the country since 1989, and is part of a new papal focus on globalization in general and on Asia in particular. (Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Japan in January.) The time has long passed that the Catholic Church is elderly white men and women in European enclaves. The last papal conclave and the election of the first Latin American Pope raised awareness of the Catholic Church’s growing presence in Africa, but Asian Christianity was hardly mentioned at all. Even if it is rarely discussed in the media, Korean Catholicism is among the most vibrant in the world. Here are five reasons South Korea might be the future of Catholic Church. 1. It’s growing. Catholics make up almost 11% of South Korea’s 50 million population. This may seem like a small percentage, but consider this: In 1960, they only made up 2%. In contrast to Europe, the majority of South Korean Catholics – as is the broader population of the region – are young. Vocations to the ministry are also strong. At the end of 2013, South Korea’s 5.4 million Catholics were served by 4,261 priests, with a further 1,489 seminarians in the pipeline, according to church statistics. In other words, not only is Christianity growing in South Korea, but it’s increasing in popularity among young people. And, in contrast to Europe and the United States, there are enough priests and seminarians to minister to this expanding group. 2. It’s rich. Catholics in South Korea are increasingly prosperous. In an interview with Catholic News Service, Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average. While the economic prospects of Catholics have undoubtedly risen with those of South Korea as a whole, McNaughton attributes the financial success of Catholics there to the excellence of Catholic education. Whether or not the prosperity of Korean Catholics is because of Catholic education or regional economic growth is less important than the encouraging contrast it forms to the church in other parts of the world. Church attendance in Europe and the United States has been declining for decades. Meanwhile, in poorer, developing countries, the church has expanded and taken on an increasingly fundamentalist character. The decline of the Catholic Church in wealthy countries is often linked to the rise of secularism, access to higher education and economic growth. The fear is that as people acquire more education and money, they no longer need God. This doesn’t seem to be the case in South Korea, where wealth, education and church expansion continue to go together. 3. It competes in a tough environment. Some commentators have speculated that Christianity in South Korea succeeds because of the spirituality in the region. That’s not exactly true. In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI identified the “secular state” as one of the chief threats to the Catholic Church in the 21st century, crediting it as one of the causes of declining church attendance in Europe. That Catholicism continues to flourish in a culture that is broadly speaking nonreligious should encourage church leaders. It proves it can be done. 4. It’s self-supporting. The history of Christianity on the Korean Peninsula involves not only growth and increased prosperity, but also persecution and martyrdom. Christianity was legalized in then-unified Korea only in 1886 and for much of that time has been largely self-sufficient. In the wake of World War II, the country was divided in the communist North and the capitalistic South in 1945. The CIA Factbook notes that autonomous religious activities are "now almost nonexistent" in North Korea. The geographical distance from the Vatican has allowed local bishops to have more autonomy and decentralized the church. As Tom Fox, author of “Pentecost in Asia,” has said, “the starting point of the Asian church has always been the local church.” This is the model of local governance and evangelization that Pope Francis has tried to encourage and promote in the church in general. 5. It’s committed to social justice. Korea was largely evangelized by lay activists, not organized missionary campaigns. This history gives the current church in South Korea an independent streak. Masses end with instructions to “evangelize the world” rather than return home, a call that local Catholics take to heart. This missionary activity is matched by a focus on improving the living conditions their troubled neighbors in North Korea. That charity endears the Catholic Church to both religious and nonreligious South Koreans, who might otherwise be suspicious. It’s for all these reasons that Francis told Il Messaggero in June that “the church in Asia holds great promise.” In the Pope’s mind, it seems, the South Korean example may hold the secret to the future of the Catholic Church.
Next entry »5 ways Pope Francis is tougher than you think
« Previous entryDramatic rescue as Yazidis flee ISIS
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Was the Universe made for us?
"It appears that there is a set of fundamental physical constants that are such that had they been very slightly different, the universe would have been void of intelligent life. It's as if we're balancing on a knife’s edge. Some philosophers and physicists take the 'fine-tuning' of these constants to be an explanandum that cries out for an explanans, but is this the right way to think?
The data we collect about the Universe is filtered not only by our instruments' limitations, but also by the precondition that somebody be there to “have” the data yielded by the instruments (and to build the instruments in the first place). This precondition causes observation selection effects – biases in our data that may call into question how we interpret evidence that the Universe is fine-tuned at all."
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
Who is maintaining this delicate balance? certainly not "randomness/evolution"
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist [sustains, cohere, are held together].
He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power.
Reminds me of the puddle of water in one of Douglas Adam's books. It looked at how the contours of the hole in which it dwelt were perfectly shaped to fit its outline and how the depth o the hole was perfectly grooved to take the puddle's volume and leave it with a nice flat surface.
It naturally concluded that the hole was intelligently designed especially for it.
if that made sense to you, great for you... have at it!
What appears to be intelligent design, isn't. Any clearer?
Santa,
I understood perfectly what colin was saying. My point remains, his point makes no sense.
If the hole was being maintained such that the water remained without evaporating or freezing, without losing volume or having volume added to it, etc. then he'd have a point.
is it clearer to you now?
Do you have any evidence for id/creationism?
santa,
never been one for labels it took me a min. to figure out id...
I believe with my whole heart that the Hebrew God, Yahweh Elohim is the creator of the universe, and while there is SO MUCH to behold in this universe, know that what we observe is only on the lower level of all that He's created.
Absolutely, I have evidence for God's creation. He who declares the end from the beginning [only THE creator has this ability] also declares through His word, and we behold through observation and discovery His great, mighty and awesome works.
Do you know why man was created with the ability for discovery santa?
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
The fact that you choose to give glory to nature- itself a created thing, does not nullify the awesomeness of His being and creative powers. Look around you, all that is of God is right in front of you. Be still for several moments, and you will know that He is God.
Apparently not...
new-man,
The "humble pie" routine (Matt 23: 12) fails rigorous historic testing. Just another invention of Matthew and copied by Luke, two authors we know nothing about adding to the implausibility of most of the NT. For added details see Professor Gerd Ludemann's review in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, pp. 225-228.
colin,
Is the puddle analogy really a good one (as much as I enjoy H2G2)? That same volume of water would fit into widely varying vessels. Life doesn't fit into universes with a widely varying range of physical constants or dimensions (i.e. life is not very fluid relative to the laws of physics). We could speculate that our theories are biased to this universe causing this narrow range of parameters, i.e. our theories are shrink wrapped to this universe, but they are mathematically very flexible.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on that because my understanding is that the fundamental theories of the observable universe support life as we know it over a very narrow range of parameters.
That said, I don't think that is evidence of a God, much less a supernatural God, much less the biblical God.
bostontola,
thanks for elaborating and 'getting' my point [I could have been more precise in my answer, but it was understood and that's all that matters]
obviously I agree with you on the first 2 paragraphs.
who or what do you suppose is "fine-tuning" this very delicate balance that maintains our place in this universe.
please don't say randomness as there is no such thing. or is the jury still out on your part?
new-man I think you have it exactly backwards. The laws of nature just are what they are and life evolved to fit into what already existed, and not the other way around. That is to say that life was fine tuned by evolution. Also, considering the fact that we have found no life anywhere else in the universe I don't see how you can say with a straight face that the universe is fine tuned for life, if it was we would find it everywhere.
Bostontola, I both love and loath your point. I love it because it is truly intellectually stimulating, I loath it because it is the only argument I have ever heard from any believer that gets them off the ground floor. As you point out, it is of no merit in pointing to any god, much less the Judeo-Christian version, but it does give them a glimmer of hope and that is all most of them need to declare victory.
However, I think with a bit of reflection, the challenge is not insurmountable. To me, there are a number of approaches (I won’t use the word “answers” as that is very presumptive in this arena). The first is well explained by Dawkins (the six knobs he is referring to are six universal constants, all of which lay in their respective Goldilocks Zones for life to arise):
“Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place. When we finally reach the long-hoped-for Theory of Everything, we shall see that the six key numbers depend upon each other, or on something else as yet unknown, in ways that we today cannot imagine. The six numbers may turn out to be no freer to vary than is the ratio of a circle's circu.mference to its diameter. It will turn out that there is only one way for a universe to be. Far from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there are no knobs to twiddle.”
There is also the cosmological anthropic principal. If we accept the multiverse, can you conceive of you and I having this discussion in any universe other than one in which the various constants are in the Goldilocks Zone? Obviously not. Almost like the observation of a quantum spin in an electron sets that spin, the mere fact that we are here means the knobs are correctly diddled in this universe, whereas they may not be in many, many others.
joey,
It is true that evolution has optimized life within it's environment. But that is a narrow aperture to the universe. Tiny changes to most physical constants and atoms don't form, or the universe would have collapsed before life formed, or it would have expanded so fast that galaxies and solar systems would never form. It's not a hole for water to accu.mulate in. These instabilities don't just affect life, they deeply affect the formation of atoms and stars, galaxies, etc.
new-man,
It is a fair question to ask why our observable universe has laws and parameters that are so sensitive. Science doesn't have definitive answers to these questions. Scientists have developed multiple predictions/explanations of this sensitivity using the fundamental theories (GTR, and Quantum Physics). Aspects of these predictions are testable and scientists are devising ways of doing so to resolve one from the other and determine if any of them can be supported with objective evidence. The key is, there are natural explanations that are predicted by the existing theory. Our theories (the math) are general, allowing multiple solutions. There is still work to determine which (if any) are right.
This is an exciting time for humans, we are getting close to getting answers to these deep questions. Even if the the prediction is confirmed by test and validated, that still won't rule out a God. That will remain a matter of opinion for quite some time.
colin,
My thinking is aligned with yours. I have no problem accepting the multiverse if evidence is found. At every turn in our exploration of the universe, it has turned out to be larger and more strange than we expected. The multiverse fits right in with that trend (that's not evidence of course, just fits the pattern). As far as people mis-using this, that can't be stopped. Confirmation bias is strong. It's important for rational people to fight that though.
colin,
I'm not on here to win an argument or a debate. There are certain things that are already "settled" for me, so in reality debating/arguing them is a side-show [ a distraction].
I would love for you to know the God that I know, to have the type of intimacy with Him that can only be had through experiential knowledge with His living word and His written word. I would love for you to know that the Spirit of Christ can dwell in you, and the experience of that is a whole "new" world being unveiled to you– an awakening from Adams spiritual sleep, if you will.
I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying, it's more like foolishness to you, but invite the Holy Spirit into your life and you will be amazed at the revelations that will be unveiled to you.
Have a great and blessed day.
Thanks new-man, Bostontola, I have to run.
You think, just like our sight has been finely tuned by evolution to create an accurate picture of reality, that evolution has also finely tuned our need for a God or gods because that is also an accurate view of reality.
I could see either both being true (i.e., sight shows us an accurate picture of reality and so does our God-need), or both are not true (i.e., vision is distorted to obscure reality and only provide for evolutionary fitness, and so is our need for God).
If the first is true, then I would say that the invention of God across all cultures is evidence that God really exists. And if the second is true, the fact that we rely on our senses to show us truth should be heavily discounted.
guidedans, you said "If the first is true, then I would say that the invention of God across all cultures is evidence that God really exists."
God is not invented "across all cultures," religion is. Cultures have many different gods, some believe in reincarnation, some in many gods, some believe in ancestor worship, some in spirits, some in animal totems. There is nothing universal about the Christian god. It is the Jewish god, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit tacked on. It is specific to Christianity, rejected by Jews and Muslims and pretty much ignored by all other faiths.
I firmly believe that any empirical science can never be complete without metaphysics.
There are so many entities that are mathematically yet not practically possible, a classical example is infinity. That's a reality in Theoretical Physics, where many hypotheses fail because the underlying mathematical models do not match reality. It's like on the surface, the macro-level, existence follows the Classical Laws of Physics, yet, what seems non-physical on the nano-level or so.
Vic,
I agree with you here that while infinity and randomness are mathematical concepts, they however CANNOT be found in our physical universe. Mathematics itself being a simulated universe with it's own rules and constants hence the "mathematical [concept] yet without the practical possibility."
Great point!
I intended my reply to the sub-thread discussion on the matter and in total support of your OP. I accidentally replied to your OP instead.
God bless.
This is pretty good on the biological and historical roots of religion and other superst.itions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql2yz7XDs2A
DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution
– http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/
– evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
Do you understand what you read, scot?
– of course i do, are you disputing the article or me?
You, scot. If you were well-read on the topics of DNA and anthropology, you would know that there has been an honest debate about how modern humans originated. Current thinking is that we are not such a homogeneous group that we can be said to have a single point of origin for all of what makes us up – unless we want to go back to ancestors that were pre-human. I am curious, why does normal revision of a scientific theory equate to its "debunking", failure or collapse in the stuff you read?
It won't even let me read the article. Indeed, I can't even access their home page. I get this:
Error establishing a database connection
@Tom
" I am curious, why does normal revision of a scientific theory equate to its "debunking", failure or collapse in the stuff you read?"
– it is not the theory or the framework that is being revised, only the sundry hypotheses' within. If they were honest, they would indeed revise the theory because it has been shown over and over to be wrong; but they won't and continue to lie about it.
Tom
– In my opinion, this is yet another example of biblical authenticity provided inadvertently by science, namely that Noah's 3 sons, Shem, Ham, and Ja-pheth are collectively the ancestors of present day man.
If you look closely at what is known thus far there are 3 of record; and 'Original', 'Denisovans', and 'Europeoids' are the names given by researchers. These would correspond to Shem, Ham, and Ja-pheth.
Any evidence for creationism yet?
An act of war!
http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-says-beheads-u-journalist-holds-another-002707463.html
You sound like a Republican. Boots on the ground – that sort of thing? Why doesn't Obama (probably supports ISIS in his Muslim heart) do something?
There are no guarantees of safety for journalists working in unstable areas. This is not an act of war. This is a predictable act by terrorists. I'm sorry for this man and his family, but he chose to take the risk when he took this job. Try turning the other cheek instead of trying to start a war that other people will be forced to fight.
I would have thought that Christians would love the idea of evolution.
If the Christian god really did design every animal, then he is the most inept designer ever ... as 99% of the creatures that have ever lived have been so badly designed that they have become extinct.
a 99% failure rate does not indicate an omnipotent, omniscient god. It indicates an absolute incompetent. Evolution would give Christians an escape hatch to explain such incompetence by their god, and yet they argue against it.
Seems Christians worship the bible more than they worship their gods.
Things to like about evolution:
It promises no punishment for disblief
It doesn't waste effort on souls, spirits, gods, demons, angels or other supernatural things
It explains things that can be explained
It is evidence based
It can be revised
Its implications are useful
If it is sufficiently well-founded that if it did not occur we would have to explain why not
Sorry, ignore the last "if"
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.- Romans 1:18,25 NKJV
I thought Peter Griffin's father was Irish, not Scottish.
pure cult-speak
That reminds me, scot. Evolution doesn't inspire worship of anything.
"...... the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men....."
Why would your god waste time with wrath against his defective creations? Why would he bother raising his godly blood pressure (assuming that god has blood)? He would be the ultimate "I don't get mad, I get even" guy. With just a snap of his godly fingers, he could do any kind of nasty things to anyone he considered unrighteous. You know, fire and brimstone, floods, pestilence, the usual all loving, all merciful Supreme Being side shows.
You'll have to ask Him yourself when you go to meet Him. I doubt you'll be acting like a tough guy then.
A mushroom walked into a bar. The bar tender said, "Get out of here! We don't serve your kind."
"Hey, what's the problem?"
"Just get out of here. We don't serve mushrooms."
The mushroom in anguish says, "Why not? I'm a fun guy."
How's the work going to prove creationism right? Have you submitted your research for peer-review yet?
God's already done the work, i don't need to do anything really! Isn't He great?
You're rather delusional. You make the claim now back it or stop speaking on stuff you're not educated enough to speak on! Grow up and get an education-the bible is a fairy tale made to make the gullible think they are not good enough without imaginary beings on their side.
You're in serious need of mental health help and an education.
a horse walked into a bar
and the barman said "hey, why the long face?"
a sandwich walked into a bar
and the barman said "hey, we don't serve food here!"
With the right sort of mushroom you might see clear evidence of young earth creationism and God and all of his angels too. We co-evolved with those mushrooms. The clear purpose of (some of) humankind was to provide something that would deliberately ingest them. Their purpose: To inspire confusion and belief.
Really? Then why did this guy say this, was he on mushrooms too?
“When I was a medical student, I was taught the theory of evolution, but I never believed it.”
– Dr. Cecil Wakeley, late president of the Royal College of Surgeons in Great Britain, a leading British surgeon
Good gravy! He was taught that in approximately 1910! Is there no limit to your duplicity?
Ignorant retort, why is it duplicity graceless professor?
You don't think that what we know now about this subject has been expanded in the last 100 years? Nothing new discovered?
Are you just that lacking in critical thinking skills?
No i don't. The evidence is simply not there. But do go on with your idolatry and worship your evolution god as your creator.
– you still have not explained how it is deceitful to quote someone no matter if the quote is older and the person is dead. It's done all the time. Are you once again asserting that I've taken a quote out of context? Go ahead and in your sick and twisted reasoning explain to me how a REAL Christian would not have made this statement within the context that he believes evolution is untrue.
ok Akira i'm done with you, done for the night. don't be angry and let the sun go down on you. I won't either.
Oh, ok. That's why you use quote from guys who learned these things in 1910.
You still think it IS 1910.
Carry on, wayward son.
Wakeley was active in creationist circles and was a member of the Evolution Protest Movement (now Creation Science Movement). lol – well no surprise here.
So? Christians can't be doctors and surgeons and scientists? How very tolerant of you.
Sure they can. and plenty of good ones are. But that's not the kind you present. And I'm more than willing to let the reader learn about the crazy Creation Science Movement for themselves – they can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science_Movement
all subjective, there are just as many opinions that oppose yours, so what?
"Mushrooms always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas" – said the "smart" evolutionist with smug satisfaction.
Want to know what the mushroom's best growing medium is? BS.
– said the evolutionist disguised as a believer...
So if you creationists are so smart, why can't you all read the same book and reach the same conclusion?
Some think baptism by water is necessary for salvation, and some don't.
BAM!
Another lie. Tsk tsk. Revisit the 9th Commandnent.
Alias,
I like the way he stole a quote from an 11 year old to make his ignorant point.
By the wat Scot your favorite site the ICR is mentioned ?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/texas-newspaper-researchers-want-to-prove-creationism/
We have to be careful LaBella,
Scot is trying to save us from our ignorance.
We have to be real careful like to not learn sumthin.
aww LaBella, don't pretend to be sore, your creator is natural selection, remember?
Alias
silly atheist! it's the Holy Spirit that quickens, why are you so confused? is it because you are blind?
Nah, Scot, I'm not sore; I'm amused.
Keep lying about me. It shows just what a good "Christian" you aren't.
The Holy Spirit moves you to lie repeatedly and bear false witness against others, awanderingscot?
haven't done anything of the sort, just identifying the tares.
Too bad you can't identify the wheat, either.
"So if you creationists are so smart, why can't you all read the same book and reach the same conclusion?"
– so you see LaBella, he's not talking about you. He's talking about those of us who believe the bible.
Another Protestant theologian who took issue with Copernicus was John Owen who declared that "the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world' was 'built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture."
Christians denied that the Earth moved around the Sun because it contradicted scripture. Eventually they had to re-interpret the scripture because they were proven wrong. It is only a matter of time before all of the christians find a way to reinterpret the scripture again and stop trying to hide from evolution. Most have done it already.
So you see, awanderingscot, you continue to lie and misrepresent me; you continue to cast aspersions on my character; you are a liar, and for that, you are condemned. By the very same Bible you say I don't follow. I guarantee I walk the walk, while you continue to represent everything Jesus cautioned against.
For shame. You are the living imbodiment of the modern day Pharisee.
LOL, Alias what does Copernicus have to do with the theory of evolution? Nothing at all. The bible never states that the solar system is geo-centric but if you wish to believe it says that, go right ahead.
– The bible does not teach evolution and heretics such as LaBella who misrepresent what God says, and lie about who they really are.
The Bible does teach that it's a major sin to lie, and yet you have no problem doing that, Scot.
Apparently you don't follow what the Bible teaches.
But I knew that.
And your quote was taken from "UCB Parents Jokes & Quotes:
Kids talk Science." They're funny, aren't they? Another great one: "H2O is hot water, CO2 is cold water."
http://www.juliantrubin.com/biologyjokes.html
– no graceless professor, they're all over the internet
Graceless liar, you took a quite from an 11 year old. You should be very proud of your duplicity.
Hey scot the last four digits of the urls says it best #Con .
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Jun 6, 2014
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#Con
Oops url Scot – not urls.
I wonder how many bishops, popes and cardinals know they wear the headdress of the Fish god, Dagon ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagon
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
awanderingscot,
why don't you just post the link and stop wasting everyone's time with quote-mining (that you didn't even mine yourself)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-23a.htm
I just don't want you to continue being ignorant Ken!
And when did he write that, and what is his degree in ? If he's on the AEC, it's not Biliogy, and he;s not qualified to make that statement. (Argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy). Try harder Snotty.
Well he IS smarter than you Bucky. So ....
In case you haven't kept up with modern psychology (and you obviously haven't) they have defined 9 different types of intelligence. It is shallow to tell someone how smart they are/aren't without understanding what they are good at.
Tahmisian is a physiologist, and scot's quote is stolen directly from a website called sermoncentral.
Nope, wrong again. Keep guessing
Trollin trollin trollin..........
"We're not just evolving slowly," Gould says, "for all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever – we are what we are." – Stephen Jay Gould ( Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University )
– Guess where this one came from? (hint: if you say that guy who regurgitated 'saltation' you'll get 50% credit!) WOW.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/why-i-reject-evolution-adrian-rogers-sermon-on-creation-155206.asp?Page=3
As I said, trollin trollin trollin...
Guess who keeps lying about people?
wandering
Do you have any evidence for creationism?
The Atomic Energy Commission has no record of Newton Tahmisian, at least according to their predecessors, The US Nuclear Regulation Committee.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=108234&st=510
I completely agree.
I like this Pope.
He talks a good game...I can't say I have seen much more than that.
Perhaps. I still like him, though.
Oh he is much more likable than the last one...but having spent plenty of time around "likable" Catholic authorities I don't trust him based merely on what he says and obvious PR opportunities. The Catholic church is full of double talking priests....it is their forte.
I like him much, much more than JPII, and I liked him, too.
There's no shortages of asshats in any vocation.
The Catholic clergy are full of priests, etc. that pretend to be concerned about people...but if it is a question of its parishioners or the church...the church comes first. The parishioners are just a tool to be used to further the goals of the church, I haven't seen anything from the pope actions that changes that.
Yes, there is. I am aware of all of the problems within the Church. I have high hopes that he will change some of the stances from within. Change of a Church that has been operating as it has for 1800 years isn't going to happen overnight.
I still like him. I hope he can change it.
Akira I hope he does as well...but obviously my personal experience made me a bit jaded.
I can tell, and for whatever hurt you experienced, I am sorry.
Nothing major (like many, many others),....they have just proven time and time again where their priorities are.
I was an alter boy...(no abuse).
It appears that every and all Pope stories will now have comments closed.
Rather defeats the purpose of a blog.
Oh, well.
It does appear they are being quite selective as their "select" stories.
Theo, you said: “You err in thinking there is no "right" answer when speaking of God. Just because many have differing opinions, that does not automatically exclude the possibility for a correct answer. You wouldn't say that in math class, and it doesn't happen in theology.
The search for true theology is handled just as any search – systematically, logically, and experientially.”
Not so. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Christian doctrine is all just made up. And I mean that in the purest sense. It is pulled it out of thin air. To the extent a Christian theologian “researches” anything, they simply look to what earlier theologians said on the issue. To the extent they researched anything, they looked to even earlier theologians and what they said. But, no matter how far back you go, no matter how many theologians you go through and no matter how smart, well read or well intentioned the original progenitor of the doctrine is, it is all made up.
Take, for example, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. When Pope Pius IX announced the doctrine to the Catholic World in 1854, he didn’t cite to any medical records, he didn’t claim God appeared and told him, he didn’t give any eyewitness accounts, he relied completely and 100% on what other, earlier theologians had written. Likewise, they cited to no external evidence, they cited earlier theologians etc.
It may be systematic, but it is far from logical and it is not at all experimental.
Ironically, what Pius was reacting to was a series of early breakthroughs in genetics that was showing that women contribute 50% of their genes to the genetic make up of a baby. Until then, it was thought that the man’s sperm did all the contributing and the woman was a mere receptacle in which the child grew (like a piece of fruit). This perturbed Pius and the RCC because this meant Jesus could be somehow “infected” with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. So, SHAZAM, they make up a remedy. Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb free of original sin.
Yes, Theo, very experimental and logical that one!! An entire doctrine based on avoiding an original sin from a non-existent couple!!
Did they ever get to the bottom of just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
There are a lot of important things in the bible that are unclear.
Dancing angels is now on the list.
A modern view of baptism from a Catholic graduate theology class:
"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) .
In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question."
Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon] is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home."
Is Baptism necessary?
The fact that many bible experts disagree means that the bible is not clear.
It could even contradict itself on the issue! (Shocking, I know!)
Christianity is utter total and complete nonsense.
Necessary? Your question is open-ended. Yes it is necessary. But it is not necessary for salvation. Does that answer your question?
So why don't all the other christians agree with you?
If your bible is the word of a perfect god, why isn't it clear?
Christianity is complete and total nonsense.
If it's not necessary for salvation, what is it necessary for?
I believe that water baptism is only an outward gesture of celebration and public confession of Faith but it's not a requirement. A believer is not justified by baptism nor works of the flesh, rather, justification is by the Grace of God through Faith alone in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, hence Salvation.
When a person is born again, he/she is born of the spirit and not the flesh and is baptized and indwelled by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 3:11
"11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
Luke 3:16
"16 John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."
John 1:33
"33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’"
John 3:3-7
"3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"
Titus 3:5
"5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,"
John 14:17
"17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you."
John 15:26
"26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"
Romans 8:9-11
"9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."
All Scripture Is From:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
http://www.biblegateway.com/
You do know that many people read the same bible but reach a different conclusion, right?
I am constantly reminded of what this world really needs, mercy and grace.
The past few weeks and months have been grisly in every way, from plane crashes many-where, wild fires and mudslides in California, genocides by ISIS and their ilks many-where, crisis in Ukraine, to Kevin Ward Jr. Sprint car tragedy in Canandaigua, NY, Michael Brown tragedy in Ferguson, MO, Robin Williams suicide, and the list goes on and on.
God have mercy and bestow grace on us all, in Jesus Christ's name I pray, Amen.
Amen
The world could use more kindness, regardless of any religion. The world could use less people, because overpopulation is destroying the planet for all of us. The world could use less greed for the same reason. The world could use better shepherding, because too many environmental disasters can be directly linked to human behaviors. The world could use better eduction so that those who live in poverty have a chance to find a way out of it. The world could use a lot of things.
That said, the disasters have always been there, but for millennia they were local events. Now we have 24-hour news sites to make sure that we hear about each and every one of them. The world is getting smaller, but sadly so are too many human minds.
Keeping things in perspective-
WHERE WAS YOUR GOD(S) AND OR JESUS WHEN THE FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE:
The Twenty (or so) Worst Things GOD'S CREATURES Have Done to Each Other:
M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)
The Muslim Conquest of India
"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*
1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")
2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)
3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)
4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)
5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)
6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)
7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)
8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)
9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)
11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)
12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)
13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)
17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)
18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)
19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)
20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
Will mercy and grace stop any of the violence? It's great if we're all forgiven for it, but how do we make it stop? God and a very large UN peacekeeping force in the Ukraine? God and the National Guard in Ferguson? God and airstrikes and an integrated ground operation in Iraq?
I've found that I need $4.25 along with God at Starbucks.
Need not mention the Ebola outbreak.
Amen.
"... love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. Just keep being friendly to that person. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies." MLK Jr
It's funny how you post this one day, then the very next post something that makes you sound eager for war. Make up your mind.
Why is the Pope off-limits to comments? Perhaps Dan will explain. He isn't special to you in some way is he, Dan?
It appears that as of the other day most of the articles on the site don't allow comments regardless of content.
Perhaps CNN is tired of enabling trolls.
Dan said earlier in this article that it is not his decision, but a CNN new policy; comments will be available only on select stories.
Yes, but on every Pope story?
I don't know. They've only had Pope stories since he made that statement. I'm curious if it is for all Belief Blog stories, only certain stories – or only Pope stories.
I thought it had to do with where the story originated. If here, then comments, if link to main article then no comments, but I could be wrong.
Just realized that the Pope story did originate here on BB. huh?
Folks the more mutton and beef you consume reduces the amount of flatulence these beasts produce that is affecting climate change. Ignore those Chik-fil-a commercials and eat a thick juicy steak.
oops reply to lunchbreaker
Perhaps. But then haven't you just relocated the problem to small environments – such as a car full of people that has just left a steak house. I guess it could be a boon to the gas mask industry.
Doris
If you go light on the garlic and open the sun roof......
"My [wife] is a vegetarian, so that kinda makes me a vegetarian. But I do like a tasty burger."
I tell my partner (a vegetarian) that it is unnatural for women to eat meat. She gets huffy.
So do you eat vegetarian? Giggity.
In all seriousness, without an iron supplement, women could not survive on a vegan diet.
Cast iron cookware take care of that, apparently.
Of course an ovo-lacto vegetarian doesn't have that problem, only straight vegans. And in modern society there is plenty of iron enrichment in common foods. Any way I read a book once and am now rambling.
So I'm trying to decide between gorditas and chicken sliders for dinner. Is there anything in the Bible that can help me make that decision?
There are some who believe that if it isn't mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't exist; I know of no verse in Scripture that talk about either gorditas or chicken sliders. Given that, they don't exist, and you shall go to bed hungry.
Hope that helps!
Well technically it would be the vegetarian versions of each, some might argue that is not a "real" meal, so I suppose that will work. But still the question of which? or is it wich? I hate that one.
How does one make a vegan chicken slider?
Red beans and rice for me tonight, and that's not too bad.
Lunchbreaker,
The clear answer is "a witch."
Or maybe crab meat melted into this creamy goat brie I got in Quebec. With chopped leeks. I'll stuff it into flounder, I think and blacken the outside with chili and lime. Maybe on brown and wild rice.
Tom, what time should I be there for dinner, lol?
Tom, vegetarian, not vegan, not that crazy. I would place Quorn Buffalo Chic'n Bites on King's Hawaiin rolls and then serve with either tater tot's or mac&cheese.
Wait, is this the Eatocracy Blog? I've never had flounder before. Only fish I care for is salmon.
Salmon is great, but has too much flavour for the crab. Blackened salmon is outstanding, though.
lunch
Step out and get a fresh wild caught Artic Char, expensive but worth it.
lunchbreaker
Batter dipped deep fried fresh Blue Gill over an open fire – fried in a 22lb cast iron pan – from the Blue Gill capital of Wisconsin.
Fresh or frozen?
Well, the TVP would be frozen, but all fresh vegatables for the gorditas.
Fresh. Save the frozen for tomorrow.
Very economically sound.
Or should I say econom-nom-nomical?
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we would prefer you don't.
My bad Joey.
Badum tish
Gorditas aren't Kosher.
While some may argue that we no longer live under the Levitical code because Christ died for our cheeseburgers, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.
Are gorditas really not Kosher? Not that I care, but seriously?
There's something about how you should check out the feet of whatever you decide to put in them – and not use cheese.
No cheese? I'm out.
lunchbreaker,
AFAIK, kosherness just doesn't allow meat & cheese together. If your gordito is vegetarian, cheese is ok.
Ah.
Gorditas are in Methusalah 29:5
Lol.
Sweeeeeeeet!
Heh, well I guess gorditos are "unleavened" bread, eh?... but there was no corn in ancient Israel, so must've been a flour gordito...
I definitely prefer flour over corn.