B
buffalo
Guest
Jesus affirms what took place at the beginning. Six days meant six days.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Scientism at its best. Human fallible reasoning provisional science trumps unchanging Revelation.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, I’m referring to the same context you quote: Paul is asserting that Timothy’s frequent ailments will be healed by drinking wine. (If you have a scientific study that makes that claim, I’d love to see it.Gorgias:
Yes. And you are taking it out of context.
)No. What Jesus affirms about the beginning is that God intended marriage as between one man and one woman, and that it’s intended to be permanent.
But, I get it that you need to make these sorts of claims in order to hold to your assertions here. Both, unfortunately, are misguided.
Peace.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do a quick search…ctually, I’m referring to the same context you quote: Paul is asserting that Timothy’s frequent ailments will be healed by drinking wine. (If you have a scientific study that makes that claim, I’d love to see it.
buffalo:
B
buffalo
Guest
There are several places that affirm creation not long ago and six days.o. What Jesus affirms about the beginning is that God intended marriage as between one man and one woman, and that it’s intended to be permanent.
But, I get it that you need to make these sorts of claims in order to hold to your assertions here. Both, unfortunately, are misguided.
Peace.
He affirms Adam and Eve existed from the beginning.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.
Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be great distress, unparalleled since God created the world, and such as will never be again.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain, but on the seventh day he rested; that is why Yahweh has blessed the Sabbath day and made it sacred.
In the beginning was the Word ---- Jesus spoke things into existence. As in His miracles which were done at His word instantly He did not speak and wait billions of years.
Six days has been a constant teaching and belief. This you have to admit.
And then you have to show when it all was overturned, the Magisterial document and why the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Reason informed by faith reveals the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Jesus.I wonder what scientist would find before and after the consecration of the bread and wine .
Not possessing this knowledge, pretty much everyone would see it as a wafer of bread.
A person who believes matter (not in the A/T sense, but the modern definition) to be the fundamental reality of all things would probably call it a collection of molecules. If we apply sufficient heat to it, we get carbon dioxide and water and heat as it burns. From there, with measurements of the original compound and the products we can deduce that it was made of glucose. There would be no difference between the bread and the Eucharist once we destroy what it is and reduce it to the simple bits of information that are atoms.
But the same thing applies to us; there is no difference in the chemicals present in a living person or cadaver. The physiology of a living organism (the activity found in a heart or kidney) can also be reproduced outside of the person in a lab. But you and I are something different than just the simple processes that are necessary for life. We perceive, think, feel and act as one being; but once we die, we change. Our bodies which now influence the expression of these capacities as components in our relational nature, break down as a result of the inherent properties of matter freed from the organizational principle that was the human spirit, previously one with the body.
NonChristians would not see any difference between a piece of bread and the Eucharist. A materialist would do likewise, as they would see no substantial difference between an ape and a person.
The Eucharist may be said to be created at the time of consecration, utilizing the material present in the bread. One substance is destroyed and another created.
Now this idea might be carried over to the creation of the first man, such that a hominid egg was made human. Of course this would require a direct creative act by God. It could not come about through the properties inherent in matter alone. They spontaneously and randomly do not organize themselves into the complexity found in even the simplest organisms, let alone give them life. However, God does not need to do this, and perhaps more easily, Adam could have been brought into existence in adult form.
Understanding is a work in progress.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
When I was in Germany, I picked up a little fact that everyone used to drink beer, not only adults but kids and the infirm. That was because there was no potable water. I suppose that they could have boiled it but it was before Pasteur. It was probably more fun at meal time anyway. So, yes the science of the time backed it up. Even now a few bouts of traveller’s diarrhea will turn you off the local water if hearing about i it and that first encounter didn’t.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I don’t reject the evidence … because I don’t know what the evidence is to begin with. How can I, when there is no one I can trust to present the evidence honestly and objectively?
What does the fossil record really say, for example? I have no way of knowing with any certainty - all I have to go on is the opinion of a cult of atheists - who aren’t interested in presenting true science so much as their own evolutionist propaganda.
What does the fossil record really say, for example? I have no way of knowing with any certainty - all I have to go on is the opinion of a cult of atheists - who aren’t interested in presenting true science so much as their own evolutionist propaganda.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
“Undermining the authority of Scripture is a most excellent way of undermining the authority of Christianity” - Satan.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
From the well-spring of evolutionary “science” - human imagination.
G
Glark
Guest
Those are the generally-accepted numbers for the age of the universe (~13.7 billion years) and Earth (~4.5 billion years).
It is also “generally-accepted” by the scientific community that life arose naturally from mud, there is no evidence of design in nature, it is almost certain that aliens exist, there is no life after death and that God is superstition.
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools” - Romans 1.
G
Glark
Guest
If human beings have been around for 100,000 years, all land would be covered in cemeteries by now. So there!
G
Glark
Guest
There is one exception: The theory of evolution.
G
Glark
Guest
There are no such numbers as “13 billion” and “85 billion” - they’re too big.
Have you ever seen “13 billion” or “85 billion” of anything? No, of course not, so stop making things up like a child.
Have you ever seen “13 billion” or “85 billion” of anything? No, of course not, so stop making things up like a child.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Look at your computer. Then your wall. Look at your hands. At the sky. At the floor. Then recall Avogadro’s number of 6.022×10^23. And that’s how many atoms are in a mol and odds are you saw multiple mole of various compounds.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I look out of my window at a grassy lawn and a park dotted with bushes and fringed with trees. The predominant colour is green. Every single speck of green is the result of an individual molecule of chlorophyll. There is no other green colour. If every molecule of chlorophyll were removed, the scene would not be green at all. I reckon I’m looking at about 100 trillion chloroplasts. Yes, I have seen billions. I do every day.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m very familiar with Satan’s excellent paper on the subject (Published in Hell, 666, 123-456 (1923 BC)
You have omitted the next line of his exposition:
"Claiming that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the only one is a most excellent way of undermining the authority of Scripture.”
G
Gorgias
Guest
We all know that science isn’t perfect and, as in all human endeavors, there are mistakes and those who are way out there. “Aliens exist” speaks to probability and life (not sentient life); “no life after death” is not a claim science makes; the existence of God isn’t a matter for science to decide.
So… if you want to assail the age of the universe, give evidence. Don’t point to other, unrelated matters.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Of your quotes, only Exodus discusses “six days.” I still hold to my assertion: when there was no information that contradicted a “six day creation”, the people of God – in the absence of any other data – held to it.
As Bellarmine reminds us, now that there is reasonable data that stands in contradiction of a literalistic interpretation, we must “proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.” Or, as Augustine reminds us, “in matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Interesting. I guess it boils down to what one means by “see”. No one has visually seen a billion things. Even though there are about 1.3 billion rods and cones in the retina, the sort of “computing power”, the interconnections of retinal and neuronal cells that go into creating the visual world, are insufficient to make this possible. So, we mean imagine, and I don’t think we can do that since it would involve being able to count them out, to isolate a billion events in some fashion. It’s then a number or word that we see and imagine as being huge. As to whether in fact there are those many atoms and molecules within the range of what we can see depends on how we define the existence of elementary particles. I’m going to suggest that my hands for example are two. I can cut them up into ever smaller bits, and if there are a billion plus cells in each retina, then I could end up with trillions of cells, each composed of one hundred trillions of atoms. Hmm. A question then might have to do with the manner in which these minutest of events exist before they are dissected out from the whole that is oneself. If we think of individual particles, there might not be billions until we actually bring them out from whatever system into which they would have been brought together, thereby forming a whole. As to whether there are actually those many individual particles out there to which we relate even if we could, I’m not sure we can say. I assume so, but at the same time, while clearly our intellect can dissect the world into components, our being in it, is ultimately One. But that reality is truly known only in God - the Beatific Vision, when Love brings all the broken parts, including what we consider the material, together by the giving of oneself to Him through Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
- Status