Well it’s a good thing the Psalms were not originally written in English! Hebrew words have many meanings, “living” in this case used figuratively to say that God was active in the presence of His people. Plenty of other Scripture verses state that God created the world and life from nothing.
Hey, let’s be charitable here. Rossum doesn’t come to these evolution threads to argue against God. What he does is refute literalistic creation arguments. So in that sense he is attempting to enlighten people about a really interesting science of our world. Remember that the Vatican doesn’t have issues with evolution and how Pope JPII called faith and reason the two wings of human spirit. Being able to understand our world better is a good thing. If you want to personally hold a literalistic view, okay, but when you post things against evolution that don’t hold water, people (including Rossum) will correct you. Mich in the same vein you attempt at correcting what you hold to be errors in evolution.
Personal attacks on someone else’s religion has no place in this forum. Rossum has not argued against any teaching of the Catholic Church - only against a small minority view of some within the Church. You would do well to confine your criticisms to issues and not other members of this forum.
So, your God is not a “living God” but a “non-living” God. Strange, since most Christians, and Catholics, insist that their God is alive.
That is up the the owners of Catholic Answers, not to you. Thus far they seem content to allow me to post here.
The Christian God is a living God because He exhibits some of the most important characteristics of what we normally calling “living.” That is, interacting with us with sentience and caring. We do not insist that He conform to all the characteristics of normal biological life, such as digestion and reproduction. (Until the time of the incarnation, at which time God did become - for a while - fully human.) As for being the “first living being,” that need not be a contradiction to the notion of God creating the first biological life form. He himself need not have been created if He has always existed. There never was a time “before there was God” in Christian cosmology. That being said, as you know from my other postings, I do not consider any of this to bear on the scientific question of evolution, which I most certainly consider a scientific theory, and one with much support.bobperk:
So, your God is not a “living God” but a “non-living” God. Strange, since most Christians, and Catholics, insist that their God is alive.
rossum
Actually, he does , something about prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells and deep ocean vents.
All Buddhist scriptures we have now are translations. The Buddha spoke Maghadi. The closest we have today is Pali.
rossum
Not quite. Prokaryotes came first, Eukaryotes are definitely later – look at the origin of mitochondria. Deep ocean vents are certainly one possibility, though there are others. Currently abiogenesis research has a lot of possible hypotheses and is working on eliminating the incorrect ones.
I just wanted to set the record straight…you do have an alternative idea of how life started.
Material life started through abiogenesis on at least one, and possibly more, planets. Immaterial life had no beginning, though the individual living beings are all finite, with a start and an end.
It is his MO. When out of arguments always attack the person. It is so tiresome…
That was easy. LOL
I cannot recall when you have ever done this.
He said many true and irrelevant things in his video. Of the things there were relevant to the question, those did not follow from the true stuff. That is why I say he is just wrong.LeafByNiggle:
That was easy. LOL
And that was even easier…