How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I figured you knew it. But given that it so simple to locate it, why would RTB not have done so?
 
It’s semantics. The pope could simply answer the question instead of giving a long diatribe where he tries to marry religion and science. He doesn’t want to go against science so he rides the fence. The problem is it’s impossible to do so.
 
You know me. I want as many citations for assertions as one can find. I like the source to be books, if possible.
 
ReadTheBible said:
It’s semantics. The pope could simply answer the question instead of giving a long diatribe where he tries to marry religion and science. He doesn’t want to go against science so he rides the fence. The problem is it’s impossible to do so.
Click to expand...
If you would use words correctly and be precise in your language, you wouldn’t have to complain about responses to you being semantic. It’s really not that hard to do.

Frankly, you come across as intellectually dishonest, so I suspect you don’t actually care that you’re being imprecise and frequently flat-out incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I rarely speculate but for the sake of discussion I will this time.

Hypothetically you, the pope, and I are in the same room. I pose this question to the Pope, “Is the earth billions of years old as science says or 1000’s of years old as scripture says?”

I will bet you 2 crispy creme donuts of your choice that he wouldn’t give a straight answer. He would provide an answer that would try to satisfy both views.
 
I think you misread what I put. When I said “it’s semantics” I meant the Pope’s words not mine.

I haven’t said one thing incorrect or otherwise intellectually dishonest.
 
So instead of rational debate your line of logic is to hurl insults. Got it.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Yes, under his approval.
Click to expand...
Not his approval alone.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
No, what I’m implying does not concern Luther
Click to expand...
Then don’t group him that way.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
it concerns fact “council accepted by entire Church” is a bad definition if definition of Church is not clear.
Click to expand...
I think it was a reasonable definition when the councils were held.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I’d call absolute faith a virtue that we should aspire to, not necessarily requirement.
Click to expand...
And yet in your comment it seemed far more required. Okay.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I also do not believe people are saved or not saved based on faith alone though (not works alone either, but that is not Catholic position).
Click to expand...
Try not to misrepresent what, in this case, Lutherans believe.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Patriarchates have been wrong before from all perspectives you can get. Even majority of them.
Click to expand...
Then it seems entirely nonsensical for one of them to claim infallibility ex cathedra.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
You could argue with same argument over many things, it boils down to opinion.
Click to expand...
So, the importance of councils.
 
ReadTheBible said:
I rarely speculate but for the sake of discussion I will this time.

Hypothetically you, the pope, and I are in the same room. I pose this question to the Pope, “Is the earth billions of years old as science says or 1000’s of years old as scripture says?”

I will bet you 2 crispy creme donuts of your choice that he wouldn’t give a straight answer. He would provide an answer that would try to satisfy both views.
Click to expand...
Would there be something wrong with an answer that seeks to teach individuals the importance of evaluating science in light of scripture?
 
JonNC said:
40.png
ReadTheBible:
I rarely speculate but for the sake of discussion I will this time.

Hypothetically you, the pope, and I are in the same room. I pose this question to the Pope, “Is the earth billions of years old as science says or 1000’s of years old as scripture says?”

I will bet you 2 crispy creme donuts of your choice that he wouldn’t give a straight answer. He would provide an answer that would try to satisfy both views.
Click to expand...
Would there be something wrong with an answer that seeks to teach individuals the importance of evaluating science in light of scripture?
Click to expand...
The only acceptable answer is proof-texting, of course.
 
There is nothing wrong with true science. The problem is Scientists have elevated themselves to a platform above common people and the theory of evolution is a religion. They’ll never admit that but it takes faith to believe in it.

I would suggest watching a leading expert on the subject and hopefully it strengthens your faith.

 
  1. Did Jesus tell the 12 apostles they would each receive a throne in Heaven to judge the tribes of Israel?
  2. Do you consider Peter the 1st Pope?
Sorry I meant those questions for HopkinsReb
 
Last edited:
ReadTheBible said:
It’s semantics. The pope could simply answer the question instead of giving a long diatribe where he tries to marry religion and science. He doesn’t want to go against science so he rides the fence. The problem is it’s impossible to do so.
Click to expand...
OK, now that you see the source could you address the following

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

The quote used was
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

That’s NOT where the Pope ended his points. When asked, wouldn’t provide the source. Ergo the context was missing. YOU called the pope a liar…HERE

WHY? The pope goes on

“He (God) created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.
“God is not a demiurge [demigod] or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Do you understand the point being made?

For example:

Peter said this as an interesting analogy about time. Could that analogy of 1 day be equal to a million years? a billion years to God? …Sure. God is outside of time.

I would suggest, this is the area of time analogy, (evolution of all things) Pope Francis is pointing to with scientists. In 2003, NASA said the universe is 13.7 billion years old +/- 1%. As it turns out that link might go away sometime in the future.

That said,

Re: Genesis, and 6 Days of creation

Could God do creation in Days? Sure. So is Peter’s way we look at the length of " a day " to God, just an analogy to God for describing creation?

Being outside of time, there is no time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top