R
ringil
Guest
Ask Him. . . That’s how He chose to do it. . . .
- Status
A good argument can be made that nothing done by God upon creation is needed by him.
So what exactly are you saying?
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Catchy answer but it is not fact. You don’t take Genesis literally, I get it. What other books of the OT do you choose to turn into allegories? All, some, or maybe the ones that just seem like it?Ask Him. . . That’s how He chose to do it. . . .
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Tell me that argument.
A good argument can be made that nothing done by God upon creation is needed by him.
So what exactly are you saying?
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Only took him six days. Not millions of years.
Ask Him. . . That’s how He chose to do it. . . .
M
MugenOne
Guest
Why the Rich Recovered and the Rest Didn’t
The latest report from the Federal Reserve tells us that wealth of the middle class declined by more than a third between 2007 and 2010. The wealth of the top 10 percent, however, grew by two percent.
These statistics will no doubt fuel partisan politics by some who argue that the rich have gained at the expense of the rest and that the system is rigged for the rich.
There is, however, a simpler, economic reason behind the disparity.
The wealthy have a greater proportion of their wealth in stocks and less of it in homes. Stocks and financial investments have rebounded. Homes haven’t. Or at least, not as much.
The latest Fed data doesn’t break down the 2010 portfolios of each group. That data will come later this month. But we know that in 2009, the top one percent had only 10 percent of their wealth tied up in their homes. They had much more of their wealth — 38 percent — in financial investments, including 9 percent of their wealth in stocks. (While the survey doesn’t break out the performance for the one percent, the stats for the top 10 percent are likely comparable.)
The middle class and upper-middle class, or those in the 50 to 90 percent range, had more than half of their wealth tied up in their homes. They had less than a third of their wealth in financial investments and only 1.6 percent of their wealth in stocks.
cnbc.com/id/47802283
The latest report from the Federal Reserve tells us that wealth of the middle class declined by more than a third between 2007 and 2010. The wealth of the top 10 percent, however, grew by two percent.
These statistics will no doubt fuel partisan politics by some who argue that the rich have gained at the expense of the rest and that the system is rigged for the rich.
There is, however, a simpler, economic reason behind the disparity.
The wealthy have a greater proportion of their wealth in stocks and less of it in homes. Stocks and financial investments have rebounded. Homes haven’t. Or at least, not as much.
The latest Fed data doesn’t break down the 2010 portfolios of each group. That data will come later this month. But we know that in 2009, the top one percent had only 10 percent of their wealth tied up in their homes. They had much more of their wealth — 38 percent — in financial investments, including 9 percent of their wealth in stocks. (While the survey doesn’t break out the performance for the one percent, the stats for the top 10 percent are likely comparable.)
The middle class and upper-middle class, or those in the 50 to 90 percent range, had more than half of their wealth tied up in their homes. They had less than a third of their wealth in financial investments and only 1.6 percent of their wealth in stocks.
cnbc.com/id/47802283
E
epan
Guest
Frightening. I guess those are the “red” states.
God is infinite.
God is omnipotent…
God needs nothing.
And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Why are you so sure that God used evolution?Ask Him. . . That’s how He chose to do it. . . .
It isn’t in the Bible, and no Pope has ever taught it.
The Pope’s have always been wary of Evolution, if you’ve ever read Humani Generis.
Remember that is doctrine to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve (and that there is no man alive today (or has ever been alive) who is not descended from them).
This much has been taught definitively.
Now the six day creation (my belief, as well as the belief that most in the Church have held for say 2000 years) is not doctrine, but neither is evolution, so don’t make a statement like
“Evolution” is how God chose to do it. There is no need to be so smug.
God Bless
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Now why is it frightening that people believe what the Church taught for most of its history?
Creationism is nothing but recognizing the omnipotence of God, and the inerrancy of scripture.
R
ringil
Guest
It takes all kinds I guess.
E
epan
Guest
For most of its history, the Church existed before we had discovered that the sun anchors our solar system, and only very recently have we understood what we do now about evolution and natural selection.
Creationism does not glorify God? How could it, it is untrue, if it means that evolution has not occurred. Or would you say that God designed things like DNA just to trick us? How do you explain the number of types of dog, or the success of the HIV retrovirus, if evolution does not exist?
R
ringil
Guest
From the survey:
Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation
um. . . . .
DUH!
Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation
um. . . . .
DUH!
R
ringil
Guest
Until recently most Christians believed that illnesses in the body were caused by imbalances in the “four humours”.
Most Christians also believed that humans were created in the man and distributed via his sperm into the woman who simply incubated the fetus.
It was believed that worms grew spontaneously from rotting meat. . . . . etc. . . . etc. . . . . etc. . . . .
I could go on all day relating erroneous beliefs held by the majority of Christians throughout the last 2000 years. . . . . . .
N
Nec5
Guest
I’m not entirely sure what that even proves. Education is not the same as schooling.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Says the guy who just shot me the same verse I’ve had more than five fundies shoot me for being Catholic and rejecting literal, fairy tale Creationism.
I see what you’re trying to do there. Just because there’s a wide range of scientific models vying to be accepted doesn’t mean Creationism is on the same level as them.
That’s like saying a Protestant knows more about how to select a Pope than the College of Cardinals.
Hard to say that when you consider the theological idea that God exists outside of time.
There’s no mention of Ancient Japan or India either in the OT. Did that mean those two civilizations didn’t exist?
Only God knows and understands the full scope and complexity of our universe. I may think it’s boring but I don’t deny that there’s a structure to our reality that we don’t fully understand.
It just so happens scientists have more credit because they actually spend time studying it unlike literalists.
Tell me that after you’ve met someone who’s living like Warren Buffett without any form of academic influence or certification.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Uh yes it does. I don’t need to mention God in order explain the chemical workings of a baking cake. People would think you’re stupidly preachy if you’d do that. That’s not making God unnecessary. If anything, you’d be doing God a favor by not dragging Him needlessly like that.
It’s high time you realized that the whole world doesn’t revolve around religion and furthermore, several attempts to make it so have ended with religion turning into an instrument of evil.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I feel tempted to frame my diploma after reading this.From the survey:
Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation
um. . . . .
DUH!
:blush:
N
Nec5
Guest
I’m telling you that now. I’ve met several who don’t fit your bill. You and the rest seem to be in love with mankind’s latest claims to knowledge. I will remind you that this too is mentioned ad nauseum in the Bible via the “believing themselves wise, they became fools” argument.
You should not be putting much stock into worldly success, anyway. I can list thousands of successful people without accreditation and certification that are wealthy. I can also list people who are successful with those accolades that are fools.
All I can tell you folks is that this is one of the reasons Christianity is rotting in the West. Once you begin doubting everything in the Old Testament, you undercut the New. I don’t think it necessarily matters if you believe the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion. It’s probably neither. What is problematic are the attacks on people who take a literal view. They aren’t losing their faith. It’s those who worship scientific determinism that are leaving the faith or distorting it.
The Catholic Church asserts that you can believe either and you can even include evolution or not. It’s our choice. Why, then, do so many here reject with such disdain traditional literal interpretations? It’s a kind of intellectual hobsnobbery similar to that described in the Book of Wisdom. It’s kind of pathetic, kind of sad, and not particularly Christian.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Fundamentalists use that argument too when at a loss in the face of a Catholic apologists’ credentials.
The fact is, those people have knowledge, even those you claim who don’t have certification. Chances are, even if they didn’t, their knowledge came from academic resources. Some of them even make use of people with the academic knowledge coughsBill Gatescoughs.
Read my statement again. Hard. The influence and reach of academia is undeniable. Let’s not fool ourselves.
Again, a false dilemma. Someone here stated the complexity of analyzing the Bible. Maybe he should be suggesting links and books to you next.
You wanna know why even a Humanities graduate like me is taking this personal? It’s cuz creationists are making a mockery of what people like me fantasize about. I actually WISH our world was like those in ancient myths. We love the way myths defy and disregard the so-called principles of science in favor of the fantastic in order to express wondrous concepts (and in some cases, religious truth). People who insist on literal creationism ruin it for us by implying that God somehow changed His mind, changed that wonderful realm, and somehow made our world closer to the one reflected in sitcoms and warring news networks.
I don’t make references to the field of mythology here just to flaunt. People who take a literal view of Genesis are figuratively flipping off those of us who try to understand what really matters in ancient stories. They distort the study of myth AND the study of science by forcing them together in the most incompatible manner.
They have every right to be criticized.
- Status