Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:There is NO credible Biblical establishment of the office of Pope.

Well, not for you, obviously, but there is for me. You clearly interpret: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," differently from me. That's OK; I don't want to proselytise, but you can hardly expect to want to go to heaven for following your conscience, and yet condemn me for not following mine. Curiously, you quote 2 Peter - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." To me this justifies the Catholic Church's teaching against the primacy of individual conscience, but insists upon the collective interpretation "where two or three are gathered together in my name". Perhaps you disagree.

Just as RickD has been inquiring of me how I reconcile my scientific and religious beliefs, can I ask you something? How do you know that the bible is not just a collection of stories gathered together to illustrate a way of living, with a bit of folk history thrown in? What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

Fakey Shaky Parts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4UROOWQvow

Philip
You've done a wonderful job in your sharing on previous page -- regarding Peter.

Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I amongst them. //for sharing Scripture / worshipping God. The Holy Spirit is our teacher-- At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit gives each person a spiritual gift to be used within the church. Some are more gifted in explaining God's Word than other's are. Some are gifted in many other areas for the building up of the church body.

Matthew 16:16 " Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the son of the living God."
And on this rock I will build my church -- meaning his confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God.
God is referred to as the Rock of our Salvation. No one else.
Peter Was the 1st to proclaim salvation to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Salvation being the key to heaven.

crochet1949 wrote:Philip
You've done a wonderful job in your sharing on previous page -- regarding Peter.

Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I amongst them. //for sharing Scripture / worshipping God. The Holy Spirit is our teacher-- At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit gives each person a spiritual gift to be used within the church. Some are more gifted in explaining God's Word than other's are. Some are gifted in many other areas for the building up of the church body.

Matthew 16:16 " Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the son of the living God."
And on this rock I will build my church -- meaning his confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God.
God is referred to as the Rock of our Salvation. No one else.
Peter Was the 1st to proclaim salvation to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Salvation being the key to heaven.

That's Catholicophobic.

Hugh: but you can hardly expect to want to go to heaven for following your conscience, and yet condemn me for not following mine.

Hugh, I did not condemn you for following your conscience. And I do not believe that it is following your conscience that saves a person.

Curiously, you quote 2 Peter - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." To me this justifies the Catholic Church's teaching against the primacy of individual conscience, but insists upon the collective interpretation "where two or three are gathered together in my name". Perhaps you disagree.

No, Hugh! NO interpretation - individual or collective is the measure of correct doctrine. It is SCRIPTURE itself - as if you read the rest of that 2 Peter 1, in which Peter is explaining that he and the apostles "have the prophetic word more fully confirmed" - he is speaking of Jesus, Whom is the CONFIRMATION of the "prophetic word," as he informs the very sentence before. He also directly asserts that NO word of prophecy came from ANYONE's interpretation, but that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." So, these MEN did not decide what was God's word, nor did they interpret it and then write it down. Instead, they WROTE what God inspired, of which they clearly assert that none of these words were from the will of men. You do not see in the New Testament the apostles pouring over words inspired by God, and then debating or voting on the meaning of such so as to interpret them.

Hugh: Just as RickD has been inquiring of me how I reconcile my scientific and religious beliefs, can I ask you something? How do you know that the bible is not just a collection of stories gathered together to illustrate a way of living, with a bit of folk history thrown in? What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

Because what those whom witnessed the events of the Gospel and who also saw the risen Christ say about Scripture. And, to a man, the Gospel writers are consistent upon the origins of Scripture. They record, in the Gospel, that Jesus not only validated the entire writings of the Old Testament to be Scripture, but He also said they were a pre-curser which ALL pointed to Him. So, this Gospel, which all the writers agree about Jesus, records His birth, ministry, death and resurrection. And the apostles all KNEW whether or not Jesus had appeared to them, post Resurrection. So, the ONLY reason one has to believe Jesus was who He said He was is because of what is recorded in the Gospels and the New Testament. So, if these are reliable about Jesus, Who and WHAT He was (God in the flesh!), then we have every reason to believe it is God-given and understandable. But if it were NOT true - if even the New Testament is full of false stories about whatever issues, and certainly if the need for us to have faith in Christ is all made up - why would any of us care? Why would it matter?

Hugh, do you believe that Jesus came to fulfill ALL of the Old Testament as He says, and that He came to DIE to fulfill it - do you believe He came to fulfill a body of work that He validates as Holy and as God's word to man, and yet it is filled with inaccuracies and laughable fabrications of fantasy? Again, why believe ANY of it???!!! And if you doubt major parts of it - how do YOU know - or any of us - know which parts are true and which are purely from human imagination? Because Scripture itself REDUNDANTLY claims to be God-given and breathed. And if it is not - what does it say about a supposedly all-powerful and loving God who allowed His precious words to man - words Jesus DIED for - to be blended with a pack of lies and ridiculous stories? Could He not protect His word? Is His word, while important enough "to DIE for," nonetheless so worthless that He allowed it to become horribly corrupted and blended with so many stories of pure fiction? What sense does that make? So, Hugh, why do you believe the parts where God becomes a man, and He, a God, allows His creations to brutally beat Him, spit on Him, crucify Him in agony - but then this man comes back to life, asserts we must be saved to gain Heaven - WHY, Hugh, believe ANY of that, if you think most of Scripture is bogus - or, at least, if you think it's not true as those reading plain language would understand it. And if it's not understandable - WHAT GOOD IS IT???!!! And what does it REALLY mean? And why either falseSo, this supremely intelligent Being, Whom came to die for us, to fulfill His Word, doesn't want us to truly understand most of it? Does that make any sense at all?

Hugh, I'm not saying you don't believe Scripture is God-given. But there are MAJOR issues of picking and choosing which parts you think should only be figuratively understood, and which are merely allegorical or symbolic. And to be credible, you must apply a consistent hermeneutic as to how you decide which is which. Your statement: "How do you know that the bible is not just a collection of stories gathered together to illustrate a way of living, with a bit of folk history thrown in? What makes you think the bible is the word of God?" makes me think you really don't believe the stories are factual, or understandable as written. Again, why believe you must be saved? Why believe God became a man? Why believe He died a hideous death and came back to life again? Why believe it is crucial to one's eternity to believe that? All of these are crucial things to understand and believe - but they SOUND absolutely fantastical - like wild stories. Why believe then EITHER?

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. I think Jesus would understand.

hughfarey wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. I think Jesus would understand.

I think you guys need to work this out NOW! Hundreds of years of Protestant/Catholic differences can be fixed right now!

Just think, you two can forever be known as the two people who brought peace to the Protestant/Catholic schism.

Don't give up now!!!

What exactly is it that you think Jesus would understand. Agree to Differ? It's a person's eternal life either in heaven or hell that is at stake. And THAT is mighty Big / the most important decision a person will Ever make.
God's Word tells us that each person makes his decision during This life time -- no second chances.

Sadly, I am insufficiently versed in the techniques of illogical argument to want to proceed. First Philip believed in the literal meaning of every word of the bible, and that any 'interpretation' version must not be correct; then he said that the bible did have to be 'interpreted', and the question became one of difference of interpretation; and now we're back to the literal/non-literal position again. I support my position with archaeology, history, science and Catholic doctrine; his is the entirely self-referential position that because the bible says it's the word of God, therefore it must be, which is logically unsound. His personal defence of this position consists of unsupported dogmatic assertions and rhetorical questions.

I do not believe that this statement is true "Hugh! NO interpretation - individual or collective is the measure of correct doctrine." Has Philip any evidence that it is?

I do not believe this statement "You do not see in the New Testament the apostles poring over words inspired by God, and then debating or voting on the meaning of such so as to interpret them." On the contrary, the apostles were continually puzzled by almost everything Jesus said, and frequently argued amongst themselves. While on earth Jesus attempted to make things clearer while he could, and as soon as he wasn't they started squabbling again - hence the divisions between Peter and Paul and the injunctions in most of Paul's letters.

Philip's remark: "Your statement: "How do you know that the bible is not just a collection of stories gathered together to illustrate a way of living, with a bit of folk history thrown in? What makes you think the bible is the word of God?" makes me think you really don't believe the stories are factual, or understandable as written," suggests that he has not read a single word of our previous conversation, and is starting all over again. This thread is about whether God can work through evolution or not. My entire response has been to the effect that he can, and that the biblical stories are not factual or understandable as literally written.

Crotchet: have no fear. What matters to Jesus is that you love God and love your neighbour as yourself. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." All else is trivial beside them. Whether or not you believe that the Red Sea literally parted or not is wholly unnecessary for salvation.

You're missing part of that -- we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind. And our neighbor as ourselves.
The point Being, does the person believe that God is Capable Of / powerful enough to do exactly That. If He Wasn't. Then upon what do we base His ability To raise someone from the Dead.
And, IF all those happening in God's Word were Not true, then what makes one trust that God Did Really raise Jesus Christ from the dead?
Either God exists as God Almighty or He doesn't. He doesn't exist or Not, for or at, our convenience. Eternity is a very real time of existence / we only know about it because Of God's Word. But, for Me, I'd rather assume that God's Word Is real and reliable and take steps necessary to ensure a heavenly eternity, than risk the possibility of ending up in hell. And then there Is that quality of Inner Peace that is really nice.
At the point that a person realizes the Reality Of hell -- it will be To Late to do anything about it. And That is what satan is counting on. Lots of people who are waiting to 'see' -- Assuming there will be time to change their mind and Then accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior. But That is Not Placing our faith in God's Word / it's 'seeing is believing' and That is not truly Believing.

There has Always been discussion about God's Word. Arguing about it doesn't help any, though. We can always learn from others. And some areas Are an agree to disagree, but we need to be careful about that, too. Is dancing okay? Is smoking okay. Some of these 'side issues' Don't directly affect our salvation, but it Also speaks on modesty and what we're knowingly putting into our bodies. And what we're putting into our minds.
Some people like contemporary Christian music, others Don't. Some like Praise and Worship and some like the traditional Gospel hymns. Those are agree to disagree areas. I'll go to My church and you can go to Your church.
And, yes, people in the New Testament had discussions together about / what on earth is Jesus Talking about. Some were out to crucify Him and some were legalistic and some genuinely wanted to Learn.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.
Can you post the proof of that?

Many have posted on the subject including hugh, quoting Humani Generis and other papal pronouncements on the subject. Though none were done ex cathedra (and therefore not absolute dogma), by no means those pronouncements are to be taken lightly. Monogenism and Adam and Eve as our spiritual parents and propagators of original sin are as close to defined dogma as a Catholic can get.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Interesting.

Can you post the proof of that?

If it is so then that makes zero chance of me ever being a Christian.
Its a complete insult to anyonevwith half a brain, fully on a par with
being required to believe J Smith found gold books.

That's an emotional response as it clearly demonstrates you did not read a word I said.

Oh? then who did say this?

But you are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve from whom sin originated and propagated to the human race. That is de fide hugh.

Philip wrote:

Rick: hat God was the source of light, and darkness. That a day was 24 hours, despite your belief that the very thing used to measure a 24 hour day, and the very thing which gives us mornings and evenings, didn't even exist?

The reality is that darkness is not a "thing" - it is but an absence of light. So, as that is the case, did God bring light to the earth, only to keep removing and replacing it at intervals that mimic the effect of the sun? That makes no sense at all!

The earth rotates; the light could have come from one side so that it fell on each part of the earth as the earth turned. Revelation does say that we won't need the sun in the new heaven and earth because God will be our light. Will we need the night to sleep? Not sure.