Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

03/12/2013 new

(Quote) Shara-929649 said: (Quote) Bernie-645443 said: Hi James, do you mean that it is not shields a...
(Quote) Shara-929649 said:

Quote:
Bernie-645443 said:

Hi James, do you mean that it is not shields and deeds all the way to Valhalla lol ? Good to see you again.




Bernie I am shocked, saddened and disappointed by your comment. So ethnic jokes and insults are acceptable on CM now? A viking joke? REALLY. This kind of behavior is the last thing I expected from you or anyone on CM. I was going comment before but I decided to hold off but I have since changed my mind as this thread has truly crossed the line. This is beyond uncharitable behavior. it makes me wonders if other ethnic jokes would not be shot down immediately as there would be more people to defend them if our threads would be permeated with them. This is not funny or right in any measure.

--hide--

eyebrow

I suppose if you wanted to work at it, since Bernie was referencing a non-Christian mythology during a discussion of creation in a Christian forum, one could make the assumption that he was doing it to ridicule the culture of that mythology. But since the text does not require such an assumption on its face, that would require the person doing it to have reason to question Bernie's motives. (Or to simply be looking for a fight.)

Bernie has a long history of posting here, and that history shows that he is one of the people least likely to offer an insult to anyone, for any reason. He has always been one of the most congenial posters here.

That being the case, charitable behavior would demand that he be given the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately jumping his case and throwing some kind of "race card."

I see Bernie's comment as neither an ethnic joke and certainly not an insult of any kind, ethnic or otherwise. A viking reference, yes. But "ethnic joke?" Hardly- he could have substituted any other mythology for the same effect. And certainly not insulting to anybody who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder.

Maybe you want to live in world where nobody is allowed to make any cultural references whatsoever for fear that some hyper-sensative person is going to blow their stack, but I don't. And I doubt many people really do.

03/12/2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I suppose if you wanted to work at it, since Bernie was referencing a non-Christ...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I suppose if you wanted to work at it, since Bernie was referencing a non-Christian mythology during a discussion of creation in a Christian forum, one could make the assumption that he was doing it to ridicule the culture of that mythology. But since the text does not require such an assumption on its face, that would require the person doing it to have reason to question Bernie's motives. (Or to simply be looking for a fight.)

Bernie has a long history of posting here, and that history shows that he is one of the people least likely to offer an insult to anyone, for any reason. He has always been one of the most congenial posters here.

That being the case, charitable behavior would demand that he be given the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately jumping his case and throwing some kind of "race card."

I see Bernie's comment as neither an ethnic joke and certainly not an insult of any kind, ethnic or otherwise. A viking reference, yes. But "ethnic joke?" Hardly- he could have substituted any other mythology for the same effect. And certainly not insulting to anybody who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder.

Maybe you want to live in world where nobody is allowed to make any cultural references whatsoever for fear that some hyper-sensative person is going to blow their stack, but I don't. And I doubt many people really do.

--hide--

John I can assure you that I was not looking for a fight. It appeared when looking at the posts collectively that Peter was being hosed. I had a discussion with Bernie privately and am satified that your assumption was correct and I was indeed wrong. embarassed Thank you for the reminder to be charitable. I find myself neededing that reminder sometimes as I can tend to be reactive when I think ( assume) that an injustice is being done. embarassed I appreciate your willingness to do so.

03/12/2013 new

(Quote) Shara-929649 said: John I can assure you that I was not looking for a fight. It appeared when looking at th...
(Quote) Shara-929649 said:

John I can assure you that I was not looking for a fight. It appeared when looking at the posts collectively that Peter was being hosed. I had a discussion with Bernie privately and am satified that your assumption was correct and I was indeed wrong. Thank you for the reminder to be charitable. I find myself neededing that reminder sometimes as I can tend to be reactive when I think ( assume) that an injustice is being done. I appreciate your willingness to do so.

--hide--

I'm glad you had a conversation with Bernie about it, and glad that it got settled amicably.

It was nice of you to come forward and say that you had come to the wrong conclusion.

Hearing your side of the story, I can see where lumping everything collectively into the attacks on Peter would make it easier to come to a different conclusion about what Bernie was saying.

03/14/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Yes! He could also have created everything in one instance as the Big Bang theory ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Yes!

He could also have created everything in one instance as the Big Bang theory suggests with everything evolving from that by the laws he created to "operate" the world. That would even allow for the extremist form of Darwin's theory except that we are required to believe that at some point in that process He directly intervened and infused a primate with a soul and at that point created man in His own image and likeness.

It is also possible that this all occurred a mere 6-7 thousand years ago and the scientific evidence that exists to show the earth to be 13+ billion years old is just one of God's "jokes" on mankind to show man that in the end we really are not as smart as we think we are.

--hide--
The, so called, Big Bang theory does not in any way shape or form suggest that everything was created in one instance.

03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Marissa-529206 said: Skipping all the insults. I see it as limiting God. Because often God violates his own laws. If...
(Quote) Marissa-529206 said:

Skipping all the insults. I see it as limiting God. Because often God violates his own laws. If he didn't...alot of us wouldn't be here. There is a belief out there, gnostic, in origin(which is growing in the US), which suggests that God creates and then sits back and watches his creation. This is a very dangerous idea. It implies a lack of concern. How can science explain the incorruptibles. Most scientists that have tried say exactly what you said wouldn't be true. "It violates all natural law". The picture on the cactus cloth at Guadalupe....."It violates all natural law". The resurrection of a human body after death. "It violates all natural law". A big one, the final apparition at Fatima....where the sun came so close to the earth it dried inches of mud in seconds yet no one was scorched. Where many athiest were convinced mainly because....."it violates all natural law". Gods way of doing things is very unknown to us. We do have to trust that the order of creation is as it is in Genesis because there are theological reasons behind some of those, and to switch them around would actually change what people believe. However, we don't have to take it COMPLETELY literal.

I love physics. I love math. I don't know how many people in my family love math. But there is a similarity between religion and the "sciences". You have to start with a known. You can't work from nothing. Well......God can. I forget if the man who wrote the scientific method was a monk or a priest, but he started with knowing....God is behind it, and God can stop all this by stopping his thought. We exist because God is thinking of us. If he were to stop thinking of us, we would cease to exist.....but that would violate natural law? Right? Yet we believe it is absolutely possible. I mean, God coming down in the form of a man......I want to know how many laws THAT violates. A person can definitely have faith but limit God. I see many religions do it. When they claim that Jesus was not both man and God....because you can't be human AND God. What is that doing? Limiting God. Mary can't be sinless, because ALL humans sin. Well, if God wants to make one that doesn't....he can.

Now, I'm off to a kids carnival :) Guten Nacht

--hide--
Thank you for your reply and interesting inputs Marissa.

As we start using the term "natural law" I think we need to clarify what it means. Which law or laws are you referring to? I can't really answer your examples without this clarification.

03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Marissa-529206 said: One thing I would like to point out is that we were present before the creation of the earth. T...
(Quote) Marissa-529206 said:

One thing I would like to point out is that we were present before the creation of the earth. This is one of those fabulous mysteries that exist in the Cathoic church that we can dwell on. How were we present? Only God can know, but every part of us was created in his image. In fact, the creation story is where Catholics get the idea that animals will experience some type of "heaven". Because after God creates everything he says that "it is Good". He also frequently talks in the bible about the love he has for his creation. The reason we will live forever isn't because we are made in his image, but rather that his love is eternal. So it is his love in us that lives on. Just the same as his love in his creatures and creation will live on. It gets pretty fuzzy after that. Not alot of theologians spend time concerning themselves with the possibility of an after-life for dogs. But I'm not sure if I could handle the world if I thought of all these animals who suffer their entire lives from cruelty never get to experience love. This is a separating point for Catholics and Protestants.....and boy am I glad I'm Catholic. I grew up on a farm and I LOVE creation. Every single flower I grow is special to me. My animals even more so. It's nice to know that these will be part of eternity.

--hide--
I've never heard it being mentioned before that we were present before earth although it is an interesting idea. What do you base this on?

03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Craig-940185 said: Paul, I like the fact that the Catholic Church leaves us free to ponder this for ourselv...
(Quote) Craig-940185 said:

Paul, I like the fact that the Catholic Church leaves us free to ponder this for ourselves. I don't believe that anyone should be dogmatic when defining the creation as no one was there to see how it was done. No one will be able to prove, empirically, that the universe is 13+ billion years old or 6-7 thousand years old, but it is very interesting to think about.


Personally, I don't believe that humans evolved from primates. Simply showing that DNA is a very close match isn't enough to convince me. God used the same building blocks for everything and this is evidenced everywhere in living creatures. I believe that we are a special creation with the ability to love and glorify the Lord with our own intellect. Humans are unique in this trait.


Additionally, no one has been able to convince me by empirical evidence that the universe is 13+ billion years old. The stars, being light years away, do not testify to this, especially for proponents of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is quite compatible with the Biblical view of God "stretching out the heavens." So, all the stars with their light were in one area until God stretched them out. In other words, the light from the stars was already here at the point God stretched out the heavens (or Big Bang, if you prefer). We should not, therefore, be measuring how long the light took to get from the furthest stars to the earth. This, in itself, poses a conundrum for Big Bang/Old Universe proponents.


This is my opinion and I hope I've shared it charitably. I don't wish to start a ruckus around here.

--hide--
Hello Craig and thank you for you input. Don't worry you shared your opinion in a most charitable manner.

When it comes to the age of the universe being some 13+ billion years or younger than about 8000 years the observed data clearly points in the former direction. Examples of this is various types of stars burning other fuels than hydrogen or helium which our own star does and how these elements was formed as they couldn't been formed in the primordial soup about a minute after big bang, time needed to form super clusters of galaxies and the presence of monstrously massive black holes many million times more massive than our own star and so on.

The stars were not formed in the big bang. In fact the universe wasn't formed in the big bang. What is called big bang was the unimaginably rapid expansion of the already existing universe. But it was presumably very very young and none of the particles we know and are made of existed yet either because the energy density was so immensely high that they couldn't exist or that all that existed was a perfect vacuum.

03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Marissa-529206 said: Yes, I know what you mean Jim, losing pets is hard. I've lost a few myself. That's the one thi...
(Quote) Marissa-529206 said: Yes, I know what you mean Jim, losing pets is hard. I've lost a few myself. That's the one thing the church disagrees with science on, the idea that the world is "chaos". The church teaches, and I believe this, that everything is "intended". That rose bloomed on that day for a purpose. I always liked the bible reading that said God knew how many hairs were on our head. My grandparents always said that creation was a clue as to how God loved us. If he has enough love to be able to will into being every single blade of grass and to count every drop of water, that is a lot of love. So I always find a bit of comfort in the fact that it was Gods will for an animal to die. Because I know it is for his good. It's interesting that we are the only church that at least I know of to teach this. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong.
--hide--
The universe does indeed seem very ordered on a macroscopic scale but once we look at it on the microscopic scale it appears to be quite chaotic; for example with particles traveling at speeds far below that of light yet seemingly capable of travel backwards in time, or that the number of particles in a proton is constantly changing yet the mass of the proton remains the same.

03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Sorry, the misunderstanding is strictly on your part. I stated that I was not goin...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Sorry, the misunderstanding is strictly on your part.

I stated that I was not going to argue science with you. I merely pointed out that your premise was false on its face because you stated, with no reservations, that God could not create the earth before He Created Light. And I have continually pointed out to you that by saying that you are limiting God.

God can create earth without light. He can also create a light that in no way conforms to what human science understands light to be. He could create a universe that does not rely on carbon in any form to make it up. He can create creatures that in no way resemble human beings and he can infuse them with a soul and they would be, just as we humans are, like Him, created in His own Image and Likeness.

Now if you agree that God can create earth without light ,then it does not need light only HIs will. Therefore, in your own words, you cannot conclude that, "... light is an absolute requirement." and therefore the creation story as found in the Bible is impossible.

I also merely pointed out to you that by using the explanation of why the bible creation story is wrong, is making the same fundamental error that any scientist who looks at his own learning and concludes that science proves that God does not exist for the simple reason that God is not constrained by any laws he may have created.

The only thing God cannot do is perform a contradiction; i.e. He cannot create a rock He can't lift.

--hide--
"The only thing God cannot do is perform a contradiction; i.e. He cannot create a rock He can't lift."

Who is limiting God now?


03/16/2013 new

(Quote) Lauren-927923 said: Peter, when I look through a microscope, or run a PCR and retrieve a sequence of code for the DN...
(Quote) Lauren-927923 said:

Peter, when I look through a microscope, or run a PCR and retrieve a sequence of code for the DNA of an organism we might or might not be able to see, when I research a parasite and find how it interacts with its host and the world in general, when I lay out an ecosystem web, when I look at an infant, when I see the sunrise or set and the stars at night, when I see a beautiful flower blooming despite drought all about it, I am in awe of God. I am often questioned as to how I can reconcile being a scientist with also being religious and for me there is no conflict. Science is a gift from God through which He is revealed to us in some of the most intricate and exquisite ways.

Science can no more "test" God, than religion can explain how to do a PCR. They are two different realms, it is like arguing apples and oranges to argue between creationism and evolution, which I will note was NOT your question. Your question as I read it, was basically, doesn't the world around you put you in awe of God the Creator? And, for me it is an unequivocal yes. We have many scientific fields today because men of God wanted to know God. And, we can know something of Him through the wonders He has made and our own inquisitiveness into how it could possibly be. Most science is reductionist in nature and I would argue in comparison to the Divine, all science is reductionist, it can only address the physical observable world. (Even though parts of it are basically unseen for those physicists among us :-)).

Creation and the stories of how it came to be in the Bible, have a far more important truth to share, it is not so much about the world about us, but the great love God has for us and all of His creation -- it is the story of our Salvation and as such is concerned with our soul. It's a story of stewardship and interconnectedness. Science can only address our bodies and not our souls. (Even though there have been attempts to test the wieght of a soul :-)) We are truly blessed to be surrounded with the beauty of the Divine all about us. And, I feel both humbled and excited about those glimpses science provides. What an exquisite world we live in and what a gift that science allows us a small glimpse of the true depth and the staggering realization that we still know so very little.

--hide--
Thank you for your reply Lauren! I am also questioned quite often from atheists how I can believe in God and be a scientist but I'm also questioned from religious people how I can be a catholic scientist.

Posts 61 - 70 of 74