Pope accepts big bang theory

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Silenthps"] What makes saying He poof'd things into existence any more "idiotic" than saying He "banged" things into existence? It seems more idiotic for him to wait 13billion years to finally have human beings on the earth. Silenthps

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Or the Bible, I presume. Or does the sh*te you're talking not apply to that particular book of lies?u_r_a_sausage

Actually, if you look at the Bible from the perspective that God and the Angels are highly technologically advanced extraterrestrials, and not the creations that most translations of the Bible paint them out to be, it makes perfect sense. To me that is. We should keep in mind that the book was written by men thousands of years ago who wouldn't know the difference between something that was "supernatural," or just highly technologically advanced. After all,"supernatural" really means science that we don't understand at this time. I can understand if you won't buy into it, since you don't have the background that I do. Some people resort to hurling insults and attacking positions that they haven't even attempted to understand. I'm used to it, been on OT for a long time now.

*shakes head*

I fear you're hopeless. Never heard of Ancient Astronaut theory, eh? It will be even more sad if you have heard of it and still respond that way. You must be one of those people who think that world religions with strangely similar creation stories and described encounters with beings from the sky were all just made up out of the blue. And that religions lasting thousands of years aren't based on real events. I question your sense of reality.

Or the Bible, I presume. Or does the sh*te you're talking not apply to that particular book of lies?u_r_a_sausage

Actually, if you look at the Bible from the perspective that God and the Angels are highly technologically advanced extraterrestrials, and not the creations that most translations of the Bible paint them out to be, it makes perfect sense. To me that is. We should keep in mind that the book was written by men thousands of years ago who wouldn't know the difference between something that was "supernatural," or just highly technologically advanced. After all,"supernatural" really means science that we don't understand at this time. I can understand if you won't buy into it, since you don't have the background that I do. Some people resort to hurling insults and attacking positions that they haven't even attempted to understand. I'm used to it, been on OT for a long time now.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]No, the idea that the world is 10,000 years old rejects a large variety of atheistic interpretations of scientific advancements and discoveries we have discovered about God's creation and ourselves. And their interpretations are based upon the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. It doesn't assume that the Bible is a science book, it assumes that the Bible is right and that anything that contradicts it is wrong. It doesn't assume God created false scientific knowledge it only assumes that fallen man will try to take Gods creation and pervert it in a way that says that God didn't create it. All the scientific knowledge points to God creating it yet man rejects that idea.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]No, the idea that the world is 10,000 years old rejects a large variety of atheistic interpretations of scientific advancements and discoveries we have discovered about God's creation and ourselves. And their interpretations are based upon the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. It doesn't assume that the Bible is a science book, it assumes that the Bible is right and that anything that contradicts it is wrong. It doesn't assume God created false scientific knowledge it only assumes that fallen man will try to take Gods creation and pervert it in a way that says that God didn't create it. All the scientific knowledge points to God creating it yet man rejects that idea.u_r_a_sausage

If something can be interpreted in such a way that it is compatible with currently understood science, there's no reason to pit them against each other. Things should not be viewed as in conflict with one another unless they absolutely must be. When something is open to interpretation, it doesn't need to be viewed as absolute.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]No, the idea that the world is 10,000 years old rejects a large variety of atheistic interpretations of scientific advancements and discoveries we have discovered about God's creation and ourselves. And their interpretations are based upon the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. It doesn't assume that the Bible is a science book, it assumes that the Bible is right and that anything that contradicts it is wrong. It doesn't assume God created false scientific knowledge it only assumes that fallen man will try to take Gods creation and pervert it in a way that says that God didn't create it. All the scientific knowledge points to God creating it yet man rejects that idea.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]What does background have to do with it? You're simply pulling things out of your ass. How about SAINT GEORGE WAS A TIMETRAVELLING CAR AND THE DRAGON WAS MADE OF STEEL AND S*AT THE COLLECTED WORKS OF CHARLES DICKENS, but of course the simple farmers who witnessed them couldn't comprehend this.u_r_a_sausage

*shakes head*

I fear you're hopeless. Never heard of Ancient Astronaut theory, eh? It will be even more sad if you have heard of it and still respond that way. You must be one of those people who think that world religions with strangely similar creation stories and described encounters with beings from the sky were all just made up out of the blue. And that religions lasting thousands of years aren't based on real events. I question your sense of reality.

If you say so. I'll bet my Gamespot membership that it's proven to be true in the next 20 years.

SAINT GEORGE WAS A TIMETRAVELLING CAR AND THE DRAGON WAS MADE OF STEEL AND S*** THE COLLECTED WORKS OF CHARLES DICKENS, but of course the simple farmers who witnessed them couldn't comprehend this.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="harashawn"] It would make more sense to think the dragon was a likely dinosaur, but dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, right?u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]HAHAHAHA IT CAN'T BE A COINCIDENCE THAT WHEN I INTERPRET GENESIS SO IT MATCHES SCIENCE, GENESIS MATCHES SCIENCE, YOU GUYS!u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]HAHAHAHA IT CAN'T BE A COINCIDENCE THAT WHEN I INTERPRET GENESIS SO IT MATCHES SCIENCE, GENESIS MATCHES SCIENCE, YOU GUYS!u_r_a_sausage

The same book that you keep bashing says that to God, "a day is as a thousand years." That could be taken literally, or it very well could mean that the creative days each represent a very long time.. hence the term "a thousand years." It's impossible to know exactly which concept the original writer was trying to get across.

It's possible not all dinosaurs became extinct at the same time. Every description of a dragon matches that of dinosaurs, except the breathing fire part; but there is such a thing as hyperbole. Not to mention the fact that every culture has stories of dragons.harashawn

It's quite obvious due to the fossil record that Dinosaurs died out almost immediately after the KT-extinction event.

[QUOTE="harashawn"] It's possible not all dinosaurs became extinct at the same time. Every description of a dragon matches that of dinosaurs, except the breathing fire part; but there is such a thing as hyperbole. Not to mention the fact that every culture has stories of dragons.HoolaHoopMan

It's quite obvious due to the fossil record that Dinosaurs died out almost immediately after the KT-extinction event.

Anybody else think that Sausage is using an alternate ID in an attempt to gain anonymity for his unleashing of righteous Atheistic fury on all believers in the Bible and/or God? Either that, or just the ultimate troll.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]A day or two before, to be precise. But of course, that's not true, is it? You reject what doesn't match what scientists have discovered and keep the shreds that remain. Pitiful.u_r_a_sausage

Don't patronise me, ****. u_r_a_sausage

Anybody else think that Sausage is using an alternate ID in an attempt to gain anonymity for his unleashing ofrighteous Atheistic fury on all believers in the Bible and/or God? Either that, or just the ultimate troll.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] It's possible not all dinosaurs became extinct at the same time. Every description of a dragon matches that of dinosaurs, except the breathing fire part; but there is such a thing as hyperbole. Not to mention the fact that every culture has stories of dragons.harashawn

It's quite obvious due to the fossil record that Dinosaurs died out almost immediately after the KT-extinction event.

I'm fairly certain that the Big Bang theory initially proposed by a Roman Catholic priest

coolbeans90

In the Bible, God starts off creation with his command: "Fiat Lux" (Let there be light), and I reckon a big bang (i.e. a big explosion) would produce a lot of light.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Don't patronise me. I'll repeat myself, since you clearly have such grave comprehension problems: you dismiss what we know not to be true as metaphor and take what remains as fact. You twist and bend the Bible until it just about fits modern scientific knowledge and then remark upon how well it fits.u_r_a_sausage

[QUOTE="DRAGONPIECEZ"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]Really? Where do you think atheists go when they die?u_r_a_sausage

I don't know, I'm not God. What the hell does that have to do with my statement? :|

Generally held Catholic belief? Not sure if serious.

Anybody else think that Sausage is using an alternate ID in an attempt to gain anonymity for his unleashing of righteous Atheistic fury on all believers in the Bible and/or God? Either that, or just the ultimate troll.

hartsickdiscipl

He's a belligerent troll. Probably a ban dodger as well.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]It's relevant because the generally held Catholic belief that atheists go to hell doesn't really square with your claims of acceptance and open-mindedness.u_r_a_sausage

Generally held Catholic belief? Not sure if serious.

Considering that the stance of the church on the salvation of nonbeliever clearly states that they do NOT automatically get a one way ticket to hell, yeah, your assertion is quite laughable. But your contributions to the thread have been relatively entertaining, so please continue.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]It's relevant because the generally held Catholic belief that atheists go to hell doesn't really square with your claims of acceptance and open-mindedness.u_r_a_sausage

Generally held Catholic belief? Not sure if serious.

Actually nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say that homosexuality is a "mental disorder". The Cathechism says the following regarding homosexuality (bold is my own emphases):

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Generally held Catholic belief? Not sure if serious.

coolbeans90

Considering that the stance of the church on the salvation of nonbeliever clearly states that they do NOT automatically get a one way ticket to hell, yeah, your assertion is quite laughable. But your contributions to the thread have been relatively entertaining, so please continue.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity

and more specifically regarding Atheism

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Anybody else think that Sausage is using an alternate ID in an attempt to gain anonymity for his unleashing of righteous Atheistic fury on all believers in the Bible and/or God? Either that, or just the ultimate troll.

worlock77

He's a belligerent troll. Probably a ban dodger as well.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

edit: also, maybe science shouldn't be attempting to figure out mysteries of the origins of the universe. Maybe science should focus on the NOW and what they can actually OBSERVE and stop making SPECULATIONS about what happened billions of years ago. Maybe mankind should stop being so arrogant as to assume they could figure such things out and actually use their minds to develop things that will actually benefit humanity.

Silenthps

The same science that you condemn is the same science that has benefited humanity in absolutely extraordinary ways. Take it or leave it.

And there's nothing arrogant about curiosity. Hell, if it wasn't for curiosity, mankind wouldn't have achieved what it has over the centuries.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="u_r_a_sausage"]I'm sorry, what? You find it hard to swallow that maybe the followers of a religion whose official policy is that homosexual behaviour is a sin and homosexuality is a mental disorder might, just might, not be too fond of it?u_r_a_sausage

Actually nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it say that homosexuality is a "mental disorder". The Cathechism says the following regarding homosexuality (bold is my own emphases):

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

1. The Cathechism probably carries more weight than a random quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (although Ratzinger played in important role in the commission that drafted the Catechism

2. How do I know that your quote of Ratzinger is accurate, since you did not link to or cite any reliable source (or indeed any at all).

3.I did discover the document you are quoting from. It is a letter to the Bishops regarding the Pastoral care of homosexual persons. The Letter is not technically written by Ratzinger, it written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (it's prefect) and Alberto Bovone (it's secretary).

4. It appears you are however taking the document out of context. "objective disorder" does not mean "mental disorder" it means a moral disorder in this context. The same document also among other things makes "pro-gay" statements including:

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.