Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[1213]

Think about that, innocent babies and children, killed. ...

I don't think God kills innocent people. If body of innocent person dies, I believe his life continues with God and he is then not really dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People don't give life, people may give birth, which is not the same.

You need to take a biology class. Yes, they do. It is rather amazing how evil you believe that your god is and the extreme steps that you will take to defend him. You have things so backwards. God should be have to follow higher standards than humans, not lower ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I believe Noah ark history is true. And I believe you can't prove it wrong.

Then you should edit that post. And any rational person can refute that myth. You keep.telling us that you believe that God is a liar.

 

[joelr]

That is sad, because obviously the two dimensions are not about the same circle.

One excerpt, however, from the Bible suggests that, in ancient times, Israelite builders and land surveyors were working with much cruder approximations. Referring to the construction of the basin used for priestly ablutions in the temple of Solomon, the first book of Kings states: “And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” (1 Kings 7:23.) If one calculates the ratio between the thirty-cubit circumference of the “molten sea” and its ten-cubit diameter, it appears that the Bible’s redactors used the ratio 3:1 as a rough approximation for π. But what if the scribes who redacted 1 Kings knew that the value for π indicated in the text was merely an approximation? If so, how might they have signaled that awareness? Perhaps by using gematria, a hermeneutical technique whereby the numerical value of a letter is calculated based on its position in the Hebrew alphabet.
Significantly, in the text translated above from 1 Kings, the word “line” is used for “circumference” (“a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about”). In Hebrew, the word for “line” is qava, and it is usually spelled using the Hebrew letters quf and vov (many Hebrew words are spelled without vowels). But in 1 Kings, the word “line” is spelled incorrectly as qavah, using the Hebrew letters quf, vov, and hei. If each letter is given a numerical value based on its position in the Hebrew alphabet, then the value of qava (the correct spelling) is 100 + 6, or 106, but the value of qavah (the incorrect spelling) is 100 + 6 + 5, or 111. Thus, the text misspells qava, and the misspelling results in an error in the numerical value of that word, changing its value from 106 to 111.
Taking this bit of gematria into consideration, it appears that the scribes who redacted 1 Kings chose a very efficient way to express the value of π in the biblical text. Decimal notation was not in use at the time, and therefore if they had wanted to write that the “molten sea” was ten cubits across and 31.415 cubits around (which, of course, would have much more accurately approximated π), they would have needed to express 31.415 as the ratio 333:106 multiplied by 10, which would have required a great deal of additional text.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://philarchive.org/archive/CUMTVO#:~:text=The%20Value%20of%20%CF%80%20in%20the%20Bible&text=Instead%2C%20it%20was%20expressed%20as,to%203.14150943396%20in%20decimal%20notation.

I hope everyone understands it was not for the weekly Shabbat. There was and is Passsover Shabbat, or more accurately two Shabbat days for the feast of unleavened bread.

On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no regular work. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy convocation: you shall do no regular work.'"
Lev. 23:6-8

So, Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal at the beginning of 14th day (about 21:00), Jesus was captured in the night and his trial was in the morning. And after he had died, they wanted to bury him before the 15th day Shabbat that was then most likely Thursday.

Could it be that John is speaking of the 6th moment of night and the interpretation that it means noon is wrong?

IS the lamb sacrificed then, no.
John was making Jesus the lamb of God, who took away the sins of the world.

Read it for yourself, page 25

Full text of "Jesus Interrupted – Revealing The Hidden Contradictions In The Bible And Why We Don’t Know About Them Bart D. Ehrman"

archive.org

 

[Altfish]

I don't think God kills innocent people. If body of innocent person dies, I believe his life continues with God and he is then not really dead.

Well, sorry, but I don't believe in an afterlife, so your god is killing innocents.
Otherwise you could argue that the 9/11 terrorists were similarly "not killing innocent people"

 

[Brian2]

The link mostly admits scholars have accepted there are different accounts. One solution, admittedly speculation, is a bribe took place?

This one wants the Galilean Jesus to start the day in a different place (sunrise) in stead of where the Judean Jews started it (sunset). That is supposed to reconcile the accounts. That is a simple explanation if one is after an explanation, which you are not.

Conflict of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John in Resurrection Accounts | Bible Exposition Commentary

versebyversecommentary.com

The writings in John are around 60 years after the fact, which supports Ehrman's theory perfectly. None are attempting to tell history, they are telling a story.
John changed the theology of the story, making Jesus the sacrificial lamb, which is why he moved the time of the crucifixion. So Jesus can be the sacrificial lamb and remove sins. This fits the idea that this is not a historical event but a story, being told by different writers.

"I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled. People
over the years have tried, of course. Some have pointed out that
Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called “the Day
of Preparation” (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true—but what
these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by
this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath” (not the
Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this
is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before
Sabbath; it is called the day of “preparation” because one had to pre¬
pare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.

And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover
meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In
John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day
before the Passover meal was to be eaten. 4 Moreover, in Mark, Jesus
is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not con¬
demned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between
the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different
days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬
sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬
tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought
that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in
both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬
tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being
slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover
a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical
oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.

What is one to make of this contradiction? Again, on one level it
seems like a rather minor point. I mean, who really cares if it was
one day or the next? The point is that Jesus got crucified, right?

Well, that is both right and wrong. Another question to ask is not
“Was Jesus crucified?” but also “What does it mean that Jesus was
crucified?” And for this, little details like the day and time actu¬
ally matter. The way I explain the importance of such minutiae to
my students is this: When, today, a homicide is committed, and the
police detectives come in to the crime scene, they begin searching
for little scraps of evidence, looking for the trace of a fingerprint
or a strand of hair on the floor. Someone might reasonably look at
what they are doing and say, “What’s wrong with you? Can’t you
see that there’s a dead body on the floor? Why are you snooping
around for a fingerprint?” Yet sometimes the smallest clue can
lead to a solution of the case. Why, and by whom, was this person
killed? So, too, with the Gospels. Sometimes the smallest piece of
evidence can give important clues about what the author thought
was really going on.

I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant
feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written,
probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the
very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses
later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change
the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s
Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation
from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the
day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.”

So you repeat the speculation of Bart Ehrman and that is supposed to prove your case.
As far as I can see the synoptics have Jesus die on the Friday and John's gospel does also.
So it is just a matter of finding why Jesus and His disciples might have eaten the passover a day early.
More than one possible reasons seems to exist. I have no problem with that but people who want to discredit the gospels do.

 

[Brian2]

They discredit themselves

Why do you say that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think people should not be judged on basis of their thoughts. Especially nowadays people can easily get bad thoughts, or ideas about thing that are not good. It doesn't necessary mean they want to do something evil, which is why it doesn't make them evil.

I think it would not have added anything to this, because in my opinion my answer included it.

But, you said: "My neighbors have two super noisy and barky small little dogs that they like to let outside at about 6:00 every single morning where they bark and bark for what seems like forever and always wake me up. Many times, while I'm lying there trying to fall back asleep, I think about how nice it might be if those dogs were gone. I'd actually get a good night's sleep! But thinking that I wish they were gone and actually doing something to make them disappear are two very different things, wouldn't you agree?"

Thinking how nice it would be, is not the same as wanting to kill them.

The only difference in you as a person, between wanting and doing is that it just has not yet happened. That is why person who wants to do bad thing is as bad as person who has already done what he wants.

So thoughts aren't evil. Actions are evil.

Except when thoughts are about murdering someone, then they're the same as actions ... ??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think murder is unjust killing. God has given life, so He has also right to decide how long life He gives. Therefore He is not a murderer.

So if I have kids, it's okay for me to murder them if I decide they deserve it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's better to realise that God is our judge and has the right to kill us than to say that the Bible is just wrong imo.

Whaa?


I'm not replacing my moral compass with some ancient desert dwellers' warped ideas of morality. The Bible is wrong in many, many instances. This is one of them. Might doesn't make right and thanks again for demonstrating how immoral this "system" of morality actually is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think that is true.

He supposedly killed every person on earth save for 8 people.
That's mass murder.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I believe Noah ark history is true. And I believe you can't prove it wrong.

That's not how it works. When did you prove it wrong that Apollo flies the sun in a chariot across the sky every single day? We don't have to prove that wrong in order dismiss it, right?

You have to show that the flood actually happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I have kids, it's okay for me to murder them if I decide they deserve it?

Of course. It is the Christian way. Haven't you ever heard a parent say "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course. It is the Christian way. Haven't you ever heard a parent say "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it"?

Unfortunately for me, Bill Cosby came to mind when I read that instead of Spongebob.

 

[metis]

How does God's being our judge make Him guilty of anything?

Because, to me, it simply doesn't add up. Why would a God who demands love & morality kill innocent people?

I am not a scriptural literalist, so this issue doesn't destroy my faith as it's obvious that cultural values of Jews 2000-3000 years ago are intertwined.

 

[metis]

People don't have right to decide how long someone is allowed to live, because they have not given the life. I think everyone should know it automatically, because it is just logically so. I believe God gave the commandment for that people could not say they didn't know they don't have the right.

The above doesn't make sense in the context of my question, so I'm just going to move on.

 

[Brian2]

Whaa?


I'm not replacing my moral compass with some ancient desert dwellers' warped ideas of morality. The Bible is wrong in many, many instances. This is one of them. Might doesn't make right and thanks again for demonstrating how immoral this "system" of morality actually is.

I am always pleased to help.

 

[Brian2]

Of course. It is the Christian way. Haven't you ever heard a parent say "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it"?

Sponge Bob may have had the right to erase his drawing but I don't think I have heard a parent say they have the right to kill their children.

 

[Brian2]

Because, to me, it simply doesn't add up. Why would a God who demands love & morality kill innocent people?

I am not a scriptural literalist, so this issue doesn't destroy my faith as it's obvious that cultural values of Jews 2000-3000 years ago are intertwined.

I'm not sure which incident we are meant to be talking about but killing the innocent seems to go hand in hand with killing the guilty at times. In a war for example children etc will be killed while trying to win a war against a tyrant.
When God does that we believe that is not the end of the children, they will be raised to life again and judged on their own merits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sponge Bob may have had the right to erase his drawing but I don't think I have heard a parent say they have the right to kill their children.

That is a pretty old saying. I chose Sponge Bob because it was the shortest video that was at least half decent.