Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

You then have a very different definition for word "create". People can't create anything. And people can't give life.

I think that would be you.

create​

1: to bring into existence
… God created the heaven and the earth.—Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)


2
a: to invest with a new form, office, or rank
She was created a lieutenant.

b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
Her arrival created a terrible fuss.

Definition of CREATE

to bring into existence; to invest with a new form, office, or rank; to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

#1 And #3 describe how my parents created me. And your parents created you.

 

[Brian2]

Sure, I guess so. They are all supposedly god's creations.

When I was growing up in church we were told that God is our heavenly father and we are as children to him, since he created us. Have you never heard this?

How did we go from "how about humans?" to "can a cartoon character destroy his drawings if they come to life and cause chaos?"

This is the basic question I was posing to you, by the way. Except, without the cartoon characters. See how you just threw it back to me instead of answering it?

Humans are God's children in the same way that Sponge Bob's drawings are his children, and he has the right to judge and destroy them.

I do? Where do you see that in my post?

"You just said that God has the right to kill his children.

So? You seem to think that's moral and an action that a loving god would carry out. Yikes.
Where does this "right" come from, by the way?"

We're not talking about god having the right to judge or whatever. We're talking about having the "right' to KILL his creations for doing stuff he doesn't like.

Do our parents own us because they've given us life, so they can take it away? (Which was the point of the SpongeBob cartoon, by the way). If not, why not? And if not, why does God supposedly have that right?

Sorry, I saw the sponge bob cartoon as showing Bob draw something which is not his equal. You seem to see it as Bob having procreated something equal to himself.
In that case it might have relevance to human parents and their babies but has no relevance to God and His creation of us, since we are so much inferior to God and God has created all things and is the one responsible for evil in His creation and dealing with that evil.
God wants to deal with it and you say He has no right to do that. But when God does not deal with it you say He is evil for not dealing with it.
Maybe make up your mind. Do you want God to deal with the evil or not?

I don't believe in god(s). And I don't believe in the whole "I brought you into this world so I can take you out" mentality.

Yes OK, you have already said that you disagree with abortion.

Please notice here, that instead of explaining your position on this and answering the question posed to you, you tried to turn it around on me instead and avoided answering the question or supplying an explanation on your position, which is what we're talking about here.

If you can't see that there is no higher authority than the creator of all things, and that there is no place for God to apply for a permit to get rid of His creation and deal with evil, what can I say. You want God to get the right from somewhere but won't say where.
You also seem to think that humans are equal to God our creator and so God is a murderer if He kills us, even if we have shown that we don't deserve to live.
Do you see that I can show that my position is OK by showing that you position is lacking? I suppose you don't see that.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[SDavis]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only individuals know why they believe as they do.
The Roman emperor Constantine changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and made it law and the Church of Rome accepted it. For over 2,000 years that is what the majority of churches, regardless of country practice.

And the crucifixion did occur in Rome.

Rome has a way of changing history / beliefs/practices.

From my point of view, and possibly others..........................
When you look at the Book of Genesis it says God told the Earth to bring forth plants _ God told the waters to bring fourth living creatures abundantly _ God told the Earth to bring forth first Beast then cattle........ That is telling us God commanded the Earth to bring forth life _ which goes hand in hand with what man calls Evolution, the Earth brought forth life.

God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God *formed* man _ God *breathe* the breath of life into man and God *placed* him in the garden which he had prepared in the East of Eden........... Scripture is telling us that man was formed by God himself and put here. How did God form man unknown did he just change genetic traits and chromosomes and such, strong possibility - but regardless to what evolution says and how it coincides with creation, man did not evolve.

Some studiers of scripture believe that the revived Roman empire will initiate the Beast of Revelation........

No I personally believe that the first churches with their interpretations of what scripture actually means - got a lot of the first eight chapters of Genesis wrong and that wrong information has been passed down throughout the centuries....... But the Bible is very clear on chapter 1 a big difference in God telling and God forming.

The site is acting up. Please post once and hit "refresh" when it gives you that error message. Your post almost certainly went through. Also the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in Jerusalem.

 

[joelr]

You seem to think that it was OK in Jerusalem for people to be crucified and left hanging on the cross on Passover sabbath and that would not start some sort of riot against the Romans.
Even the Talmud has Jesus hanged on the eve of Passover.

None of that changes the differences between Mark and John.
But yes, according to Ehrman, who studied Roman punishment and executions, they did leave bodies on the cross.

 

[joelr]

Sorry, I don't think John changes that. Jesus died 14th day, similarly as the Passover lamb. However, I don't think the meaning is that Jesus is actually a sacrificial lamb. Jesus was not killed for to make forgiveness possible. It was possible to forgive without death. But, because Jesus declared sins forgiven and was killed at least partially because he did so, he can be seen as a sacrificial lamb.

Uh, .......
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).

Do you just make up whatever suits your beliefs at the moment?

 

[Brian2]

None of that changes the differences between Mark and John.
But yes, according to Ehrman, who studied Roman punishment and executions, they did leave bodies on the cross.

I don't know what to say about the differences between Mark and John. There are a number of ways to reconcile the problem and I think one of them is correct and you think none of them are correct.

Yes we know the usual practice for the Romans was to leave bodies on the cross.
We also know that the usual practice of the Jews (and the one commanded in the Law) was to not do that and that they would not allow it if possible.
That is what happened in the gospel stories.
John 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.

 

[1213]

Uh, .......
John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.”

The same could be concluded from all the Gospels, because all of them tell sins were forgiven by Jesus and Jesus was killed the same time Passover lambs were killed.

 

[1213]

1: to bring into existence
… God created the heaven and the earth.—Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)

I think that is the best definition. And people don't bring anything into existence. People have not made it possible that they grow and produce living cells.

2
a: to invest with a new form, office, or rank
She was created a lieutenant.

Interesting use of the word. I think better word would be for example "made" or "promoted".

b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
Her arrival created a terrible fuss.

I think better word would be caused, not created.

 

[1213]

It is because of them that I am here. If my parents didn't have intercourse, I wouldn't be here. Plain and simple.
And just because they brought my life into this world, I don't think that gives them the right to take it away on a whim.

No, no life was with them without them doing anything. It is not because of them that they produce living cells that can grow to be adult human.

...I support the life of the woman and her right to choose what she does with her body.

But babies body is not woman's body. Or, if it is so, then your mother could kill you also today.

If someone steals from someone, we don't punish them by stealing their stuff in return.

Maybe so, but there is no way to defend the thief logically and objectively from theft, if he has done it also.

 

[1213]

You need to differentiate between killing and murder. God murders, he has no excuse. He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. People can murder. But abortion is not murder. That is not a human being yet. Even the Bible agrees with that. If you are going by Bible standards then you have to agree that abortion is not murder.

Bible doesn't say unborn babies are not human beings.

But, what if God says, you are not human being yet, therefore you can be killed? Why would it not be ok? Why do you think you are more human being than unborn baby is?

 

[1213]

But that's exactly what you're doing when people like you seek such revenge to the point of negating human life!

How?

 

[1213]

So, Jesus was wrong and uncaring, iyo?

No.

If one gets life in prison with no parole, that will take care of your issue and would be far more compatible with what Jesus taught. Seems with you that right-wing politics trumps all.

If person has lost his freedom and can't really live, I think it is the same as being dead, or possibly worse, because it can be torturing.

 

[1213]

So, special pleading for God, he can kill.

I don't think there is any special pleading. If you would have created life, you would have the same rights.

As for abortion, well the health of the mother comes first; abortion should be the last option.
Euthanasia, yes, I agree with it. Having just watched my father die a painful death.

Ok, then, if God decide abort people, because health of many people depend's on it, or it would reduce suffering, you would accept it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree most strongly. You are leaving out sins of omission, where the evil is accomplished through lack of action.

Yeah, ok, sure.
Didn't mean it like that off course.

Main point is that behavior determines good or evil. Inaction when action was required, is behavioral.