Pope: Creationism, Evolution Not at Odds

[CaritateDei]

Where in Holy Writ does it say life "sparked" and then slithered out of a slime pool and became me and you?

I don't think it does. I don't know anyplace else that does except creationist websites. Why they do that, I don't know because there is little or no evidence for it.

Myco

[CaritateDei]

Again, why is anyone judging anyone else's own opinions, here?

As Christians, God is the CREATOR. He Created all of us. Taking the Bible literally, or figuratively, you get the same result: One man, one woman, and both of them sinned to pass it all on to all of us.

As long as you believe God guided evolutionary Creation, or it happened the way it says EXACTLY in Genesis, we still have the same result. Why is each side looking at the other as if they are wrong?

Moreover, why even have sides!?

[CaritateDei]

evolutionary Creation

"evolutionary creation" is an oxy-moron...you can't force fit "millions of years" of disease, struggle, and death into Genesis 1

God created living creatures with a limited ability for adaptation...adaptation/speciation/genetic drift is solid, irrefutable science, the rest is religious fantasies for naturalists

it happened the way it says EXACTLY in Genesis

the record of Genesis is crystal clear: God created...supernaturally, instantly...leaving no question of His power, and it will happen again, where will the skeptics/liberals be then?

Psalm 33

For He spoke, and it was done;He commanded, and it stood fast

we still have the same result.

no, we don't.....we have a bunch of liberals running around in 2007 attempting to deny God His power and erase truth by turning everything in the Bible they find supernatural or difficult to accept (what's next, the resurrection?) into "allegory" when it clearly is not

The Resurrection and the stories of Jesus were written by eyewitnesses or folks who knew the eyewitnesses.

No one who wrote Genesis was an eyewitness to God's creation. The intention of the writer was not to give us a factual basis of creation, but to show the power of God in his creation. The result IS the same. Christianity believes that the Bible is inerrant. Science have shown literalists of Genesis some evidence that the world is a tad bit older than so-called Biblical scholars would have us believe.

On the same token, is it harmful for those Biblical scholars to take Genesis literally? NO!

Is it harmful to take faith, science and reason, and the Bible to CONTINUALLY believe in the power of God, and that there were originally one man and one woman? Surely not! You believe what you want, but it is not harmful to anyone for Christians to believe that faith and reason are bed-buddies.

No one can say that either or is sinful. Attitudes like that DIVIDE Christians, and there is no need for this division!

[RedNick261]

this has already been shown to you several times...Paul refers several times to the Genesis account, so does Christ Himself

thanks for losing...again

Dude, first off, you've offended me. That's hard to do. Your own ignorance, however, is cause to question your assertion that I have somehow "lost" something. Nowhere has anyone shown a statement from Scripture that states that Genesis 1 (and/or 2) is/are literal. If you'd like to research it and show me where this has been done, I would be glad to read it and consider it. However, by your tone and the fact that you've resorted to disrespect and discourtesy, I will assume that you have no facts to present and simply are defending your insignificant faith with offensive attacks and unsubstantial arguments. Thanks for playing, though.

while not strictly Biblical, I believe this chronology simply fits....anyone who thinks there were "millions of years" before Adam, then all of human history and Christ reigning compacted into this tiny little blip at the end of (imaginary) time is, quite frankly, off their rocker (but hey, welcome to 2007!)

If it isn't strictly Biblical, why do you believe it? Are you reading your own philosophy and superstition (numerology) into your interpretation of this issue? Do I smell a double standard?

Anyhow, nice use of baseless attack to try to solidify your point. Yet another proof of an argument lacking substance.

and they are fools

Welcome to the club!

so if Paul or Jesus refers to a 'known' allegory does the allegory become literal Truth, or does it remain allegory Truth ?

since the Truth remains Truth whether literal or allegory, yes ?

You took the words right out of my... keyboard.

[hepatocyte]

I see. So anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal

anyone who dismisses sections of the Bible while claiming to be a follwer of Christ is a liberal, and may be self deceived about salvation

it has nothing to do with what I believe, it's what God's Word clearly says

Is English your first language?

[RedNick261]

anyone who dismisses sections of the Bible while claiming to be a follower of Christ is a liberal, and may be self deceived about salvation

it has nothing to do with what I believe, it's what God's Word clearly says

Oh, right. That's right there in the Bible... let me find the reference... oh, wait...

I've posted multiple scriptures, but you choose to cover your ears and scream...I'm still waiting for a decent rebuttal to Exodus 20 from anyone here

btw, prove it isn't literal from scripture! the onus is on YOU as the liberal skeptic, not me

You've posted multiple Scriptures, all of which have been assessed and proven (within reasonable doubt) to have been taken out of context and/or misunderstood (or, as with Exodus 20, completely irrelevant). Also, the burden is on anyone who has a point to make to do so with evidence, fact and reason. You are one of only two consistent contributors to this discussion who've failed to do so.

Also, seriously, where did Christ, Paul or anyone else in Scripture define or condemn liberalism? I'd love a chapter and verse reference for that.

you play with the Bible, I don't...you can only get burned

Actually, I called you on a statement you made that would fall under your own definition of "play[ing] with the Bible". You've not responded to that. Yet, you seem insistent upon calling me a liberal fool who misunderstands and tries to change or misrepresent Scripture. I'd ask that you maintain a consistent standard or kindly excuse yourself from mature discussion on serious issues.

not at all...if the Creation was not literal days but vast imaginary epochs, then Christ's statements about marriage are wrong, Paul's statments about original sin with Adam are wrong (because there was supposedly millions of years of death and decay), and the entire Biblical framework is turned on it's ear

Once again, a vicious, unjustly judgemental attack with absolutely no substantiation of any claim that was made. If you can provide any justification from ANYWHERE other than your own apparently demented logic to justify what you've written, please share. Thanks.

[CaritateDei]

Also, seriously, where did Christ, Paul or anyone else in Scripture define or condemn liberalism? I'd love a chapter and verse reference for that.

2 Timothy 4

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

describes our society perfectly

Titus 1

..hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Is 6 day creationism a matter of Doctrine? How do you know? On what authority do you have for that answer?

[hepatocyte]

The Bible said the sun stood still.

Do you believe in geocentrism or not?

[hepatocyte]

You know, can you quit it with the "liberal" this and "liberal" that?

Why are you bringing politics into a science forum? Your misuse of the term is more irritating than a rash.

[hepatocyte]

You know, can you quit it with the "liberal" this and "liberal" that?

Why are you bringing politics into a science forum? Your misuse of the term is more irritating than a rash.

lol, since when is "liberalism" restricted to politics??

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal

5: BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

broad-minded. how awful.