1 - 10 Next
The Pope is not the speaker for the Christian church, the Bible is. But that is wholly different subject from the article. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Again the Big Bang indicates a causal agent. I call Him God. There is much in the natural world that speaks to a supernatural God. The complexity of life and the diversity of life speaks of intelligent design. The genetic code is an incredibly dense data set. It is base 4, not binary. It is "easy" to replicate. Errors produce defects not evolutionary improvements as seen with years of empirical evidence. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Per the Big Bang, the universe is not eternal. Arguing against an eternal God with no cause does not imply a counterargument for an eternal universe.
There is such a thing as reasonable faith. I have reasonable faith in the Bible because I have found sufficient amounts of the Bible to be both historically true and a good explanation for who I am and why I am here. I do not set aside my reason, I use my reason to see and evaluate evidence. As an engineer I do that all the time. Everyone believes things without evidence. I take plane trips without requesting plane maintenance logs and personal interviews with the mechanics. I take it on faith that everyone has done their jobs. I take it on faith that my brakes won't fail when I push the pedal. So sorry, Rich, you are assuming that Christians are blind idiots. Very very bad assumption.
As a folk legend the Genesis account is strangely accurate even though it isn't meant to be a science text. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The Big Bang in essence says that there was the beginning of matter, space, and time in an instant. Before that there was nothing in the fullest sense of the word. Sounds like the God Who exists outside of time and space decided to create. Now that is a truly awesome folk "legend". Ah yes, there are all sorts of interesting speculations on before the Big Bang. Too bad there is absolutely no evidence to support the speculations other than the avoidance of God as the Creator.
There is a very serious moral dilemma here that forces one group to bow to the wishes of another group. The problem is that one group's rights apparently trumps another groups rights. The Christians claim that they cannot and should not offer services to a group that they believe are acting immorally because offering the services is condoning the practice and therefore displeasing God. The other group claims that they are being discriminated against when the service is refused. Whatever happened to shopping around? If a gay couple cannot get a florist or pastry shop to provide them with their goods, can't they just go somewhere else. Do they have to disrespect the beliefs of the shop owner by forcing them to comply with something they have moral issues with? Our society seems to have forgotten to respect each others beliefs even if there is disagreement. When a society is no longer civil then it is a doomed society. Unfortunately we have arrived. I disagree with gay marriage and the gay lifestyle because my God says it is wrong. Should I be mean or nasty to someone that is gay? Of course not. Should I politely disagree with them if necessary to make it clear that I disagree with that lifestyle? Yes, because silence implies consent and again I cannot, by being silent, appear to be promoting something that is wrong. I am under obligation to love my enemies and pray for those who mistreat me. Since the gay activists have taken the offensive and want to silence me, take my rights away, sue me, call me names like homophobe, etc. I am the enemy and the one being mistreated. It is not the other way around. The florist and the baker and wedding photographers are not looking for a fight. The fight is coming to them.
Do not assume they are ignorant just because someone disagrees with you. It just shows your own ignorance.
If anyone besides Obama said this about immigrants it would be called racial profiling.
You are starting to understand. I don't claim 100% assurance but I have sufficient evidence to convince me. I step on the brakes with reasonable assurance that the brakes will work. Otherwise I would not drive the car. As an atheist I wanted 100% proof that God existed before I would believe. I found out that God is not in the business of providing 100% proof. He provides sufficient proof.
Are you saying that the Old Testament prophesies were doctored to match the events? Or are you saying the events were doctored to match the Old Testament prophecies? The Jews would never allow the Old Testament to be doctored. The New Testament fragments date to within the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses and as such could have been easily dismissed by other eyewitnesses as false. There are no contemporary documents that countered the New Testament testimonies. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the time period (not a Christian), did not dispute the testimonies.
1 - 10 Next