The Pope Is Not Infallible Because He Has Not Decreed On Genesis

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 November 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1259187524' post='2009422']
Swing and a miss. You bypassed my point entirely.


This happens to me a lot lately. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sadwalk.gif[/img]
[/quote]

It's your own fault. Neither of the two views, whether the earth moves or the sun doesn't, has anything to say, either for or against, God creating the universe out of nothing. Instead of saying that I bypassed your point, why then don't you mention what it was? Kindly inform me how holding to the clearly stated view in Hebrews 11, forces one to become, specifically a [i]Geo--[/i] and not a Helio? I don't see how the earth's mobility relates to Heb 11 [i]at all.[/i]

Edited November 25, 2009 by Tony Atonement

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1259191294' post='2009444']
It's your own fault. Neither of the two views, whether the earth moves or the sun doesn't, has anything to say, either for or against, God creating the universe out of nothing. Instead of saying that I bypassed your point, why then don't you mention what it was?
[/quote]
MY POINT:

Your reading of Scripture is one dimensional and literalistic. This precludes the Horrendous Space Kablooie as you yourself has said.

Your one dimensional literalistic reading of Scripture also precludes heliocentrism, as per the verses I provided, in fact with a far stronger case than the case above.

THEREFORE: In order to be intellectually consistent, you must be a geocentrist.

So I ask once again: are you a geocentrist?

[Drew-Memphis]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 November 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1259191612' post='2009449']
MY POINT:

Your reading of Scripture is one dimensional and literalistic. This precludes the Horrendous Space Kablooie as you yourself has said.

Your one dimensional literalistic reading of Scripture also precludes heliocentrism, as per the verses I provided, in fact with a far stronger case than the case above.

THEREFORE: In order to be intellectually consistent, you must be a geocentrist.

So I ask once again: are you a geocentrist?
[/quote]

Ooooh ooooh ooooh, should I grab another REALLY big thing of Popcorn? Because the last bag is infinitely full from the last thread. He never came back.

But I'll still be here, just a waitin, munchin on my popcorn...

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 November 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1259191612' post='2009449']
MY POINT:

Your reading of Scripture is one dimensional and literalistic. This precludes the Horrendous Space Kablooie as you yourself has said.

Your one dimensional literalistic reading of Scripture also precludes heliocentrism, as per the verses I provided, in fact with a far stronger case than the case above.

THEREFORE: In order to be intellectually consistent, you must be a geocentrist.

So I ask once again: are you a geocentrist?
[/quote]


I will say it again for the last time and we should end this discussion. Holding to either view does not negate the "one-dimensional" view of Hebrews 11. I do not for a moment consider myself a scientist, and have no idea "HOW" He flung this universe into being, and to all of us He asks, as He did to Job, "Were you [u]there[/u] when I made thus and such?" And I would reply, "No, but I do know that the things you made were not made by things which do appear"----and I have every confidence He would say "VERY GOOD".

That being said, that is not to say our brains cannot come close to forming rational conclusions, and suffice it to say that an alleged Big Bang from a floating Kablookie---then leading to the evolution of all things, is a slap in the face to the one who could [i]instantly [/i]change water into wine, as well as the fossil record. In case you don't know, the underground has only turned up fully formed creatures, and not a hint of transitional forms, which is precisely what we should expect to find if the Creation-out-of-nothing model is true, and is precisely what evolution demands if IT were true---but fails.

Now just because you may find supporting ways to prove the earth moves because the "Sun of Righteousness"--"rises from the dead", etc.....is not good enough to neglect taking God at His word in Hebrews 11. While the Bible is not a science text book, I'm guessing you will be quite surprised it has so much to say about science---which really shouldn't surprise you at all since we are taking about the greatest Scientist of them all. I have included for you the following list to show that if He can be trusted to merely touch upon [u]these[/u] matters in a one-dimensional way, than He can be trusted to be taken literally and gloriously one-dimensionally in Hebrews 11 as well.


[url="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43"]http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43[/url]

[Drew-Memphis]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='26 November 2009 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1259211631' post='2009586']
I will say it again for the last time and we should end this discussion. Holding to either view does not negate the "one-dimensional" view of Hebrews 11. I do not for a moment consider myself a scientist, and have no idea "HOW" He flung this universe into being, and to all of us He asks, as He did to Job, "Were you [u]there[/u] when I made thus and such?" And I would reply, "No, but I do know that the things you made were not made by things which do appear"----and I have every confidence He would say "VERY GOOD".

That being said, that is not to say our brains cannot come close to forming rational conclusions, and suffice it to say that an alleged Big Bang from a floating Kablookie---then leading to the evolution of all things, is a slap in the face to the one who could [i]instantly [/i]change water into wine, as well as the fossil record. In case you don't know, the underground has only turned up fully formed creatures, and not a hint of transitional forms, which is precisely what we should expect to find if the Creation-out-of-nothing model is true, and is precisely what evolution demands if IT were true---but fails.

Now just because you may find supporting ways to prove the earth moves because the "Sun of Righteousness"--"rises from the dead", etc.....is not good enough to neglect taking God at His word in Hebrews 11. While the Bible is not a science text book, I'm guessing you will be quite surprised it has so much to say about science---which really shouldn't surprise you at all since we are taking about the greatest Scientist of them all. I have included for you the following list to show that if He can be trusted to merely touch upon [u]these[/u] matters in a one-dimensional way, than He can be trusted to be taken literally and gloriously one-dimensionally in Hebrews 11 as well.


[url="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43"]http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43[/url]
[/quote]

Here's my question...take it from a mere peasant...

You wrote three very long paragraphs and still never answered his question...

I just put my popcorn in the microwave. Oh Nihil!! Where for art thou, Nihil?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1259152497' post='2009167']
[color="#0000ff"]
THe Big Bang theory is Catholic: and God said Let there be Light...[/color]
[/quote]
[quote]

On the contrary, the Big Bang is athiestic in nature and origin, made popular by the Christ-hating Mr. Darwin.

If on the other hand, you are being facetious by saying, "God created, and BANG! it was done", then you would be correct according to Ps 33:6 & 9.
[/quote]

Father George Lemaitre was an atheist? Man the stuff you learn on Phatmass..

[Nihil Obstat]

Clearly I can't stand up to the baseball bat sharp logic of "NO U!"
[img]http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/no_u5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j317/CuddlyDeadKitten/NO_U.jpg[/img]

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Drew-Memphis' date='26 November 2009 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1259211786' post='2009588']
Here's my question...take it from a mere peasant...

You wrote three very long paragraphs and still never answered his question...

I just put my popcorn in the microwave. Oh Nihil!! Where for art thou, Nihil?
[/quote]


I know very well I didn't answer his question as to being a Geo or a Helio.
It is absolutely pointless to this discussion. Obviously you have nothing to say to what I offered above, so you're only looking to find something to complain about. And to "Jamie", the other poster, I never said the priest was an atheist....I corrected myself shortly thereafter. Still yet another one who is just trying to find some fault somewhere. Anyway, Jamie, don't kid yourself into thinking God revealed the "truth" of the Big Bang to a some priest 1900 years after Christ. As I have been saying all along, the Bible will not allow it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Tell me Tony, have you ripped out your own eye? The Bible simply won't allow you to do otherwise.

[Vincent Vega]

I will vocally recant my position that evolution, the big bang, and Christianity are incompatible as soon as someone gives me a credible alternative explanation of the fossil record.
I do not expect to learn the ways of God from science.
I do not expect to learn science from the Bible.

Edited November 26, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[Nihil Obstat]

Calvin was right; the Big Bang is way more fun to talk about when you call it the Horrendous Space Kablooie.

[Winchester]

Evolution only works on what is already created.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Winchester

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1259152497' post='2009167']
[color="#0000ff"]
THe Big Bang theory is Catholic: and God said Let there be Light...[/color]
[/quote]


On the contrary, the Big Bang is athiestic in nature and origin, made popular by the Christ-hating Mr. Darwin.

If on the other hand, you are being facetious by saying, "God created, and BANG! it was done", then you would be correct according to Ps 33:6 & 9.
[/quote]
The Big Bang theory was postulated by a catholic priest, so it is definitely not atheistic.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='25 November 2009 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1259187361' post='2009419']
I may be a dumb bunny, but I still fail to see what a geo/helio view has to do with the topic of this thread and don't understand how a Geo view is either for or against the book of Hebrews. The topic was somebody suggesting the pope was not infallible because he's remained silent on Genesis. While I didn't comment initially on the issue of infallibility, I [i]did[/i] mention Hebrews 11:3 which a layman can read without the assistance of the pope and conclude that what we see all around us was not made by things which do "appear"---eliminating once and for all the alleged big "Kablookie" that all Big Bangers say [i]had[/i] to exist somewhere up there for it to suddenly "explode" and make what we see today. I wonder why the simplicity of the verse does not attract you? I wonder what does God have to say to convince you of anything? You want people to understand YOU when you speak. Why will you not let Him who made you have the same liberty? When He says something once, you doubt it. When He says something numerous times--- like "all have sinned", you make Mary an exception to this and conclude He didn't mean what He said the first time. There's [i]always[/i] a caveat in Catholic theology, which is what makes Catholicism so frustrating. Whatever happened to the "simplicity that is in Christ"? (2 Cor 11:3).

Anyway, I entirely disagree with you that the Galileo episode is irrelevant. Mr. G believed the Scriptures, and what it is that I think you don't want to face is that a mere "Bible believer" could have been right, over and above all the hot air being blown out of the hierarchy. Hot air being defined as the Bull of Sixtus V who told his cardinals

"to examine and expose the books which are repugnant to the Catholic [u]doctrines[/u] and Christian discipline, and after reporting them to us, they are to condemn them by our authority" (i.e., making it clear that they thought the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun was a [i]doctrine[/i] contrary to Holy Writ). They were wrong! Later, Pope Urban ordered the sentence of Galileo be distributed to all "apostolic nuncios" and "Florentine Inquisitors of heretical pravity" ---to the end that, "so pernicious a [u]doctrine[/u] as that [of Copernicas & Galileo] might be altogether taken away and spread no further to the heavy detriment of the Catholic faith." Again, they were wrong. And still later, Pope Alexander VII republished the previous decrees against the "doctrine" of the mobility of the earth, and lo and behold, he was wrong too. Protestants thank God for this episode in history because it shows that for all the yada-yada about "Holy Mother Church being able to judge the true sense of Scripture"---here we see it was a LAYMEN who triumphed over the hierarchy, and we too will not be intimidated by them either.


Apparently JP II would not agree with your opinion that the Galilean episode was irrelevant---as he went out of his way to issue a world-wide apology about 10 years ago.
[/quote]
THe Holy Father apologized on how it was handled, not that Galileo was right. Galileo wanted to correct the Bible, which obviously NOT acceptable.

[Nihil Obstat]

Here is a summary of the first moments of the universe:

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [color="#FF0000"]Cue ENORMOUS explosion, a.k.a. [size="5"]Horrendous Space Kablooie[/size] (Narrator's voice should echo here). There's a lot of light in a Kablooie of that size[/color]
4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [color="#FF0000"]It's been a couple billionths of a second now, and the Horrendous Space Kablooie is calming down a bit; now the fundamental forces are starting to separate, reality is starting to make sense, etc., etc..[/color]
5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

I see no problem here.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='26 November 2009 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1259262797' post='2009799']
I know very well I didn't answer his question as to being a Geo or a Helio.
It is absolutely pointless to this discussion. Obviously you have nothing to say to what I offered above, so you're only looking to find something to complain about. And to "Jamie", the other poster, I never said the priest was an atheist....I corrected myself shortly thereafter. Still yet another one who is just trying to find some fault somewhere. Anyway, Jamie, don't kid yourself into thinking God revealed the "truth" of the Big Bang to a some priest 1900 years after Christ. As I have been saying all along, the Bible will not allow it.
[/quote]
And you are qualified how to decide what the Scriptures will or will not allow? You obviously have never read the Holy Father on this topic have you...

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='26 November 2009 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1259275356' post='2009894']
THe Holy Father apologized on how it was handled, not that Galileo was right. Galileo wanted to correct the Bible, which obviously NOT acceptable.
[/quote]


Under no circumstances whatsoever can it be said that Galileo wanted to "correct the Bible". That is what is called "revisionist history". If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to include proof with your assertions, not just make claims hoping people will believe you simply by the breath of your mouth. I suggest you recant this position if you want to maintain your credibility.

In point of fact, it was the [i]magisterium [/i]who wished to unwarrantly "correct the Bible", and not the other way around. On March 5, 1616, the Congregation of the Indexed (a committee of Cardinals appointed by the Pope) published a decree with the following sentence: "Since it has come to the knowledge of this Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the Divine Scripture, of the mobility of the earth...."

The fact of the matter is, that the mobility of the earth is indeed verified in Scripture, and certainly not opposed to it as the Papacy supposed in 1616. And unlike you, who only furnishes bold and brash statements, I will provide the evidence: Job 38:12:14.

[i]"Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" It is [u]turned[/u] as a clay to the seal, and they stand [exposed] as a garment."

[/i]My Bible commentary reports on the word "turned": "This figurative expression of the clay seal refers to God's initiation of the earth's rotation and the day-night cycle. Each night, like a rotating clay cylinder exposing the impressions of the seal, the earth turns to the sun (or "dayspring"), exposing the wicked and their works of the night."

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://static.zooomr.com/images/4143788_2d6f848112.jpg[/img]
[size="1"]The views or opinions disseminated in the above picture do not necessarily accurately reflect the views or opinions of the poster.[/size]

Edited November 27, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='26 November 2009 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1259275646' post='2009896']
And you are qualified how to decide what the Scriptures will or will not allow? You obviously have never read the Holy Father on this topic have you...
[/quote]


I am indeed qualified to know what the Scriptures will or will not allow because God's word is crystal clear. If Catholics wish to sit on the fence regarding this issue because the Pope has not infallibly defined Genesis, then so be it. Catholics keep forgetting that Jesus held people responsible for knowing the Scriptures--period; (e.g., "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God...?) without making any indication that they needed to be "qualified" in whatever sense you mean. As for the myth of evolution, we know that everything was created "after his kind" (Gen 1:24), and since God "rested from all His work" (2:3) after 6 days of creating all things, it follows He is no longer using those processes which he used to create, but is instead now, "upholding all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3). No one in history has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature into a more complex kind and the fossil record tells us why: It just never happened.

As for me reading what the pope has thus far had to say on this topic, I have indeed. Your point? [i]My[/i] point is that the fiasco with Galileo demonstrates I need not hang my hat on what the Pope has to say.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 November 2009 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1259275534' post='2009895']
Here is a summary of the first moments of the universe:

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [color="#ff0000"]Cue ENORMOUS explosion, a.k.a. [size="5"]Horrendous Space Kablooie[/size] (Narrator's voice should echo here). There's a lot of light in a Kablooie of that size[/color]
4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [color="#ff0000"]It's been a couple billionths of a second now, and the Horrendous Space Kablooie is calming down a bit; now the fundamental forces are starting to separate, reality is starting to make sense, etc., etc..[/color]
5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

I see no problem here.
[/quote]


Mr. Obstat,

Your theory that the Big Bang resulted in the instant when God "made light", is erroneous because contrary to your statement that He [u]made[/u] light, you are forgetting that the Creator Himself [u]is[/u] light (1 Jn 1:5)--"dwelling in the light which no man can approach" (1 Tim 6:16). Thus, the obvious pre-existence of visible light prior to the establishment of the sun, moon and stars---is not an argument for the Big Bang being the "light" spoken of in Genesis 1:3.