[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07:59:19 05/14/08 Wed
Author: Catie
Author Host/IP: h128.232.140.67.ip.alltel.net / 67.140.232.128
Subject: Joan and all Catholics
I'm curious. What is your opinion of this article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_aliens
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
" NUTS" !!!! -- Neysa, 12:07:32 05/14/08 Wed [1] (user-38lci75.dialup.mindspring.com/209.86.72.229)
Jesuits are the renegades in the Catholic Church. I'm not surprised that this Jesuit priest scientist would make a statement that God created not only us but aliens as well!
To go with the big bang theory is to go against the teaching in the Bible that God created heaven and earth and we humans as well.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Neysa -- Catie, 13:02:01 05/14/08 Wed [1] (h128.232.140.67.ip.alltel.net/67.140.232.128)
The way you worded that cracked me up! lol
...."The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.
But he said he continues to believe that "God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance." ....
I agree with you. One can not accept the Big Bang theory and divine creation. It doesn't fit. The thing that stood out most to me is this sentence:
...VATICAN CITY - "Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican's chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday. "
The bible, both old and new testament, speaks firmly against consulting with astronomers or anything dealing with astrology. We are to turn to the bible for our answers. Seems old fashioned, and maybe even narrow minded because isn't astrology innocent enough?? But, Hey, I'm not the one saying to avoid astrology. Those are God's words, not mine. He must have a good reason.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Catie........ -- Neysa, 22:37:03 05/14/08 Wed [1] (user-2inik0n.dialup.mindspring.com/165.121.80.23)
I'm glad I made you laugh! I've heard it said that Jesus and Mary are aliens. That when Mary appeared in different apparitions that she wasn't standing on a cloud, but really a flying saucer. I just have a good laugh at all this. I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory because if I did, then how could I believe in Genesis.
All I can say is "aack" this Jesuit must have a lot a power inside the Vatican to make such a statement, or the big wigs really don't care. Because the astrology lab is not located in Rome, but on the grounds of the Pope's summer residence.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Joan and all Catholics -- Joan, 05:59:09 06/02/08 Mon [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
Hi Catie,
I agree with them. There's no reason to believe that if God created the world, and there is life on other planets, that that life was created by anything but the one god.
I don't, however, believe that we've been visited by aliens, that aliens were here before us, or any of that nonsense.
The Bible only mentions a few creatures--no mention of dinosaurs, Neandertals, Australopithecines, and trilobites, for example--so there's no reason to think that not mentioning life on other planets in other galaxies means that they can't exist.
I agree that the Bible isn't a science book. It wasn't written as a science book, and shouldn't be read as one.
Weren't the "astronomers" in those days into predicting events? Today's astronomors study the universe. It's the astrologers who pretend to predict events, tell fortunes, "you're born under this sign", cusp of this or that, and all that blather.
I also agree that beleiving that their might be life on another planet doesn't contradict faith a faith in God.
There's no reason to think that the big bang theory is contrary to God's creation, since Genesis isn't read literally. God can create anything in any way he chooses. Genesis wasn't written as a how-to science guide. To believe that God couldn't have intentionally created the world as it is, including humans, with the big bang is putting limits on God.
We believe that God works miracles--raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, sending plagues, parting the sea--but we can't imagine that God could have purposefully created us by using the big bang???
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Joan -- Catie, 18:43:13 06/04/08 Wed [1] (NoHost/71.31.226.200)
Oh goody Joan you are back. I enjoy our discussions. I really enjoy getting other folks point of view, even if I don't always agree. I really am not so pious and arrogant that I think I am flawless. I am just devout and stubborn. But it is interesting to see how other folks believe and to learn their reasoning for such.
Personally, for what it's worth, I feel as if we limit God when we are so arrogant to believe we alone are the sole creation of an omnipotent God, creator of the universe. I believe there is absolutely life out there that we don't know about and we won't truly know about it fully until the end time. I believe we are the only "fallen" planet.
It's true that Christ spoke in Parables, for people to understand. Also there are analogies in some places of the bible to help readers understand. But in Genesis I believe the literal story of creation, exactly as stated. God created man in his own image, used the earth to form man, breathed into that form and man became a living soul. I don't question the method. God knew what he was doing. To accept the big bang theory goes against the "God-breathed" portion of creating individual, which makes them souls. That's the beauty of creation. God came so close to Adam, his lips must have touched Adam's, he gave him his own breath and created him. Remember, God created Man out of a longing for fellowship and to be loved. Big Bang is just too impersonal and I think opens the way for evolution which is a direct contrast to God's word. I believe God is a very loving and personal God and didn't need a Big Bang to create earth/man. I think he spoke it into being just as the bible states. :-)
Yes you are right I guess regarding the differences of the astronomors as opposed to astrologers, which God warned about refraining from seeking out.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Catie...... -- Neysa, 21:28:06 06/04/08 Wed [1] (user-2ive00j.dialup.mindspring.com/165.247.0.19)
Can you please explain what you meant by " we are the only fallen planet". Are you stating that our planet is being punished by God because of Adam and Eve?
I've watched shows about UFO's and little, gray, men with huge heads and eyes. Do you really think God could create something like that?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Neysa -- Catie, 04:45:38 06/05/08 Thu [1] (h104.22.40.69.ip.alltel.net/69.40.22.104)
Good grief no I don't believe other planets are full of little gray men with google eyes! LOL God has created beautiful things. Man is the one who paints the pictures of aliens looking like that. I don't think God's creation of intelligent life looks like that nor do I think they visit our planet either.
I think this planet is the one that has been touched, affected by sin. We know from scripture Satan was cast to the earth. God allows him to try to convince mankind, just as he did the 3rd of the angels, to turn their backs on God because god created man to "choose" to love him. God can not lie. He can and will not go back on his word. Satan has powers to a limited degree that God has not taken from him. All of the universe stands in awe, watching to see if God is faithful to his word.
We know there was a GREAT war in heaven. (scripture says so) At that time God could have destroyed Satan and his 3rd of angels when they turned their backs on God. But God has said "I am a fair, faithful and just God". "If anyone comes to me of their own will, I will in no way cast them aside". Satan tried to convince all of heaven they were being forced to worship God. Only 1/3, a small minority of angels believed him. But how do you think the other 3/4 angels felt, what were they thinking? God did not want them to remain there with him out of fear, but by choice and out of love. So now all of the universe is watching to see if God keeps his word. At any given moment God could destroy earth. But he is faithful to his word and found a way to build a bridge between earth and heaven so that earth would not have to be destroyed. That was the plan of salvation. If you get a chance you might enjoy reading "The Great Controversy".
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I don't think that God needed the Big Bang -- Joan, 11:02:16 06/06/08 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
but he didn't need to breath life into Adam either. He could have done it any way he chose. There's no need involved, since God is infinite power.
Maybe the Big Bang doesn't seem very personal, but maybe it is just as personal as the Gensis story. Since God exists out of time (and in all time) the whole time from the Big Bang to now is nothing. The science of the Big Bang is complicated to us, but not to God.
To the creator, no process, no matter how complicated, is impersonal. It could be argued that the more complicated the creative process is, the more personally involved the created feels.
Slap a coat of paint on a board. OK, the board gets painted. Mission accomplished. Cut the wood, plane the wood, sand the wood, make the paint, make the brush, paint the board--now it's a work of love.
The science of the Big Bang and evolution are just the building blocks of creation.
IMO, a literal translation of Genesis makes no sense. To get aroung that, people resort to proposing that "day" means something other than day. And a day and a night could be thousands of years. It's either a literal story or it's not.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Joan -- Catie, 05:47:14 06/07/08 Sat [1] (h104.22.40.69.ip.alltel.net/69.40.22.104)
I see your point. I agree God doesn't need in the sense we humans need. But one reason God created MAN was for fellowship. Did he need it? Probably not since he is afterall, GOD. But obviously God did want the fellowship and when he said "Let us make man in our image" and he followed through with that plan, I love believing the idea that the God of all Gods, the Lord of the Universe took time to care, to love mankind, so much so that he actually came close enough that he most likely touched the lips of man. At least we know for sure our breath is directly from God. Without it, nothing lives. :-)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Joan -- Joan, 14:31:25 06/07/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)
There's no reason, imo, to believe that the Big Bang theory and evolution mean that God wasn't very interested.
Science is just proving that the method was a lot more complicated than the story in Genesis.
But, heck, for God it was neither difficult nor complicated.
Who knows why He chose to create things the way He did.
I think evolution is very interesting, though, so I'm glad he created that. :) Big Bang? Well, that's too complicated for this little brain.
It's interesting that some people still believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that Dinosaurs either walked the Earth with man, or that their fossils are tricks (left by Satan? God? I've never been clear on that).
I wonder how the people who believe in a literal 6 day creation, explain how fossils of some kinds of animals an plants are found only in certain layers, and how some animals aren't found in the same layer. You don't find trilobite fossils and human fossils in the same layer. But w/ a literal 6 day creation, teh fossils of animals that went extinct before man was created would be in the same layer as everything else.
It's hard to understand how they reconcile their literal interpretation w/ the evidence.
Joan
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
A Catholic Big Bang -- Joan, 14:08:08 07/17/08 Thu [1] (ip68-14-71-227.ri.ri.cox.net/68.14.71.227)
So much for the idea that the Catholic Church is a fossil-like institution that is antiscience.
Big Bang theory is introduced
1927
Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) showed that religion and science -- or at least physics -- did not have to be incompatible. LeMaitre, born in Belgium, was a monsignor in the Catholic church.
He was fascinated by physics and studied Einstein's laws of gravitation, published in 1915. He deduced that if Einstein's theory were true (and there had been good evidence for it since 1919), it meant the universe must be expanding. In 1927, the year he got his PhD from MIT, LeMaitre proposed this theory, in which he stated that the expanding universe was the same in all directions -- the same laws applied, and its composition was the same -- but it was not static. He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it. (Another scientist, Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently, a few years earlier.) Even Einstein was reluctant to endorse this extension of his theory of general relativity.
In 1929 at the Mt. Wilson Observatory in California, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away at high speeds. He was, like most people, unaware of LeMaitre's 1927 theory. But LeMaitre used Hubble's dramatic discovery as evidence for his theory. It was easy. If you imagined the galaxies rushing away from us as a movie, just run the movie backwards. After a certain time, all those galaxies will rush together. LeMaitre put forth the idea that there was once a primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe.
The other support LeMaitre used was the idea of entropy, which states that everything is moving towards greater and greater disorder.
Others took notice and named his theory "big bang." LeMaitre's ideas opened more questions, many of which forced physics and astronomy together: What was that primordial atom like? Why would it explode? He pursued the topic for some time, even suggesting that there ought to be some form of background radiation in the universe, left over from the initial explosion of that primordial atom. He became more interested in the philosophical ramifications of his theory, which were many.
Others took up the big bang theory, and for several years there were strong debates between those supporting it and those who favored a "steady state" theory of the universe, in which the universe was eternal and unchanging. This argument ended when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation, which LeMaitre and other theorists had determined would be the residue of the big bang's explosion many billions of years ago.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
