Is the Pope an Atheist?

[DHK]

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope​

By Philip Pullella Philip Pullella – Thu Jan 6, 8:43 am ET

• VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said on Thursday.

Read the full article here:
http://www.worthynews.com/top/news-yahoo-com-s-nm-20110106-ts_nm-us_pope_bigbang/

But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

This is a contradiction. You can't believe both. Though he goes on to explain his belief in God, one cannot believe in the atheist's belief of the big bang and God at the same time.

 

[Glen Seeker]

Why not? When God said, "Let there be light." Why can't that have been the "Big Bang?"

 

[webdog]

Why not? When God said, "Let there be light." Why can't that have been the "Big Bang?"

I agree. Even creationism scientists have come to the conclusion of one singe origin where everything came from. The universe is still expanding from this single point. The fact it is expanding at all proves an origin.

 

[DHK]

I agree. Even creationism scientists have come to the conclusion of one singe origin where everything came from. The universe is still expanding from this single point. The fact it is expanding at all proves an origin.

Was the origin really a big bang like the atheists claim,
or, was the origin a six day creation like God claims.
You can't have it both ways. God is in control. He is sovereign.

 

[billwald]

Or God used the only language that primitive people could understand.

 

[targus]

Was the origin really a big bang like the atheists claim,
or, was the origin a six day creation like God claims.
You can't have it both ways. God is in control. He is sovereign.

Poor logic.

1. One does not need to be atheist to accept the big bang theory as long as one also believes that God was responsible for the big bang.

2. One does not have to accept a literal 24 hour six day creation story in order to believe in God.

 

[DHK]

Poor logic.

1. One does not need to be atheist to accept the big bang theory as long as one also believes that God was responsible for the big bang.

2. One does not have to accept a literal 24 hour six day creation story in order to believe in God.

There is no such thing as "theistic evolution."
It is totally incompatible.

Especially when one considers the illogical and unscientific ramifications of the big bang theory.
Can order ever come from chaos? And yet that is taught--a principle that goes entirely against all scientific thought.

 

[Ruiz]

I am a 6 day creationist, but there were many theologians are/were not. While I do not believe the Catholic Church Doctrine is orthodox, I also would not make creationism a litmus for orthodoxy.

Here are a list of some who are not literal 6 dayers.

Augustine
William Ames
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
B.B. Warfield
J. Gresham Machen
J. Oliver Buswell
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Francis Schaeffer

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am a 6 day creationist, but there were many theologians are/were not. While I do not believe the Catholic Church Doctrine is orthodox, I also would not make creationism a litmus for orthodoxy.

Here are a list of some who are not literal 6 dayers.

Augustine
William Ames
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
B.B. Warfield
J. Gresham Machen
J. Oliver Buswell
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Francis Schaeffer

Some good names there! I'm so glad God doesn't have a fill in the blank test form for those attaining salvation. Just a welcome to those who believe.

 

[DHK]

I am a 6 day creationist, but there were many theologians are/were not. While I do not believe the Catholic Church Doctrine is orthodox, I also would not make creationism a litmus for orthodoxy.

Here are a list of some who are not literal 6 dayers.

Augustine
William Ames
Charles Hodge
A.A. Hodge
B.B. Warfield
J. Gresham Machen
J. Oliver Buswell
Donald Grey Barnhouse
Francis Schaeffer

They may not have been six day creationists.
My question to you is: How many in the list above believed in the Big Bang Theory?

 

[targus]

There is no such thing as "theistic evolution."
It is totally incompatible.

Especially when one considers the illogical and unscientific ramifications of the big bang theory.
Can order ever come from chaos? And yet that is taught--a principle that goes entirely against all scientific thought.

So you believe that God does not have the power to create the universe by starting it out with the big bang?

 

[DHK]

So you believe that God does not have the power to create the universe by starting it out with the big bang?

Power has nothing to do with it. It is belief. What do you believe? Either you believe the Word of God or you don't. It appears that many don't.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Power has nothing to do with it. It is belief. What do you believe? Either you believe the Word of God or you don't. It appears that many don't.

This is a faulty logical senario. What you mean to say is "Either you believe the Word of God as I do or your don't" Because many people believe the word of God but have come to a differing conclusion than you.

 

[cbus]

Peter tells us that to God, a day is like a thousand years (meaning a very long time). I see no reason to be held to the notion that a day has to be measured by the rotation of a single planet in such a massive universe. 24 hours is completely arbitrary, especially when you consider that the Earth didn't always rotate at that pace.

As for the Big Bang and creation, we can argue the finer points until the end of time, but the one truth we can't deny is that God created the universe out of nothing, else we would be saying that some things were not created by God. With this is mind, what else would the moment of creation look like, besides an explosion of matter from essentially nothing?

Now I am still suspect of evolution, simply because the fossil record doesn't really support it in the Darwinian sense. Basically, in one set of rocks you have a specific set of species, then there appears to be a mass extinction, followed by another layer of rocks whose fossils present a completely different set of species. You can kind of align which species are related to each other in the different layers, but what you cannot find is a gradual transition as species evolve. It's almost as if they change overnight (geologically speaking). What does this mean to both creationists and evolutionist? I don't know, but I find it intriguing that it has never come up in debates.

I have not closed the door on evolution because Genesis tells that God formed man out of the dust in the earth and then breathed life into Adam. One way to look at this is that God may have built up man from the ground to his present form through evolution before infusing him with a human soul, by breathing life into Adam's nostrils. Not saying that is the way it happened, but I think it is a reasonable theory.

What I find to be unreasonable is to claim that a person's state as a Christian and whether or not they are truly saved can be discerned by how they understand Sacred Scripture. We are not Gnostic. We are not saved by special knowledge or understanding. We are Christians in the Pauline tradition. We are saved by our faith in Christ Jesus--nothing more or less. Regardless of how we understand scripture, as long as we place our faith and hope in our Lord Jesus and follow his commands to best of our ability, we can be confident of our salvation.

 

[webdog]

Was the origin really a big bang like the atheists claim,
or, was the origin a six day creation like God claims.
You can't have it both ways. God is in control. He is sovereign.

I believe it was a literal, 6 day creationism and "big bang" (not the anti-God darwinian model).

God's creation has age built into it. He didn't create saplings in the redwood Forest, Adam as a baby, etc.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe it was a literal, 6 day creationism and "big bang" (not the anti-God darwinian model).

God's creation has age built into it. He didn't create saplings in the redwood Forest, Adam as a baby, etc.

what about dinosaurs and other things. Are they just a "trick"? Or what?

 

[webdog]

what about dinosaurs and other things. Are they just a "trick"? Or what?

Not sure I understand your question, but I believe at least 2 species were descrbied in the Bible (Behemoth and Leviathin).

I believe they perished during the flood, and became completely extinct shortly thereafter due to the climate change resulting from it. This is the reason they are found under so many layers of sediment which supports a global flood.

 

[DHK]

This is a faulty logical senario. What you mean to say is "Either you believe the Word of God as I do or your don't" Because many people believe the word of God but have come to a differing conclusion than you.

No it is not faulty.
There are many that believe in the Gap Theory. I don't. I believe that that theory is full of holes. I believe in a literal creation as described in Genesis chapter one.
There are others that believe in different theories of creation.
But no creationist will and can believe in the Big Bang theory. They can't.
The two don't mix. One can't be a Christian and believe in the five pillars of Islam at the same time. There are some things that just don't mix.

 

[targus]

No it is not faulty.
There are many that believe in the Gap Theory. I don't. I believe that that theory is full of holes. I believe in a literal creation as described in Genesis chapter one.
There are others that believe in different theories of creation.
But no creationist will and can believe in the Big Bang theory. They can't.
The two don't mix. One can't be a Christian and believe in the five pillars of Islam at the same time. There are some things that just don't mix.

So then one is either a literal creationist or an atheist?

One can not believe that God chose to create the universe through the big bang?

Why are you limiting God in this way?

One either believes that God is all powerful and soverign or that He is not.

Since you do not - then you must be an atheist.

Your logic - not mine.

 

[DHK]

So then one is either a literal creationist or an atheist?

One can not believe that God chose to create the universe through the big bang?

Why are you limiting God in this way?

One either believes that God is all powerful and soverign or that He is not.

Since you do not - then you must be an atheist.

Your logic - not mine.

Where is the Big Bang mentioned in the Bible?
It isn't. There is no way that you can infer that from Genesis chapter one.
Therefore it is a matter of belief or unbelief.
You can believe the model of atheism or the model of God's Word.
What do you choose?