Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[afleitch]

Of course not.

No one may have been alive 12,000 years ago, but that is a cop out answer. Geologists, geographers, historians, physicists, biologists, paleontolgoists, astronomers, you name it use science to allow us to see past our own recorded history. The universe is closer to around 15 billion years old.

[afleitch]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

No, it's not - science is about finding the facts, not majority opinion.

Agreed. New ideas have to challenge the status quo even if they are unpopular. This in turn allows science to progress and evolve.

[afleitch]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

What does it matter from your point of view?  If there is no God, then everything is meaningless and has no consequence.

If there is no god, nothing is meaningless. In fact everything around us would take on more significance if it was discovered that there was nothing involved in its process.

[afleitch]

That's true MODU. MissCtholic is right. Catholics are not 'obliged' to believe in creationism or a 12,000 year old earth. As i've said before , the Church has actively condemned intelligent design.

I was taught in a Jesuit school, and they taught evolution and taught that the universe was around 15billion years old. The question of how the universe began, was left to our own devices.

[afleitch]

This thread is just hilarious, Nomo, you're making a fool of yourself.

If you want to know I believe the Earth is really old (by billions of years) and I believe God created the Earth and everything on it and it evolved from there. But oh noes, that's probably not what you wanted!

Don't insult. People are allowed to hold different opinions.

Miss Catholic for example is actually following Catholic teaching by believe what she believes.

[afleitch]

Where did this 12,000 years come from?

Good question...yet you ended it in a preposition.   Your question should read, "From where did this 12,000 years come?"

"This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."
- Winston Churchill

Dude, don't confuse the liberals on this forum...they may think that is correct. 

So, for all you liberals mothers:

"put up" is one word "put-up" and is therefore not a preposition and is ok to use at the end of a sentence....Churchill should have said, "This is the sort of thing with which I will not put-up."

Are you high?

[afleitch]

The creation-scientists use 6,000 years as the earth's age, not 12,000.  I don't think I've even ever seen anyone say it's 12,000 years old.

Aye, if you believe the traditional count we're currently in year 6010, although I calculated it myself once and got a a number just a little higher (approximately 6022 I believe).

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history, most people (myself included sometimes) have trouble taking scripture at face value. However, in Luke we see a geneaology stretching from Jesus to Adam. If we cannot take this list of Chirst's ancestors as literally true how can we take his ressurection Luke records as literally true?

I didn’t mean to post this under my alternative moniker (Liberty).   Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, I just spilled the beans on myself.

You are slightly more bearable as Liberty

[afleitch]

....so we'll just let the slumbering continue in their slumber.

(Yawns) Wake me up when the rapture happens.

[afleitch]

One of the problems we have is that science can mean absolutely nothing to people of 'faith.' It is simply ignored by them, or science is claimed to be 'anti' something or other . If homosexuality for example is (and it probably will be soon considering recent research) proven to be genetically inclined and apparent in embryos, those who use 'faith' to be anti-gay will simply ignore thousands of scientists or claim they are pursuing a 'gay agenda.'

For so many people the Bible is all you need to know and if it isn't in the Bible it's not worth knowing. Reason and rationality is thrown out the window if it doesn't compliment faith. It is the same rational that is used by current protests over the Mohammed cartoons for existence and people of all faiths are capable of it.

Religious people claim to say 'God spoke to me.' Why can he not 'speak to' scientists or philosphers also? Surely the man in the pulpit doesn't think he is more worth of God's attention than a man staring into a test tube! If however if you can use your rationality to say to yourself 'perhaps science is god's gift.' In that God speaks through scientists from Galileo to Stephen Hawking to advance and benefit mankind, you can reach a conclusion that pursing knowledge is part of God's 'plan' even if the results contradict the OT.

[afleitch]

I am not being harsh on religious people People seem to forget I am one myself.

Secondly I reject creationism for two reasons. I believe evolution is scientifically more valid and secondly the Catholic Church also rejects creationism. It could be said therefore, that I am fulfulling my Catholic 'religious duty' in opposing creationism.

Neither my faith nor my reason compells me to support creationism or intelligent design.

[afleitch]

I am not being harsh on religious people People seem to forget I am one myself.

Secondly I reject creationism for two reasons. I believe evolution is scientifically more valid and secondly the Catholic Church also rejects creationism. It could be said therefore, that I am fulfulling my Catholic 'religious duty' in opposing creationism.

So, you agree with your church on non-salvational issues (e.g. how God created the universe), but you disagree with your church on salvational issues (e.g. adultery, homosexuality)....it could be said therefore, that you are following only what your itchy ears want to hear.

It is better to have itchy ears than closed eyes and a closed mind jmfcst

[afleitch]

Therefore, it is because of your own desires that you refuse to conform yourself to the word of God.  You refuse to repent because you rather serve your flesh than serve God.

How dare you.

Do you not understand the concept of love? Do you not understand that I can love, emotionally love and physically love another man? I do not merely 'serve my flesh.' I love my partner and I would do anything for him. If I never had sex with him ever ever again, it would still not stop me from emotionally and physically loving him with every fiber of my bloody being.

If the ability to love is God given, then I am serving god in showing love whether to my partner or to my partner. Perhaps that is something you will understand. I feel very sorry for you jmfcst.

That is the last I will say on the matter.

[afleitch]

Therefore, it is because of your own desires that you refuse to conform yourself to the word of God.  You refuse to repent because you rather serve your flesh than serve God.

How dare you.

Do you not understand the concept of love? Do you not understand that I can love, emotionally love and physically love another man?

1John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands.


Who do you love more, your homosexual lover or God?

Just because you believe in absolutes doesn't mean I do

As you well know, someones love for god is different from their love for their brother, mother, friend, country or lover. Love can mean many different things and can be expressed in different ways.

I love them both. But my love of God is different from my love for my partner or any other person for that matter.

[afleitch]

I am only told not to be like the following: the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

'And i'll get your little dog too!'

[afleitch]

I am only told not to be like the following: the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

'And i'll get your little dog too!'

I was quoting verbatim from scripture.  Yet I didn't place it in quotes in order to gauge the reaction of those unfamiliar with scripture.

How foolish of you to mock the word of Jesus Christ:

Rev 21:6-8 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

The "Catholic" AFleitch pwn3d again.

Not really. I just couldn't be bothered replying to him that day.

I love how you put 'Catholic' in inverted commas as if I'm somehow making it up

[afleitch]

Why would I attempt to win her over by telling her that God sent me to tell her that she and her family, and all her friends were deceived? 

That is why you really disturb me.

[afleitch]

Why would I attempt to win her over by telling her that God sent me to tell her that she and her family, and all her friends were deceived? 

That is why you really disturb me.

What is so "disturbing" about that?

He believes he is a prophet. It's the ultimate in self-centred righteousness

[afleitch]

He believes he is a prophet. It's the ultimate in self-centred righteousness

First, if I were trying to build myself up, then why haven't I kept on giving "prophecies"?  Have I ever come on this forum claiming I have a word from God directed at anyone on this forum?

Second, you're basically accusing all the writers of the bible of being self-centered.  You are contradicting, once again, your own faith.

I was referring to your own sense of self-righteousness, not that of the prophets.