Pope Contradicts Genesis Account of Creation, Argues ‘God and Evolution’ Are Compatible

Pope_FrancisROME — The Roman Catholic Pontiff Francis addressed an audience at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Monday, during which he reaffirmed long-held Catholic beliefs that evolution is not “inconsistent” with Creation.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” he told those gathered for a discussion on “Evolving Concepts of Nature.” “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

“And so Creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all things,” Francis continued. “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it. … Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, praised the Pope’s statements to reporters, opining that he had buried the “pseudo theories” of Creationists.

“The pope’s statement is significant,” he told the news outlet Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendants from the big bang that created the universe. Evolution came from Creation.”

As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.

“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the Creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

Many influential leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have endorsed evolution and disregarded the literal interpretation of Genesis. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholicism and evolution, and, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “there are … many scientific proofs in favor of evolution.”

But some have chastised Roman Catholic leaders for endorsing evolutionary theory.

“Either God really created the cosmos the way He said He did and when He said, or He did not,” Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research told Christian News Newtork. “If He did not, then we should jettison Scripture. Fortunately, historical science—like young-looking spiral galaxies, fast-fuel-burning blue stars, heat-emitting Saturn, and still-icy comets—clearly confirm the Bible’s history.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • jmichael39

    As much as I agree that much of microevutionary theories are deeply consistent with the biblical accounts of creation, when the Pope seems to insinuate that a belief in God’s omnipotence is somehow equal to calling Him some sort of “magician” he falls off the map of biblical theology. God is truly capable of doing anything in the Creation account. To think that to be true is by no means implying that God is some sort of magician for doing so. Magicians can only hope to have some small iota of God’s power in their illusionary actions.

  • David Tiffany

    ““God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis continued.
    Not a divine being? Let’s ask a question Paul the Apostle asked: “What does the Scripture say?” Romans 1:18-20, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and DIVINE NATURE–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      Saul/Paul is not god. So you have one man’s opinion against another’s.

    • Neiman

      Sorry, the Pope is a false prophet and the RCC is apostate.

      When you say that God used evolution as the means of creation of all things and demote the Genesis account to mere allegory, you are bringing down the entirety of the Christian faith. It means God deceived His people, He allowed them for millennia to believe He created all things in six literal days, that makes Him a deceiver and thus cannot be God at all, as not only does He have no motive to lie, it is not an act of Love to lie to His children. If day in Genesis means an indeterminate period of time, you must apply that same definition every other place wherein the same word for day is used and it makes the whole of the Bible meaningless nonsense. Lastly, if you cannot believe His every Word in Genesis One, on what possible basis can you say His Word about Salvation through Christ is any more reliable?

      This is the spirit of anti-Christ.

      • KING_K

        Amen brother, you said it all!

      • Lito Borja

        You sound like a Jew who crucified God, well at least your name suggest, that you are one of them. RCC is apostate, that is very funny. The biggest Church is an apostate, you must have Ebola with high fever right now. Anyway, your comment deserves a correction. The Jews were Anti-Christ-right? RCC were Jews? or are Jews? Do your homework Neiman, the dull man.

        • MatthewScheller

          You know so little about what you are talking about, I feel stupid replying but the RCC is the roman catholicchurch and its headquarters are a hundred billion dollar mini-city in Rome. Nothing contradicts the message of Christ more than Gold toilets but just in case thats not enough for you:

          Here’s why the pope is full of crap:

          *Evolution teaches death came before sin when the Bible clearysays Sin brought about death.
          *Evolution clearly contradicts the words of Jesus in Matthew
          19.
          *Evolution contradicts the very definitive time scale that
          scripture provides for Gods plan for mankind.
          *Evolution contradicts Moses in Exodus 20.
          *Evolution contradicts the chronology of Creation in which
          the stars, moon and sun are created after the earth.

          *I could go on and on but most of all…
          …. *Evolution denies Adam’s place as the first man and
          therefore the events that lead to the first Sin. Without which, all Scripture
          falls in on itself and without which Jesus Christ’s sacrifice become pointless.
          Without sin, what does pope frank think Jesus was sacrificed for?

          Do your research Lito Borja before you defend for the sake of defending. It may save your soul.

          • Rufus Dsouza

            I PITY YOU !!!
            YOU ARE GOING “nowhere” with your OUT OF CONTEXT crap!!
            You smell of HATE !!
            Jesus taught you to be this way ??
            Then, JESUS is Full Of Crap !!
            simple. LOGIC.
            PEACE.

          • Okieproud

            Caps lock is never okay…never.

          • MatthewScheller

            Out of context? How? Please tell me how what I wrote was out context. Please support your argument that Scripture and Evolution are compatible.
            The rest of that about hate and Jesus being full of Crap for teaching me to hate and simple logic… um yeah, i dont understand what any of that means.

          • malakadiveamush

            Fool you and your Protestors gave up on literal interpertation as well….

            “All people will call me blessed” yet you practically spit on Jesus mother. (Good luck with that one on judgement day)

            THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD, DO THIS…. Yet you pretend its a symbol, (you dont have apolostic succession anyway so couldnt even if you wanted too) and when the masses said he was a heretic, and blasphemer against Gods law, and they started to leave, Jesus said “Let them go” not hey guys just kidding!!! But you dont believe

            Nowhere in the bible teaches “solo scriptura” please show me the verse!

            Peter you are the rock and upon this rock I will BUILD MY CHURCH!! Not church’s and save it in greek it means pebble because Jesus spoke aramiac.

            Numerous times Jesus speaks how he gives the power to forgive sins to his church, yet you think how just by believing you are “saved” ha ha ha ha

            I bet you believev in a pre tribulation rapture dont you? Your a fool… so according to you Jesus comes 3 times? Please show me where in the bible there is a 3rd coming of Jesus?

            The list is endless…… now read 2 timothy 4:3 and realize Jesus was speaking about you.

          • john cummins

            The rock is clearly the revelation given to Peter, NOT Peter which is clearly seen when James is the ruler in Jerusalem in Scripture. The Apostles, in essence, go to James as the final authority. Clear your head!

          • Okieproud

            James, bishop of Jerusalem, who had authority in Jerusalem, and Peter, bishop of Rome, who has authority everywhere. Seems very much like the situation of today in the Church: the local bishops have authority in their own dioceses and the Pope has authority over the entire Church. Hmmmm.

          • malakadiveamush

            You are so confused… Peter mentioned 67% of the time alone and the rest of the apostles mentioned 33% COMBINED!! Peter is ALWAYS mentioned first which is a sign of authority and honor and lastly read the early church fathers…. It amazes me how you make stuff up as you go along.

          • Okieproud

            You should feel more stupid for replying…given your answer.

            You’ve probably never been to the Vatican, so I’ll tell you: there are no gold toilets. You’re lucky to find any toilets. Mini-city…aw, cute but it’s a country. Hundred billion? Where does that number even come from? I’m sure it’s at least worth ten times that. But did you look at the figures of the Catholic church in donating money to the poor or the fact that they are the only country that runs on solar power? Living out the Gospel message of actually taking care of the poor? Nope…huh?

            In case that wasn’t enough for you:

            I have to start at the end. Did you suggest that Lito work for salvation…meriting salvation….earning salvation?

            Please…you trying to suggest that the Church doesn’t believe in sin…ha, we have more documents on sin that you could image. 2000 years we’ve been talking about it and researching it. We even have some practice at it…humans, wherever they go, sin follows.

            All of your arguments seem to come from a very strong authority…which might that be? Who is judging interpretations here? Mind you that no one does scholarship in literal interpretation. The Church gave that one up…well, right around the time that they were writing the New of the New Testament.

          • MatthewScheller

            Oy. Im too tired to get into this, knowing its inevitable end but here goes anyway.
            The church gave up on literal interpretation? Well that’s certainly news! haha. Man, I can only imagine why they would do that!….how convenient for the RCC!
            ….Anyways, since the Bible words are no longer relevant or decipherable for us protestants, Ill stick to replying to what you said and not what the pope said even though it is THE CONTEXT of this discussion!
            Yes the Vatican is technically a country but its only 100 Acres big (I should have said mini-town) and its wealth, accounting for more than just its 10 billion in gold is measurable – that means land, stock, over seas real estate and shares. Hence the 100 Billion dollar figure. The fact that its probably more only strengthens my point.
            I noticed you twisted my point about Sin. Weird. Who said anything about the RCC not acknowledging Sin? I stated that Sin was a result of death and that since evolution clearly states that death came before Adam, it completely contradicts the Word of God. Oh wait, the church gave up on literal interpreation i forgot. So much for Romans 5:12!
            Bottom line, your pope frank supports evolution even though it is in direct contradiction to the Holy Bible.
            You ask what authority my comments came from. I’m not sure how to answer that. I didn’t say anything you cant look up yourself. If I said 2=2=4 what would my authority be? Fact? Truth? I honestly don’t understand your question.
            The bottom line is there is no holy spirit in the RCC. I know, I used to be a part of it. They pray to Mary, theres no bible, and its people call the priests father. The Bible (matthew 23:9) specifically says NOT to call anyone father but your heavenly father. I wonder how the RCC rationalized that? Anyways, I know youll have a million rationalizations wrapped up in a nice arrogant reply that doesn’t come close to the context of this article but go ahead, work your google and tell me why the Popes opinion on Evolution is compatible with Scripture.

          • Okieproud

            Literal interpretation was rather vogue in the late 1500s; Luther had to do something since he couldn’t argue for authority to guarantee authentic interpretation of Scripture…how even more convenient. But after 500 years, it’s such a played out record and very unscholastic.

            So do realize that having assets is not the same as having money, right? You also realize that it’s not like Scrooge McDuck’s piggy vault inside the Vatican? And…I’m still waiting on those figures of how much the Church gives out in aid and charity.

            “Without sin, what does pope frank think Jesus was sacrificed for?” – Does this pointed question not seem to fit the bill for suggesting the Church teaches there is no sin?

            Always so literal…let me make it clearer for you: the Church gave up on a strictly literal interpretation…that’s not that Scripture passages are literal; it is respecting the book we are reading from. Since we’re on strict interpretation how do you get around: Mt 16:18 or Jn 6:53. I won’t even get into the books of the Bible that you all have deemed unworthy of your high intellectual standards.

            Direct contradiction…strong words for no argument. Evolution doesn’t have to exclude a garden of Eden. It doesn’t have to exclude an Adam. It doesn’t have to exclude a singular moment in which man chose to disobey God. But your brain is so constricted by these little views that you can’t even respect the text you are reading. You fear the questions and the possibilities that could arise if you don’t restrict everything to your limited view.

            Which brings brings me back to authority. You did say things that I can’t look up: your judgments…fast, hard, and reckless. You summarily dictate that the Scriptures mean this and only this. But on whose authority? Does it say anywhere in Scripture that all of Scripture must be interpreted literally? If so, and it doesn’t, but if so, then it must be interpreted literally in the original languages…that’s right. If we’re going to be literal, God only spoke two languages (technically three, but neither here nor there): Greek and Hebrew. It would be wrong to translate it because it’s the Word of God to be understood only strictly.
            You played the math card…close but no cigar. I already subscribe to math. Yes, it’s a pure and eternal system and serves as a decent though not perfect proof of supreme existentials such as God. But your interpretation, strict or otherwise, is an appeal to authority…namely yours. And what qualifies you? Your pulse? The fact that you label it fact/truth? Nope, those labels just fall off when stuck to crap. Fallacy of the Nominalists to think that just by calling it something makes it so. So, your authority for your personal interpretation is you. Weak sauce. I’ll take 2000 years of much smarter scholars than you, who only read Scripture in the original language, to give me textual and contextual interpretations. Like a Japanese katana, many can pick it up and bang around with it; few have mastered it and make it sing.

            By your own authority you declare that the Church prays to Mary (false), we don’t have the Bible (we put the Bible together; it’s the only reason you have it), people do call priests father (St. Paul anyone? Or is he out too?). Please, I don’t need google I’m actually smart.

          • john cummins

            Thank God for Martin Luther who began to put a stop to the lunacy of idiots like humble Oklahoman.

          • Okieproud

            Thank God for the man who removed books from the Bible and inserted the word “sola” into the Bible? Who left because he could live a life of celibacy and had to marry a nun from a fish barrel?

          • 4nick8er

            The scriptures of all Abrahamic religions are only correct if you suspend all critical reasoning skills or are feebleminded…then they make perfect sense.

          • Lito Borja

            A misled soul is a lost sheep pretending to be keeping with the pack.

      • eldon johansen

        evolution only crucified Christ if you recognize entropy as sin, and all evolution as an increase in chaos.. chaos defined as “sin”

      • malakadiveamush

        Protestant, please tell me from what authority do you speak? In
        Matthew 16; 17-19 Jesus created a church and promised it would NOT fall
        into error, yet you belong to one of 55,000 denominations WHO ALL SAY
        SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHICH MEANS YOU ALL SPEAK ERROR!!!! (Most of your
        55,000 are less then 100 years old) So if Jesus created a CHURCH, not
        church’s, in the year 33, and only one has existed since then, what does
        that say about you?

        You follow man, not God, and make Jesus come
        off the cross to follow you… Please show me where in the bible it
        teaches “solo scriptura” is the way to go? because you wont and cant….

        Face it 2 timothy 4:3 was written for all Protesting Protestants!!!

        • Matthew Mueller

          Says the RC who believes that the Papacy is inerrant even when it directly contradicts Scripture. Who’s putting man above God? It’s not the Protestant that’s for sure.

          • Okieproud

            You fundamentally misunderstand Papal infallibility; there are certain conditions which must be met for this abilitas to be actuated. But if you missed in Scripture how Christ set up His Church, then papal infallibility is really way beyond your reading comprehension.

          • Matthew Mueller

            How exactly did Christ set up His church to allow 1 man to overrule Scripture?

          • Okieproud

            I see the problem. You don’t fundamentally misunderstand infallibility…you misunderstand the Pope or Scripture or Christ…but it’s at least one of those and maybe all three.

          • Matthew Mueller

            I maybe misunderstand the pope, but that’d be it.

          • Okieproud

            Are you sure? There seems to be so much more you don’t understand about the Church.

          • Matthew Mueller

            the church or The Church. Cause yes, I don’t understand the Church, but considering no one but God truly does, I’m ok with that.

          • Okieproud

            Cheap…God is the only One Who truly understands anything. That doesn’t except me from striving to understand the Truth better.

          • Okieproud

            Ooops, someone doesn’t know what the Pope actually is, does, or how Christ set up His Church. This is just awful. No wonder you spew all of this anti-Catholic stuff. It’s probably not your fault, you just listened to your preacher and accepted everything he said as Gospel. Hmmm, interesting, no?
            You realize don’t you that Protestantism needs to perpetuate anti-Catholic propaganda. You should probably start from scratch with your understanding of the Church.
            Overrule Scripture. It just makes me laugh. And then cry for you and your ignorance.

          • john cummins

            That’s Reformation humble okie.

          • malakadiveamush

            Idiot how did you become so stupid as to believe a media report? No way does the pope contradict scripture…. Its so laughable.

          • Justin Brink

            Stay classy, sir. This is not the way to speak to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

          • malakadiveamush

            If you are a Protestant you are not my brother or sister but an agent of satan.

          • Justin Brink

            Satan is indeed present – in your heart.

          • dianiline

            Protestants are our separated brethren, not in full communion with the Church.

            You are commanded to love them and pray for them and wish them well–indeed, to wish them in full communion.

            In this century, for the most part it is not their fault that they are not fully within the Church, because today it does not take an active choice to be outside the Church. Christ calls them to His Bride the Church, but clamoring voices always speak against Him.
            I myself believed at one point that as I was born into the Lutheran church, that must be where God wanted me. However I kept listening and following, and He had His way and I am blessed to be in full communion with the Church.

          • Brioli

            The church is the “BODY OF BELIEVERS” not a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION! Wake up!

          • Christian Elder

            Quite the reverse, anyone that defends a fallible man (pope) over scripture is deceived.

          • Okieproud

            You are correct…to a point. You seem to pit the Pope against Scripture as if he could never say anything in accord with Scripture. St. Paul was a fallible man…so now we’re in a pickle.

          • Okieproud

            Boo, malak. You not only misunderstand the Church’s teaching but are being just awful to people…remember that very important thing that Christ taught and Paul reinforced: charity.

          • wandakate

            JUSTIN BRINK: Didn’t he say he’s Catholic? What else would you expect. They are deceived and don’t realize it.

          • Justin Brink

            I’m Catholic. That’s why I was responding to his behavior.

          • Matthew Mueller

            You’d be much more effective if you weren’t a troll.

          • Okieproud

            Hahaha…I really enjoyed that post…but to be more effective there first has to be a true argument not a mere statement.

          • malakadiveamush

            Maybe you shouldnt accept a christian news internet article…. trust me the Pope didnt over rule scripture. We defend it. Its you protestors who ripped out 7 books and made 30,000 mistranslations in the KJV, so tell me is the bible falible or did God make a mistake or are you an agent of satan spreading lies and confusion?

          • Рон Джамин

            So, man cannot contradict man? After all, man wrote the bible.

          • dianiline

            The Bible is inspired, that is, God-breathed. Literally, written by men, but actually written by God.

            This may pose some problems for my friends in this thread who can’t get past the literal.

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            Which version are you talking about?
            1611 KJV? 1625? 1760? With or without Apocrypha?

          • Рон Джамин

            The Gospels, which only 3% that were CHOSEN by a Roman Emperor and his Aristocracy, were stories written by people who lived during that time. They were not “inspired”, they were essentially journalistic pieces of the day. But why let an Emperor and Aristocracy decide which ones are “the word of God” and which ones are to be burned (like the NAZIs did….burn books). Huh?

          • gregcamacho8

            Buddy, the New Testament scriptures were written in the first century and canonized in the first few subsequent centuries by councils of Catholic bishops. This thing about the books being “chosen” by a “Roman Emperor and his Aristocracy” is nonsense.

            The other gospels you referred to were either slightly different copies of the same, or heretical versions written by gnostics – who didn’t know Jesus and were only interested in supporting their cult – hundreds of years later. None of these were “journalistic pieces”. Just read the introductions to the Gospels by their authors to understand their purpose in writing them.

            When was the last time you saw the Catholic Church burning books anyway?

          • Рон Джамин

            Yes, SOME other gospels were “slightly different”, then there should be no reason to ban them from all official libraries. Sort of like telling the masses the “earth is flat”, just because I say so.

            “Heretical versions”? By whose definition? Cesare? Yes. A thing is only heretical if it goes against official DOCTRINE and DOGMA. AKA, against what CESARE said. Good for serfs, not for free men.

            Written by “gnostics”? Yes, so? No different than the other gospels. In fact, I would be predisposed to view the gnostic texts with more weight because they were spiritual without being a slave to DOGMA.

            There are people all over the world that feel secure in their ignorance, comfortable being a serf for Cesare…..and I count you amongst them. Be well.

          • gregcamacho8

            “Official libraries”? The Church has no control over who wants to put what in their libraries, and in fact, has opened much of the Vatican library to the public. You can view documents online.

            The canonization process for the Bible was not a matter of censoring books and gospels – it was choosing those texts which would be read during the liturgy. Why you would be opposed to religious leaders defining their own beliefs (not anyone else’s), is beyond me.

            Anyway, Constantine sponsored the gathering of the bishops because his wife converted him to Christianity, though he wasn’t a very good Christian. The bishops ask him his opinion about which books to include. All this stuff about Cesare [sick] controlling doctrine is pure nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the Roman empire wasn’t a serfdom.

            The Gnostics were a spiritual cult that believed in two gods: one good and one evil. They also believed that all matter was evil, and the only part of human beings that was any good was the soul. This led some to extreme mortification practices since they believed that the body was evil, and led others to debauchery since they believed that the body didn’t matter. These beliefs and behaviors had nothing to do with Christianity – in fact, contradicted Christianity’s belief that God made all things good and sanctified creation, especially the body, through Christ’s incarnation.

            But the Gnostics took the Christian Gospels and bastardized their own crazy versions to support their beliefs. So duh, of course the Church condemned them and their made up gospels.

            Believe what you want, I don’t stay up at night because of what you think of me – but buddy, dems the facts.

          • Guest

            “Official libraries”? The Church has no control over who wants to put what in their libraries, and in fact, has opened much of the Vatican library to the public. You can view documents online.

            The canonization process for the Bible was not a matter of censoring books and gospels – it was choosing those texts which would be read during the liturgy. Why you would be opposed to religious leaders defining their own beliefs (not anyone else’s), is beyond me.

            Anyway, Constantine sponsored the gathering of the bishops because his wife converted him to Christianity, though he wasn’t a very good Christian. The bishops didn’t ask his opinion about which books to include. All this stuff about Cesare [sick] controlling doctrine is pure nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the Roman empire wasn’t a serfdom.

            The Gnostics were a spiritual cult that believed in two gods: one good and one evil. They also believed that all matter was evil, and the only part of human beings that was any good was the soul. This led some to extreme mortification practices since they believed that the body was evil, and led others to debauchery since they believed that the body didn’t matter. These beliefs and behaviors had nothing to do with Christianity – in fact, contradicted Christianity’s belief that God made all things good and sanctified creation, especially the body, through Christ’s incarnation.

            But the Gnostics took the Christian Gospels and bastardized their own crazy versions to support their beliefs. So duh, of course the Church condemned them and their made up gospels.

            Believe what you want, I don’t stay up at night because of what you think of me – but buddy, dems the facts.

          • gregcamacho8

            [Resubmitted with typos corrected]

            “Official libraries”? The Church has no control over who wants to put what in their libraries, and in fact, has opened much of the Vatican library to the public. You can view documents online.

            The canonization process for the Bible was not a matter of censoring books and gospels – it was choosing those texts which would be read during the liturgy. Why you would be opposed to religious leaders defining their own beliefs (not anyone else’s), is beyond me.

            Anyway, Constantine sponsored the gathering of the bishops because his wife converted him to Christianity, though he wasn’t a very good Christian. The bishops ask him his opinion about which books to include. All this stuff about Cesare [sic] controlling doctrine is pure nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the Roman empire wasn’t a serfdom.

            The Gnostics were a spiritual cult that believed in two gods: one good and one evil. They also believed that all matter was evil, and the only part of human beings that was any good was the soul. This led some to extreme mortification practices since they believed that the body was evil, and led others to debauchery since they believed that the body didn’t matter. These beliefs and behaviors had nothing to do with Christianity – in fact, contradicted Christianity’s belief that God made all things good and sanctified creation, especially the body, through Christ’s incarnation.

            But the Gnostics took the Christian Gospels and bastardized their own crazy versions to support their beliefs. So duh, of course the Church condemned them and their made up gospels.

            Believe what you want, I don’t stay up at night because of what you think of me – but buddy, dems the facts.

          • gregcamacho8

            Dammit, I mean “the bishops *didn’t* ask him his opinion about which books to include”. Sorry for all the re-posts.

          • Matthew Mueller

            Yet God inspired it, the Bible is written by men who were inspired by God Himself in one form or another. Therefore it is inerrant.

          • Рон Джамин

            Who says? You mean only 3% of the known Gospels were “inspired”? Who says? A Roman Emperor? The Roman Aristocracy? Thats who, if you read your history.

          • dianiline

            Power to bind and loose. However, this is never an overruling of Scripture. God speaks through one and through the other, and He never contradicts Himself. If you think He is, you are misreading something.

          • Matthew Mueller

            God is not contradicting himself. However, the RCs and this pope in particular, are contradicting Scripture.

          • Christ is on the Way

            All reading this may find an interesting read in the books: Petrus
            Romanus and Exo Vaticana. These books are fully cited and contain
            documentation. It is the most intelligent read outside of the Bible I
            have ever read. A real eye-opener if you are not afraid of the truth!

          • malakadiveamush

            No.1 I can guarantee you the Pope NEVER contradicts scripture, the media contradicts the pope. This has been proven time and time and time again…. Its protesting protestants who contradict scripture and make Jesus come off the cross and bow before man.

          • Matthew Mueller

            I’ve given the example a few times now, just recently, of your current pope contradicting Scripture. “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me”, John 14:6. From your own Catechism, that I have to assume the pope confesses and believes in, “Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion but the imputability of the offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances” CCC#2125. In other words, yea atheism’s wrong but if an atheist’s intentions are good and it’s not their fault they don’t believe it’s ok.

            Your turn. Give me an example of a protestant, bearing in mind that if you use a methodist or similar group for you example that I am an extremely conservative lutheran and don’t believe that they belong to the true faith as a church body, that has made”Jesus come off the cross and bow before man.”. Come up with one and turn this into a real debate instead of you trolling.

          • dianiline

            If an atheist comes to the Father, it is through Christ. You have made no point, my friend.

            Faith is a gift. I am grateful for it every day.

            If an atheist is truly unconvinced by the evidence (which is all around him, and in which he lives and moves and has his being) that God exists, then he would have to lie to profess belief in God. He does not believe. To say he did would be a lie. He has not been given the gift of faith.

            You cannot honor God, who is Truth, with a lie.

          • Okieproud

            Matt, you’ve brought so many smiles to my face. Any protestant example…well, except for anything that isn’t extremely conservative Lutheran? Though I do appreciate the “come off the cross and bow before man” reference…see, smiles.

            CCC 2125: Not in other words! That is a whole ‘nother level of audacity. You are going to now attempt to interpret 2000 years of theology, while criticizing from outside of the Church; this going to go about as well as Luther’s same attempt, only he had 500 less years to interpret. You realize that this is what is called a “straw man” argument. You set up a straw man and knock him down…wowwie, you’re so strong. Problem is that the 2000 LB solid rock is a few feet to your right; that’s #2125.

            While I’m not going to judge your denomination’s belief as unscriptural, I will pose to find out how your Scripturally resolve this without appealing to outside interpretation or authority: with what authority could Luther remove books of the Bible?

          • john cummins

            Jesus isn’t on the cross, loser

          • john cummins

            that’s Reformer to be more accurate!

          • malakadiveamush

            So Jesus lied when he created a church and said it wouldnt fall into error? ha ha ha so you are reforming for who? SATAN!!!

          • dianiline

            How arrogant to think one can reform the Church that Christ built and the Holy Spirit guides. I will take God’s original formation, thank you. You can keep the change.

          • dianiline

            The Pope is infallible when speaking “ex cathedra”, that is, “from the chair”, that is, in a special way in his office as Vicar of Christ.

            Which is to say, when God wants to tell us something, He can, in a way that we can all understand is Him telling us–not just some private opinion of the Pope’s.

            When you refuse to listen, it is God, and not the Pope, you are denying.

            How can you believe that God can’t make His man say what He wishes? You put your interpretation above God. You put yourself above God.

            May He forgive you, for you know not what you do.

          • Matthew Mueller

            I understand the idea of ex cathedra. I also understand that Christ makes it quite clear that the gift of prophecy, which is essentially what the pope is claiming, would cease. If you are going to believe that God will speak exclusively through the pope, and not in a form that anyone else can see or hear, then you have no right to disbelieve the charismatics. No, I put God’s Word in its rightful place when I refuse to believe that a man can say that he has a new interpretation of God’s Word that God has given to him and him only. That’s directly contradictory to Scripture, and so I don’t believe it. When you listen to the pope on these things it is you who is elevating man above God. Hopefully God will forgive you for following an antichrist.

          • Brioli

            The pope is not a prophet and may God forgive you..for ya’ll know not what you do.

        • dominic

          You seem to be confusing the idea of the church as a body of believers, versus the church as an institution.
          Surely Peter was made instrumental in preaching the Gospel to both the Jews and Gentiles, yet what he was building up is the community of believers, the body of Christ, rather than a particular institution, the Roman Catholic Church. And so the body of Christ endures to this day, not because the RCC endures, but because God in His mercy has scattered true believers around the world. Surely not all Protestants are true believing Christians, and yet not all Catholics are true believing Christians either. It’s the faith one possesses, and the relationship with God, that matters, not subscribing to the RCC or a particular denomination.
          When we say ‘Sola Scriptura’, it’s because we realise that Scripture is God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16) and it is infallible. Rather than put Tradition over the Bible (which is what the RCC does), we put up the Bible first and say “This is the ultimate authority we believe in.”
          Funny how 2 Timothy 4:3-4 can apply to Catholics as well. Who knows the heart of Man except the Lord?

          • john cummins

            BTW, these idiots don’t read their Bibles where it is pretty clear James was the leader of the church.

          • malakadiveamush

            Fool… So Jesus lied when he made Peter the head of his church or the first pope? Then maybe you should read your bible as Peter is mentioned 67% of the time and the REST of the apostles are mentioned collectively a paltry 33%, more so Peter is ALWAYS mentioned first which is a sign of honor and lastly maybe you should read the doctors of the church, the boots on the ground, who actually lived it and ascented to Peter.

            You are pathetic protestor

          • Matthew Cover

            I have im on Novatian vol 5 of the ante nicene fathers and also have the nicene post nicene fathers series on my book shelf. It wasn’t until Turtullian that Peter was confused with the rock instead of understanding that it was a play of words stating that according to the Hebrew Old Testament that the lord is the rock and last I checked the lord is Jesus Christ not Peter. Cyprian was the first to use the word Peters throne and yet he did not write about a supreme authority over the church because it was still the bishops whom didn’t always agree who had the authority over their sees that being said they still could be defrocked by the other bishops and the presbyters “Pastors” whome could be removed if they were teaching wrong by the Deacons and the bishop. A far cry from a monarchist system that latter took root over time and realy didn’t become a monarchist system until the medieval period AD 400 to 1400. Thank you come again have a good day. I’m a confessional lutheran and have out of curiousity taken my own time to learn the facts for myself by reading the early church writings and several translations of the Bible. I am a Christian whom is not protesting anything I am confessing Christ and in him crucified and the New Testament which is the Apostolic teachings.

          • Matthew Cover

            Also Turtullian and Cyprian used a Latin translation which translates the word the lord is my rock and so on in the Old Testament to its meaning and only uses such once instead of multiple times in the Hebrew Old Testament hence their confusion. Paul also called Jesus christ the rock comparing him to the rock which gave the Israelites water during their wNdering in the desert.

          • Matthew Cover

            You have polluted your self with the Yeast of the Pharasees change your ways before it’s too late.

          • brad Eilon

            Where in the bible we can read that Jesus made Peter the head of his church or the first pope?

          • dianiline

            James? Really? No. Cephas was the leader of the Church. The rock, again; Peter.

          • Scott Lyons

            These “idiots” gave you the Bible, brother.

          • wandakate

            JOHN CUMMINS: James may well have been the leader, but Michael the Archangel was the guardian of the church.

          • malakadiveamush

            Maybe you should read Matthew 16:17-19, the wording is clear, Jesus created a CHURCH not a “body of believers” to do what each and every one chooses to do!! Your body of believers is a LIE as you have over 55,000 different denominations, not even church’s, all teaching something different which means ALL TEACHING ERROR!!! Oh and your next post when you tell me Greek means pebble, let me remind you Jesus spoke aramiac so your assertion fails flat. Right after Jesus gace Peter, the first pope the “keys to the kingdom” which means succession and the power to bind heaven and lose heaven and earth, he then went to the apostles and descended the holy spirit upon them, which are now Bishops, then went to the 72 and did the same, which is what we call priests…. Gee, hmm? Sounds like the makings of a church to me!!! “Body of belevers” ha ha ha BELIEVE WHAT??? WHAT EVER YOU WANT??? So according to you you can say and do whatever you want and have no recourse? To you sin doesnt matter as long as you can say “I beleive” HA HA AH Gee didnt satan believe? How id that work out for him? Lastly Jesus gave his church the power to forgive sin in his name and the power to consecrate the holy eucharist, something even that fat fool Luthaaaaa even agreed too, but you “body of believers” do NOT BEILEVE!!! You have fallen so fast into satans trap because you are proud and do not follow Jesus but follow yourself. 2 Timothy 4:3 is written for Protestants…… Oh and while you may ask where in the bible is the name Catholic, I ask where in the bible is the name “trinity”? But I can point to Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, in the year 107, in a letter on his way to jail where he wroyte “So whereever is Jesus so is the CATHOLIC Church” yes that is in our posession…. Funny he never mentioned Luthaaa or a body of believers!!!

          • dianiline

            I note in passing that, before declaring “Sola Scriptura”, the declarers edited from Scripture those passages which didn’t quite suit the points they wished to make.

            Scripture is the writings of the Church. It is not infallible, though all of it is true. Consider the passages about women’s veiling in worship; there are groups who say the Bible requires women to veil, and groups who say that the Bible states that women’s hair is sufficient covering. These people look at the same words and come to opposite conclusions.

            Tradition is just the way that the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, has always done things–that is, the teaching of the Holy Spirit outside of the Bible. The Bible is a short book, and cannot possibly hold everything God wants us to know. It is clearly not even written as a general text, but covers issues important to the specific communities that needed guidance in the very early days of the Church.

            All Christians have imperfect faith. We are human and flawed, fallen, but redeemed.

            Denominations are Protestant constructs. The Church is the Church.

            Do you really put the Bible first and say that it is the ultimate authority in which you believe? The Church puts God first; He is the ultimate authority in which we believe.

          • wandakate

            DOMINIC: God knows the condition of all hearts and He goes by what is inside and not what is outside and how we look.
            We are very simply Saved by GRACE and we are judged by our WORKS/DEEDS. That is true for all of us as the Bible does say, that the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Workers means work. The work that we do AFTER we are saved. The church is not the building, but it is the body of CHRIST. It’s his people all brought together and that is the “Church”.

          • dominic

            I very much agree with you! (: Although I’m a little confused here hahaha. Are you disagreeing with what I said? Or just adding on to it? (:

        • MatthewScheller

          malak: Im not sure why you used Scripture (out of context by the way) to strengthen your point. I thought the Church gave up on literal interpretation?

        • Neiman

          The Church, according to God’s Word is the Spiritual Body of Christ, made up of all true believers. It is not an ecclesiastical organization, it is rather a description of all true “believers” in Christ.

          Jesus did not create a religious organization, Peter was never in Rome, nor a Pope; in fact, he was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was actually in Rome, in chains and yet even he was not a Pope nor a member of any religious organism.

          The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura
          means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

          The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura.
          Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of
          any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

          The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith.
          Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any
          tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

          Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions
          play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

          Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html#ixzz3HSTPio1e

          Of course, it is the RCC that has corrupted the Gospel and made priests, mere men and a falsely called Vicar of Christ as the ultimate authority over faith and practices, which is nowhere in Scripture promoted. It is the RCC that demands submission to the rule of men and, like you, that reject Scripture as the sole basis for the Christian faith. It is the RCC that crucifies Christ many thousands of time daily in the Eucharist, denying His full paymemt once, for all sins.

          • john cummins

            And, I didn’t read all your stuff so maybe you said this but James certainly appeared to be the leader of the church in actuality, not Peter or Paul.

          • Neiman

            Yes, James did seem to be the chief apostle in the Jerusalem Church, Peter was the Chief Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles (rest of the world); but, none were seen as being Holy, or a Holy Father, a Vicar of Christ or to lead the Christian Church by command. Even when setting forth some rules, mostly to avoid offending the Jewish Christians, it was what “seemed” best to the leaders (plural) of the early Church, not a command nor were they seen as being inerrant. Remember, Paul even upbraided Peter.

          • Okieproud

            Seemingly you don’t know what the word “vicar” means. Nor do you actually understand how hierarchy or authority works in the Church.

          • Neiman

            Yes I do, in the RCC it is the title for the False Prophet!

          • Okieproud

            Your ignorance is staggering. When was it that your opinion became fact?

          • malakadiveamush

            “all scripture is USEFUL…” WHAT???????????????? not complete, not everything….. Now read 1 timothy 3:15

          • Neiman

            Useful is best translated as profitable, of value:

            is profitable for doctrine;

            for the discovering, illustrating, and confirming any doctrine concerning God, the being, persons, and perfections of God; concerning the creation and fall of man; concerning the person and offices of Christ, redemption by him, justification by his righteousness, pardon by his blood, reconciliation and atonement by his sacrifice, and eternal life through him, with many others. The Scripture is profitable for ministers to fetch doctrine from, and establish it by; and for hearers to try and prove it by:

            for reproof;
            of errors and heresies; this is the sword of the Spirit, which cuts all down. There never was, nor is, nor can be any error or heresy broached in the world, but there is a sufficient refutation of it in the Scriptures; which may be profitably used for that purpose, as it often has been by Christ and his apostles, and others since in all ages: for correction;”

          • malakadiveamush

            So then “solo scriptura” is a lie? You just proved that point…..
            Now read 1 timothy 3:15
            “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to
            behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God,
            the pillar and foundation of truth.”

          • Neiman

            No, I did not say sola scriptura was a lie!

            Did you know that the term Trinity is not in the Bible? So, by your logic, despite God clearing showing us that God is a Holy Trinity, there can be no Trinity, right? Or, despite the words not appearing, when He tells us that we are to rely solely on Scripture for all Truth and that by the Holy Spirit, then sola scriptura is taught in the Bible, just not the words sola scriptura.

            I Timothy 3:15

            But if I tarry long
            Or should long delay coming, defer it longer than may be expected; let it be observed that these things are written, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the
            house of God; that is, the church of God, as it is afterwards explained; called a house, in allusion either to an edifice, it being a spiritual house built of lively stories, or true believers, upon the foundation Jesus Christ, and who also is the door into it;

            which is the church of the living God;

            in opposition to, and distinction from the houses and temples of idols (Catholic Churches?), which are inanimate and senseless creatures; whereas the true God is the living God, has life in himself, essentially, originally, and independently, and is the author and giver of life to others.”

          • Okieproud

            Here you go again appealing to an authority outside of what Scripture says. Your choice is sola Scriptura or appeals to authority who can speak authoritatively on Scripture…and let me tell you, that second one a real problem for Protestants.

            And you never have to convince a Catholic that certain words aren’t in the Bible…(shhh) that’s our argument. We know that certain terms are conventional in use and aid in our understanding of complex issues like the Trinity or the Bible.

          • wandakate

            That scripture says nothing relevant to anything…

          • Рон Джамин

            God word? Where and when did God say that? I’ve never read it…

          • Neiman

            Try asking a coherent question.

          • dianiline

            Peter died in Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen, but you are correct that he was no Pope.

            You assert that the “Bible is complete, authoritative, and true”, and quote the Bible that ‘ “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)’. This supports only the “authoritative” and “true” parts of your statement; it does not speak to your assertion that the Bible is “complete”.

            In fact it is impossible for the Bible to be “complete”. All of eternity is barely sufficient for God to utter Himself once. Many issues were not in contention in the early Church, and so there was no need to mention them in the letters that became the New Testament.

            The Church does not “reject Scripture as the sole basis for the Christian faith”, because, of course, it has never entertained the idea that the writings of Scripture could be confused with the sole basis for the Christian faith.

            Christ is the sole basis for the Christian faith.

          • Neiman

            Christ is the sole basis for the Christian faith? But, He is the Word of God, He is the full declaration of God’s plan for all His creation. When Jesus said it is finished, He meant God’s plan of salvation was complete, it was done, no more sacrifices.

            If God did not offer us in Scripture, a complete plan for our lives, if He did not include everything we need for time and eternity, for every exigency of life; then we are exposed to the risks that men can assert new revelations, like Joseph Smith and lead men astray. If we cannot measure every word of every man by Holy Scripture alone, we are handed over to Satan to deceive. That includes the deceptions of self serving Popes and child molesting priests.

          • Okieproud

            @Neiman: if you could turn your blinders off for two seconds, the Pope is the farthest thing from self-serving. His life is completely not his own. He gives every waking minute to serving the people of God. He’s not the queen of England sitting in a castle all day. He’s trying shepherd more than a billion believers to live the message of Christ in the world. He doesn’t get anytime to play video games. And child molesting priests is an ad hominem argument like the one about the pope. While it is true that around 2% have had allegations and less have been proven true, let’s not throw stones in a glass house.

            Christ is the sole basis of the Christian life. He is the Word of God. The Holy Spirit did inspire the Sacred Scriptures so that we may have a written version of the accounts and the spiritual nourishment. Christ did set up His Church on the Rock which is Peter, giving to him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. If we do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, we have no life within us. He is the Way, not a way, and He provided us a shepherd and the Spirit to lead us in that Way so that we might be one. Division and different opinions on the Scripture and the Way are rejected; so He instituted means of ensuring the Truth. The one Sacrifice of the Cross is completed and cannot be repeated, though if we do not honor that Sacrifice above all else, we place something else above the greatest price ever paid and the greatest gift we’ve ever received. Scripture is sacred and it is for no one’s private interpretation; yet it is not a simple document which is understood by anyone how reads it. Faith lies beyond absolute certain; it requires leaving the warmth of the hidey hole to follow Him towards Heaven.

          • Neiman

            You can have your Pope who says even good atheists can be saved by being good, who share communion with Muslims and other false religions, who worships Mary, whom he sees as a co-redeemer with Christ and who denies the Deity of God; I have God’s Word, His Holy Spirit and Divine Truth as my Guide. I have direct access to God by the Holy Spirit and to life in Christ, I need no frail, finite, wicked man or men to make me jump through religious hoops or religious works, I have the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.

          • Okieproud

            Settle down. You’re getting all huffy. Would you like to demonstrate where the Pope says that atheists are going to heaven? I bet the best you’ll be able to pull off is saying that God’s mercy, being boundless, could include the possibility of salvation even for atheists…who by no fault of their own, haven’t come to know the Truth?

            We don’t even share Communion with Protestants because you don’t believe in the Real Presence…we certainly don’t share Communion with Muslims, though we might have dialogs with them and other confused religions because we desire their salvation even if you don’t.

            We don’t worship Mary. This is Protestant propaganda; but a lie is not made truth by just repeating it 100 times. Though you’re getting close to that 100 mark. We don’t deny the divinity of God; we short of had this small thing where we crushed that out with the Arians in the 3rd century; but that’d require you knowing a smidgen of the Church’s history.

            You have God’s Word, you have His Spirit, and Divine Truth. Does anyone else have this or just you? Are you God’s only chosen one? If, per chance, outside the limits of pride, there were to be another, what would happen if he didn’t agree with you? Did he lose the Spirit or did you? If those three things guarantee that your personal opinion is true, what does that mean for everyone else? And what about 2 Peter 1:20?

          • Neiman

            I do not need to settle down and I was never huffy, that is your emotional reaction when people will not submit to you.

            No matter how the Pope said it, it is anti-Christ, the Word of God teaches us without any equivocation that without faith in Christ as Savior and Lord, no man/woman will be saved. So, no matter how good an atheist may appear, remember God said no one is good, no not one, if they do not believe in God and accept His Salvation through Christ by faith, they will suffer everlasting torments. Atheists will never see Heaven!

            Yes, all Catholics pray to Mary and the words of the Rosary are words of worship, no matter how much Catholics deny that fact.

            The rest of your mindless attacks on me are a waste of time.

          • wandakate

            NEIMAN: My husband was a good man. We were traveling down the interstate from Kissimmee, Fl. to Tampa, to go to Busch Gardens for the day, when these 2 old ladies in front of us were going about 65 mph. They had a front tire blow out and their car went off the highway into the grassy area and landed way down by the trees upside down. It flipped 5 times.
            My husband yelled “STOP”, and he jumped out of our car and ran as fast as he could, he broke the window with his hands and elbows and unlocked the door, dragging these two women to safety, and about 3 minutes after that their car caught fire. He literally saved their lives. Yes, a good man indeed, BUT he wasn’t saved, he did not know JESUS as his own savior, he did not talk about JESUS, he did not read a bible or attend any church or home group. He died a lost man. We don’t go to Heaven b/c we are “good” people, we go b/c we know and believe in JESUS and we are faithful to him and his word.
            He said, I will raise them up on the last day. You must be born again. We must worship GOD in spirit and in truth…He will stand before JESUS on judgment day and JESUS will not let him into the Kingdom of GOD. Sad, but true.
            Catholics and others deny a lot because they are just deceived and believe what man tells them instead of what GOD tells them.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Peter died in Rome.” Please give reference to back that up, I have found none that state Peter ever went to Rome, he was the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles.

          • Okieproud

            You don’t realize, but you should, that we are subject to Scripture. You have a really crazy notion of the Catholic Church which is very far from reality. You just have no idea how out of your element you are to speak so authoritatively on what the Church believes or teaches, especially since every sentence you wrote is false.

            On the positive side, your article also fails to mention that Bible isn’t in the Bible. And yet why do we believe this article? Is it because this too is the Word of God? No, it not that, because this actually just a man’s (or woman’s) interpretation of what he or she thinks is inherit in the Word of God; so you are investing in the authority of an opinion over Scripture; your argument for sola Scriptura is based on something which is an interpretation or outside of Scripture. You see how that is a contradictory argument? No? Take a class on logic…it’ll clear that right up.

            But let’s play a little game, shall we?
            Since the original language of the NT is Greek and therefore never to be changed, you can translate for me this very well-known phrase from the beginning of the Gospel of John: “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.”

          • sean jean frost

            protestant went apart because of RCC misused their power and degraded the chruch and brgan teaching the truch and it was martin luther who published the bible to the world so don’t talk like you know much :^

        • john cummins

          We aren’t protesting, simply reforming, get over it!

          • Okieproud

            You sure did reform. Thanks to you the Church is very far from the hopes of Christ unity and oneness that it enjoyed for so long. How many divisions has Luther spawned? You will know a tree by its…

        • Carmen A.

          Last two thousand years the Catholic Church has lead many away from God The so called Bible you read is the Same We that left the Catholic Church is a work base Church no were in Gods word can we work are way into HIS Kingdom Only through the Blood of Christ and Resurrection We are able to enter in to fellowship with God. Saying prayers to Mary will not do it. Church has kill more people for knowing the truth about salvation Popes have lead the way Only Christ should be worship no Saints Only Christ Saves no one else! No Man Pope ONLY YESUAH MESSIAH!

        • ProudVeteran

          MAl, Catholic and protestant. We all share the same new testament, Catholic Faith focuses on John 3:16 as well as everyone else. Focus on what we have in common , Back to (basics) you will find out we are the same and the same love for God and Jesus. satan tries to separate us and get us arguing amoungst ourselves, But when Christ returns for his faithful catholic, protestant, Baptist, Methodist etc. all those that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will lifted up or eternity. Those that are left behind, have one more chance to get it right. But those next 7 yrs will be tough, times of sorrows. BIG SORROWS.

        • ProudVeteran

          The Catholic Denomination, is nothing as it was when Peter was involved. NOTHING. Roseries, confessions, added books to the old testament, Mass corruption with in its leadership for hundred of years. It goes on and on. But we as believers in Our Lord Jesus Christ (Catholics, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist etc.) join together as one family under God. We all worship Father, Son and Holy Ghost and pray to the same. Being a believer and living a Christian life, is very simple (As God designed it to be) Mankind and satan try to complicate it. Not God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost.

        • Chrissy Vee
        • wandakate

          MALAKADIVEASMUSH: They have heaped up for themselves teachers that will tell them what they want to hear, a nice smooth “feel good” gospel. You are right on that one. The church of today is “LUKEWARM”. They are not hot or cold, just trying to believe man and hold onto GOD at the same time, but most won’t be going to the Kingdom of GOD. We can’t follow both. We can worship Satan and money and GOD all at once. NOPE, it doesn’t work. GOD knew we would do this, and that is why there is going to be an Antichrist coming and a great falling away of the church. They will fall away in droves when they find out they were faced with the man of sin and the mark and they didn’t leave the earth before it all happened. There was no escape route for them, but they were deceived and thought that there was one.

      • Okieproud

        Apostate from what? You realize…(awkward)…you’re using a Catholic legal word.
        Who said anything about a demotion of Genesis? Are you sure you haven’t promoted it or simple made it out to be more than it is?

        How long is one of God’s days anyways? Do the math…I’ll wait. I’ll give you a start: human days are 24 hours. If our relative size gives us any indication of a necessary or at least equivocal environment for God, then an average 6 foot man on earth…then input God’s size (I assume you have that, since you seem to know everything) into the equation Ge = [(4.2×10`7)xGh]/6…where Ge is God’s earth and Gh is God’s height. That’s the easy part. Then you have to do some really fun calculations to come up with a sun which can support that planet (Ge) and then calculate the gravitational variants to determine a length of that day. I image that by the time you calculate it, one of God’s days will be over.

        • Neiman

          Your error is that God defines a day in Genesis One, roughly a 24 hour day, the Sun to rule the day and the Moon to rule the night = a normal day. Error #2, if the word day in Genesis One is actually an indeterminate period of time, then that rule must apply every other place in the OT where that same word for day is used,, making every such passage nonsensical.

          If we cannot trust Genesis to mean exactly what it says, then there exists no warrant on which we cannot dismiss Salvation through Christ as mere allegory as well, and not trust His Word on that matter either.

          apostate
          mid-14c., “one who forsakes his religion or faith,” from Old French apostate (Modern French apostat) and directly from Late Latin apostata, from Greek apostasia “defection, desertion, rebellion,” from apostenai “to defect,” literally “to stand off,” from apo- “away from” (see apo-) + stenai “to stand.”

          • Okieproud

            I’m really going to have fun hearing how you are going to prove Scripturally that a day is merely 24 hours…how was it that the first day when again? Oh right, lots of stuff happened before the lights were created. If it was the first day of ever, and didn’t end until after the lights were created, then a whole lotta stuff happened on the first day. By the way, know much about the Hebrew word for day?

            Error #2: one definition for a word to mean the same thing for every occasion you find it…oh, you’re just tempting me to have a good time. Seriously, there’s never a time in the whole of Scripture that the same word is used in two different, yet similar, ways? You’re sure you don’t want to think a little harder about this before you submit your final answer. Go on, I bet it doesn’t take long.

            Did you ask the Jews how they interpret Genesis? Surely there was never allegory. Surely accounts were not given that had multiple levels of meaning. Otherwise we might have to actually study Scripture instead of using it like a hammer.

            You set up a really fun if…then statement. Problem is, you can’t prove it. You can only use emotion speech to scare tactic people into believing your interpretation so that the second part doesn’t come true. It’s theoretic…so I’ll award three points. Originality…no points. And logical syllogism, nope. But thanks for playing your parting is:

            http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apostate
            Anyone can do a quick search…you might want to have more than a cursory use of language if you’re going to employ it and get called on it.
            I mentioned that it is a Catholic legal term because that was the use you were using it in. Remember, the Church is 2000 years old. Your entry only shows the roots of the word not its usages.

          • Neiman

            4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

            5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

            That is a definition of a day, approximately 24 hours. In the beginning He created the heavens and the earth and while the earth was without form and void, at the beginning, as we have no division presented, He also created the Sun and Moon that it would divide the days, when He created the heavens.

            Day can only change meaning if in context it is defined as meaning something other than as described in Genesis. If He says on that “day” so and so took place, by your definition, He means some indeterminate time, perhaps billions of years.

          • Okieproud

            I mean, I’m not going to put words in God’s mouth to say that a day equals 24 hours. You’re making an assumption which is not supported by a literal interpretation here.

          • Neiman

            We measure a day now by the daytime being when the sun is up and night when the sun is down and the moon is up and that being approximately 24 hours duration; that is how God measured the a “day,” it is a literal reading and absent Him defining it otherwise we have no warrant to define it any differently..

          • Okieproud

            How on earth do you know how God measures a day?! Did you ask Him what He meant? Did He tell you to read it literally?

          • Neiman

            In Genesis One, God defined a day by the sun to rule the day time and the moon the night; and, being omniscient He would have to know that men would look at that same cycle of events in their daily lives and would conclude day meant the same thing as they observe a day to be in their experience. Failing, if it meant an indeterminate period of time to make it clear He meant something else, He would be guilty of allowing His human creation, whom He professes Love, to be deceived for thousands of years, making Him a Deceiver. Since God not only says He cannot lie, but that being God He would have no motive to lie, He would never allow His human creation to be deceived.
            So, knowing He is God, cannot lie through deception, we know by His own Word that a day is a day just as we know a day to be now. I have His Word on that!

          • Рон Джамин

            Yea, GOD picked tiny little earth and decided that he would use exactly 1/2 of the rotational spin to determine what a “day” was. You realize how freaking ridiculous you sound? Really?

          • Okieproud

            Did He? Did it say when the first day began?

            And by your same argument of omniscience of God, would He not also know that men were capable of understanding allegory or symbolism?

            Now you judge that if God does X, then He’s a liar? See, you’ve set up something that God didn’t say. What’s that line? Oh yes, who can judge God…who can counsel Him on the ways He must do or must have done something. You are applying a human construct to God to say that He must obey your once-over, and that He is not free to act as He pleases. Do you serve God or does God serve you? Do you listen to what He is trying to communicate to you or are you only trying hear what you want to hear? Are you worshiping God in a little box that you made or are you look up into the immensity and seeking Him where He may be found…even if that leads to somewhere beyond yourself?

          • Neiman

            I have God’s Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit as my Divine Guide into all Truth. No one is counseling Him or putting Him in a box, but we can see His Nature and His plan for Salvation of mankind and by standing on His Word we can know how He chooses to act; and if we need rely on men, even Popes or Priests or scientists, we are lost, we are at the mercy of frail, finite men in whom God says dwells no good thing.

            The rest of your accusations are empty and you the one playing Judge.

          • Okieproud

            So, then I just trust you who have God’s Word and indwelling of the Holy Spirit about Truth? Are you not a man?

            Why is it that your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong? Why is it that I am supposed to trust you, a man, and not another man with the same claims but a different position?

            And how do I know that you have the Spirit, or at the very least, that you aren’t being deceived yourself? Do you admit that you can be deceived or are you perfect?

          • Neiman

            I do not ask you to believe me, if you know Jesus, you would test every word of any man, priest, Pope, me or anyone only by God’s Word, by reliance upon the Holy Spirit as Teacher and Guide.

            That answers all your sly and mean spirited accusations.

          • Okieproud

            So, when again did that first day start? And how was it that there were three days before the sun and the moon? Wasn’t there just light and darkness before? How long is lightness and darkness?

            And if we take it literally, then the Sun rule in the day and the moon at night…what happens when they are both out at the same time? What happens with the sun isn’t ruling the day because the moon supersedes?

            What does “rule” mean? Does it mean that the sun is the day king? Does it mean that the moon is night king? I mean, that’s what the old testament understands as ruling, right? Things can only mean what they say, right? So the sun has to have a throne? Kings have thrones, so the sun has a throne? Where is the sun’s throne? Also, as we know from Scripture kings have a scepter? I’ve never seen the sun’s scepter. Where is that?

            Are you going to define “rule” as different from how humans rule? Or how humans measure a ruler?

          • Neiman

            You are interested in playing word games and your very questions betray a complete ignorance of Scripture and and absence of the Holy Spirit in your heart.

            This is only a problem if we fail to take into account an infinite and omnipotent God. God does not need the sun, moon, and stars to provide light. God is light! First John 1:5 declares, “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to
            you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all.” God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the “day” and may have done so during the “night” as well (Genesis 1:14).

            Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Much more important than the light of day and night is the Light who provides eternal life to all who believe in Him. Those who do not believe in Him will be doomed to “outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/light-first-sun-fourth.html#ixzz3HYt3t7vT

            It is too bad, you have no spiritual light to help you see God.

          • dianiline

            Neiman, there is time, and there is eternity. We are in time and bound by time. God is eternal and is not bound by time.

            We know that “day” can mean a 24 hour period, that is not in dispute, indeed you demonstrate for us where God gives such a period that name.

            But that does not prove that such a name has only that meaning.

          • Neiman

            In Genesis One God defined “day” as being a cycle of the sun and the moon, one day and one night, light and darkness. Unless modified by context, we have no choice but to accept “day” as being approximately 24 hours.

            Yes, if modified by context day can mean a period of time, like the Day of the Lord, but it is context that must modify its meaning and in Genesis, it clearly means one 24 hour day, just as we experience it today.

          • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

            Maybe you can tell us how a day was actually defined when there was no greater or lesser light which happened on day 3, I believe?

          • Neiman

            This is only a problem if we fail to take into account an infinite and omnipotent God. God does not need the sun, moon, and stars to provide light. God is light! First John 1:5 declares, “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to
            you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all.” God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the “day” and may have done so during the “night” as well (Genesis 1:14).

            Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Much more important than the light of day and night is the Light who provides eternal life to all who believe in Him. Those who do not believe in Him will be doomed to “outer darkness where there is weeping gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/light-first-sun-fourth.html#ixzz3HYt3t7vT

          • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

            You are just taking scripture out of context there. You can use text from a book that was written 2500 years after the Torah was and use it to describe a completely different subject. That is intellectual dishonesty.

            If you want to use the definition that God defined a day as a day, evening and morning, you can’t then use out of context scripture to go arbitrary on us. When there is no definition of a day, you have nothing to reference BEFORE the Sun and the Moon.

            In fact you just told me in your previous argument, “it is context that must modify its meaning and in Genesis, it clearly means one 24 hour day, just as we experience it today.” and then you go and take it OUT of context.

            Really, what is it? In context or our of context? Arbitrary or definite? You can’t have it both ways.

          • Рон Джамин

            Einstein would posit that “time” is relative. So, even as we perceive “time” one way, Gods perception and reality is completely another.

          • Neiman

            Sophistry!

          • Рон Джамин

            No, sorry to burst your bubble. It’s called Science. Provable, repeatable, reliable.

          • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

            True it is…The Hebrew word ‘Yom’ or ‘Day’ is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom + a number (used 410 times), always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24 hr day. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ (23 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + night (52 times) always indicate an ordinary day.

          • Рон Джамин

            The Old Testament was in-fact written by men, scholars and Rabbi. Not God.

          • T C

            Coming from an unbeliever I’m not surprised.

          • Рон Джамин

            What does that mean? I state a historical fact about the bible and that’s the best retort you have? Simple minded fool. And what is it that I’m supposed to be an “unbeliever”? That the bible is “the word of God”? Well, yes. God wrote the 10 commandments, everything else was written by man.

          • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

            How did the Sun rule the day and the Moon rule the night when they weren’t even created until day 3? So what was a “day” then?

        • dianiline

          However large the planet you propose, its length of day will be determined by how fast it rotates and not by its diameter.

          Yet in any case, God does not have “size”.

          • Okieproud

            You really missed the sarcasm.

      • MFehrens

        We all know that the earth was not created literally in 7 days. That is mans interpretation of the time. Don’t forget that these books were not written down for many generations and were just passed word of mouth. By the time it came to write the bible, again, it was done in a way to make it understandable to those who read its teachings.

        • Neiman

          No, that is your atheist interpretation that He did not create the world in six days. As said elsewhere by me under this thread in more detail, God would not, He could not use evolution, random mutations and cosmic accidents over time as the means of creation, as that would indicate He is not omniscient and has to experiment; and, it implies that He did not create everything perfectly from the very beginning, casting doubt of His very deity, which means He lied when He declared everything to be good (perfect).

          Scripture is by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is not from man, although God used them as His instruments. If God allowed men, by their reading of His Word, when He used the word day and defined it as being approximately 24 hours in duration, knowing they would look at their daily experience of the sun/moon cycle as being a day and define day in Genesis the same way, it would mean He allowed His human creation to be deceived for thousands of years, making Him a deceiver, which means He cannot be God at all.

          • Рон Джамин

            I have to take issue with your assertion that there are “random mutations”. We may perceive it that way, but an Omniscient being negates the possibility of randomness, hence Evolution is preordained. Sorry to burst your tiny little bubble.

          • Christian Elder

            Anyone that believes in evolution has been deceived, and has lost the ability to be a critical thinker, definitely not a Christian. As such, you are saying Christ, through Mary, is the descendant of an ape or salamander or an amoeba or whatever from the primordial stew. That is a preposterous far-fetched joke (deception). We are created in God’s image, not evolved into His image.

          • Рон Джамин

            An ape, salamander are creatures that also evolved. And whats wrong with them? They are created by God as well, right? And what exactly IS “Gods Image”? A kindly old man with a white beard and robe….Charlton Heston maybe? Oh, no, he’s Moses.

      • dianiline

        The Pope is not a prophet. He is the descendant of Peter, upon which rock our Lord built His Church. He is the Vicar of Christ.

        We note in passing that Christ wrote no book; He did not leave us a book to guide us in the future. He left us a Church to guide us.

        Most young children are able to grasp the concept of a word having more than one meaning; it is certainly not deceptive for God to speak of days of creation in one place, and days of the week in another. Indeed the latter is a metaphor for the former.

        When you find yourself proving that God is not God, you must have gone wrong somewhere in your thinking–because He is, indeed, God, even if your own understanding of Him is faulty.

        You can, of course, believe God’s every word in Genesis; it is all true, although some of it is literal and some much deeper than that. God has things to say to us that are not limited to the physical and concrete.

        • Neiman

          The Pope is not descended from Peter and Christ did not build His Church on Peter, but rather Peter’s confession of faith in Him.

          The Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, he is an anti-Christ.

          Christ wrote the entire Bible, He is the Word incarnate and by His Spirit He inspired every word. It is all of Christ.

          I have proven that your Pope denies the deity of God, I have asserted He is Almighty God.

          If Genesis fails at any point, Christianity would be a lie!

          • Рон Джамин

            Christ did not write the Bible. The New Testament is a collection of gospels (basically, stories printed, not unlike a journalistic piece today), and codified by a Roman Emperor (only about 3% of them, but, who is counting, right.) I mean a Pope, eh, I mean an Emperor wouldn’t lie and try to control the unwashed masses, right?

          • Neiman

            1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. John One

            Jesus is the Living Word!

            II Timothy 3:16 “16All Scripture is inspired by God.”

            Jesus is God

          • k1mbr0

            Amen to that!!!!!

          • Рон Джамин

            So, if I take you’re post seriously, my words here are, in fact, the word of God. Right?

          • Neiman

            Childish games by an unbeliever, a practical atheist!

          • Рон Джамин

            Neiman, you and many other blind sheep have somehow transmogrified a book codified by the Roman Emperor and his Aristocracy, made-up of ONLY 3% of the known Gospels, into what you call the “word of God”, or the “bible”. That, in any other world, would be called blind ignorant subservience to Cesare. Somehow, relying on Cesare and his minions for spiritual guidance is like asking the slave-master about the definition of “freedom”.

            I am interested in why they burned the other 97%. I am interested in what those other Gospels said about Jesus. Gospels written by witnesses, observers, or other story-tellers. Not “the word of God”, the word of man.

          • dianiline

            Again, Genesis does not fail at any point.

            Peter means “rock”, and Christ gave Simon the name Peter in order that He could build His Church on “this rock”, that is, Peter.

            Christ is the Word; in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He did not write Himself and is not, somehow, the Bible incarnate. The Bible is the Hebrew Scripture and a collection of the writings of the early Church.

            When Christ gave you a shepherd, commanding that shepherd to feed you, you cannot imagine that you will please Him by calling the shepherd names.

            You have not proven that Christ’s Pope denies the deity of God; if you believe that you have, you ought to treat yourself to a higher standard of proof.

          • Neiman

            James, the half-brother of Jesus was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Peter was the Apostle, by his own admission, to the Jews. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the rest of the world. No where does Scripture say Peter was the head of the Church and the RCC saying that God would give the keys to the kingdom, give to mere men or succession of men rule over His Church, when the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of every believer is ludicrous.

            While Jesus did not write His Word on paper, but He inspired ever word of Holy Writ. If I tell a story to a scribe and the scribe, by inspiration, writes what I dictate, I wrote the book, not the Scribe. Jesus inspired ever word of Scripture, using men to write the words, His words, He is Scripture’s only and its Divine Author.

            When the Pope said God did not directly create all things, he denied the deity of God.

            God did not give us a human shepherd, He is the only Shepherd of His flock and they are all taught and empowered by His Spirit. The Pope is the shepherd of the Great Whore, the false Church.

      • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

        Apparently you haven’t read 2 Peter 3:8. Why can’t you just refute the subject at hand instead of attacking the Pope? And I’m NOT Catholic.

        • Neiman

          So every time God says day, He is referring to a thousand years? Okay, every time you see the word day, unless it specifically says 24 hours, you must make it a thousands years, making Scripture meaningless gibberish.

      • Rpokeytruck

        You contradict yourself, God can do anything. We can’t ignore scientific proof’s, God made those too. The Bible was written with the understanding of those times. How do you think the Bible would read if it was written in our time? I despise ignorance.

        • Neiman

          So, you despise yourself!

          No one is ignoring science nor denying scientific data, it is the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model into which that data is forced that is opposed.

          While God can do anything, it is a matter of what He will or will not do based on His Word. Not one of you is willing to answer this question: Rather than use evolutionary means which involves experiments, waste and death, producing many more faulty results than good ones, why would God take that route when He can create anything from nothing, instantly and it be perfect as He is perfect?

          • Okieproud

            Evolution seems to demonstrate His Intelligence quite well to develop such a complex system, showing us that God isn’t just powerful but also smart too. Instant is not equal to perfect; I submit for my proof coffee and noodles.

          • Neiman

            God is not smart, He is omniscient, He knows all things at all times, which is why He would not experiment, nothing could possibly surprise Him or need proving; He would not engage in waste, mutations, deaths and destruction; He would create whatever He chose whole and complete which is consistent with His Perfect Nature.

      • wandakate

        NEIMAN: YES, absolutely. Had a friend once, she says that the Catholic Church isn’t Christian. She was raised in it but she came out of it with all their lies, and confessions to man and their holy water and rosary beads and purgatory and the infallibility of the Pope, and now she’s glad she did. This Pope is a farce, and she is glad she is not under his direction any longer. People in that church she says are just captives to satan.

    • Charles McLaughlin

      Well said and right on. Interesting, the Pope is infallible, but apparently the Bible is not. Hmmm.

      • malakadiveamush

        The pope is infalible when he speaks ex cathedra, or from the chair of Peter. You want to know how many times that has happened since the year 33? 3 times!!!

        But I ask do you read the KJV of the bible?

        Well the bible, being a Catholic publication, was ratified at the council of carthedge year 397, but some 1100 years later protesting protestants, to suit their false sense of pride, removed 7 books and made 30,000 mistranslations.

        So please tell me, is the bible falible Protestant or did God make a mistake or is Protestantism one false joke perpertrated by Satan upon the stupid?

        2 timothy 4:3 is written for all protestants, all 55,000 denominations, all teaching something different which means all teaching error….

        According to you Jesus didnt leave his flock with a teaching authority. Hmmmmmmmm thats not what my bible says…

        Can you show me where the bible teaches “solo scriptura”???

        Get back to the one true faith as you are deceived and ollowing man, not God.

        • david ramseur

          The written Word of God and the incarnate Word of God (Jesus) go hand in hand. You deny one, you deny the other. Jesus is the word made flesh. If you deny the written word you are also denying Jesus Christ. Those who deny Christ will be denied by the Father.
          Plus, the theory of evolution is absolutely unscientific. t is impossible in light of what we observe in reality. Life does not come from non life. Greater order does not arise gradually over time. All species reproduce only after their own kind. Evolution does not provide a suitable mechanism to overcome the hurdle of irreducible complexity. Information/intelligence does not arise from matter. No transitional fossils have ever been discovered in the 150 years we have been looking for them. etc….
          Creationism is not just faithful to scripture and likewise to God our creator, sustainer, and savior; It is self-evident! The fine-tuning of the universe to allow for life on Earth and the specified complexity of life lend credence to creationism. We are engineered to fulfill a purpose. We could not have fulfilled the purpose without being fully formed in the image of God as we presently are. And nothing we observe could possible suggest that we evolved. It makes so much more sense that God created life as it is. We don’t have to put limits on God. Especially when it takes more blind faith to believe it all played out opposite from what He revealed to us in His word.
          Those who cast doubt on the authority of scripture, God’s revelation to us, are doing the devil’s work. he was a liar from the beginning. If scripture is false we have nothing to stand on. But thank God for the Bible that He has reliably handed down to us through the ages. It is simple enough for a child to understand, yet so deep in insight that we will never stop learning from it. Genesis is clearly a historical account. Therefore, it must be read and interpreted as a historical account.

          • malakadiveamush

            I noticed you couldnt, wouldnt answer a single question….. Your sad, pathetic and headed to hell.

          • david ramseur

            Jesus paid my debt. Jesus ransomed me from the judgment that I deserve with His atoning sacrifice on the cross. I know Jesus. He has saved me. The Holy Spirit lives in me and is my guarantee of eternal life. As long as I remain in Jesus, the true vine, I will one day receive my inheritance as a child of God. Psalm 1:1-3 is a good verse to remember for those who are struggling with who they should listen to. “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor who stands in the path of sinners, nor who sits in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in this law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that shall produce fruit in its season, and whose leaf also shall not wither, and whatever he does shall prosper.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is likewise helpful. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

        • Okieproud

          To be fair, it is a few more than 3 times…not many but a few more. There is extraordinary and ordinary infallibility. Also, each of the Councils, united among all of the bishops including the one of Rome, speaks infallibly.

          • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

            So they are up there with God, as in they are god. Not good.

    • Paul DePugh

      You took that out of context. read the next sentence where he agrees the big bang theory backs up the DIVINE CREATOR!!!!!!!!!!!! did I use enough caps? enough exclamation??????? you catholic haters are getting tired

      • Rynard

        Catholicism is just religion, God isn’t interested in religion but a relationship with Him. That goes for all these other false denominations, there is only one truth one faith. Stick to the Bible and don’t rely on human doctrine.

        • davidreilly7

          I agree relationship over religion. That is why I have a personal relationship with Reality.

          • Okieproud

            Which one? Virtual? I’ve been trying to hook that relationship up for years…what’s your secret?

          • davidreilly7

            Haha, good one. I have not tried VR but it would be fun. My reality is naturalism.

            Of course there is Quantum Reality but admittedly that’s beyond my understanding.

          • Okieproud

            Naturalism? I don’t have the slightest idea of what that is. Quantum reality sounds much better.

        • Lito Borja

          So, you don’t need a religion right, you do not need a Church, you do it by yourself, like DIY for gratification? You are so funny.

          • Rynard

            Stop getting butt hurt. I never said I can do it on my own but the Lord even had his deciples say that one can know volumes about Him but never actually know Him. Jesus also states that the only way to Heaven is through Him not by actions. The Bible also states any times not to add or take away from it, which is why I constantly wonder why man keeps adding their personal opinion on God’s word. Where do all these Deviations of the truth cone from. Study your Bible and pray to God for revelation.

          • Rynard

            You are also speaking with accusation, that’s not one of the ways to love, aa a Christian. I love God and church but just because I go to church regularly and do all this stuff to pretend like I’m this good person in front of people doesn’t necessarily mean that I know God. It’s what you do while not in church. We are the church , not the building. I pray to God and He speaks to me and I listen. I have a personal relationship with Him. It’s not a front. It’s also Important to humble yourself in His presence. God wants actual love not rituals, especially the rituals in the Catholic Church. With the worship of men and all that religious nonsense with Mary , Pope and reverence of Saints. Mary was just a vessel not a savior. Saints and the Pope are just men. Nothing Holy about men. God is Holy, Jesus is holy. They are God. Divine, pure, sinless. Holt spirit included. You call your brother a pharisee but you actually sound like the person Jesus preached against.

          • Okieproud

            Just a vessel…you know you talking about Jesus mamma that way. You better hope he doesn’t have the interwebs.

            (Plus, you fundamentally misunderstand what the Church believes and teaches about those things you were just talking about?

        • malakadiveamush

          It amazes me how Ignorant and uneducated all Protestants are. Protestant, please tell me from what authority do you speak? In
          Matthew 16; 17-19 Jesus created a church and promised it would NOT fall into error, yet you belong to one of 55,000 denominations WHO ALL SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHICH MEANS YOU ALL SPEAK ERROR!!!! (Most of your
          55,000 are less then 100 years old) So if Jesus created a CHURCH, not church’s, in the year 33, and only one has existed since then, what does
          that say about you?

          You follow man, not God, and make Jesus come
          off the cross to follow you… Please show me where in the bible it
          teaches “solo scriptura” is the way to go? because you wont and cant….

          Face it 2 timothy 4:3 was written for all Protesting Protestants!!!

          • Rynard

            Dude shut up, I could give scripture but you don’t understand anything. Catholicism is heresy that’s all I’m going to say. You’re supposed to be Christ like but are assuming I’m uneducated. Quick and false judgement. I don’t belong to any denomination. Mainstream people think Christianity started with Catholicism but it started with Jesus.

          • malakadiveamush

            Cant answer a single question can you? ha ha ha…. Your pathetic and destined for hell. Jesus clearly created a church and left us a teaching authority. He didnt say
            “DUDE JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT AND FORGET WHATEVER YOU DONT LIKE”

            Ha ha ha your pathetic and so flawed…. So according to you by just saying “I believe” you are saved? So sin doesnt effect you?

            Please show me the verses…..

        • Okieproud

          Just a religion?! I’m outraged. It’s more than just a religion. It’s the religion. I mean, it wasn’t the first…but man, did it do things right.

          What do you mean God isn’t interested in religion? Did you miss that small thing called Scripture. What translation are you reading from? Let me guess it’s probably put into easy to read modern parlance or at the very least I bet it’s in English. And then, I bet it’s missing some books. You know, the ones that Luther, personally, decided he didn’t like (mostly because they didn’t agree with him). Oh, and I bet your printing isn’t from one of those publishing houses that makes tons of money for a TV personality that drives a new sports car…right?

          But really, go back and read about Christ setting up His Church, with one of those commands being ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν.

          • Rynard

            1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV / 78 helpful votes

            I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

            1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV / 51 helpful votes

            What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

            Ephesians 4:4-5 ESV / 30 helpful votes

            There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism

          • Okieproud

            No divisions…I know. And there weren’t really for the first 1000 years, until one broke away. Then 500 years after that another left which gave birth to the great splintering of those who fell away in protest of the unity.
            How does one have the same mind/judgement/teaching/interpretation? Seems like you need someone to guarantee the authentic teaching? Seems like Christ would have set something up to help protect the one faith…maybe like when He set up His Church on Peter.

          • Rynard

            I don’t have a problem with Peter and I don’t follow that heretic Martin Luther. I’m just saying going to church alone and putting God in a box, worship of Mary and pope and unecessary rituals won’t get you to Heaven.

          • Okieproud

            Okay, once and for all…the Church doesn’t worship Mary; this is Protestant propaganda to attack the Church. We honor her as Jesus’s mama, giving her the due respect she deserves, more than I can say of many Protestants; even the Muslims get that you gotta respect Jesus’s mama.

            All Protestant followed Luther out of the Church. So unless you are Orthodox, then your heritage is Luther.

            Crazy that a literalist can use the argument of putting God in a box; nothing is more restrictive to the Word of God than to say: “here, God, You play by our rules of how we translated what you said and glorified the work of our own hands.”

            I do agree that just going to Sunday services is enough; the Gospels tell us as much; don’t get me started on what Paul says. It’s also not merely in getting some water splashed on you; though Baptism is a necessity, it’s not over with that. And guess what? The Church doesn’t profess that salvation is found in rituals; just that rituals help and aid our spiritual life and our growth in holiness. They are not ends in themselves but means. The Pope is first and foremost a servant (Pontifex = bridge-builder) and a protector of the deposit of faith. The Church doesn’t pass on rules but wisdom. She’s learned a few things over the times and has a unique perspective as the Church has been around since Matthew 16. The purpose of the Church is to assist souls in their struggle towards that heavenly reward promised granted us by the salvation won for us by Christ; that’s right Christ and Christ alone won our salvation and washed away our sins in His Blood.

            Sunday services is not enough; neither is sitting at home and making personal decision and interpretations on what the Bible says or doesn’t say.

          • Rynard

            It doesn’t say anything in the Bible about honoring Mary nor anything about priest forgiving you of your sins. I do go to church and worship. I don’t perform rituals Instead of communion. I don’t hear anything about a man’s word being the so called voice of God. He’s just a man. Posing as Christ.

          • Rynard

            I also know that are created to do good works. I know being in the assembly helps spiritual life. Nothing you do will save you though. Saved thru Jesus and Jesus only. Not us.

          • Rynard

            Stop being butt hurt. The Lord did not want all these many denominations. One faith, One God, One way to Heaven. Catholicism is nothing but human doctrine , worship of men, mary , and consist of rituals the bible doesn’t even talk about.
            Just religion. Pope isn’t a holy man, nor is anyone holy. HE doesn’t have a key to Heaven only Jesus does. Nor can the Pie forgive you of your sins. I don’t hate catholic people but it’s not the same as the gospel it’s a more Paganized version

          • Okieproud

            I’m not even sure what butt hurt means…I’m leaving it alone.

            I agree that God doesn’t way “all” of these denominations. There is one faith. Are you familiar with what the word Catholic means?

            Nevermind, as I keep reading down, it’s clear you have no idea what Catholicism is, nor doctrine, nor worship, nor Mary (since you didn’t even capitalize a proper name), rituals, religion, Pope, holy, key, certainly not Pie…clearly you don’t know what pie is or does.

            I’m barely convinced English is your first language.

            Bro, do you even read Scripture? I mean, without all of your crazy ideas, but just to read Scripture, not eisegesis but exegesis. I know it was hoping for a lot but maybe Greek was your first language.

            Do you know where the Bible comes from? Do you know the word Bible isn’t in the Bible? Neither is sola Scriptura…Latin, less likely to be your first language.

            Maybe try re-reading the Bible, but this time…listen to it. I mean, really listen when Jesus says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I build My Church. Hint: it’s not in Mark, Luke, or John…and it’s in one of the four Gospels. (Wait that could be insensitive…do you all still have four Gospels or did Luther take out one of those when I was looking?)

          • malakadiveamush

            Catholiocism is “human doctrine” but 55,000 protesting protestants all teaching something different is from the holy spirit? ha ha ha were you dropped as a child?

          • john cummins

            For once I agree with you humble Okie, God is interested in religion and relationship, that’s where our agreement ends though…

          • Okieproud

            I got so many warm fuzzies.

        • Okieproud

          Just a religion?! I’m outraged. It’s more than just a religion. It’s the religion. I mean, it wasn’t the first…but man, did it do things right.

          What do you mean God isn’t interested in religion? Did you miss that small thing called Scripture. What translation are you reading from? Let me guess it’s probably put into easy to read modern parlance or at the very least I bet it’s in English. And then, I bet it’s missing some books. You know, the ones that Luther, personally, decided he didn’t like (mostly because they didn’t agree with him). Oh, and I bet your printing isn’t from one of those publishing houses that makes tons of money for a TV personality that drives a new sports car…right?

          But really, go back and read about Christ setting up His Church, with one of those commands being ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν.

      • MatthewScheller

        Im sure there are plenty of Catholics that love Jesus and are saved but Catholicism is so blatantly NOT CHRISTIAN, its scary. The RCC is constantly contradicting Christ and the authority of Scripture but nothing contradicts the message and life of Jesus like the 100 BILLION DOLLAR VATICAN!!! (Did I use enough Caps there for you?)

        • malakadiveamush

          Geee moron, the RCC has existed since the year 33 under direct order of Jesus himself, maybe you have read matthew 16:17-19? But yet you seek to attack his church, that he descended the holy spirit upon…. But back to the church which has outlived every assault against it, including yours, outlived every empire and today it clothes, feeds, educated and medicates, houses and helps more indigent then ANY OTHER ENTITY ON THIS PLANET INCLUDING 195 OF 197 COUNTRIES!!!! It’s wealth comes from donations and the fact that it bought property some 2000 years ago. Its treasures come in the forms of gifts. Now that you probablly feel stupid, think if Jesus created a church, and most protestant prayer groups (not churchs because you dont fit the definition), all 55.000 exist and are less then 100 years old, all of which teach something different which means you all teach error, well tell me Protestant how can that be? Did Jesus lie or are you playing make believe and following man?

          2 timothy 4:3 is all for you…. Solo scriptura is NOT in the bible and the KJV had 7 books removed and 30,000 mistranslations… so tell me if the KJV removed 7 books 1100 years after the bible was published by Catholic church, then is the bible falible and not ivine or did God make a mistake you pathetic fool?

      • Matthew Mueller

        Not a catholic hater. As one of my pastors put it, I love me some devout respectful Catholic laiety. I hate me some crazy, Scripture denying, authoritative Catholic papacy.

        • Okieproud

          Good luck finding a papacy that denies Scripture. That’s sort of self-defeating.

          • Matthew Mueller

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • Okieproud

            Read a little closer. I know the grammar is subtle; it’s a third grader’s lesson. A papacy that denies Scripture is self-defeating…why? Because the papacy is based in Scripture.

            Oh, my bad…I thought you were trying to prove the opposite.

          • Matthew Mueller

            Where exactly does Scripture call for a pope?

          • Okieproud

            The word Pope…awww, cute game. Find the word Bible in the Bible. Now, if you are talking about where do have Christ investing power into one of his apostles to led His Church…that He built upon that one apostle…and then He promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against it…and then the Holy Spirit would lead them in truth? Is that the kind of thing you’re asking for?

          • Matthew Mueller

            Oh, you know how he was referring to 1 disciple not to a succession of them right?

          • Okieproud

            I don’t. And how do you? Is this Scriptural, or is it a personal judgement because apostolic succession threatens you?

            Here’s what I know. The Apostles believed it; they even replaced Judas. They taught and handed on this to the early Church. The Church has been doing it for 2000 years…decidedly not changing what the Apostles believed. I’m not about to tell the Apostles that they did it wrong; because if they can’t get it right, then no one can.

        • malakadiveamush

          Your “pastor” ha ha ah Gee let me guess he did 2 years at some bible college he found on the back of a match book cover and started his “own church”?

          Ask him how that sets with matthew 16; 17-19?
          Ask him where “solo scriptura” is taught in the bible?
          Ask him , if he believes in a pre tribulation rapture, where he learned Jesus second coming becomes a third coming?
          Ask him, assuming you read the King James Version of the bible, if 1100 years after the bible was declared divinely inspired, protestors could remove 7 books and make 30,000 mistranslations? Is the bible not of divine origin or did God make a mistake or is protestantism a lie?

          I could go on and on but you should see from these few questions you are being mislead and lied too and Protestantism is one BIG LIE!!!

          Oh and P.S. Every catholic priest has 4 years college and another 4 seminary then 2 in formation and many keep going…

          Get out while you can….. 2 timothy 4:3 was written for you

          • Matthew Mueller

            So still no examples of anything you’re accusing protestants of. Just throwing out a bunch of bible passages without connecting them to anything. Nice try. Try again though.

            PS…My pastor’s have all had at least 8 years of schooling, 4 at an undergrad school with a required major in theology, philosophy, psychology, or sociology followed by 4 years at a seminary dedicated solely to producing pastors.

          • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

            Umm…you say, “Oh and P.S. Every catholic priest has 4 years college and another 4 seminary then 2 in formation and many keep going…” But Paul who wrote most of the NT said he got his wisdom from “no man”. He went away alone with God after his conversion. Other than his extensive schooling in his Jewish tradition, he received none once converted to Christianity. Christianity w/o all the pomp of Catholicism. Remember in 1 Cor 1:26 it states, ‘not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called…God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”.
            You’d best heed the words of the Bible over the Pope.

      • john cummins

        good golly you think an explosion creates???? say what? give evidence ONE TIME in science where an explosion creates

    • Lito Borja

      You are so narrow, a little bit narrower than the eye of a needle. The Pope being the successor of Peter, has the power to use the key to open up heaven and it’s creation. Anyway, make it better next time.

      • wanderingpinoy .

        classical pope worshipper! But stating that the pope has the power to “open up heaven” is downright FALLACY!!! No mortal can do that, and if you are a christian and you know your creed, you must have known by now that JESUS has already done that. When you belie the very core of human existence there is no reason for you to believe in any part of the bible; esp. the omnipotence of God, the death, deity and resurrection of Jesus.

        • malakadiveamush

          Read Matthew 16;17-19 and get back to me you foolish Protestant!!! You are correct in no mortal can do that, unless guided by Jesus. Please tell me what apostolic succession you fall under?

          Catholicism the one true faith since the year 33…… Not 1933 like most of you protestants.

          Oh and where in the bible is “solo scriptura” taught?

          • Steve Gwisdalla

            More those who don’t have their Bible present. Matthew 16: 17-19…”And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

            Well gosh darn, I am Lutheran. You think I am not going to Heaven because I am not Roman Catholic? One of us my friend will be right. I trust the path and the beliefs I have. Peace be with you my brother.

          • malakadiveamush

            Its NOT Jesus you follow but man….

            You have NO apolostic succession and Luther was a heretic and liar. Have you ever read his 95 treatise? pathetic….

            Please show me where in your bible it says wait 1500 years and break off from the one true church that had existed since the year 33?

            Either Jesus created a church, or he lied… which is it? Oh and again show me where in the bible it teaches solo scriptura that the bible contains everything we will know, now and forever? That it contains everything? Because you cant….. The bible is only “helpful” but not complete…… The church on the other hand, catholic church, is where all truth flows. 1 timothy 3:15

        • Okieproud

          As a Catholic, I back you up on this. It is an error to say that the pope has the power to open up heaven. The Church doesn’t teach that. The keys have very special functions; it’s not magic, though it is supernatural, and doesn’t open heaven up per se.

      • Evangelist Tina Soko

        Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.John 14:6

      • Evangelist Tina Soko

        I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:18.

      • Evangelist Tina Soko

        ONLY JESUS CHRIST HAS THE POWER AND THE KEY TO OPEN HEAVEN…NO HUMAN BEING ON EARTH CAN! AND HE HAS GIVEN US THAT KEY..YOU AND I BUT ONLY THROUGH HIM… HALLELUJAH!Matthew 16:19
        I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

        • malakadiveamush

          Correct…. right up to the point he gave it to the Pope here on earth. Unless Jesus lied and the bible is wrong? It cant be both now can it?

    • malakadiveamush

      Divine being and divine nature are two wholly separate things…. God is NOT a being in the sense as he portrayed it, i.e. a magician. But Protestant, please tell me from what authority do you speak? In Matthew 16; 17-19 Jesus created a church and promised it would NOT fall into error, yet you belong to one of 55,000 denominations WHO ALL SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHICH MEANS YOU ALL SPEAK ERROR!!!! (Most of your 55,000 are less then 100 years old) So if Jesus created a CHURCH, not church’s, in the year 33, and only one has existed since then, what does that say about you?

      You follow man, not God, and make Jesus come off the cross to follow you… Please show me where in the bible it teaches “solo scriptura” is the way to go? because you wont and cant….

      Face it 2 timothy 4:3 was written for all Protesting Protestants!!!

      • Steve Gwisdalla

        You assume from your constant quoting of Matthew 16 that “the Church” Jesus speaks of is a literal thing. Brick and mortar, not an ideology that Christ is the way, the truth, the light. Believe in Him and you will be saved. Salvation will not come by which church you go to…again, brick and mortar. Your judgement of all things non-Catholic is a stain on your otherwise noteworthy postings my friend. May I suggest that your focus be turned inward on your own “church?” Plenty there to keep Catholics busy, like trying to maintain your memberships amid continuing sex and corruption issues and a populace ever-more turned off by the rigidity of just how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.

      • Martin Walsh

        As this is the 3rd time you’ve posted this I will respond. I’m speaking as a man brought up RC but saved by the grace of God and the gospel of truth. The issue as you say is the question of authority. The principle of sola scriptura affirms the bible, God’s word, as the sole infallible and inerrant source and rule for faith and living for every Christian. There are many verses that say this e.g 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 to cite but two. The RC church, contrary to God’s revealed word, claims equal authority to God’s word for itself, it’s magisterium and traditions. From this gross error has flowed serious doctrinal confusion, false teaching and downright heresies such as marilolatry, adoration of saints, the blasphemous mass, the claims of the papacy to be Christ’s vicar on earth, which is the Holy Spirit, another Christ, and Holy Father, who is God the Father Himself. There are numerous other examples.
        The citation of ‘55,000’ Protestant churches is just plain ridiculous and grossly overstated – what matters is the distinction between the true church and others. I’m sorry to say it, and I have RC relatives, that the RC church is not a true church. It preaches a gospel that does not and cannot save. Your claim that the Church i.e. The RC church in its current form and structure has existed since AD33 is simply untrue – Please check your facts and you will see that the papacy as an institution was established over a lengthy period of time with some of its more egregious claims occurring in the last few hundred years e.g. Infallibility. However,you are correct that Jesus did establish His church and even the gates of hell will not prevail against it – God will and has preserved His Church. The reformation was a seminal event in history when God raised up men to confront (protest) the errors, abuses, heresy and gross immorality of the RC church, returning the church to the true gospel and primacy of God’s word. I see 2 Tim 4:3 as being applicable but in a different sense to you.

        • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

          Not to mention that they keep the dead bodies of “saints” encased in glass cases along with just body “parts”, like their hands, etc. That is demonic.

    • Defender

      The Pope is not saying God is not divine because God in the Trinity is the definition of divinity and all you need do is read what the Catholic Church teaches about God’s divinity in our Catechism. Everything the Pope says is not doctrine people! And, he is also human and makes mistakes too. Infallibility does not mean free of sin, or error either. First, I’m sure in part this is taken out of context or manipulated by the press in some manner, or something lost in translation. Second, I’m sure what he meant to convey was that God is not just a “man in the sky” that did things as simply as we may envision, or as simply as the human writers (not authors) of Scripture wrote it down. The main point the Church may be trying to help clarify is that SCIENCE can NEVER contradict GOD, as GOD is the CREATOR of science, and of the scientist. Therefore, the Church has nothing to fear about any scientific fact or finding. No scientific fact will EVER be an aha! moment to say, “gotchya!” we just disproved there is a God. Whether evolution or pure instant creationism is really irrelevant, as if either are true, which we can likely never completely prove one way or the other, God made it happen – period. He can bring us into existence any way He so chose. He could do in the blink of an eye, or through millennia. Do we doubt God’s ability either way? Christians unite! The true evil we should be fighting is outside the Christian realm and it’s attacking us from all fronts.

      • Defender

        The first lines of the Catholic Catechism:

        CHAPTER ONE
        I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

        198 Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last,1 the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works.

      • Steve Gwisdalla

        Everything the Pope says is not doctrine people! And, he is also human and makes mistakes too.

        Your words above. Do you eat meat on Friday during Lent? You had a Pope several decades ago say it was a sin if you did. Popes do create doctrine my friend. And I will stand behind my real name and say that. Someone in a previous post said it best…The Church is the group of people worshiping, not the building and certainly not the tax-exempt organization asking you to put something in the collection plate. I may have paraphrased the aforementioned poster, but you get the idea.

        • Defender

          You are so ignorant Steve. Yes, Popes in union with the Holy See do make doctrine, but only under special circumstances and certainly not via flippant and sporadic public comments. The Pope could say that a blue car is red, but that doesn’t make it so. The Church is the Bride of Christ and the same one that Christ left, to give power to loose and bind in His name. Respect it. The Pope has no authority over matters not involving faith and morals and he is not just free to change those on a whim either. God bless

        • malakadiveamush

          The pope is infalible when he speaks “ex cathedra” which has only happened 3 times since the year 33. But please explain Matthew 16:17-19 or better yet teach us where in the bible Jesus taught to wait 1500 years and break into 55,000 cults or prayer groups ALL TEACHING SOMETHING DIFFERENT wwhich means all teaching error…. Gee yeah like the holy spirit would teach error and lies!!! because check after mt 16, there was pentecost where the holy spirit as breathed unto the apostles and then the 72… sounds like the building of a church to me. Face it satan has deceived you protestor

    • Okieproud

      Careful…you’re dangerously misquoting. The correct quote is demiurge not divine being. You need two dashes of philosophical training before you can play in this sandbox.

    • Barbara

      Um, you misquoted, David Tiffany. Pope Francis said, “…God is not a demiurge or a magician….” Can you at least read the article correctly, understand the vocabulary, and then quote the text properly, before spouting off your vitriolic commentary?

    • Stephen J Smith

      you misread.. “precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all things,” Francis continued. ”

      he doesn’t say divine being… you are misquoting him and misleading people. Demiurge according to Wiki, is ” an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe…. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is NOT necessarily thought of as being the same as the CREATOR figure in the familiar monotheistic sense”

      also don’t forget, the bible has gone through so many translations and revisions that there is no guarantee that what is in it now was what was originally put together in scripture. This all goes back to Constantine and the joining of all of the different factions of the catholic faith into a single religion. they had to pick and choose which scriptures to keep as a unified faith, which needed to be changed(yes changed), and which to cut out.

      Then again when King Henry 8th commisioned the King James version while making the church of england so he could divorce his wife. he once again picked and chose which scriptures he liked and which he didn’t, written by 47 scholars and translated from Latin to English overseen by the king himself. And if he didn’t like the way something sounded, he had um rewrite it to appease him, and if they made mistakes… then they made mistakes…..

      guess which version 90% of Christians own…

      Don’t quote bible verses as if they are the word of god… understand the message but don’t get tangled up in the words.

      I’ll leave you with my favorite movie quote

      “When are you people going to learn? It’s not about who’s right or wrong. No denomination’s nailed it yet, because they’re all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn’t matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains gotta to wake up.”~Dogma

    • pa

      No, you misunderstand – the Pope states that God is not a divine being among other beings. God is Being Itself. That’s the significant distinction being alluded to.
      The wording is specifically based on an extensive tradition in Christian theology which you can read about in any introduction text pertaining to medieval theology in particular.

    • malakadiveamush

      No, you misunderstand – the Pope states that God is not a divine being
      among other beings. God is Being Itself. That’s the significant
      distinction being alluded to. The wording is specifically based on an
      extensive tradition in Christian theology which you can read about in
      any introduction text pertaining to medieval theology in particular. Leave it to the “Christian” media to get it wrong…. after all Protestants have been getting it since 1500.

      To those who read the King James Bible I have a question; If the bible, a catholic publication btw, published in 397, yet some 1150 years later protestors rip 7 books from the settled doctrine, and mis translate 30,000 verses to suit there beliefs, you must ask yourself the following;
      1) is the bible really infalible if 1550 years after Jesus we change settled scripture?
      2) Did God and the holy spirit make a mistake?
      3) Is Protestantism a big fat deception handed down by satan upon the stupid and proud?

      Please consider the above then read 2 timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
      Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
      number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”

      This was written for you……. Protestor. Satan has deceived you.

    • D.A. Howard

      “God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all things…” Obviously you do not know the definition of a demiurge.

    • Richardson McPhillips

      The Pope did not say this. It is an incorrect translation. The Pope was speaking in Italian and he said in Italian that God is not a demiurge or a magician (Dio non è un demiurgo o un mago). A demiurge, which comes from Plato, creates the world out of ‘stuff’ and then disappears. THAT is what the Pope said God is not.

      • Neiman

        Sorry, by denying the clear wording of Genesis One wherein God claims to have directly created from nothing all that exists in six literal days; by the Pope, declaring evolution as the means of His creation, he is denying the Deity of God and His role as Creator.

        If God be God, He is all-knowing and all-powerful, He would not experiment, He could not experiment, He could not create anything through trial and error. Knowing absolutely everything, He would create everything complete and perfect as one Divine act, He would not and could not and remain God, allow random mutations over time and cosmic accidents to produce life, it is wholly contrary to His being Divine and Almighty and deny His own words when He declared His work good. Thus, to even allow evolution as the means of His creation is equal to denying God – not a matter of the Italian to English translation errors.

        • Richardson McPhillips

          At least you recognize that you have to do a lot of interpretation and add a lot of things to the Bible to make your point, rather than misquoting the man. That’s a step in the right direction. ps – there seem to be a fair number of things you think God can’t do.

          • Neiman

            I admit no such thing, Scripture is not to be made submit to individual interpretation. I did not say there is anything God cannot do, lie #2.

      • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

        This is the blasphemy of the Pope. “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.” Wow! He is systematically revealing his true colors. First that gays can enter heaven without repenting, now this. We are in the end times.

    • Neato Cabrito

      Was your misquoting of the Pope intentional or just careless?

    • dianiline

      God is not a “demiurge”, a mere shaper of matter, but the Creator. This does not mean God is not a divine being.

      The Bible tells us *that* God created the world, not *how* He created it. Of course there is no contradiction between evolution and creation. Wherever one finds truth, it is God’s truth.

      The Scriptures are the writings of the early Church–Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament, of course, being bequeathed to the Church from its Jewish antecedents. You cannot rightly interpret them outside of the authority of the Church, because Christ gave the Church the power to interpret (within the power to bind and to loose).

    • Amazed

      The word “demiurge” does not mean “divine being”. You just created a straw man in order to make your argument mean anything.

    • Рон Джамин

      but scriptures, gospels, gnostics are written by men, not God. And man is fallible.

    • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

      Did you read the article? Where does teh Pope say God is not divine. You are misquoting what the Pope said.

    • OldCorpsEd

      David, why don’t you learn to read? The actual quote is “God is not a demiurge or a magician…”

      You idiots probably think that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it. If that’s what the Bible said, despite the limited knowledge of the scribes who wrote it down, you’d declare it to be so. Why put limitations on God the Creator? Afterall, He even made people like you.

      God is not bound by what some human wrote on papyrus or whatever.

    • AGirlNamedMichael

      Interesting that you chose that ONE definition of demiurge, and didn’t bother to note the other ones, which are actually are supportive of the Pope’s statements. Nothing like bending the truth to win your argument

    • k1mbr0

      Right on , David. Satan has pulled the wool over their eyes. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus Christ himself spoke all of creation into existence. With what the Pope and this Giovanni Bignami character are saying, we may as well throw out the virgin birth as well!

    • gregcamacho8

      You plainly misquoted the pope. He said “God is not a demiurge…”.

      • David Tiffany

        Demiurge: “a being responsible for the creation of the universe, in particular.”
        Yet in the Bible, in particular Genesis 1:1 we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Who will you believe, God or the Pope?
        The Pope claims to be the representative of Christ on the earth, yet he misrepresents what the Scriptures say about Christ. John 1:3, “Through Him (Christ) all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”
        Should I even go a step further and say that if the Scriptures say God created the heavens and the earth, and the Pope says God is not a “demiurge,” that the Pope is saying the Scriptures, the Word of God, is a lie?

        • gregcamacho8

          David, a demiurge is “a supernatural being imagined as creating or fashioning the world in subordination to the Supreme Being, and sometimes regarded as the originator of evil.” (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

          Slow your roll. Don’t use terms and criticize things, like Catholicism, that you don’t understand.

        • gregcamacho8

          Demiurge: “(in the Gnostic and certain other systems) a supernatural being imagined as creating or fashioning the world in subordination to the Supreme Being, and sometimes regarded as the originator of evil.” (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

          Slow your roll. Don’t use terms and criticize things you don’t understand.

    • Scott Lyons

      He doesn’t say God isn’t divine. That’s ludicrous.

    • brad Eilon
    • brad Eilon
    • Рон Джамин

      The Book of Genesis is an attempt at interpretation of concepts beyond our ability to comprehend. Of course it’s not literal, it could never be, because God is infinite. That doesn’t discount the truth in the Book. God created everything. This is agreed on. If he created everything, we can logically assume that he was the creator of the primordial atom which the Big Bang sprung….true Genesis….creation from NOTHING. Evolution is not a threat to God, because “intelligent design” (which can be proven by the laws of science) govern how the universe assembles itself the way it does. The universe, every atom, every particle, and all the energy that makes up EVERYTHING is the image of God, in his glory. We are, indeed, made in the image of God. Not a kindly old man with a robe and a white beard, but the pureness of energy that science has proven makes up EVERYTHING and EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.

      • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

        “The Book of Genesis is an attempt at interpretation of concepts beyond our ability to comprehend” But you do just fine explaining it away as the Pope does as evolution. God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. You being the so-called wise.

        • Рон Джамин

          And you think the bible is “the word of god”? Huh? A document written by men, rabbi, and gospels…. The last document written by God was the 10 commandments. It is you that is the fool.

    • Jud Bennett

      You obviously didn’t pay attention to what you read. You changed one word into two to shift the meaning to support your argument.

      But wait… Why shouldn’t I expect that of you. After all, you’re only doing what most other Christians do.

    • wandakate

      DAVID TIFFANY: And yet the people remain in the church, listen to all this crap and believe it b/c it came from the holy father. There is only one HOLY FATHER, and He is the creator of Heaven and Hell. Genesis plainly tells us how it all started and evolution had NOTHING at all to do with any of it. So, he is deceived and is deceiving his flock. GOD is NOT divine? Oh goodness, this Pope is going to be standing before GOD and I would not want to be there. The sin of blasphemy is the only one that WILL NOT be forgiven.

    • Joseph Perez

      a demiurge not a divine being 🙂

    • Goldbeard

      He is not a false prophet, he is not even a prophet false or otherwise. When speaking of Sodomites and the modern Gay LGBT gang of Satanic followers, he said; Who am I to Judge? Yes who indeed. Yet Moses gave us God’s law. It is the Popes job as the supposed vicar of Christ to uphold God’s law. Christ said I have come not to change the law but to fulfill prophecy. So why does he not uhold the law of God?

  • raytheist

    The pope is more right about evolution than a lot of people are willing to accept. But they are wrong about a lot of other things, too.

  • C.P. Steinmetz

    Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research [Strike #1 – religionist, not a scientist] told Christian News Newtork [sic]. “If He did not, then we should
    jettison Scripture. [He said it, not me. ] Fortunately, historical science [Strike #2 – ‘historical science’ is an attempt to convince the ignorant that somehow cosmology does not use “science”.] —like young-looking spiral galaxies, [Strike #3 – they have probably only been around for 10 million years – not less than 10,000.] fast-fuel-burning blue stars, [Strike #4 – they have probably only been around for a few million years – not less than 10,000.] heat-emitting Saturn, [Strike #5 – Cassini spacecraft measurements show Saturn’s rings could be billions of years old – not less than 10,000.] and still-icy comets [Strike #5 – Oort Cloud and Hills cloud answer this – again, not 10,000 year timespan.] —clearly confirm the Bible’s history.”

    These things absolutely reject the “Bible’s history” – not to mention the Bible says the Earth was formed before the stars.

    So, jettison away.

    • Reason2012

      Making up beliefs about the past is not science, friend. The topic of origins (of life, or of the universe, or of all biological diversity of life) are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all ANYONE can bring to the table. Science is about things we see happen, then we make theories about how it happens – science is not about making up mythological beliefs that never happen, then give reasons to believe in it.

      • C.P. Steinmetz

        As it is obvious you haven’t a clue about science, I am curious as to where you got your erroneous information. What school teaches what you stated?

        • Reason2012

          Hello. You mean science IS about making up beliefs that never happen and then just give reasons to believe it does? Please show where that definition of science exists.

          Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

          Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

          (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

          (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

          (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

          Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

          Why do evolutionists ignore what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen? They are only deceiving themselves.

  • Charles McLaughlin

    This article illustrates how truly little the Pope understands. He is confusing micro evolution (natural variation such as the shape of beaks or breeds of dogs) with macro -evolution (an invertebrate developing a backbone). So the Vatican now finds truth through science rather than the Bible? He ignores that science is based on naturalism, the atheistic belief that no supernatural power exists and everything can be explained through laws of nature. God is not a Divine Being? And they call Creationism blasphemous? I never put much stock in the theory that the Catholic Church was the woman who rides the beast in Revelation, but they are certainly doing the Devil’s work by rejecting Biblical authority and promoting atheistic interpretations that are not even good science.

    • Lito Borja

      Read the article carefully, don’t be so stupid giving an opinion without understanding what you were reading. Your comprehension is very poor.

    • malakadiveamush

      Ha ha ha the Protestant is skooling the successor of Peter….

      Perfect!!!

      • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

        If only you defended God the way you do the Pope.

    • Okieproud

      Funny…your post shows how little you understand.
      The Church has always taught the necessity for faith and reason; in a large part we have St. Paul to thank for so much of that. When he went to Greece, the Grecians had to be convinced intellectually. Paul met them in the forum of reason. What is true is science cannot contradict the truth of God. Why? Because truth cannot be self-contradicting. Since our confidence is in the Truth, the Church isn’t afraid of science (done properly). Why are you?

      • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

        You are forgetting that science does not prove miracles. Creation was done in 6 days and it was a miracle. Science will never catch up to the Bible.

  • Natasha Youngblood

    I am Christian and I have never understood how they don’t support eachother. The beginning of genesis always sounded like a description of the big bang theory, first there was nothing, then there was light, ect. Evolution, regardless of religion I have never agreed with. I just dont think we came from monkeys stand point works..I see it from a natural selection and adaption. You either adapt, it may take time, and if you don’t adapt you die, I don’t see how this is not supported, I don’t think the bible really divulges into literal details on creation, I think it gives you a broad understanding.

    • Reason2012

      Hello. See my post above: it shows how if evolutionism was true, God would be a liar. And please keep in mind, evolutionism (the belief that your great……great grandparents) is anti-science, as it’s observable, repeatable fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds and so on for all animals.

      • Juliana Briceno

        Again. Proof of how wrong we read the Bible. He is not a liar. And forgive me but birds have a different past . Reptile are what remain of dinosaurs. Our puppy dogs were once wolves . Oh did you know that whales use to be a land mamal a very very long time ago? I can not believe how people think we are his only creations and that before us there was nothing? Too bad so sad. I hate to break it to you, but we humans are only 200,000 years old and this magnificent Earth we live in is 4.54 billion years old.

        • Reason2012

          Please prove birds have a different past. No one can. You only claim it.

          Please show populations of land animals evolving over generations eventually into whales. More storytelling.

          All dating methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:

          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

          _”Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”_

          Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

          It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

          Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.

          http://creation.com/original-animal-protein-fossils

          Behold the anti-science deception of evolutionism – they’re not in a hurry to publish this information but they are certainly keen on censoring it and ignoring it.

  • Gary

    Does anyone actually take this goober-head (the Pope) seriously?

    • Juliana Briceno

      Yes cause this gooper- head you are talking about is the first one in our time to tell the cold truth and not cold, just truth of things that obveously did not make sense. He actually knows enough of the subject to be able to sustain what he is saying. It is about time a pope of his thinking came to light. We need to be realistic and know that we have interpreted the Bilble wrong. He is by no means saying that God aint divine he means that he is not like the person we make him to be and we think he needs to do everything in a heart beat, when his creatiins tke planning and patience so it all works the way he wants it to be.

      • Gary

        You catholics surely have interpreted the Bible wrongly. And, to make matters worse, you have believed Catholic teaching instead of believing the Bible. You are all lost, especially the pope.

        • Juliana Briceno

          No. You are wrong when we deny the truth that can not be changed. And us Catholics do not just stick to a bible cause the priest actually talks to us about the wprd of God . And you all non believers of evolut8on are in for a lot of surprises. It is like if you had a blindfold and just want to see what you think it is right to see. And look i respect your opinion and i hope you can respect mine. I just do not want to shut out the Earth’ s past and now present and future . I guess you did not loke Biology class cause they all talked about evolution at one point. And for your info, im not making any of this stuff up. It is out there in every museum of science and in every science category and all the scientific channels talk about it geneous. . Space it is just the mare proof of how little we know of our universe and on Earth how little we know about its real past. It us like denying her as an evolving thing. And by the way we Catholics are a branch of Christianity. We just are taught how to interpret the bible. And at least we don ‘t consider everything a sin like yall do.

          • Gary

            You are a Catholic, not a Christian. Two different religions.

          • Okieproud

            Says the Protestant…you done protesting yet? And your quip is horribly unhistorical. You’ve got a big hole to dig yourself out of now.

          • KenS

            Hello, these museums you speak of are still displaying representations of evolution that have been proven by scientific fact to be false and fakes.

        • Raguel

          Catholic here, and the topic of theistic evolution is touchy, even though the Church has never affirmed Evolution many Catholics hold it as the only option a good Catholic can believe. They posit their “theistic evolution” as the balanced approach between the supposed two extremes of protestant “fundamentalism” and radical atheism.

          This, however, is a fallacious argument because the truth is not the mean between two set extremes. And even a moderate interpretation of Catholic teaching says it is just as acceptable to hold a traditional view of creation.

          In fact, it is not surprising that Juliana, who accepts evolution as “fact,” also has a relativistic view of Christianity when she says that Catholicism is merely a “branch of Christianity.” No, Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ, it is the one true faith regardless of the erroneous but non-infallible beliefs and statements of our hierarchy.

          Here are a couple CATHOLIC resources on this topic:

          http://www.kolbecenter.org/

          http://www.faithfulanswers.com/

        • Okieproud

          Fascinating…go on, tell me where you get your authority to judge?

          • Russ Dixon

            1 Corinthians 5:12 “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you'”. There is the authority. This scripture also requires that we make a distinguishing judgement as to who is a part of the church. Catholics can simply look at their membership roles. Protestants leave it to the individuals testimony of salvation.

            I’ve spent time in both churches and have been thinking of committing to one. I’ve read the bible quite a bit, gone through RCIA and prayed a lot. Today I’ve read through a large part of the comments here. When I consider who is speaking from a place of Godly love, I see only a little. What I see a lot of is one side bashing the other. Argument is okay, but insult, defamation and personal insulting has no place among Gods children or in His church. Some of you have been insulting and have much bad will for the other. If your not at rest in your conscience right now that’s good. If you feel guilty, join me in repentance.

          • Okieproud

            Hmm, interesting. How does one outside the Church then judge the inside?

            I applaud you for in your search of the fullness of the Truth.

            Some posters are making personal attacks; I’ve even called them out on it. Or dishonesty…and I’ve called them out on it. I’ve tried to keep things light and pithy, mixing as much humor as I can into discussions without making personal attacks. If you feel that I have done such things, point them out to me. At the same time that I warn you about reading into a comment what isn’t there, I remind myself that perception, even in small ways, can be framed in better ways.

    • Lito Borja

      Yeah, me. You are so narrow, a little bit narrower than the eye of a needle. The Pope being the successor of Peter, has the power to use the key to open up heaven and it’s creation. Anyway, make it better next time.

      • Gary

        Your beliefs are unbiblical. Actually, anti-Biblical. Catholic doctrine is mostly BS.

      • Guest

        “God is not a divine being” – Pope Francis

      • KenS

        The verses you are quoting are not speaking of Peter as the first pope, they are speaking of Peter’s proclaimation of Jesus being the Christ, The word translated as Peter is pebble and the word translated as Rock is Boulder, meaning Peter is the small rock and his statement is a huge boulder.

  • Aannddrreeww

    Wow are Protestants silly sometimes. They have no idea how to read the bible they worship. Genesis is so much more theologically deep and complicated than some sort of historical textbook like fundamentalist protestant think it is. It is primarily a THEOLOGICAL and poetic book, which beautifully describes the phases of creation and man’s place in it. It is not a science text. The words of Genesis can be true without being literal, if you’re clever enough to actually read it. Watch this: hey protestants, how did the first day happen before the sun was created? Or does the bible prove that a day is not one period of sunrise and sunset?

    • Reason2012

      Hello. The Bible, Jesus/God makes it quite clear Genesis is literal.

      Mark 10:6 “[Jesus said] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

      Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

      Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

      Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

      Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

      Think twice – the_mythological belief of_frog to_man evolution is deceiving many.

      1 Corinthians 1:27-29 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

      • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain
        • Reason2012

          You bring up a case of a birth defect to pretend it’s ok for all men who have no such birth defect to say “Im a female because I feel like it”?

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            Why do these women “feel like it” though? Perhaps there’s an anatomical reason?

            Maybe this might help explain:

            A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
            Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones

            And this, in more detail, describes the process involved:

            Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
            The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

            The reason women “feel like” they’re women, is because they were born with anatomically female brains, something obvious to anyone with an MRI or PET scanner.

            These women are no different, even though they were born looking mostly superficially male.

          • Reason2012

            The “studies” of activists that are determined to promote this nonsense means nothing.

            Why they “feel” they are not the gender they are clearly born as is as irrelevant as claiming to “feel” black when you are actually white or vice-versa, or claiming to “feel” you are an ape when you’re really a human being and so on.

            No, the reasons women are women is because they are born women – not b/c they felt like being a woman.

            I did answer the question: you brought up a birth defect case – irrelevant to the discussion of a person clearly born without birth defects that is clearly a male or clearly a female.

            So please answer the question: why is a person who is born Asian still Asian even though they want to claim they “feel” like they are supposed to be black?

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            The “studies” of activists that are determined to promote this nonsense means nothing.

            Flat-Earther are you?
            That’s what they say.
            Don’t bother looking at the “so-called evidence”. Just label everyone who knows even the basics an “activist” because the facts contradict their opinions.

            The data’s there. The experimental results. Photos. MRI images. Replicable and replicated by hundreds of independant groups round the world.

            Twas ever thus though.

            “Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by
            ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil,
            they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.'”

            – John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677,

            why is a person who is born Asian still Asian even though they want to claim they “feel” like they are supposed to be black?

            That reminds me of the late and unlamented racial classification office of Zuid Afrika.

            Between the years of 1950 and 1966 there were 267,541 individuals who
            could not be adequately categorized by the apartheid system of racial
            categorization.

            These tests included measurements of the nose, nostrils, and cheekbones,
            and an expert analysis of hair texture. The latter often included the
            ‘pencil test.’ It was thought that a white person’s hair is not so
            curly to hold a pencil, whereas a coloured person’s hair could. There
            were gradations of skin color to be measured in various places of the
            body including the fingernails and the eyelids; earlobes were squeezed
            to determine their degree of softness. (It was thought that Black
            person’s earlobes were softer than others.) Individuals challenging
            their racial classification before the board would also be asked what
            they had for breakfast (it was thought only blacks would eat mealie or
            cornmeal porridge), how they slept on a bed, and what sport they enjoyed
            (blacks were thought to favor soccer while coloured favored rugby).

          • Reason2012

            Your ad hominem attacks do not make the opinions of the activists fact. Opinion about “i’m a female b/c I feel like it” is not “evidence” that it’s a genetic problem that needs to be fixed – it’s evidence people need help.

            So please answer the question: why is a person who is born Asian still Asian even though they want to claim they “feel” like they are supposed to be black?

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            “why is a person who is born Asian still Asian even though they want to claim they “feel” like they are supposed to be black?”

            Begging the question. here’s the equivalent.

            “why do you say that a person who is born black is Asian even though they want to claim they “feel” like they are supposed to be black?”

            It’s also derail and strawman. You’re assuming what you have to prove.

            As for ad hominem – not guilty. You brought up the definition of race. I attempted to show that that’s not clear-cut either. No implication was intended that you are South African.

          • Reason2012

            So you want to run from an equivalent statement: a person born an obvious physical way and wants to deny it based upon how they “feel”. When given other versions of you suddenly you return to common sense and want to ignore it by claiming it’s a “strawman”.

            Thank you for proving my point. The way a person is born is not trumped by how they “feel”. Take care.

      • Okieproud

        Got that Greek and Hebrew for me yet?

    • Amanda Slawson

      What people don’t seem to understand is the bible is translated from Ancient Hebrew which had far fewer words than languages today. The Hebrew word that is translated into day has many different meanings.

  • Reason2012

    Completely false. Hello. To all those who claim to be Christians (i.e., have the indwelling Holy Spirit, which leads us to all truth), if you really are a born again believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit, you cannot believe in the mythological_frog to_man story of evolution. Here’s why.

    (1) Jesus himself says God did what He said He did: creating Adam and Eve, male and female, in the beginning.

    Mark 10:6 “[Jesus said] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    So as a Christian you’d be calling Jesus Christ / God a liar.

    (2) There was no suffering and death until man sinned.

    Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

    Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

    Genesis 3:17-18 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;”

    So again, Christians that believe in the_frog to man story of evolution are in effect calling God a liar, teaching instead an anti-God gospel of God creating a world of suffering and death through no fault of mankind.

    (3) When Christ returns, He will ultimately restore the Earth to what it was before the fall. If we live in a world of suffering and death created that way from the start by God, what is there to restore the Earth to? Again, preaching an anti-God gospel, making God a liar.

    (4) Since Jesus Himself pointed to God creating Adam and Eve, let alone at the beginning, not at the end after billions of years went by, such “fish to man evolutionists” claiming to be Christians really seem to be ashamed in Jesus saying that God did in fact create Adam and Eve. How’s it going to work that anyone is ashamed of the words of Christ?

    Mark 8:36-38 “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

    Luke 9:25-26 “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.”

    Consider: many will be doing works in the name of Jesus Christ, NOT denying He did what He said He did and yet Jesus told us they’d still be cast into hell:

    Matthew 7:22-23 “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

    What chance do people have who deny the very words of Jesus Christ / God?

    (5) Many who reject parts of God’s Word often say they do believe the Ten Commandments. Yet look at what the Ten Commandments indicate:

    Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

    So are we going to now dismiss the Ten Commandments too?

    (6) So is God’s Word a lie which tells us many times God created in six days?

    Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

    (7) Jesus Christ made all things. Is Jesus Christ now a liar as well?

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14-15 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.”

    (8) Want to talk about actual science: what IS observable and IS able to be shown in repeatable test cases (i.e. this is scientific FACT) is that it’s physically impossible for a person who has been dead for hours, let alone days, to come back to life.

    That is scientific fact. Observable. Repeatable.

    So, do we now believe God DIDN’T do what He told us He did and raise Christ from the dead and raise others from the dead because science in this case actually DOES contradict something God / Jesus Christ did?!

    Of course we believe God.

    Then why are we being hypocritical and denying what Christ and God said He did in the name of a made up mythological_belief (really a lie) that is not even science?!!

    That contradictory behavior alone should wake us up to the truth that we are believing a lie: the fish to man mythological story of evolution.if we are a professing Christian and yet believe in the fish to man mythological story of evolution (which is NOT science, as proven above), it’s possible we are not yet a born again believer in God with the indwelling Holy Spirit which guides us to all truth. (Not guiding us to the lie that God’s Word can’t be trusted and_frogs of old are our ancestors). We are instead believing a lie, calling Jesus Christ a liar, ashamed of His Words, calling the Word of God a lie where people will now have to individually pick what they claim is God’s Word.

    Think twice – the_mythological belief of_frog to_man evolution is deceiving many.

    1 Corinthians 1:27-29 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

    I would think again. It’s God we’ll have to convince His Word was a lie and that we taught others this. Evolutionism is the main reason people are deceived into thinking there is no God.

    May God / Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • Juliana Briceno

      Yea i think Jesus meant the beguinning of our existence time. If we are never going to accept the fact that we are part of an evolving Earth and that we are not the first beings of this earth, then you all stubborn people will never know of alll God’s creation and i know that all the universe was his creation and people. You can not deny evolution, it is part of who we are. And wether we like it or not , the facts are there and nothing we do or say is ever going to erase the history of Earth before man ever walked on this 4.54 billion year Earth.

      • Reason2012

        The only problem is your opinions are nowhere supported in the Bible. So we should take God’s Word over man’s attempt to claim “well did God REALLY say….” or “well did God REALLY mean…”

        What facts are there? The fact is science proves the Bible accurate time and again. What are these “facts” you’re talking about?

        If it’s dating methods, they’ve been shown to be a farce. All dating methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

        “Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”

        Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

        It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

        Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.

        http://creation.com/original-animal-protein-fossils

        Behold the anti-science deception of evolutionism – they’re not in a hurry to publish this information but they are certainly keen on censoring it and ignoring it.

        • Lito Borja

          The Pope being the successor of Peter, has the power to use the key to open up heaven and it’s creation. Anytime he wanted, for any reason he wanted, he has God’s full trust and confidence. Would you not believe, God will make the Pope’s heart to stop beating if he is like Judas Iscariot, don’t you think so? Anyway, make it better next time.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, the rock is Jesus not a man and certainly not Peter: Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. A man does not have the authority to say God was lying. We have to decide if we’re going to follow the truth of God or a man-centered lie as it’s God we’ll have to convince it was ok that men said God’s word can be discarded where we see fit.

          • Okieproud

            You know what the name Peter means? You know why Jesus gave Cephas a new name?

          • Reason2012

            Peter means a stone. Jesus is the rock. Peter founded no such church. Christ is the rock of God’s Church, not a man.

            God gave His apostles special priveledges to get Christianity started – that has not been supposedly passed down to priests that people now need to go to priests to ask them for God to forgive them. Christ Jesus is the only mediator between man and God now, not priests.

            1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

            Look at the Greek: He called Peter the little stone and He called His truth that “He is the Son of God” the big rock that He will build His church upon.

            Matthew 16:17-18 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Petros: a stone], and upon this rock [petra: a mass of rock] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

            Luke 6:48 “He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock [petra: a mass of rock]: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock [petra: a mass of rock].”

            John 1:42 “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas [Petros: a stone], which is by interpretation, A stone.”

            And read the verses before this controversial scripture to give the context:

            Matthew 16:15-17 “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

            The thing Jesus is calling a mass of rock is Jesus Himself being the very Christ – the Son of the living God – and upon this Rock [petra: a mass of rock] “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (God centered)

            Consider that versus “You are Peter (a little stone) and upon this little stone “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (man centered – specifically on Peter alone – building His church on someone else besides Christ?!! Man centered to say the least)

            Please read it again and again and look into the Greek and reread it from that perspective and prayerfully ask God about it.

            A list of apostle importance is doing exactly what the disciples did “Lord, who will be greatest?”

            Matthew 18:1 “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

            Focusing on themselves instead of on God.

            No *denomination* is being led by God. It’s God’s Word and any specific churches that are obeying Him and preaching all the counsel of God and not changing it to be their own doctrines that are being led by Him. And that can change when they get away from Him.

            We need to get away from a man-centered lie and back to a God-centered, Christ-centered truth.

          • Okieproud

            Making subtle distinctions…I’m not scared. And you’re right that Peter didn’t build the Church; Christ built it. But there’s a problem with your petra-Petrus thing. First it’s a personal interpretation, either yours or someone else’s. So, you or someone else has assumed a very dangerous task of trying to interpret Scripture all alone. Second, Jesus renames Cephas here right before saying and upon this petra…naming him Petrus. It’s willfully blind of you to not see the inclusion. Third, you have 2000 years of scholarship against your interpretation, needless to say the faith of the Church for that same time, unchanged. Then you have that small of problem that to reinterpret this passage is very motivated, even if it’s not yours. To claim that this inclusion isn’t grammatically significant to Peter’s special call, added with that the keys of the Kingdom, is to show that motivation.

            But I agree that we need to get away from a man-centered lie…like the one that you live under of self-endowing the power to interpret Scripture especially against the interpretations of the Apostles, the people who were directly taught by the Apostles, the people who were directly taught by them…and the greatest minds to ever grapple the Scriptures in their original languages because they were alive when those original languages were still being used.

            So why don’t you prayerfully pray over where this pride is coming from that you think you are smarter than 2000 years of thousands of scholars who tell you that your interpretation is off based?

          • Reason2012

            It’s hardly subtle but rather It’s quite drastic. Will the gates of_hell not prevail against Peter the stone (a mere man), or against God/Jesus the Rock (God) and His truth?

            It’s not interpretation that Jesus only called Peter a stone but calls Himself the rock – even in the very same sentence He calls Peter a stone and the truth of God about Jesus a Rock.

            Please consider that you insist your “interpretation” that Jesus made Peter the rock that the “gates of_hell will not prevail against” while claiming it’s “dangerous” that we instead point out it’s Jesus that’s called the Rock in the Greek that the “gates of_hell will not prevail against” while Peter was only called a stone”

            You do the very thing you attempt to condemn me for. But I am nothing – I’m as deserving of_hell as anyone – it’s only by God’s grace I am forgiven, nothing I’ve done will count for anything in that regard.

            The conversation in those verses was about who Christ is – and the fact that He’s the son of God is the Rock that He will build His church on, blessing Simon Peter as being a stone, having that knowledge by revelation from God. It’s God we’ll have to convince Peter was the rock that the gates of_hell will not prevail against and not Jesus Christ.

            There’s nothing to “interpret” about Jesus calling Peter a stone and then Jesus pointing out that He Himself is the rock – the two distinct words were clearly used there. The problem is we only see “rock” in English used both times, but it’s our responsibility to investigate it for ourselves, not trust others for some private interpretation that only they can figure out and born again believers in God cannot. And what a drastically different message to be sure: one a man-centered doctrine and the other a God-centered one.

            2 Peter 1:20-21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

            1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

            God is the one that leads us to His truth as we seek it – not “scholars” or “Pharisees”. The “Pharisees” were the most “scholarly” and they were leading many to_hell. We need to investigate God’s word for ourselves and prayerfully seek His guidance rather than rely on “scholars” as having special ability to discern God’s Word that no one else can and hence have a “private interpretation” of His Word.

            And about Jesus being the Rock yet again:

            1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

            Romans 9:33 “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

            Sorry for the confusion.

          • Okieproud

            Why was it only between Peter and Jesus? Where was the Church? See it’s obvious and never came into question that Jesus could be defeated by the gates of hell. Also, He didn’t say the gates of hell shall not prevail against me. The gates shall not prevent against the Church, an assurance of Jesus that so long as they stay inside that boat they’ll make it through. Outside of it, no telling.

            But you see, I’m not doing the same thing you are doing. You are personally interpreting Scripture. I am giving you the Church’s interpretation, as the custodian and guardian of Scripture. I’m not asserting from personal authority but appealing to a much higher authority. You, on the hand, claim there is only sola Scriptura, and yet proceed to give me your interpretation. At least I hold to what I believe.

            I accept you apology that you are confused. It’s easy when you’re playing both sides of the field. You claim to say we can’t listen to scholars, but I’m betting you used a Greek dictionary or a commentary to find the subtle difference between Rock and Stone. Who’s relying on scholars now?

          • Reason2012

            Please cite where Jesus said the gates of_hell would not prevail against a physical church. You are using lines others have fed you rather than getting it straight from the Bible and end up claiming things are in the Bible which are not.

            So please cite that supposed verse.

            The apology was not that I was confused – the apology is that you got confused by what I said and hence I could have been clearer.

            You are going by a denomination’s “interpretation” of scripture, claiming they are the ones who know what God “really meant”. That’s a private interpretation, as if no one else can figure it out via the Holy Spirit, which again goes against the Bible. So you are doing that which you condemn: you condemn anyone else besides those of a denomination from being able to point out what God’s Word makes plain via the Holy Spirit.

            A dictionary is a dictionary – not a scholar taking verses of the Bible and claiming what the verses are saying.

            You are relying on men to tell you what the Bible means while claiming men cannot be relied on to interpret what the bible means.

        • malakadiveamush

          No, you misunderstand – the Pope states that God is not a divine being
          among other beings. God is Being Itself. That’s the significant
          distinction being alluded to. The wording is specifically based on an
          extensive tradition in Christian theology which you can read about in
          any introduction text pertaining to medieval theology in particular

          • Reason2012

            I think you responded to the wrong post as that has nothing to do with what I posted(?)

    • Lito Borja

      You believe in yourself as knowledgeable and impressive. In truth, You are so narrow, a little bit narrower than the eye of a needle. The Pope being the successor of Peter, has the power to use the key to open up heaven and it’s creation. Anyway, make it better next time.

      • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

        I think you mean the Pope believes himself to be knowledgeable and impressive, for the mere laity are not and cannot read the Bible for themselves. No, the Pope cannot open heaven for you. Only Jesus Christ can.

    • Okieproud

      Speaking with a lot of authority…where does that come from?
      I mean, the interpretation of Scripture to mean only what you think it means. Remind me what the Greek says.

      • Reason2012

        God’s Word speaks with authority, yes. It comes from Greek/Hebrew and for the most part it means what it says. If you think the Greek/Hebrew means something very different, then by all means point out a verse I cited, point out what you’re claiming the Greek/Hebrew is really saying, and I’ll address it.

        • Okieproud

          True, the Word of God speaks with authority…but where does your personal authority come from? You make some very declarative statements…but with what authority?

          The best part of your comment is the “for the most part.” See, now you have to appeal to an opinion to make an interpretation, either you own personal, which seems already to be staggeringly weak, or someone else’s. But if that opinion doesn’t carry any authority with it…then it’s just a weak opinion…relativism.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. I don’t make the statements: God does. I’m just quoting what God’s Word says. He said it, I believe Him.

            No, “for the most part” means it’s not 100% literal as there are things in the Bible that makes it clear it’s not literal (for example, parables and so on). So “for the most part” means high percentage, not “let’s interpret it”.

            So you can’t cite a verse where you claim the Greek/Hebrew means something very different out of the verses I cited? Then you were wrong on this topic.

            We need to think twice about using the claim “it’s just an opinion” to reject what God’s Word clearly says, as it’s Him we’ll need to ultimately answer to on that claim.

          • Okieproud

            See, there’s another statement that you make which is not in the Bible: “for the most part” and “it’s not 100% literal.” Show me the verse that says that. And for that percent that isn’t…who decides that? Do you? Does your favorite blogger or your preacher? Who decides when you can literally translate or not?

            I didn’t say I could cite something. Here and good luck: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

            What God’s Word clearly says? Who declared it as “clearly?” Take one moment to step back and see that there are more than 40,000 denomination which fractured from the one Church because they are interpreting the Word differently. There are millions of Christians out there who read it for themselves however they want to read it. It’s not clear. There are almost as many interpretations out there as printed copies of the Bible, because somewhere along the line some said: “well, how do you read it? What do you think it means?” And all of a sudden personal doctrine popped-up.
            Is it any wonder why Pope Leo XII cautioned against personal interpretation of the Bible? Do you wonder why Catholics aren’t all up in Bible studies led by the under-qualified?

            You are the one who decides when it’s literal or not. And how? When it doesn’t suit you or your pre-conceived or poorly conceived notions of what the Bible actually says? Do you just read it so that it fits you? How do you decide when it’s literal or not?

          • Reason2012

            I don’t need to show you a verse that says that: Jesus says “Hear the parable of…” Meanwhile most of the things in the Bible are obviously literal unless it’s clear as in such a case it’s not meant to be.

            So

            (1) point out which verse it is you are citing of the ones I showed above
            (2) Prove the Greek/Hebrew says something quite different from the English

            You have yet to do so. So were you making it up?

            No, common sense is what decides when it’s literal or not. Those who are ashamed of what God says will say “well it’s just literal” because they do not like something, not because they can show how it’s not literal.

          • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

            So sad that Okieproud is confused into thinking that he/she can’t read the Bible for himself. The very thing Luther said was wrong with the Church….the people weren’t allowed to read the Bible for themselves, but had to be fed only what the Popes thought they should be fed. It was a travesty and is to this day.

          • Reason2012

            True – when most catholics start reading the Bible for themselves, they finally realize they’re not being taught what the gospels really do say and mean. How can you when you are fed random pieces with meaningless ‘explanations’ of what it means?

    • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

      Amen. So well stated. God’s word is the final authority. We need not go to man to determine if His word is true. The only mediator between man and God is Jesus Christ, the Lord of all.

      • Reason2012

        We need to start rebuking the lie that God used evolutionism – those who hate God love professing Christians that claim God didn’t do what He said He did. May God Bless!

        • T C

          Yes, it is indeed a lie…I’m just incredulous that a supposed believer can state that evolution was God’s way of creating the world and then insulting the Lord by calling Him a magician if He were to have created the world in a literal 6 days. God bless you, too! God be praised!

  • Juliana Briceno

    For all those who underestimate the pope’s knowledge of the subject, you are soooo mistaken. The bible can not be interpreted literaly. For God 6 days are 6.0000 days for us. How can yoy think the Earth’s evolution could take literaly 6 days. You do know we were not the first beings on Earth right? Remember that Science is also his creation and we have only been on this Earth 200,000 years and Adam and Eve could represent the beguinning of humans on Earth. Imean we have to interpret the bible. Not take it word for word. At least he knows what he’s talking about. We just are too stubborn to accept that there can be discoveries of this kind after a looooong analitical Bible and science research. Oh and we are not Not the centre of the world.

    • Neiman

      Then you are saying God lied, He deliberately deceived His people, because surely Genesis describes 6 literal days. If the word day as used here means an indeterminate period of time, then everywhere in the OT where it is used it also must have the same meaning and that makes the entire Bible nonsensical, if it were true.

      If you cannot trust Genesis One to mean exactly what it says, on what rational basis then can you believe in Salvation through faith in Christ. After all, it might be allegorical as well.

      See, when you question Genesis, the beginning of all Creation, you bring down the entire Christian faith. That is anti-Christ!

      • Juliana Briceno

        No i do not doubt Genesis, t just is logic and common sense. His creations took lots of planning and care. Every era that loved on Earth is par of his creation and then the time was right for ours. I do not understand why SCIENCE has to be denied in this. It is just the truth. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that science everything we know, but maybe that is God’s way of giving us concrete answers so that we see logic and more than what the bible says to us. Maybe it is his way of opening our eyes and let us see what he really meant on those sacred pages. I believe in God with all my heart and im blessed to know what i know because everything he made is and was beautiful. The universe is his creation and all the planets in it.

        • Reason2012

          SCIENCE is not being denied – it’s just a mythological belief that never happens that, for example, populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Such a thing never happens for any animal. Why do you believe the claims of those who hate God over God?

        • Neiman

          Christians believing in God’s Word do not deny science, God created all scientific laws, we see and accept the exact same scientific data, what is different is the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model to which it applies.

          None of your reactions are based on God’s Word, just your emotions.

          Let me take one example: When God created Adam, on day one, Adam was never described as being an infant, never a toddler, he was able to talk and reason and converse with God as a man. So, on minute one after he was created, Adam had all the appearance of having a much greater age, probably a teenager with advanced maturity and wisdom. This sets forth the principle that God creates things with the appearance of age, He had to, to make the world inhabitable for all His creation. So, were you there when He created all things, do you know for example that radioactive decay always occurred at the same rate? Do you know that He did not create eveything at an advanced state?

      • Juliana Briceno

        There are trees older than we are. Mountains that have been around for a milenia and the Earth was once an ocean of lava and asteroids and volcanoes all over on its early years. Tell me how could He put us on Earth while dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

        • Reason2012

          How old was Adam when he was created? Are you saying it’s impossible for God to create a human being already an adult? Or a tree already aged? Why is it you have to put God in your box rather than believing what He actually said?

          • KenS

            exactly!

        • KenS

          The book of Job, describes creatures that are clearly dinosaurs as being alive at the same time as man.

        • Neiman

          The answers below are all you need. Yes, there were dinosaurs on earth along with man, they were destroyed by the great flood.

    • Reason2012

      It wasn’t Earth’s “evolution” in six days. It was God creating in six days. Why do you think God cannot create in six days? Why do you think God has to do things the way you insist He does?

      • Mary Ford

        Why are men so limiting God to assume that His day is as short as a man’s day? Why can not God’s day be million’s of man’s years? God has never defined Himself to us. It is man that has tried to define God to meet our own understanding. Creation took 6 God days not 6 human days.

        • Reason2012

          Hello. The correct question would be why are men so willing to pretend suddenly a “day” is “millions or billions of years”, or “evening and morning” means “millions or billions of years”

          Why cannot God’s day be millions of man’s years? Because He made it quite clear in many places in His Word He did it in six days.

          It’s this false claim and the false claim that “God used evolutionism” or “God really needed billions of years b/c He could not do what He said He did” that leads others away from the truth of God.

          if a person really is a born again believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit, we cannot believe in the mythological_frog to_man story of evolution. Here’s why.

          (1) Jesus himself says God did what He said He did: creating Adam and Eve, male and female, in the beginning.

          Mark 10:6 “[Jesus said] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

          Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

          So as a Christian you’d be calling Jesus Christ / God a liar.

          (2) There was no suffering and death until man sinned.

          Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

          Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

          Genesis 3:17-18 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;”

          So again, Christians that believe in the_frog to man story of evolution are in effect calling God a liar, teaching instead an anti-God gospel of God creating a world of suffering and death through no fault of mankind.

          (3) When Christ returns, He will ultimately restore the Earth to what it was before the fall. If we live in a world of suffering and death created that way from the start by God, what is there to restore the Earth to? Again, preaching an anti-God gospel, making God a liar.

          (4) Since Jesus Himself pointed to God creating Adam and Eve, let alone at the beginning, not at the end after billions of years went by, such “fish to man evolutionists” claiming to be Christians really seem to be ashamed in Jesus saying that God did in fact create Adam and Eve. How’s it going to work that anyone is ashamed of the words of Christ?

          Mark 8:36-38 “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

          Luke 9:25-26 “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.”

          Consider: many will be doing works in the name of Jesus Christ, NOT denying He did what He said He did and yet Jesus told us they’d still be cast into hell:

          Matthew 7:22-23 “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

          What chance do people have who deny the very words of Jesus Christ / God?

          (5) Many who reject parts of God’s Word often say they do believe the Ten Commandments. Yet look at what the Ten Commandments indicate:

          Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

          So are we going to now dismiss the Ten Commandments too?

          (6) So is God’s Word a lie which tells us many times God created in six days?

          Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

          (7) Jesus Christ made all things. Is Jesus Christ now a liar as well?

          John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

          John 1:14-15 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.”

          (8) Want to talk about actual science: what IS observable and IS able to be shown in repeatable test cases (i.e. this is scientific FACT) is that it’s physically impossible for a person who has been dead for hours, let alone days, to come back to life.

          That is scientific fact. Observable. Repeatable.

          So, do we now believe God DIDN’T do what He told us He did and raise Christ from the dead and raise others from the dead because science in this case actually DOES contradict something God / Jesus Christ did?!

          Of course we believe God.

          Then why are we being hypocritical and denying what Christ and God said He did in the name of a made up mythological_belief (really a lie) that is not even science?!!

          That contradictory behavior alone should wake us up to the truth that we are believing a lie: the fish to man mythological story of evolution.if we are a professing Christian and yet believe in the fish to man mythological story of evolution (which is NOT science, as proven above), it’s possible we are not yet a born again believer in God with the indwelling Holy Spirit which guides us to all truth. (Not guiding us to the lie that God’s Word can’t be trusted and_frogs of old are our ancestors). We are instead believing a lie, calling Jesus Christ a liar, ashamed of His Words, calling the Word of God a lie where people will now have to individually pick what they claim is God’s Word.

          Think twice – the_mythological belief of_frog to_man evolution is deceiving many.

          1 Corinthians 1:27-29 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

          I would think again. It’s God we’ll have to convince His Word was a lie and that we taught others this. Evolutionism is the main reason people are deceived into thinking there is no God.

          May God / Jesus Christ be glorified!

          • Mary Ford

            You also seem to be leaving the part out where God created women twice. So picking and choosing the parts you want of Genesis or what? I’m not a “born again” Christian. There is no reason to. I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin, that is all that is ever needed. Jesus spoke is parable many, many, many times. Parable is not to be taken literally. If you believe in the literal Bible to you follow all 600+ commandments found in the Bible or just the big 10 that most of us follow? Do you read and follow Leviticus? Do you mix fabrics, do you mix meats and dairy, does your wife and daughter keep her hair covered? Do you really follow the Bible literally? I doubt it, you would be a conservative Jew if you did and not a Christian.

          • Reason2012

            God did not create woman twice. Please back up your claim.

            Secondly, Jesus make it clear when He was speaking in parables.

            Baptism for the forgiveness of sins? You do not need to shed blood of Christ and believing upon Him to be saved?

            What 600 commandments? There were ordinances for the Jewish people only, to show they were God’s people and were done away with, nailed to Jesus’ cross.

            Saying “it’s not literal” is a fancy way of saying “I don’t want to believe that part”. It’s not mankind you have to convince, it’s God.

        • KenS

          Hello, because his word, specifically gives us the definition of the first day as the rising and setting of the sun being one day. No way around that one. Also, to look at it as being longer for humans has death happening before Adam’s sin, which the bible tells us that death came into the world because of Adam’s sin.

    • KenS

      The verse you guys are quoting to say that 1 day is 1000 is not saying what you think it is. You need to look at the descriptive word “as” to get the real meaning here. The writer was telling us that a day in heaven with God is like a thousand days, meaning time has no meaning in eternity in heaven. That is all that was meant by that statement, it was not to try and reason that there were 6000 earth days to God’s 6, Even if that were so, that still does not compute with 6000 earth days of death and destruction happening before Adam’s sin and the first death…

  • BrKhing Macaranas

    The Pope did not say that God is not a divine being! This post is deceitful and lying!

    • Lito Borja

      You nailed it man.

  • Nils

    Soo…. “God is not a divine being….”

    Way to put the omnipotent Lord of All in a tiny little box, there, Bergoglio.

    • Lito Borja

      God is not divine, but Divine, you don’t know the difference I’m sure, ignoramus.

      • Lito Borja

        Hahaha, ignorant people never stops to entertaiin me, they are so hilariously funny.

      • Nils

        Yeah, okay, if you want to split hairs, God is the Divine, but nonetheless, as the Divine, He has divine attributes. Not sure how that changes anything that the Pope said, ignoramus 😉

  • ssevce .

    Why is this so discomforting? As a Christian one should not be afraid of the Truth. If the theory of evolution is correct,would that change your belief in Christ?

  • Sheldon

    My two cents worth comment… Firstly, Galileo was Catholic who used science to tell us that the earth is round while the Bible allows us to believe that the earth is of any size and shape. In fact many a times it uses the phrase “under the earth”. Secondly, for you my “bible believing” christians/catholics, the Bible was deemed to be the “Word of God” by the Roman Catholic Church. Would you think that the Pope above all would not know the basics of the Bible. The story of creation is taught all Christians when we are kids. And yes, for those who love quoting Paul may also wanna look up his friend and guide (he met Cephas before starting his ministry); “8 But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” – 2 Peter 3:8.

  • james

    I am made in the image of a loving creator God named YAhweh who sent his Son Jesus for me on rescue mission to save me from hell and I freely received it…I am not a descended from a flea bag monkey or fish…It is blasphemy to suggest anything else besides the Genesis account….

    • Mary Ford

      James, you share 98% of your dna with “a flea bag monkey”, actually the giant apes, like or not. Explain how that happened. That’s not blasphemy, it’s biology.

      • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

        Simple.God did it.

        Water falling from the sky? God did it.

        Thunderbolts from heaven? God did it.

        People getting well after being sick? God did it.

        Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.

        –Martin Luther

        Logic, and reasoning from “facts” have no place in Protestant thought. Faith and only Faith is true.

  • Jon Perry

    The Pope has some catching up to do, the astro physicists are abandoning the big bang now because it doesn’t hold up against the evidence. So if he is going to jump ship, make sure it is one that is not sinking.

  • BrKhing Macaranas

    Another “Pope Hoax” from a deceitful “Christian” News Firm, christiannews.net

    An article entitled “Pope Contradicts Genesis Account of Creation, Argues ‘God and Evolution’ Are Compatible” was released online by christiannews.net. Of course this caught so much attention of many. In the third paragraph of the article, Pope Francis stated that “GOD IS NOT A DIVINE BEING or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” according to Heather Clark (the writer). Here it is clear that the Pope denied God as a divine being and this is where Heather Clark LIED. According to the Catholic News Agency, this is what the Pope said: “…precisely because God is not a DEMIURGE or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things.”.

    Let us first differentiate a divine being from a demiurge. A demiurge, a Greek Philosophy concept which refers to a figure responsible crafting and maintenance of the entire universe including our world. A demiurge is simply a product of another being higher than it. A divine being, however, refers to that which by his own power created literally everything while he himself remains uncreated. He is the first cause of all causes. It is therefore evident that a demiurge and a divine being are two different things.

    Heather Clark changed the term “demiurge” to “divine being” from the statement of the Pontiff in order to say that the Pope denies the divinity of God. Otherwise, Clark’s vocabulary is deficient.

    In the following statement, Heather Clark forgot to change the term “divine”:

    Pope Francis continues, “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the DIVINE creator but, rather, requires it. … Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

    In the next paragraphs of her article, we see Heather Clark mentioned Bro. Guy Consolmagno, a research astronomer at the Vatican Obersatory, when he said that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy to make it appear that Catholics have different views with regard to the creation – the Pope says there is an interplay between Science and the Bible while the Vatican Astronomer says it is blasphemous. Smart, eh?

    But this is not what Bro. Consolmagno meant. Bro. Consolmagno’s point is that the Bible should not be used as a basis for scientific study. Because “Science goes out of date. So, if you’re turning the Bible into a science book, then you’re saying you should throw it out after three years and you don’t want to do that. …The very concept of a science book didn’t exist when the Bible was written – that’s the misunderstanding of theology, of the Bible.”

    Next, Heather Clark said in this article, “The papal astronomer further explained that he REJECTS the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead FINDS TRUTH through “science.” Again, this is not true.

    According to Cameron Atfield of the Australian News Firm who interviewed Bro. Consolmagno in “The Pope’s astronomer on space, the Bible and alien life” (here is the link of the full interview: http://www.smh.com.au/national/people/the-popes-astronomer-on-space-the-bible-and-alien-life-20141015-116nrl.html),

    “Brother Consolmagno said science, like religion, was not literal.”

    “The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn’t what science is about and it’s not what religion is about,” he (Bro. Consolmagno) said. “If you want a sound bite answer [to the reconciliation question], my religion tells me God made the universe and my science tells me how he did it.”

    Here we see Bro. Consolmagno saying that Science and Religion have different subject matters. Nothing of it says that truth can be achieved ONLY by means of Science. It is clear that Heather Clark lied once again only to say that the Papal Astronomer himself does not agree with Pope Francis. But , in fact, Bro. Consolmagno also said “What’s death to science, what’s death to theology, is to say ‘I have the answer’. No. I’ve got an interesting question, which is a lot of fun to play with.” Meaning, the absolute truth cannot be achieved from only Science or the Bible.

    Heather Clark continues, “Many influential leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have endorsed evolution and disregarded the literal interpretation of Genesis. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholicism and evolution, and, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “there are … many scientific proofs in favor of evolution.””

    But Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XVI did not deny the Account of Creation. They only meant that there is an INTERPLAY in Science and Religion.

    Here are some Catholic scientists who proved it:

    Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

    Father of Microbiology, developed “pasteurization”

    “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

    “Science brings men nearer to God.”

    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

    Scientist noted for work in physics, hydrostatics, vacuums; inventor of mechanical calculator

    “Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness engenders pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God engenders despair.”

    Sir Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727)

    was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher. He is often regarded as the most influential scientist in history and is best known for discovering the Laws of Gravity.

    “Religion is partly fundamental & immutable partly circumstantial & mutable. The first was the Religion of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham Moses Christ & all the saints & consists of two parts our duty towards God & our duty towards man or piety & righteousness, piety which I will here call Godliness & Humanity. Godliness consists in the knowledge love & worship of God, Humanity in love, righteousness & good offices towards man. ”

    Since the time of the apostles, pre-catholics and Catholics held the Account of Creation stated in the Book of Genesis to be true. It may not be that literal, but it is true. One must not understand the Account of Creation in a very literal sense because of its complexity. For example, it is absurd to say that the world was literally created in just seven days because the sun and moon were only created on the 4th day. And even then, we cannot say that the earth circulated in just 24 hours.

    It is important to note that God does not tell us in the Book of Genesis how the world was created but instead WHY he created the world. That is why it is also uncomfortable to find biblical answers by means of science and vice versa. Because clearly, Science tries to answer how the world was created while the Bible gives us the reflective answers on why God created the world. However, the Church has opened its doors for scientifical discussions.

    The article “Pope Contradicts Genesis Account of Creation, Argues ‘God and Evolution’ Are Compatible” is lying because the Pope never contradicted the Genesis Account of Creation.

    A responsible writer knows that she has to be exact in her articles especially in quoting statements of other people.

    I summon Ms. Heather Clark and the news staff of http://www.christiannews.net to defend their deceitful article.

    • Carl Berryman

      Hmm, No replies to that one?
      What? you highlight the flaws and explain in depth why the article is flawed and then reiterate the truth of the matter and how deceitful the article is and there is no response.. not a good sign.

  • eldon johansen

    God created all things.. but.. fail.. no, this is bs.

    yeah, God created all things.. and if they chose to evolve, what is it to me?
    i realize that all mathematics be proven correct and man a lier.. but.. the entropy of evolution ever increases.. such is sin.

    i can quote scripture but it is a matter of Kings to conceal a thing.. and i don’t presume to know the matter.

  • rachael

    “facepalm”

  • Gary

    Catholicism is not Christianity. It is an anti-Christian religion.

  • Gary

    Most evolutionists will deny that God played any part in the existence of life, or the universe. And all real Christians will support the Biblical account of creation by God. There is no way to reconcile creation with evolution.

  • malakadiveamush

    DOES THE BIBLE CONDEMN REPETITIVE PRAYER??

    One of the common arguments raised against Catholic devotions like the
    Rosary is that Catholics are praying the same few form prayers over and
    over again, and Scripture condemns repetitive prayer.
    After all, in Matthew 6:7, Christ says, “And in praying do not heap up
    empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard
    for their many words,” or to use the KJV, “But when ye pray, use not
    vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be
    heard for their much speaking.”

    The answer to this is simple:
    Christ condemns vain repetitions, or heaping up empty phrases.
    Repetitive prayer, including the use of form prayer, is embraced by
    Scripture, and practiced by the early Church. Let’s look at repetitive
    prayer first, and then form prayer.

    The Bible Calls Us to Repetitive Prayer

    One of the most vivid examples of this comes from Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39-44):

    And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My
    Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not
    as I will, but as thou wilt.”

    And he came to the
    disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you
    not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into
    temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

    Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if
    this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done.” And again he
    came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So, leaving
    them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same
    words.

    So Jesus prayed the same prayer three times in a row.
    That’s certainly repetitive prayer. But it’s hardly vain repetition,
    or empty phrases. Jesus was begging the Father intensely. Likewise,
    we’re invited to beg God for things, and even to nag Him. This
    invitation comes from Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow (Luke
    18:1-8):

    And he told them a parable, to the effect that
    they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain
    city there was a judge who neither feared God nor regarded man; and
    there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying,
    `Vindicate me against my adversary.’

    For a while he
    refused; but afterward he said to himself, `Though I neither fear God
    nor regard man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will vindicate her,
    or she will wear me out by her continual coming.'”

    And
    the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God
    vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long
    over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless,
    when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

    So
    the model for continual prayer that Jesus holds up is a woman who asks
    the exact same thing (`Vindicate me against my adversary’) over and over
    again, so much that it’s obnoxious.

    The Bible Calls Us to Form Prayer

    The idea that the Bible condemns form (or pre-written) prayers is
    silly. After all, the Book of Psalms is nothing but a set of 150 form
    prayers that can be prayed on a variety of occasions, and which Christ
    quotes extensively during His earthly life.

    Plus, Jesus leaves
    us a form prayer of His own. Immediately after Matthew 6:7, in which He
    denounces vain repetitions, Christ gives us the Our Father (a.k.a. the
    Lord’s Prayer, Mt. 6:9-13), introducing it, “This, then, is how you
    should pray…” That’s a form prayer, and one which we’re to pray
    often.

    Plus, the Lord’s Prayer was recognized as a form prayer
    to be prayed repeatedly by the early Church. The Didache is perhaps the
    oldest Christian document outside of the Bible, from sometime around
    the middle to late first century. The oldest portions of the Didache
    are probably older than the latest portions of the New Testament. It’s
    something of a Church handbook, explaining the beliefs and practices of
    Christianity to the newly initiated converts. In Chapter 8, Christians
    are instructed to pray the Our Father three times a day. In the next
    chapter, form prayers for the Eucharistic preface are given. Plus, the
    Didache is describing what’s already going on in church, meaning that we
    can safely date repetitive praying of the Lord’s Prayer back to the
    time of the Apostles.

    Conclusion

    Christ condemns
    thoughtlessness in prayer, of mindlessly repeating empty words. We
    shouldn’t do that. But the cure isn’t to throw out all form prayer, or
    to throw out all repetitive prayer. It’s to pray these prayers with
    sincerity. Sometimes this is hard, particularly when we’re tired or
    have a lot on our mind. But we should try our best to do it anyway. Go
    back to the example of the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostles were
    clearly tired, and it’s an understatement to say that Jesus had a lot on
    His mind. But while the Apostles shunned prayer in favor of sleep, He
    went ahead and prayed anyway, repeating the same impassioned prayer
    three times. That makes all the difference.

  • malakadiveamush

    UNEDUCATED PROTESTANTS (That’s redundant) CALL PRIESTHOOD DEMONIC

    They say, “The Catholic priesthood is a lie and disproved in 1 Timothy 4:3, where Paul warns Timothy that in the last days apostates in the Church would forbid marriage. Catholic priests, contrary to the Bible, are forbidden to marry. In view of this verse, and since we’re living in the last days, how can you possibly defend the Catholic priesthood?”

    This is why you never hire a car mechanic to do brain surgery and never, ever let a Protestant teach you scripture…..

    First of all, how do you know we’re in the last days? Your question implies that because Catholic priests don’t marry these must be the last days–not a good argument. Perhaps you’re unaware that for the last 850 years (since the Second Lateran Council in 1139), all candidates for priestly ordination in the Roman rite have been required to take the vow of celibacy. By your reasoning that means we’ve been in the last days an awfully long time.

    There’s another problem with your assertion. No Catholic is forbidden to marry. Men who become priests do so voluntarily with the understanding that in the Roman rite marriage is not an option for priests.

    Rather than being forbidden to marry, Catholic priests freely sacrifice the option of marriage in favor of serving God more single-mindedly as chaste, celibate disciples. (Married men in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to be ordained.)

    Although marriage is lawful for all Christians, it’s not mandatory. It’s in harmony with the Gospel to abstain from marriage for the sake of serving Christ. Jesus tells us that some “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Whoever can accept this [a life of celibacy] ought to accept it” (Mt 19:12).

    Paul, himself a celibate priest, explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 that “everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me but I will not let myself be dominated by anything.” Here Paul warns against sexual immorality and exhorts Christians to “glorify God in their bodies” (1 Cor 6:20).

    In the next chapter he encourages celibacy by explaining its eminent role in a life of chastity:

    Now, in regard to the matters about which you wrote, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. . .

    Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [celibate], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another…Now to the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry because it is better to marry than to remain on fire. (1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-10)

    1 Timothy 4:3, far from impugning the Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy, condemns those heresies (like the Manichaeans and Albigensians) which said marriage is evil because the body is evil. Paul wasn’t warning Timothy about the Cathohlic discipline–after all, Paul himself followed it!

  • malakadiveamush

    HOW TO KNOW IF “SPEAKING IN TONGUES” IS FROM GOD?
    Below will give you the biblical test to realize its truth

    When the phrase ‘speaking in tongues’ is used images come to mind of the Holy Spirit coming down at Pentecost, and all the apostles and followers speaking and understanding a language previously incomprehensible to them. While others have images of TV evangelist ministers yelling in a strange language that no one appears to understand. This post will explore what speaking in tongues is, where it is in the bible, and the abuse of this gift.

    What is speaking in tongues?

    As discussed above most of us know what speaking in tongues looks like. Speaking in tongues can mean different things to different people. But all people who speak in tongues profess it is not gibberish, although it may appear that way.

    The word tongues comes from the greek Glossolalia, and is related to the word language.
    The Catholic Church teaches glossolalia is an extraordinary charism, that is, an extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit given for the Church’s benefit and subject to the Church’s discernment. This busts a common myth amongst evangelical protestants who say that speaking in tongues occurs in all people who are filled with the Holy Spirit.

    The New Advent Encyclopaedia tells us Glossolalia, the gift on tongues, was designed to aid in the outer development of the primitive Church. One of the best ways to look at what speaking in tongues is, is to look to the bible.

    Speaking in Tongues in the Bible

    Speaking in tongues occurs four times in the New Testament:

    1. Acts 2:3-6: When the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve apostles on Pentecost Sunday, they began to speak in tongues. With men from 15 different countries hearing the apostles speak in their own language.

    2. Acts 10:44-46: After Peter preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and they (including the Gentiles) began to speak in tongues.

    3. Acts 19:5-6: After Paul baptized and confirmed about twelve Ephesians, they spoke with tongues.

    4. 1 Cor. 12-14: Paul teaches that members of the Corinthian church had the gift of speaking in tongues.

    In each of the cases from the book of Acts tongues is ability for each person to hear in what the apostles were saying in their own language. For example imagine yourself spreading the news of the gospel in english, to several people from different countries who could hear what you were saying in their own language. This is why the purpose of the gift of tongues is the ability to spread the gospel to people of foreign languages. However things in Corinth were happening a little differently…

    Tongues in Corinth

    In Corinth people were also speaking in tongues, Paul references Isaiah 28:11 which suggests they were speaking in foreign languages as per Acts. However in Corinth people were abusing the gift of tongues. Rather than speaking in tongues (native languages to people who spoke a different language) they were as barbarians making sounds that no one was able to understand (1 Corinth 14:9-11). Paul describes such mindless babbles as selfish Acts they are used to build oneself up (14:4) and immature (14:20).

    Paul: How not to abuse the gift of tongues.

    1. There must be someone present who can interpret the tongue (1 Cor. 14:27).

    2. If the tongue (language) cannot be interpreted they are to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:28)

    3. Tongues should not be incomprehnsable babbling, but should be understood (1 Cor. 14:6-12).

    4. At a gathering there should only be at the most three people speaking in tongues, and only one at a time (1 Cor. 14:27).

    5. It must be done in a way that builds up the Church (1 Cor. 14:26).

    Tongues will cease.

    Paul tells us the gift of tounges will cease (1 Cor. 13:8). The Greek word for “cease” (pauomai) means that the gift of tongues will end abruptly, on its own, and will not be replaced by another gift. The gift of tongues is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that is said to “cease” in this way.

    The Church Fathers and Early Church

    There are several examples where Church Fathers and the Early Church mention what the gift of tongues is. Many of them explaining that the gift of tongues is the ability to speak a foreign language (not speaking gibberish). For example:

    Irenaeus (130-202AD) speaks of those “who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.6.1;).

    In his Homilies on 1 Corinthians 14 John Chrysostom (347-407AD) says “And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak various languages (John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians 35.1).”

    There are several more examples of other Church fathers but you can find them in others places.

    Has the gift of tongues ceased?

    Well it is clear that the so called ‘tongues’ spoken today is nothing like what appears in the Bible, nor to what the Early Church knew of tongues. I would be happy for someone to show me a person who has the actual ability to speak tongues (a foreign language that they do not know) and I would change my tune. But as far as I can tell the gift has ceased as Paul said it would. Further more, Saint Augustine (Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church 354-430AD) explains that the gift by his time had ceased. He states:

    “In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was proper for the Holy Spirit to evidence Himself in all tongues, and to show that the Gospel of God had come to all tongues [languages] over the whole earth. The thing was done for an authentication and it passed away. (Ten Homilies on the first Epistle of John VI, 10).”

    Furthmore Thomas Aquinas (Also a Doctor of the Church) agrees with Augustine and states that tongues has ceased because the Church no longer requires it, as she (all the people who make up the Church) already speak all languages:

    “…whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost (Summa Theologica, II, II, 176) ”

    In Conclusion

    This is why I believe we must discern with the Spirit and the Church regarding the gift of tongues and keep in mind the rules Paul gave to those at Corinth. And to be especially careful we are using the gift to build up the Church rather than ourselves.

    Paul said tongues would cease, he explains it is the ability to speak a foreign language as backed up by early Church writings, and Saints and Church Doctors have said it ceased. It just seems odd to me that all of a sudden with this rise of pentecostalism in the 1900′s that all of a sudden ‘tongues’ has increased massively (contradicting Paul who said it would cease) and is nothing like the early Church spoke of (preaching in foreign languages) at a time when it is no longer be required.

    What are your thoughts regarding speaking in tongue’s?

    In my opinion anyone who says they are speaking in tongues is a pride filled person wishing for others to look at them as holier then the rest. It’s gibberish with NO scriptural foundation unless you somehow meet the means test laid out above with four individual requirements laid out by Saint Paul. Many will reject this and be upset but like I said pride will do that. Tell me anyone who speaks in tongues how do you know what you are saying? Couldnt you be saying “hail satan”?

    So maybe your tongue speaking is to spread the church of satan?

    EXACTLY!!! You do not know….. So why do you do it?

    TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

    • KenS

      You almost got this correct, except for your reason why tongues ceased. Paul, by quoting Isaiah 28:11-12 in I Corinthians 14:21, tells us that the purpose of tongues was a warning of judgment in the form of defeat, dispersion and captivity to the Unbelieving Israel as a result of their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah, That judgment came about in 70 AD with the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem and the temple by the Roman Empire. There has not been one valid instance of tongues recorded in scripture or church History since AD 70 and that is because there is no longer the need to warn of coming judgment, since the judgement has come already.

      To the Jews being spoken to in another language was always a sign of judgment. this is also why you will see that the gift of tongues was always poured out in the presence of Jews, and never when only Gentiles were in audience.

  • malakadiveamush

    WHO SAYS PRAYING THE ROSARY IS NOT IN THE BIBLE??

    They said NOWHERE in the bible would you find any reference, any instruction nor any command that praying the rosary or the hail Mary is biblicaly sound doctrine. I can’t believe what people are being taught, what they think and how they spend more time learning video games then they do learning, preparing and saving their soul.

    So once again Protestants Catholic catechism school is open;

    HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE THE LORD IS WITH YOU
    Luke 1:28 “And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”

    BLESSED ART THOU AMONGST WOMAN

    Luke 1:41-42a “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women…”

    Luke 1:48 “For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”

    BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR WOMB JESUS

    Luke 1:42b “and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”

    Jesus is Mary’s fruit. Good fruit does not come from anything but a good tree (Mt. 7:17-18)! The all-holy Son of God could not be the fruit of any other tree than the Immaculate Virgin.

    HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD

    Luke 1:43 “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

    PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH AMEN

    Luke 2:35 “…and you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

    John 2:5 “His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”

    Mary sees a need and appeals to Her Son to satisfy it. He does. We turn to Mary to ask her to intercede with her Son in our daily spiritual and material needs, but especially at the hour of our death. At that moment our salvation hangs in the balance as the devil makes his final foray to deter us from the path to God (Rev. 2:10). It is not surprising, therefore, that both the Hail Mary and the Our Father conclude with an appeal to be delivered from the evil one.

    The rosary is the meditation of Jesus life on earth. Are you to tell me saying the our father, bible verses (hail mary) and meditating on Jesus is unbiblical? ha ha ha you are one lost soul!!!

    So next time someone asks you why you pray to Mary ask them why dont they pray to Mary? It’s in the bible!!!

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

    Martin Luther had it rIght:

    “Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters…
    It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the [natural] philosophers (ie scientists) in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.”

    – Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis,

    Either you believe in a book written by men as literal and inerrant, or you do not.

    If you do, then you have to believe the Earth is a flat disc, with a hemispherical shield above it keeping the waters above out, as Genesis clearly states. You have to believe the stars are little lamps affixed to this firmament, that there are storehouses of snow and hail sitting on top of it as stated in the book of Job. That the flat Earth rests on pillars, below which is even more water, as stated in the Psalms.

    To believe otherwise is wicked. Christians must ignore science and reason, because reason contradicts scripture as often as not, you cannot rely on it to tell you what you know to be TRUE. Reason is in fact the greatest enemy Faith has.

    Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but — more frequently than not — struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

    Martin Luther

    Those who believe in “science”, that man could ever have walked on the moon, that the Sun is a huge ball of gas, and that the Earth rotates, are demonic. Diabolical.

    :”Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by
    ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.

    – John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677,

    Or, as an alternative you can believe that the KJV Bible,while divinely inspired, is a work of Man, imperfect, and subject to future revision in light of further discoveries.

    As the authors of the KJV stated it is in their introduction.

  • Matthew Mueller

    Men can err, Scripture cannot. So I’m going to side with Scripture on this one Frankie

  • Okieproud

    Anyone who believes in a literal interpretation has never studied languages. Remember, the KJV, while very nice, wasn’t the first edition of the Bible. To understand Scripture, you need at a minimum Biblical Greek and Hebrew. There is no serious scholarship being done in Scripture that subscribes to a literal interpretation of Scripture. It is inherently incoherent. To try to adhere to the words you find in the Bible as being the very words of God as you find them is unbiblical.

  • Susan Moore

    This is blasphemous and the Pope is a false teacher and leader of the Catholic Church!

  • GregTeegarden

    The issue at hand, is not the idea of evolution in nature but rather the idea that mankind evolved from apes. What is the Pope’s position of this? Let’s be careful how we “word smith!” Are the supposed bridges that are being built between faith and science worth compromising true faith? The word games we play today have a nasty way of catching up to us in the end.

    Something to think about! 🙂

  • Terry Roll

    This whole comments page is like watching the Special Olympics. Evolution is a fact, and doesn’t conflict with the idea of there being some sort of deity. It is silly to think an omnipotent being would throw a bunch of creatures on a constantly changing planet and give them no way to adapt to it, and thereby eventually become extinct. And by the way, Genesis has a verse that talks about a day in God’s time being “like a thousand years” or something along those lines. Not everything has to be taken as absolutely literal.

    • MatthewScheller

      Who told you Evolution was a fact? Google? And what does Evolution being a fact have anything to do with the context of this article?

      • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

        No, observation in a lab.
        My PhD thesis is on the subject.

        The whole context of this article is the massive cherrypicking involved.
        Flat Earth? Metaphorical
        Firmament? Metaphorical
        Storehouses of hail in the sky? Metaphorical
        Adam/Eve? Literal
        Noah’s Flood? Literal (even though that requires a firmament etc)

        It’s just BS. The Bible is literally true for some until we’re no longer ignorant of science – astronomy, meteorology, biology -, while for others they cherry-pick and deny facts accordingly.

        The Catholic church tried that for a while, the wheels came off in the 17th,18th and 19th centuries – the last time with the germ theory of disease – and no longer do it as it makes them look foolish.

        Some Protestant sects still do it though. Flat Earthers are at least consistent, other Young Earth Creationists not.

  • pa

    The Pope does not ‘refute’ the Genesis account of creation. Inaccurate headline. Completely inaccurate.

    • Neiman

      Yes He did!

    • dianiline

      You are correct. He explains the Genesis account, which is his office.

  • john cummins

    This pope like the one before him simply undermines the prolife message of the Catholic church and goes directly against scripture which, once again, shows the wisdom of the monk Martin Luther. Thank God for the Reformation.

    • dianiline

      How I wish he could have found some better place to stand.

  • Letsgo

    Evolution has existed to some extent. God even shows this when after the first sin the animals were changed to eating meat (each other). I could believe sin is what set off evolution, creation’s bodies adjusting to the death and imperfection of sin. But there’s no solid proof humans share common ancestry with chimps. DNA similarities don’t always mean a match. God made us separate from animals, we know this.

  • Laura Y.

    I am a Catholic in the Roman tradition. First of all, we Christians should stop poking at each other. ENOUGH! It isn’t helpful and certainly is NOT Christian in spirit. That being said, regardless of whether one is a Lutheran, non-denominational, Catholic, Calvinist, whatever, these words spoken by Francis are of grave concern. “God is not a divine being or a magician….” Ok, let’s start with that: No, God is not A divine being. He IS being, the I AM. That is a fact that not a one of us can wrap our little brains around. Francis does a tremendous disservice here for (once again), he is causing confusion by not reminding us all of that. Secondly, as someone pointed out, evolution states that death came before sin and we who are believers know that sin came before death. So, once again Francis is confusing people….but then again, he also stated that sin isn’t our biggest problem, but youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly is. Look folks, this Pope – whether or not you like the Church, believe she is a harlot or whatever – this Pope is operating very differently from what we have seen before and seems to be opening the door towards changes which NO MAN has the authority to change. He is sowing some seeds of confusion and that may not be a bad thing for God in His Providence allows for these things to test the faithful. We are failing profoundly by labeling each other and attacking each other. Christians are to be known for their charity…I don’t have to like you, but to care for you, try to help you see the Truth and respect you as being made in His image and likeness. Science can never contradict the Truth for all it does is reveal what is hidden or unknown. It does not discover or create anything. Notice how science keeps contradicting itself…it can’t figure it all out, yet we seem to take what scientists say as gospel. Evolution actaully contradicts mathematical principles and has shown itself to be very, very flawed. Calm down. God is in control and you have nothing to fear from Dawkins or Hawkings or Francis. What we have to fear is this Evil One using all of this garbage to separate the Shepherd’s flock.

    • malakadiveamush

      Yeah some Catholic….. ha ha! No, you misunderstand – (I bet about allot of things) the Pope states that God is not a divine being among other beings. God is Being Itself. That’s the significant distinction being alluded to. The wording is specifically based on an extensive tradition in Christian theology which you can read about in any
      introduction text pertaining to medieval theology in particular. Leave
      it to the “Christian” media to get it wrong…. after all Protestants
      have been getting it wrong since 1530

    • dianiline

      Hi Laura.

      Pope Francis does not say that God is not “a divine being”. He says that God is not a “demiurge”, which is to say, not a craftsman or artisan, not a created being, not manipulating things He did not create, and also Francis says that God is not a magician, with “a magic wand able to do all things”.

      He is God, He is the creator, He needs no magic wand.

  • lyle gold

    wow was he the wine cellar custodian been nipping at the wine a little to often has he where we not created in gods image uhm i dont recall god saying here blob of stuff make unto thee an image over millennia that you may choose to look like but hey what do i know im not a clergyman

    • Evolution is a fact

      Nor a grammarian, I suppose.

      • dianiline

        Evolution is a theory.

  • HazumuOsaragi

    Condensed comments section:

    “You’re a Heretic!”
    “No, you’re the Heretic!”

    Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

  • Sam

    Aye mr. Jakubisin really is that dude tho

    • alexander

      You are ignorant. This is what is wrong with our society. Wha does this have to do with anything this article discusses? I am disgusted

      • Sam

        The nerve of some people to criticize others on a CHRISTIAN website smh you really are going to hell for posting such an outrageous comment

        • alexander

          How about you share your opinions on the ARTICLE rather than trying to be funny? Teens these days. Ignorance at its finest

          • Sam

            The simple fact that you are arguing with me makes you hippocritical. How about instead of wasting time commenting, you read the bible because from what I’ve gathered so far, you need Jesus.

          • alexander

            Touché

          • Sam

            Don’t touché me, you’ve started this agruement and your gonna finish it big boy

  • alexander

    Logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Some of you are just ignorant. God help us all

  • Florida Mama

    “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” James 3:1

  • D.A. Howard

    It means God is not an angel. Did you not read the Book of Psalms: “A little less than gods” (Ps 8:5). That is the sense in which this “fumble word” pope is speaking.

  • Justin Brink

    As a Catholic (and former Lutheran), my apologies for my fellow Catholics who are not acting in a spirit of charity to our Protestant brethren. Where is the constructive dialogue here?

    The Pope himself is not infallible – let me make that clear. There is more to the teaching of infallibility, but let’s leave that for another time. Pope Francis would not believe God is not divine – either he misspoke or our wonderful mass media who never gets anything right is taking him out of context.

    malakadiveamush: chill out.

    • dianiline

      Pope Francis did not say that God is not divine, which would be a contradiction in terms. He said that God is not a demiurge. Neiman, I believe, misinterpreted “demiurge” to mean “divine”, thus accusing the Holy Father of saying that God is not divine.

      A “demiurge” is a craftsman or artisan, a created being who manipulates the physical world but did not create it.

      God is not a demiurge. He is divine.

  • Bobby Koz

    The pope is no more then a mere MAN, created also by God, and also is included in the “ALL HAVE SINNED” We are warned by the word of God that in the last days these things will happen and more. I trust 100% only in God and not in man. Don’t forget, the pope to will face God on judgement day. He is not above or like God at all.

    • Neiman

      Right and the Pope is not Holy, no more than any Christian made holy in Christ by faith. He is not Christ’s Vicar on earth, He is not our Holy Father; and, you are right that he too will stand or fall on whether or not he is a born again Christian, saved solely by Grace through Faith; and in Heaven, if saved, he will not be greater than the least of the saints. In fact, while Jesus commended John the Baptist, saying none were greater than John as a believer in Him, nonetheless, he was, while in the flesh, less than the least, most humble Christian in Heaven.

      His denial of the deity of Christ and His role as Creator, his opening the doors to sinners, like when he said if good atheists would gain heaven, or when now opening the door to homosexuals being saved without repentance from their homosexuality, or his having communion with Muslims and others; or his worship of Mary or in many other ways He betrays his profession of a Christian faith.

      • ssevce .

        Wow you know nothing of the Catholic Faith, the Church which Christ founded. You realize that the only reason you have the 27 books of the New Testament is due to the Catholic Church. If they are so wrong on everything, could they not be wrong regarding the Bible that you have in your hand? My God would not allow that to happen, but I guess the god you believe in would. Think about that.

        • Neiman

          Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, not a man made, man ruled ecclesiastical organization and He would never appoint any mere man or men rule over His Glorious Body the Church, as He rules there alone by His Spirit. Too many such men have corrupted the Truth for Him to ever leave such power in their hands.

          We have the Gospels and Epistles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and all that early Church leaders did, under His gudiance, was to recognize those writings that conformed to the balance of Holy Scripture. The RCC did not give us any Holy Scripture.

          Why would God allow it to happen? Free Will! He gave all men free will, knowing that most would, because they are evil, corrupt His Word, while He led His own into the Truth by His Spirit alone, called by Him to the Faith.

          • ssevce .

            Wow you don’t know your church history do you. Who do you think the Holy Spirit gave the inspiration to know which books to place in the Bible? The RCC. To think otherwise, is just being blind to the historical truth so it fits your Protestant tradition. Look it up it is not that hard to find. Anyhow, Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book? If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

          • Neiman

            I Timothy 3:15:
            Timothy himself is here designed; and the sense is, that what was
            written to him was with this view, that he might the better know how to
            conduct himself in the church of God, as a pillar and ground of truth,
            to hold it forth and to secure it: ministers of the Gospel are called
            pillars, ( Galatians 2:9
            ) and that with greater propriety than the church itself, which is
            before called an house: though it may be best of all to understand it of
            Christ as incarnate, the great mystery of godliness; who as he is the
            ground and foundation of the church, and all believers, so he is the
            foundation of all true doctrine; and particularly the doctrine of his
            person, as truly God and truly man, is the pillar and ground which
            supports all other truths, and without which they fall to the ground:
            and so this clause may be read in connection with the following words,
            thus; “the pillar and ground of the truth, and without controversy, is
            the great mystery of godliness.”

            The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death,
            resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The
            Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died
            for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that
            the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory
            reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does
            not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the
            New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of
            Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of
            Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix),
            petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession,
            the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism,
            confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal
            authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the
            Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as
            recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic
            Church?

            The origin of the Catholic Church is the
            tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that
            surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the
            pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and
            “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the
            distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the
            people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming
            the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another
            result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the
            true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

            Second Timothy 4:3–4
            declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound
            doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around
            them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to
            hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to
            myths.”

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html#ixzz3HV3LNYFk

          • ssevce .

            Nice try, none of that states what the Church truly believes. Try going to a Catholic source to get your answers. If not, that is like getting information about gardening by someone who hates gardening. I don’t have time to refute all the errors of what you just posted. But think about this:

            If Protestantism is true,

            There’s no way to know whether you’re assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation.

            Protestants and Catholics both believe that God has revealed himself to man over the course of human history, culminating in his ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ. But whereas Catholics believe that Christ founded a visible Church—which subsists in the Catholic Church—and has protected its doctrines from error, Protestants reject the notion of ecclesial infallibility, maintaining that no person, church, or denomination has been preserved from error in its teachings. Which means that anyone could be wrong, and no person or institution can be trusted with speaking the truth of divine revelation without error.

            Universal Fallibility

            “No one is infallible.” If Protestantism has a universal belief, this is it. Luther pioneered this idea when he asserted that popes and Church councils had erred. If they had erred, it meant God had not guided them into all truth; instead, he allowed them to fall into error and, worse, to proclaim error as truth.

            And so the most a Protestant can do is tentatively assent to doctrinal statements made by his church, pastor, or denomination, since those statements, being fallible, could be substantively changed at some time in the future. We see this all the time in Protestantism, most commonly when a Protestant leaves one church for another due to doctrinal disagreement, especially after his church changed its position on an issue he considered important.

            Consider the question of same-sex “marriage.” Until quite recently, all Protestant denominations taught this was a contradiction in terms. But now many have modified or even completely reversed this doctrine. Those Protestants who accept this new teaching believe that the old one was wrong—an erroneous human opinion that became enshrined in their church’s statement of faith. They can do this confidently, knowing that none of their fellow church members can plausibly claim that it contradicts an irreformable dogma that was infallibly revealed by God.

            Ultimately, then, a Protestant (who remains Protestant) studies the relevant sources—Scripture, history, the writings of authoritative figures in his tradition—and chooses the Protestant denomination that most aligns with his judgment. But then, they say, Catholics do the same thing: studying the sources and then choosing the Catholic Church based on their own judgment. So they see no difference in this regard.

            Because Catholicism is true,

            Christians can know divine revelation, as distinct from mere human opinion, because God protects it from authoritatively teaching anything that is false.

            How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant’s, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ’s.

            And so a Catholic can know divine revelation, as distinct from human opinion, by looking to the Church, which speaks with Christ’s voice and cannot lie. For a Protestant, only the Bible itself contains God’s infallibly inspired words, so he desires to assent to that. But since the Bible must be interpreted by someone, the closest he can come to assenting to biblical teaching is assenting to his own fallible interpretation of it. And assenting to yourself is no assent at all.

            The Protestant’s Dilemma

            If Protestantism is true, all are fallible. So the Protestant must rely on his own judgment above that of his church. And the orthodoxy of the church itself is judged against his interpretation of the Bible. Thus is becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is. This fact makes the Catholic Church, philosophically speaking, preferable to Protestantism, since God’s truth can be known—and known with certainty. God Bless you. Good night.

          • dianiline

            The positions and practices of the Church, of which you find no mention in the New Testament, were not in sufficient dispute in the early Church to require clarification in the letters.

            Mary is not worshipped. God is worshipped. Mary is a gift that God gives to us; He elevates a mere human creature to a position of glory in Heaven, additionally giving us a picture of the rightful devotion we ought to have to Him. “Let it be unto me according to Your will”, as she said.

            May we all aspire to love and devotion to God as Mary has modeled for us.

          • Neiman

            They did not exist until the Pagan Church of Rome came into being several centuries later.

            John Paul II, one of your infallible Popes was striving to have Mary named as co-redemptor with Christ. Pope Francis said if we do not accept Her as our mother, we cannot be saved. After election, his first task was to go to a basilica where Mary is honored and pray thanksgiving to her – that is Mary worship.

          • dianiline

            You were present in the early Church to say what was done and what was not?

            The primacy of Peter is clear in the New Testament. The role of Mary was certainly clear and unremarkable to those in the early church.

            I was not yet Catholic when I heard discussion of this concept of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, and I thought, at the time, that “that would tear it” regarding reconciliation of all of the rest of Christendom with the Church of Rome. That is, if the Pope had infallibly declared it true, we would never join with the Catholics. He did not have to strive with anyone, of course; if God had wanted him to declare her Co-Redemptrix at that time, he merely had to declare it, ex-cathedra.

            When I did become Catholic, when God led me into the Church, I thought that Mary would be a hard thing for me to deal with, hard to swallow, as it were.

            Instead, she is the sweetest gift possible. It is such a comfort to have her in my life. There is nothing that she does, and can be nothing, that detracts from Jesus in any way. She is His mother, and she is devoted to Him and cares for us to help us in our devotion to Him.

            Praying to saints is not worship of them, and praying to Mary is not worship of them, any more than praying to your deceased loved ones is worship of them. (“Talking to” your deceased loved ones might be a better term; that is what “praying” means.) This type of prayer is covered better in the parts of the Bible that people tossed out, before declaring “sola scriptura”. But they were parts of the Bible in Jesus’ time, and he preached and taught from them, never suggesting that they were not Scripture.

            Mary is Co-Redemptrix in the sense that her cooperation with God (“Let it be unto me according to Your will”) made the sacrifice of Jesus possible. He did not need her cooperation; this is not to say that He could not have redeemed us otherwise, nor that He would not have made some other, different, sacrifice if she had said “no”. But He had her cooperation and He honors her as His mother, and gives her to us as our mother, and gives us to her as her children.

          • dianiline

            Christ founded the Catholic, or Universal, Church, on the “rock” that he made of Simon, calling him “Peter”. The Church did not need adjectives to further describe it until men began founding their own churches in opposition to it. I will continue with the Church founded by Christ; you may continue, as you will, with some church founded by some disobedient man.

            Mostly the early Church leaders *wrote* the writings that became the New Testament. Mostly they are letters guiding the early church communities, in the same way that the Church leaders guide the church communities today.

            God has given men free will, but for those of us who work to conform our will to His, He provides assistance. And in the case of those whom He places in authority in His Church, He guides them through His Spirit to speak the truth. As God has appointed the Pope to guide us, we are safe in following His guidance; it is an act of obedience to God and trust in His care.

          • Neiman

            The Church is NOT an ecclesiastical organization, Romish or Protestant, it is made up of the individual members of the Body of Christ.

            The phrase “the Body of Christ” is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church (all those who are truly saved). The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “the body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12, and “the body” in Hebrews 13:3. The Church is clearly equated with “the body” of Christ in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24.

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/body-of-Christ.html#ixzz3HaScmPtE

            Which church – that is, which denomination of Christianity – is the “true church”? Which church is the one that God
            loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride? The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace, through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church.

            In the Bible, we see that the local (or visible) church is nothing more than a gathering of professing believers. In Paul’s letters, the word “church” is used in two different ways. There are many examples of the word “church” being used to simply refer to a group of professing believers who meet together on a regular basis (1Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 8:1, 11:28).
            We see Paul’s concern, in his letters, for the individual churches in various cities along his missionary journey. But he also refers to a church that is invisible—a spiritual entity that has close fellowship with Christ, as close as a bride to her husband (Ephesians 5:25, 32), and of which He is the spiritual head (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 3:21). This church is made up of an unnamed, unspecified group of individuals (Philippians 3:6; 1Timothy 3:5) that have Christ in common.

            The word “church”, comes from the Greek word ekklesia
            meaning “a calling out.” The word describes a group of people who have been called out of the world and set apart for the Lord, and it is always used, in its singular form, to describe a universal group of people who know Christ. The word ekklesia, when pluralized, is used to describe groups of believers who meet together. Interestingly enough, the word “church” is never used in the Bible to describe a building or organization.

            It is easy to get ensnared by the idea that a particular denomination within Christianity is “the true church,” but this view is a misunderstanding of Scripture. When choosing a church to attend, it is important to remember that a gathering of believers should be a place where those who belong to the true church (the spiritual entity) feel at home. That is to say, a good local church will uphold the Word of God, honoring it and preaching faithfully, the gospel will be proclaimed steadfastly, and the sheep will be fed and tended and cared for by godly
            leaders. A church that teaches heresy or engages in sin will eventually be very low on (or entirely bereft of) those people that belong to the true church—the sheep who hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him (John 10:27).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/true-church.html#ixzz3HaT6VQXg

            Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession of faith in Him, not anointing Peter as the head of the Church. James was the leader in Jerusalem, Peter by his own admission was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles (rest of the world). We know Paul was in Rome in chains and there is no proof Peter was ever there, so if there was any Bishop of Rome it would have been Paul, not Peter.

            while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he
            was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority
            was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20),
            and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

            Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22).
            Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

            What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

            Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer
            of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

            Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html#ixzz3HaTX8PbX

            So in every possible way you are in error and I believe the RCC is part of the End Times Apostate Church, the Whore of Babylon.

    • dianiline

      He is a mere man, created by God, and placed in the position in Christ’s Bride the Church from which he can relay the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

      How good of God to have not left us bereft, when our Lord ascended into Heaven, but to have sent us His spirit to guide us through His Church.

      If you trust in God, my friend, you would do well not to reject those whom God sends to guide you. I would not worry about the Pope’s salvation; his value as God’s servant does not depend on his personal holiness. There have been fairly unholy popes, but God goes on righteous in his guidance nevertheless. He has promised us that the very gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.

      • Bobby Koz

        You missed the whole point of what YOUR pope has said about God. I trust in God and it is not the pope who guides me, I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Your pope said…..“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” I, my friend believe my God can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. All he has to do is speak it. The RCC keeps changing its rules and regulations…..in other words, flip flops.

        • dianiline

          The Pope has said that God can do everything and anything. He does not have, nor does he need, “a magic wand able to do everything.

          You miss the whole point of what he says. You agree with him.

        • dianiline

          I trust in God as well, and have, also, a personal relationship with Jesus, and additionally, I have reading comprehension skills and the ability to use logic.

          You believe that God can do everything and anything, all He has to do is speak it, and thus you are substantially in agreement with the Pope, that God does not need a magic wand. God is not Harry Potter, wielding a power of which he is not the source and which he does not really begin to understand.

  • GabriellogicianJabraelblogs.co

    There is a spiritual force creator and spiritual force engineer to create
    everything you see in the Universe. Our existed depend on these two forces.

    http://gabriellogicianjabrael.blogspot.com/2012/05/cornerstone-of-universe-my-goal-is-to.html

  • Neiman

    The reason why Bible believing Christians are so passionate about the Pope asserting a belief that God may have used evolution as the means of Creation, is that the idea is a direct denial of the very Deity of God.

    If Genesis is not literal, it attacks the very foundation, the genesis, of the entire Christian faith. If it is not literal, it means we cannot take anything else in the Bible as being absolutely true, as we have doubted the very foundation and thus the building, the Church, must be doubted, as there is no basis for believing one thing as being literal and not another – it all stands or falls on Genesis, which even Jesus affirmed as being truth.

    If God had to or even chose to rely on evolution for His creation of all things, that is, random mutations and cosmic accidents over time, it means He did not know how to create it all perfectly, according to His Perfect Nature, thus He would not be omniscient nor omnipotent and He could never have truthfully declared it all to be good (perfect).

    Further, if He allowed His dearly loved human creation for thousands of year to falsely believe He created it all in six literal days, when He actually meant each day was of indeterminate length, perhaps many billions of years, then He consciously, deliberately, allowed His people, uncaring, to be deceived, which would make Him a Deceiver, a Liar; and yet, being God, He cannot possibly have any motive to lie. So, either Genesis One is literal and Divine Truth or Christianity is a lie and God does not exist.

    So, if you are offended or choose to blindly allow this Pope to undermine God’s Word, that is unfortunate; but, any Bible believing Christian must stand on God’s Word and place their trust completely in Him or they cannot truly believe in God at all.

    • dianiline

      It is literally true that God created the world, which is the point of Genesis. However this truth is expressed in poetry, which uses concrete images to relate soaring abstract reality. I am sorry for you, Neiman, that you cannot get beyond the nuts and bolts to listen to what God says to you, and I am sorry that you are so suspicious of Him and so quick to deny Him where the littleness of your human reason doesn’t quite grasp the enormity of God. But the truth is what it is, in any case, and if you are deceived it is by your own failure to listen.

      Mutations and cosmic events are “random” and “accidents” to us, but that does not mean these were surprises to God, who is omniscient. And if God declares something to be “good” (which is not, of course, the same as “perfect”), wow, what hubris to say that it is not. Have a little faith, Neiman. 🙂

      • Neiman

        Beyond your insults and your hurt feelings –

        God would not, even knowing what would happen create anything through evolution, as that involves many experiments, failures, waste and deaths and until Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden, there was no death. Or, are you accusing God of creating death and waste? Are those acts of a perfect God and a perfect creation?

        The idea that the death of humankind occurred prior to Adam’s sin contradicts New Testament teaching that indicates the death of humankind entered this world as a result of Adam’s sin (1 Corinthians 15:21; Romans 8:20-22; Romans 5:12).

        “God’s creative acts were not those of happenstance, contingency,
        and incredible waste. Rather, they were acts of deliberate, purposeful,
        intelligent design on the part of an omnipotent Creator.”

        • ssevce .

          So you still believe the Earth is still flat? If Science proves that the theory of evolution is the truth, you would still reject it? Jesus is the way, the truth and life. To reject the truth is to reject Jesus.

          • Neiman

            Science has not and cannot prove evolution is the source of all life. Yes, God does allow for evolution (adaptation) within kinds (species), but but never between kinds, no fish becoming a bird nor an ape a man. Otherwise, we would be up to our rumps all over the world with fully developed, vertical transitional forms in the archeological record.

            Unless you were there at the beginning, everything you believe is mere conjecture, skewed by your secular humanist life model, it cannot be empirically proven in the laboratory. To do so, the scientist would have to start with nothing, not the tiniest element of an atom, starting from a vacuum and then create a spark, which he too must engineer from absolutely nothing and then ignite a chain of events that produce life. If not, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than Divine Creation.

            To reject YOUR idea of Truth is not to reject truth or Jesus, just your asinine opinions.

          • ssevce .

            So what if science does prove that. Would that change your believe in Christ?

          • Neiman

            It is like asking if God can make a rock too big for Him to lift. It won’t happen and a waste of time answering.

          • ssevce .

            You are not answering the question, would that change your belief in Christ?

          • dianiline

            Gee, Neiman, you seem to be using the term “evolution” in two different senses here. Maybe the word “day” has more than one sense, too.

            You are careless with words; evolution is not the “source of all life”, but perhaps the mechanism by which all currently existing life arose from earlier forms. Perhaps a single earlier form. It is a scientific theory which does a good job of explaining current biological diversity and the fossil record. Much is missing from the fossil record; leaps of conjecture are made; scientists know that they are never really proving anything but merely developing a model that seems to explain the data.

            When adaptation occurs within a species, eventually the sum of adaptations makes the adapted offspring so different from the unadapted that they are considered separate species. This is not one species turning into another, but one species diverging and giving rise to another. If you allow for adaptation within a species, you must accept the possibility of divergence.

            I cannot imagine why you would reject God if you find Him guilty of orchestrating this.

        • dianiline

          Nothing is ever wasted.

          You are on dangerous ground when you start sentences with “God would not”.

          You assert a wholly secular view of evolution when you claim that it involves “experiments”. That is to deny God. God does not need to experiment. In the usual sense of the word, God *cannot* experiment.

          Of course God created death, and death is not waste. Death is the means of our redemption; it is the wages of sin. Christ died, that we might live. He rose again, conquering death which He had created. As, of course, He created everything.

          Is creating death the act of a perfect God? Obviously, since He is perfect. And a perfect creation? Creation is not perfect, it is *fallen*. It contains humans, which are not perfect, as I’m sure you can tell.

          Life is a cycle. Living things die, and give rise to new life. Don’t you eat food? Food is dead things that were once alive. This is not some kind of error on the part of God.

          Death is another one of those words, like “day”, that can mean more than one thing. Prior to the occurrence of sin, death *through* sin did not exist. That is, death of the soul did not exist. Death of the body is another matter.

          In the context of Genesis, humankind did not exist prior to Adam, so no death of humankind occurred prior to Adam’s sin. Although presumably creatures existed before Adam, they were not human.

          Deliberate, purposeful, intelligent design is not at odds with evolution, any more than it is at odds with individual development from conception through old age.

          I have not insulted you, Neiman; the only place I can see where you might have felt insulted is where I speak of the littleness of your human reason, which is, of course, the littleness of my human reason as well. I should think that was obvious.

          I remain astonished that you think that God can only speak to us in concrete literal terms or else He is deceiving us. Since most of the world is abstract, to speak only in literal terms is also to deceive. I am going to break the news gently to you that we fallible human beings are deceived about pretty much everything, all the time, especially where it comes to the truths of God. We are just not capable of understanding everything because we are *small* and *limited* and God is vast.

  • http://google.com IntheCustodyofCarl’sJr.

    Totally agree that the pope and the vatican fit the Revelation 18 vision of Babylon.

    But when are we going to get over the evolution debate? Who gets saved by arguing over dirt and bones? Reminds me of John 4.

  • Рон Джамин

    Genesis is NOT contradicted. God created all. The “big bang” was created by God. Everything, all energy, particles, and the rules that govern it all are all from the mind of God. Pretty simple.

  • assume nothing

    This Pope is like the obama of our religion.

    • dianiline

      You flatter Obama. I’m sure he would like to think of himself as being like the Pope. He certainly seems to think he’s the chosen one of God!

  • Frank

    Looking at it from a purely biological scientific standpoint the biblical account has to be true. Any other way is biologically impossible.

  • Carmen A.

    Calling all Catholics that believe in Jesus Christ run away from this man he is leading all, all away from God the Divine if the Catholic Bible calls John Divine whom made him? God the Creator of the Universe Big bang and Creation do not mix. Deceiving many and he is a Sheep with Wolves clothing He is trying to Mix the World into the Catholic Church again Like many popes before him he is creating Humanist Church get ready Church of Jesus Christ for a Blood bath of Believers that will not convert to this!

    • ssevce .

      Why is this so discomforting? As a Christian one should not be afraid of the Truth. If the theory of evolution is correct,would that change your belief in Christ?

    • dianiline

      You serve the evil one when you call Christians away from the Church.

      Of course God is divine; that would be a definition of the word “divine”: Of, like, or pertaining to God”. Pope Francis did not say that God is not divine. One of your colleagues on this thread misinterpreted the term “demiurge” which means artisan or craftsman. The Pope said that God is not a demiurge (or a magician) merely manipulating stuff that someone else made, but that He is the Creator Himself.

      I am astonished that anyone who claims to “believe in” Christ takes issue with the Pope saying that God is the Creator and doesn’t need a magic wand. I can’t think what you can mean by “believing in” Christ with that attitude.

  • Kerry Hall

    Sometimes I think that we as humans assume that” In the beginning” as stated in Genesis 1:1 was part of the same day that Genesis 1:2 speaks of as the first day. Scripture doesn’t tell us how much time passed between “In the beginning” and the evening and morning of the first day. All you have to do is read it, 2 verses, to see that this is the case. As far as GOD not being divine, most of us should have a problem with that one.

    Romans 1:20 clearly refers to His divine nature….”For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

    The term “BIG BANG” could mean anything and even though scripture doesn’t use it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen with a “BIG BANG.” Scripture tells us that all of creation is groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time…Romans 8:22…

    Who’s to say what creation sounded like or even looked like. We lack details in this line of thinking as far as scripture goes. If we believe scripture and take the account of creation literally as stated in Genesis, we have no idea how much time passed between “In the beginning” and the end of the first day and even though the word evolve or evolution doesn’t appear in scripture doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. GOD created and set it all in motion, He didn’t leave us detailed instructions on all of the ins and outs of it all. We have to take much of it on faith that He did what He said He did and quit fighting amongst ourselves as to the “how” of it all.

    God desires Unity among His people and anyone being divisive will have to deal with Him come judgement day.

    2 Chronicles 30:12 (NIV)
    Also in Judah the hand of God was on the people to give them unity of mind to carry out what the king and his officials had ordered, following the word of the Lord.
    Psalm 133:1
    How good and pleasant it is
    when God’s people live together in unity!
    John 17:23 (NIV)
    I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
    Romans 15:5-6 (NIV)
    May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Ephesians 4:3 (NIV)
    Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
    Ephesians 4:13
    until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
    Colossians 3:14 (NIV)
    And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

  • Javier MIranda L

    Oh Thank you Jesus we don’t need to believe Genesis 1 literally to be saved!!

  • ProudVeteran

    OM GOODNESS, That is a big horrible statement. I had trouble believing the Pope was a false Prophet, but I think I believe it now. What is even worse how so many other people believe everything he says is Holy! He was born from a Male and Female birth, he was not born of a virgin. His interpretation of Gods Holy Word and Science can not be intertwined together ever. This is amazing, this is going to really upset alot of devoted Catholic Christians, they now have to decide whos word to take. The Popes or Gods and Jesus. Let God teach you his word not a corrupt government disguised as a religious organization.

    • ssevce .

      Um Pope Benedict XVI said the same thing. Catholics aren’t afraid of the Truth, if proven by science. They are compatible with understanding this beautiful universe which God created. You have a very poor understanding of the Christ which Christ founded.

    • dianiline

      Catholic Christians will, as ever, continue to take God’s word as found in the Church and in the Scriptures. God is, as the Holy Father tells us, the Creator, not some mere magician deriving power from a magic wand. God is the source of all power.

      This is why we have a Church to guide us. Written word is always subject to misinterpretation.

  • Javier MIranda L

    I don’t think he contradicts it, that’s just the catholic interpretation

  • Javier MIranda L

    In the evangelical universe there are lots of different interpretations too

  • Brioli

    Speechless but not surprised….Welcome to the end folks. Unreal…Knowing their theories on evolution is less supported than creation…DEAR GOD come quick! Catholicism is an apostate and anti-Christ.

    • dianiline

      Brioli, you too deny that God is the Creator? You see God as merely a magician, who needs a magic wand “able to do anything” so that He can manipulate things?

      What powers the magic wand?

      • BreeZ44

        Do you try to argue from any position other than those based in logical fallacies? Do you know that logical fallacies are what people who are incapable of presenting facts to substantiate their positions sadly resort
        to? What you did in this instance, as you did in your similar asinine remark on my post is: you built a “straw man,” “avoided the issue,” and threw in a “red herring” too, in both cases using the minimum amount of wording, while it can be said, trying to cause the maximum amount of damage.

        There is a world of difference in sounding right, and being right, I hope you become more proficient at achieving the latter, than you perform the former.

        • dianiline

          BreeZ44, to answer your questions, yes, and yes.

          The Pope said that God is not a magician but the Creator, and for this you berate him wildly and Brioli concludes that Catholicism is anti-Christ.

          I have understood that you and Brioli present the “straw man” argument that “The Pope says that God is not ‘a magician…able to do everything'”, when actually the Pope says that God is not a magician, “with a magic wand able to do everything”. He goes on to say that God is the “Creator who gives being to all things”.

          That is, you misunderstand the Pope to say that God cannot do everything, where he actually said that God does not need a magic wand to do everything. You attack the position he did not take, because it is at odds with the position he actually did take, with which you agree.

          So by faulting him, you actually argue against your own position. It is this on which I have called you, and if you actually do agree that God is the omnipotent Creator, as I believe all Christians agree, then you owe the Pope and everybody else on the same side an apology, because you have just gone on record loudly asserting the opposite.

          But perhaps I am mistaken, and you do simply believe that God is just a magician, a demiurge, a created being manipulating the world which was here before he was created, and you believe that the Bible and even Christ Himself said these things.

          In that case, you might find that the term “Gnostic” better fits your own beliefs, rather than “Christian”.

          • BreeZ44

            So you are saying that God is incapable of making man without 3.5 billion years, give or take, of evolution? And therefore you MUST be calling him a liar because he gives no scriptural support for your assertion, but then again maybe you believe that God got it wrong while you and “Pope Francis” got it right? The Almighty God and Father of Jesus Christ who raised Jesus Christ his only Begotten Son after three days and three nights of his flesh being dead as a doornail needs 3.5 billion years to allow for the creation of man, in your opinion (oh I’m sorry I mean in the opinion that “Pope Francis” has formulated for you seeing how the “pope” says that if you do otherwise you are anathema)? Where is your scriptural support for this false doctrine, O that’s right you have none, other than what you parrot the “pope” saying and your “feelings”, the reason for that being BECAUSE THERE IS NONE TO BE FOUND FOR IT!

            Again, you sadly rely on fallacious logic rather than substantiation in your attempts to validate your claims; here are a few more of the logical fallacies you are committing: appealing to the authority of the pope rather than that of God, the fallacy of rationalization (you say that God could have used Darwinian evolution to create man, and your argument absurdly becomes one that “because he can then he did;” which is also a form of taking a stance on “subverted support,” because then by your same (il)logical conclusion you must assert that God may have indeed used a magic wand simply because he could have: do you see how silly your argument sounds now?), and then you revert right back to the “straw man” and the “red herring” in your assertion “But perhaps I am mistaken, and you do simply believe that God is just a magician, a demiurge, a created being manipulating the world which was here before he was created, and you believe that the Bible and even Christ Himself said these things.” Which are words you are trying to put into my mouth, another fallacy present in your so-called logic, and it goes on and on in that manner with you: there is no substance in your vain attacks and your disagreements which are not with me but with the scriptures…

            God is not the God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) but you certainly are, or try to be at least, but its just that you are a blind follower of the blind wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15) that is leading you straight into the ditch (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39) along side him: the “pope,” your “Holy Father.” What blasphemy!

            Take heed of the scriptures all of which are in support of the subverted state of the pope and his doctrines that are against God rather than in agreement with him. Remember the pope is the one who, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses “leaders”, says that you are incapable of understanding the the scriptures without his interpretation of them: which is no longer Christianity, but a cult by definition; instead of arriving at the simplicity that is Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). He is the same man that recently came out saying that homosexuals have much to offer the church when the scriptures clearly state otherwise (1 Timothy 1:10). He is the same man that allows other idolaters to worship in the Vatican alongside him and his misguided flock to help bring about “Ecumenism” (2 Corinthians 6:14). He is the same pope that help to cover-up pedophilia within his ranks, and then pays his churches’ (not Christ’s church because Christ’s Church are his believers) victims off to keep them silent (Titus 1:11). He is the same man that tells people to pray to saints rather to God the Father in the name of the only begotten Son Jesus Christ (Philippians 4:6; Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2; Ephesians 6:18), who is the only mediator as it is written in 1 Timothy 2:5 between God and men. And like your confusion, the pope’s, and the catholic churches’, perversion of Biblical doctrine, and their support for the such, goes on and on and on…

            But I suspect that regardless of all the mounting evidence to prove that your idol is nothing more than a man deceiving the masses, and boy does he sure have you deceived, you will continue to rationalize your position and continue to follow a man that you believe to infallible rather than following, not me for I am but another mere man (although I present you not with my opinions but the words of God given to us through the Holy Bible; not the words of a mere man such as the pope), but the infallible God who reveals himself to all through his words contained in the Holy scriptures…

            You are unreasonable, and you will be found measured and wanting because you fail to adhere to scripture. In Isaiah 1:18 God said, Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. But with your unreasonableness you will be unable to do so, because you will require the pope (your god) to confirm for you what the God of gods who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) is saying.

          • dianiline

            BreeZ44, I follow God, and He has brought me into the Church, and I am obligated to follow Him and the Shepherd whom He has appointed.

            You continue to misrepresent the simple statement of the Pope, that God is the Creator and does not need a magic wand with some power outside of Himself. God is all-powerful. You cannot refute this statement of the Pope and then claim I am putting words in your mouth when I attribute to you the opposite statement: “God is not the Creator but has a magic wand which enables him to do everything”. You either agree with the Pope that God is omnipotent, or else you claim that God is not omnipotent.

            You berate the Pope for his opinion, and then accuse me of straw-man argument for attacking your opposite opinion. If you do not hold the opinion opposite to that of the Pope, you must agree with him–and then why would you berate him for agreeing with you?

          • BreeZ44

            We are not supposed to follow opinions, but rather the Truth. It is not God’s opinion that he manifested himself into the personage that we know today as Jesus Christ. It is not God’s opinion when he says that whosoever shall believe in him will have eternal life. It is not God’s opinion that he resurrected Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead, etc…. It is not God’s opinion that he saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fire of the furnace that Nebuchadnezzar had them thrown into for not giving him their worship, but chose to worship God instead of the mere man that was made king by God. It is not God’s opinion that he parted the sea for Moses and the Israelites. It is not God’s opinion that he is the God of prophecy that has revealed for us the ending from the beginning. Etc…, etc…, etc…. He is a God of Truth, not of opinions.

            You continue to commit logical fallacies which are causing you to misrepresent the argument, and are also causing you to arrive at the wrong conclusion. The one you commit here is known as “begging the question,” in which you assume the conclusion in your premise: i.e. If I disagreed with the pope for saying that evolution is true because according to him, “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the creator who brought everything to life, and that evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation,
            because evolution requires the creation of things that evolve.” that I must therefore believe that God is not the creator is an error in your arriving at a logical conclusion.

            The pope’s statement is reminiscent of the wile that Satan used to beguile Eve in the Garden of Eden, leading her to question what God said to her, through his insidious statement in Genesis 3, verse 1, where he said to her, “Hath God said,” which led her to doubt what was said by God. The pope is using the same subtilty by telling people to question whether the same God that could raise children to Abraham from stones in fact said that he made man from the dust, and woman from the rib of Adam.

            Matthew 19:And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 20 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (which are also the verses that show that God did not make man and woman to be homosexual)

            Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

            Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (did man evolve a spirit too?)

            Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (man did not evolve neither spirit nor soul)

            I mean you continue to accuse me that I am limiting what God is conceptually possible of doing, which is referred to as projection, because in fact it is you that is limiting what God is capable of doing by saying he had to do according to man rather than according to God, and then attempting to project that onto me; I do not change God’s account creation, I am not the one that is doubting what God can do, you are the one doubting his description of it through the scriptures.

            2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any
            means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds
            should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

            Lastly, I will leave you with this from the book of Ephesians:
            Chapter 6, verse10, Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might (the might of the Lord not of the pope, and by the way pope is not scriptural; it is a man made invention for one man to govern over others, claiming himself to be divine while denying God his divinity, as made evident by “pope Francis”). And verse 11, Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

            I pray that the God and Father of Jesus Christ opens your eyes before you end up in the same ditch as the blind guide that is leading you into the pit along with so many others, in the name of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

          • dianiline

            There are issues on which one can hold a spectrum of beliefs, and in these, one may refute one particular belief without making clear one’s own position. The issue of whether God is omnipotent, or needs a crutch (a “magic wand capable of doing everything”) is not like this. It is a dichotomy; a yes/no question; you either believe God *is* omnipotent, or you must believe that He is not.

          • BreeZ44

            Obviously you’re not reading the posts but are just repeating yourself instead. God is omnipotent and therefore does not require evolution to be the mechanism to create man, thus it is you, who by taking the position of your pope, have through your argument without even realizing made a claim that negates the very fact of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It would be laughable it wasn’t so sad that you cannot realize what is wrong with what you are saying.

            You both defend, and make sense of the pope’s heresy to yourself, because, as you call him, your “Holy Father” the pope, or your “Shepherd” the pope said something and so you blindly follow him rather than the only true Holy Father which is the God and Father of the chief Shepherd which is Jesus Christ; who is the only one that I will follow like a sheep to the slaughter, as it is written, For his sake we are killed all the day long (Romans 8:36). You address the pope as your god and are so unaware of the fact that you do that you don’t even notice your error in something that should be so basic that it reveals the extent of your troubled condition; but God can help you.

            You don’t even understand enough about why the Lord’s titles are in capitals and man’s titles are not; i.e. the Lord (Jesus Christ) of lords (referring to any man with the title lord), the chief Shepherd (Jesus Christ)…

            God bless you, and may he guide you away from the wolf in sheep’s clothing that you are lost following, in our Lord Jesus’ name. Amen.

  • Jessica

    I am all for a debate, but geez, this is silly. God doesn’t go by denominations. All TRUE believers in Christ and what He did at the Cross as written in the Word are a part of HIS Church. Please stop fighting! Protestants, Baptists Catholics, it doesn’t matter!! The only thing that matters is if a person believes in his or her heart that Jesus is the Son of God as the BIBLE states, then He is our High Priest!!!

  • Suntan

    From..Isaiah 55:8~11….who can put words on what HE does? Religions r based on their accepted revealations….which s true, which r not…..when my time comes….I’ll ask my creator……..

  • Richard Smith

    look up the definition of a cult , he fits the bill . What do you expect

    • Guest

      You are so right Richard I’d rather go to your church.

    • Guest

      Yes Richard I’d rather go to your church.

    • ssevce .

      Yes I would rather go to your church Richard.

  • BreeZ44

    This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15), a blind man who
    is leading the blind that follow him into the same ditch he himself is
    heading to fall into (Matthew 15:14), a hypocrite who is making men two
    fold a child of hell than he himself is through his consistent attempted
    undermining of the Bible and its teachings (Matthew 23:15)! By his
    claim that God cannot create life “like a magician with a magic wand” he
    is calling Jesus is a liar implicitly, and through subtilty, albeit
    indirectly like the coward that he is, operating as a true child of the
    devil, an enemy of righteousness, who ceases not to pervert the ways of
    the Lord (Acts 13:10): for I say unto you, as Jesus said before, that
    God is able to raise children to Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9; Luke
    3:8); that doesn’t sound like “Darwinian evolution” is required at all,
    does it? God is magic: true magic; not so-called “magic” used by men to
    deceive other men, or for the purpose of entertainment (Exodus 7:10-12).

    What is this heretick that must be rejected (Titus 3:10) going to attack
    next, the veracity and validity of the resurrection of the Son of God
    which was witnessed by the apostles and others (Acts 4:33), because
    science falsely so called says it is not possible for the resurrection
    to occur (1 Timothy 6:20)? Is he going to infer that Jesus is a liar,
    again, by denying that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, who himself is
    the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), will raise the dead (John
    11:24), some of which will be resurrected unto eternal life, and some of
    which will be resurrected unto eternal damnation (John 5:29)?

    • ssevce .

      Why is this so discomforting? As a Christian one should not be afraid of the Truth. If the theory of evolution is correct,would that change your belief in Christ?

      • Neiman

        It would mean God lied and as God has no motive to lie, even saying He cannot lie; then if evolution were true, if all life resulted from random mutations and cosmic accidents over time, then God cannot exist at all as He lied.

        • ssevce .

          How would that show that God lied? Evolution des not eliminate the existence of God, who remains the one who set all of creation into motion. God’s existence does not contradict the discoveries of science. My relationship with Christ is based on the personal relationship with him. So what if evolution turns out to be the Truth? As a Christian you should be be afraid of the truth.

          • Neiman

            If He said that He created all things in 6-literal days and yet it turns out He used evolution over billions of years – He lied; but, He did create all things in 6 literal days and He cannot lie, so that is the end of that.

            Let me ask you, why would God through evolution allow many mutations, waste and deaths to get to a perfect model, when He could just create it perfectly, out of nothing, instantly, in the first place? Why would he take the evolutionary path through waste, death and imperfect, failed experiments, when it was not necessary? How could your god, notice the lower case “g,” ever create or cause to be created, anything less than His own perfect Nature would demand?

            Evolution cannot ever be proven the truth, if you mean between kinds and random mutations over time, so I don’t worry about it.

            I never said God’s existence negates scientific discovery of scientific data; real Christians know God made all scientific laws and all your secular humanist friends can do is dissover His laws. What I reject is their secular humanist, atheist interpretations of that data.

          • ssevce .

            I never said he lied you did. I’m not here to debate the merits or pitfalls of evolution or any other theory of creation for that matter. All I’m saying is why does it even matter if those theories prove to be truth. Would that cause your faith in God to waver? I hope not. And I agree with you I reject secular humanist, atheist interpretations of that data too. And if you read what the Pope really said to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding these theories he agrees with you too.

          • Neiman

            I never said God lied, I said that was the clear implication of His stating He created all things in 6 literal days in Genesis and the Pope and you saying He did it over billions of years via evolution.

            Why would God use evolution, a long, messy, decidedly imperfect process involving countless mutations, waste and deaths, when He could just create it all instantly and perfectly in the first place?

          • ssevce .

            Good question and that is why we have science to explore the mysteries of the universe. Many scientific studies have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator. I’m not limiting what God cannot do, you are.

          • Neiman

            I believe in God, you do not.

          • dianiline

            Neiman, I think you are wrong about ssevce, but I am astonished, again, that you would make such a statement which you cannot know to be true, and which is almost certainly false.

            You speak of God lying, or not, but you come dangerously close to lying yourself, here. This does not serve or glorify God.

          • Neiman

            It is precisely because this person denies God’s Word in Genesis, as does the Pope, in essence accusing God of lying to His people, of deceiving them with a fairy tale of Divine Creation in 6 literal days that I assert most strongly he and the Pope and all like them cannot truly believe in God. Oh, they kind of believe God exists, but even demons believe He exists and like them this person, the Pope and all like them deny God by saying he would lead His people astray and allow them to stay thus deceived for thousands of years by believing God created all things in 6 days, while all the time He is actually the Author of evolution, not direct Divine Creation.

            If he, the Pope and all like them truly believed in God, they would submit to His Word alone and not the false teachings of men. My statement stands.

          • dianiline

            The Pope certainly doesn’t deny God’s Word in Genesis, nor, I believe, does ssevce. It is only your own interpretation that is refuted. You are all kinds of messed up with the demons, my friend, in adding on all of this debris to the simple truth of what one needs to be saved. You claim that if you’re not right, and indeed, if God does not rearrange the universe to suit your understanding, then He is a liar, and in fact, He can’t exist.

            Only an atheist would think that evolution is not direct Divine Creation.

            In your assertion that the Pope and I should submit to the Word of God alone, and not the false teachings of men, you warn us duly to ignore you.

          • dianiline

            Neiman, I continue to wonder why you maintain the atheist interpretation that evolution requires waste and failed experiments. That is as much as to say that a dead child represents a failed experiment on the part of God. Clearly every species that arose and became extinct did so in God’s time and for His purposes, just as every child who dies, at least of natural causes, without reaching maturity does so in God’s time and for His purposes.

            Why not create everything all at once and perfect? Who knows? Why question God? Maybe it’s more fun this way. It’s certainly more fun for *us* this way. You think that if God allows things to evolve, He has lied to us and deceived us. If you come to my place and I show you a big oak tree, and tell you I put that tree there, will you think I’ve lied later on when you find that I actually put an acorn in the ground there, and the tree grew from it?

            Since your faith economy depends upon God not having “lied” to us in Genesis, I point out gently that if the earth was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago (which is certainly possible, but it doesn’t look that way), then God has pretty well deceived us in the other direction with the fossil record and the evidence of carbon decay and the size and behavior of the universe.

            I don’t much care; I love Him anyway, he has created and redeemed me and I’m His girl, however old the universe and however much I misinterpret what He has, in kindness, said to me.

            You appear ready to throw Him under the bus, if He doesn’t conform in every possible way with your expectations.

      • BreeZ44

        No fairytale, such as Darwinian evolution, will ever change my belief in Jesus Christ; I follow the Truth, not lies, no matter how cunningly devised they are. It is however a subtle, yet obvious attempt, at undermining other scriptures through the gateway that this absurd claim opens up for anyone who deceived by it. Next Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is also known as “Pope Francis,” may perhaps attack the account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by saying that the science, so called, which he subscribes to also says that resurrection is an impossibility. He may try to concoct some argument, like many others have, trying to say that resurrection was no resurrection at all but a mistake in the accounting of the events surrounding it, in the same manner that he is trying to undermine the account of creation. The god that he is trying to describe is not the Almighty God which we are given account of by the Bible, it is a false god that “science” is trying to reduce the true Almighty God to, or even worse the god of this world (Satan: 2 Corinthians 4:4) who indeed is not almighty, and is merely the agent through which evil, sin, iniquity, and transgression have been manifested through.

        I hope that the truth isn’t discomforting to you, and that you are not afraid of it, because the Truth is Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of Almighty God, and who he makes free is free indeed (John 8:36).

        • ssevce .

          I believe in Jesus Christ as well, that is not what I was asking. Just because someone believes that evolution could be true, does not exclude one from believing in Christ. The question is if evolution is true/or some other theory of creation – that does not mean that God does not exist and the that the creation story is wrong. According to you that would mean God does not exist.

          • BreeZ44

            That is your declaration, not being mine. God will always exist, regardless if you believe that he doesn’t have the power to make man from dust, or the integrity to share his honest account of how he indeed created man. Do you not know that there are two immutable things in all of God’s creation, and one of those is that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Are you calling God a liar? Do you not believe our Lord Jesus Christ when he said that God could raise children unto Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8)? Let God be true, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4).

          • dianiline

            BreeZ44, “spontaneously” is the scientific term for “by the hand of God”.

          • BreeZ44

            Only according to the dictionary of dainiline; meanwhile for the rest of the world, and according to how the author of the article intended to use the word spontaneous, it means – (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.

            Lady, you need to remove the beam from your eye before trying to remove the mote from the eye of another (Matthew 7:5); and stop straining gnats while you are swallowing the camel that has stepped, unawares to you, onto your plate (Matthew 23:24).

          • dianiline

            I call you, BreeZ44, to a higher understanding. Scientists are not all Christians, though historically most of them have been, at least in the Western world.

          • BreeZ44

            What?

          • BreeZ44

            There is no point to continue on in our discussion, if it can even be called that, you continue to make claims and neglect to provide any substantiation for them: like here that you claim that I am refuting “my claims” without realizing it; the irony here is that I am siting scripture, which are not my claims, while you continue to site your feeling, and the pope’s teachings ate best.

          • dianiline

            I have never cited my feelings about anything here, and you have not cited Scripture in any meaningful way. Nor is there any point in trying to convince one another through quotation from Scripture, because we both have read the same Scripture, and yet we disagree.

            The Pope says that God is not a magician, needing a magic wand to wield a power outside Himself, and you deride him for this, which can only mean that you think that God *is* a mere magician, needing a magic wand to do things. Yet you argue against this, claiming that God can do anything. That is, you deride the Pope for saying what you say yourself. Thus whichever side you actually agree with, you oppose it, either when you refute the Pope’s position, or when you propound it as your own.

          • BreeZ44

            No, what you have not sited is ANY scripture whatsoever, ipso facto, you are entirely basing your opinions on your assumptions, on how you “feel,” rather than presenting facts with substantiation; perhaps it is because you subscribe to the false doctrine of the catholic church, and that of the pope, which states that without them no man can understand the scriptures, which is laughable; because men have been understanding the scriptures LONG BEFORE the pope and the catholic church!

            This is the last time I will state this to you, just because I do not agree with the pope doesn’t by any means whatsoever mean that I take the position that God is not omnipotent; that is FALLACIOUS LOGIC: it is called a FALSE CORRELATION! It is as incorrect as saying that because I don’t agree with homosexuals for their choice of lifestyle that therefore I must hate them; THAT IS ABSURD! But yet that is the erroneous argument which you continue to repeatedly present.

      • Gary

        If evolution is true, it means Jesus was wrong when he talked about the creation. The Bible teaches everything was made by God in six days. Not enough time for evolution to happen.

        • ssevce .

          That is not what I’m asking.

    • dianiline

      So…wait, let me get this straight…in your opinion, BreeZ44, God is *not* the Creator, but merely a magician who needs a magic wand to manipulate stuff that is already there?

      You think Jesus said this too? So that in asserting that God is the Creator, needing no magic wand, the Pope contradicts Christ.

      • BreeZ44

        Let me get this straight dianiline, is that what you comprehended from what you have read? If so then you sadly failed to comprehend what is said through my post. Try to avoid the logical fallacy of “cherry picking” pieces of the post, and try asserting yourself to comprehend its message.What is said through the post is very clear, as clear as the message of the Lord for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. God bless you in our Lord Jesus’ name.

        p.s. My opinion is as irrelevant as yours when it comes to the divinity of God, and the truth he has revealed to us; who is indeed the creator of all things by Jesus Christ, whom is his image and is only begotten Son, who is one with the Father, and again, by whom all things are created (Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:13-17; John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11, Ephesians 1:9). Now you can continue to try to argue the scriptures by arguing with me, but it will neither change me nor the scriptures, and apparently your problem may not be with me, but rather with the scriptures.

        • dianiline

          Pope Francis said that God is not a mere magician, needing a magic wand to do things. For this, you have said he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a blind man, and a hypocrite–thus you must believe that this simple truth that he asserts is wrong. So you must believe that God *is* a mere magician, not the Creator of all as the Pope says.

          I know that is not what you thought you said. But it is what you said. It is you who sadly fail to comprehend what is said through your post, but that is because with your eyes of hate you misread the simple teaching of the Holy Father. As I expect you always do.

          Pope Francis says that God is the Creator. You disagree with him. You had better examine your heart.

          • BreeZ44

            I know what is written and it MUST be your misinterpretation that is leading to your confusion on the matter. Your confusion is further revealed by your referring to a mere man as your “Holy Father.” A man who is clearly undermining scriptural doctrine, as you are doing also: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven (Matthew 23:9). God is infallible, not a man who pompously parades around, a pretentious man who is misleading people like yourself who rather have someone else tell them what is written in the scriptures rather reading them for your self.

            When Jesus said that God could raise children to Abraham from stones, does that sound to you like God, who is Almighty, requires Darwinian evolution to accomplish such a feat? I mean he only raised Jesus from the dead, maybe you are saying that creating man from dust would be too hard for him to do? Are you calling Jesus a liar, the infallible Son of God who is the manifestation of God into flesh, rather than calling your idol “Pope Francis” wrong? You need to repent from your idolatry, and turn to our Lord who said through his Holy Scriptures, Let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4).

            You are the one truly in need of examining your heart, seeing as to how you are in agreement with man instead of God! The scriptures say in Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in
            the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, and in Acts 5:29, Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men; but you would know that if you read the scriptures rather than listening to a man whom you have blindly deified; whom you have made into a god unto you; whom the God and Father of Jesus Christ told us through his prophet Jeremiah to issue this warning to, Thus shall ye say to them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens (Jeremiah 10:11).

          • dianiline

            God can create humans from stones. God can create humans from dust. God can create humans through eons of evolution, perhaps still from dust. No one has said that He “requires” Darwinian evolution for anything; you merely deny Him the power to have used it, and I don’t deny Him anything.

            I do not call Jesus a liar; in my faith in Him I am willing to follow His man Francis, knowing that the Great Shepherd will not fault the sheep for following the little shepherd in whose care He has left them.

            In any case, Francis has not said anything here contradictory to Scripture. You want me to agree with you, rather than with Francis, when he makes sense and you don’t, and when he has authority from God and you don’t.

            You are thus asking me to agree with a man (you), and ignore the plain teaching of God given through Scripture and the Church. And you cite a passage of Scripture that tells me to do exactly the opposite.

          • BreeZ44

            Okay, the picture becomes clearer and clearer with the more you say. You are one of these “New Age believers” who do not have to know the scriptures because you are governed by your heart (which is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things, as the scripture says in Jeremiah 17:9) and your “feelings” in matters scriptural. You have no foundation to stand on but that of what you “feel” to be true rather than that which God has revealed to be true.

            You are confused, and site no scriptures to support you “feelings.” Your heart will lead you, as the hearts of many others have lead them, down the broad way, to the wide gait that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13)! Quit following your heart and start following Jesus Christ. I sincerely pray that you do, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

          • dianiline

            I am of the Old Age of believers. And I have no heart.

            I follow God alone because I can do no other. You keep reading Scripture; it will lead you home in the end.

  • The Truth

    People forgot that it is this same pope advocating for same sex men to men, women to women, which the bible against. Thank God for the Catholic bishops who came out last week to say No to the nonsense. If men want to do whatever they can go ahead but the word of God does not support those things. Pope is wrong and he contradicts the word of God.

    • dianiline

      The Pope does not advocate for same-sex relationships. The Church teaches that these are gravely disordered. However the persons who are in them are to be treated with respect and dignity, the same as any other sinners.

  • Foxwolf

    The next thing you no they will say Peter was the first pope !!!

    • dianiline

      Well, he was.

  • Palmer Granite

    .
    Not As Bad As Jim Bakker

    Apparently Christians are lazy,
    Their belief in “the Word” a bit hazy,
    Since they’ve not really read,
    They are easily lead,
    By clowns that are really quite crazy.

    Rhymbo

    • dianiline

      Hence the “reformation” and the thousands of “denominations”.

  • Chrissy Vee

    ♪ Do do do do do do do do ♫… We have now entered…. the Twighlight Zone.

    • Chrissy Vee

      oopsy… Twilight… always ruining a good laugh. 😀 Cheeeeeze!

  • Alexis Muyenga

    I think God created a human to respect he’s imagination. we are Christian and our reference is a bible, in Leviticus no one can do sex with animal or with same one in the same sex is mean those they are do so must fired them. And Elton john can’t use his intention to make it right. Pope can make a mistake because is a human.

  • simonqx

    Wait… The Pope… head of the Catholic church.. actually said, “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,”So, am I misunderstanding this? He doesn’t believe God can do EVERYTHING? What kind of God are they worshiping, over there?

    • dianiline

      He doesn’t believe God needs a magic wand. He believes that God “is the Creator who gives being to all things”.

      We are worshiping the Most High God, who is, and was, and ever shall be, Yahweh, Jehovah, the Holy Trinity, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.

      • simonqx

        “he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”” – you can’t pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible.

        • dianiline

          That was not the Pope. That was the papal astronomer, Guy Consolmagno.

          Believing the Bible does not require literal interpretation either. The Bible gives the value of pi as 3, when it is 3.14159265 (to nine significant figures). However the value of pi is only an incidental point in the Bible; also the nuts and bolts of Creation are incidental. The important thing is that God created us, and He loves us, and we owe to Him all of our love and devotion.

  • http://www.thelighterburden.blogspot.com Tani C

    The pope says, ““When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so”. So the pope has managed to reduce our Almighty God to a magician if He created the world in 6 literal days?? Did he really say that? And are Catholics defending this blasphemous man? And the guy with the Vatican Observatory says it’s blasphemous to believe in a young earth creation? That is calling evil good and good evil. God have mercy on those who claim to be of Him and yet are leading millions astray for they are more dangerous than those who are obviously not believers. These, however, are cunning for they mix a little truth with a lie. Jesus referred to them as white-washed sepulchers.

  • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

    Kudos to the Pope. I applaud his bravery in suggesting that the Church should sever the the millstone of ignorance from its neck, pull its head out of the sands of the pre-science 12th century, and join the 21st.

    To the biblical literalists in the Church, I will remind you of Friar Gregor Mendel, founding father of the science of genetics. He solved THE major objection that haunted Darwin’s evolutionary theory of speciation by natural selection–how traits are passed on from generation to generation and how new species rise.

    You should be proud of Mendel, the Pope, and others in the Church who possessed true intellectual curiosity, had the courage to question the mechanics of natural phenomena and accept the results of the scientific method, regardless of old Church teachings.

    It is a most difficult thing to question the beliefs one has been taught to believe. I know because I went through it.

    Faith is belief in the truth of a proposition where there is no evidence to the contrary. Blind faith is belief in the truth of a proposition even in the face of a mountain of objective evidence against it.

  • ppp777

    There is really not much point adding to these posts , it is just a great pity that people have thrown back the great blessings God has given this modern world , a great pity .

    • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

      Like the blessing of the ability to use rational, logical thought and understand the reality of human evolution as confirmed through the scientific method? I agree. It is a pity.

      • ppp777

        If you call that rational thought , then its no wonder this world is cursed .

        • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

          Logic 101: If all the world believed in the truth of a proposition, the collective weight of all that belief, without objective evidence, would lend not a nanogram of fact to the proposition.

          Objective Fact:

          One’s religious beliefs are most often a function of what one was taught to believe from tothood. Had you been born to a fundamentalist Muslim family–especially in a predominantly Muslim society–you would have been taught to be a fundamentalist Muslim, believing in radical Islam just a fervently as you now believe Christianity. Nothing –not even cannonballs of logic–would dissuade you from your belief in the righteousness and truth of Islam.

          I know that the logic of the last paragraph will escape the true believer because the fact will simply be ignored, or denied, or redefined when one’s mind approaches cognitive dissonance (a state of stress caused by the realization that one believes that both sides of a contradiction are true). Thus, one will never allow himself to seriously and honestly consider the contradiction.

          To deny the objective fact that I laid out is to run away from focusing on its logic because of the fear that it might destroy the beliefs upon which you’ve built your life.

          • Gerald Moore

            It’s actually quite amazing how the brain rationalizes such contradictions. Excellent post. I am becoming more and more convinced that critical thinking skills should be a requirement at the high school level and certainly be a prerequisite for any college degree. The reasons folks are opposed to such classes in high school is quite obvious and why folks fear sending their children to college where such things might be taught.

          • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

            Thank you and well said. I agree completely with courses in critical thinking at the high school level. If I had my way, I would add the history of world religions as well.

            It wasn’t until after high school and during Army Individual Training that I realized the logic of what I wrote to ppp777. That understanding drove me to eventually enroll in college and study philosophy, world religions, and paleoanthropology I’d love to see everyone learning this much earlier in life than I.

        • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

          Logic 101: If all the world believed in the truth of a proposition, the collective weight of all that belief, without objective evidence, would lend not a nanogram of fact to the proposition.

          Objective Fact:

          One’s religious beliefs are most often a function of what one was taught to believe from tothood. Had you been born to a fundamentalist Muslim family–especially in a predominantly Muslim society–you would have been taught to be a fundamentalist Muslim, believing in radical Islam just a fervently as you now believe Christianity. Nothing –not even cannonballs of logic–would dissuade you from your belief in the righteousness and truth of Islam.

          I know that the logic of the last paragraph will escape the true believer because the fact will simply be ignored, or denied, or redefined when one’s mind approaches cognitive dissonance (a state of stress caused by the realization that one believes that both sides of a contradiction are true). Thus, one will never allow himself to seriously and honestly consider the contradiction.

          To deny the objective fact that I laid out is to run away from focusing on its logic because of the fear that it might destroy the beliefs upon which you’ve built your life.

      • ppp777

        It is demonic remarks like that just proves my point .

        • http://maxfur.com/ Max T. Furr

          Hmm, a response straight out of the 13th century. Couldn’t be better said by Pope Gregory IX himself.

          • ppp777

            It is true never the less especially now .

      • Fallenman4Jesus

        As a scientist I beg you for some evidence of evolution! I mean, a change of one “kind” to another “kind” as satan would have you believe. There is natural selection within a species, but it’s absolutely ridiculous to think a tree can become a bear, or whatever….The scientific method involves OBSERVATION – so what are you talking about here friend, there is no observed evolution. It’s a theory, and a bad one.

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

          Sorry, but your comment demonstrates that you are not a fully informed “scientist.” One can have a doctorate in electronics, but still be completely ignorant of most other sciences. Dr. Behe certainly demonstrates this truism.

          Years ago I was in your Jesus camp, but then I began to question some things in the Bible that did not comport with what I had been taught to believe.

          While in the military, I had an argument with an evolutionist, and reflecting with intellectual curiosity, I had to admit that I didn’t know diddly squat about evolution.

          That was my awakening to my own ignorance in the mechanics of evolution–and science in general. I knew that in order to effectively argue against a proposition, I must actually know the nature of the proposition as understood by those so advocating.

          The final blow to my self-righteousness came as a consequence of my own logic. After an attempt by three Mormons to convert me to Mormonism, I asked them; How do you know that you are right? All three said that they knew in their heart they were right.

          I answered ~Well, so do the Jews, the Hindu, the Muslims, the Buddhists, and the Catholics. They all “know” in their hearts that they are right.

          After taking my leave from them, I was bothered by something I’d said, so I thought about my answer to them and delved a bit deeper. It suddenly dawned on me that my response to their heart-felt “knowledge” applied to me as well. I had no more reason to believe I had the sacred truth than any other person of any other religion.

          The logical conclusion was irrefutable. The reason I believed as I did was because that is what I was taught to believe from tothood–and that is why virtually every person of every religion believes his to be the “Truth” and that all others are false.

          It was then that I decided to enroll in college and formally study philosophy, world religions, and evolutionary science.
          ——————
          Your view of “observation” is rather shallow (no condescension meant). Neither you, nor I, have to see a process happening to know it has happened. You say that you are a scientist. You should know this even if you were not. When ones sees animal footprints in the dirt, he intuitively knows that an animal walked through.

          Same with the fossil record. That record, together with research, shows that every species on Earth at any given time in history, is a snapshot of a transitional species (even humans, if one includes genetic drift since the rise of homo Sapiens and projects to the distant future).

          You believe that Genesis is factual. How do you “know” that? Not only did you not observe it happening, but you have no objective evidence that it did, in fact, happen.

          The scientific method, as you should know, also includes hypotheses, predictions, tests, verification of the prediction (verification or falsification), publication, and the independent verification or falsification by other scientists (scientist love to refute the hypotheses of other scientists).

          Only after many years of predictions and verifications may a hypothesis be accepted as a theory (and, that is definitely not “just a theory” as the science-ignorant public thinks).

          A scientific theory is called a theory (not proof) because, ideally, it is always open to contradictory evidence, but not contradictory belief.

  • HazumuOsaragi

    RE: This articles’ comments thread;

    “Not my circus. Not my monkeys.” -Polish proverb.

  • John

    Beloved, God created man in his own image; he did not evolve from a rock, or primordial slime. In the Hebrew, God clearly said there was evening and there was morning the first day, second day, etc. God says in six literal days he created everything in heaven and on earth and on the seventh day he rested, ceased from creating. God would not make countless mistakes, death and suffering and call it “good” and that would put death before sin. The bible says sin brought death; evolution says innumerable deaths and mutations brought life. It is the devil’s crazy lie (Romans 1:18-27), fairy tale: the idea that the whole universe created itself from nothing, all life as complex and incredibly designed as it is created itself from nonliving matter, a frog became a prince and somehow we got a unique male and female of everyone of each of the countless species. God told Job to behold, observe Behemoth and Leviathan (see Job 40:15 – Job 41:34), enormous dinosaurs; these were obviously dinosaurs; the latter of these breathed fire. They were called dragons back then. There are very old paintings in caves and on Ica stones, carvings and tapestries of dinosaurs. The Chinese had a dragon keeper and there are many legions and sightings of dragons in history. Conditions were different before the flood so people lived much longer. You can clearly add up the dates in Genesis and it is clear the earth is young about 6000 years old and about 4400 years ago there was a great flood that probably caused the Grand Canyon. Clams are found many embedded on the highest mountains in the closed position (they open when they die). God gave Adam and Eve a garden fully prepared for them. From the evidence we have found, there was a lot more oxygen and twice the air pressure and probably some kind of canopy of water vapor to help protect everything from radiation and water underneath the crust of the earth before the flood. God stretched out the heavens so we had continual light from the stars and fully formed fruit trees and Adam and Eve were fully formed. Many popes appeared to be Godly men, but this pope who endorses man’s doctrine of evolution and condones homosexuality which God despises as a way of life to innocent, impressionable children is greatly deceived and should not be in the position he is in. There is so much evidence for the bible, intelligent design, a young earth and the flood. We can count on the authenticity of the bible. Although, some translations have been altered to conform to evolution (for example, it may say in Genesis one day, another day or a first day, a second day rather than the first day, the second day as it should say). The bible is the only proven accurate historical and geological source, prophesies fulfilled without error, supported by writings outside of the bible which confirm its truth and accuracy and all the books of the bible are consistent even though they were written by different authors, during different time periods and different locations. God Bless You.

  • EdWalton

    If we can prove creation took eight days, there’s no reason to believe any promise in scripture.

  • John Mark IB

    faithsaves. net
    icr. org

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    And God said, “Let the earth bring forth after its kind,” opens the door for the possibility of evolution occurring due to the fact that “Let” is not a creative act but a permissive one. While I believe that “Modern Man” was specially created in the image of God, it is likely that early humans evolved from a common ancestor. The magician with a wand statement was clearly off due to the fact that God could speak anything into existence, however he seems to be saying that God didn’t do it that way.

  • Found One

    Bible readers fail to see that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, so let’s not blame the Pope.