If there is no God. Then someone explain life.

[Baruch]

Does anybody here believe in the devil. Or is that made up as well.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

There is one G-d, not two gods.  This world is clearly going to Hell, so the Devil must be real .... but then that means G-d is the Devil.  Ever see Time Bandits?  The character playing G-d is quite pleased with his sock-puppet ... the Devil.

[g2perk]

There is one G-d, not two gods.  This world is clearly going to Hell, so the Devil must be real .... tut then that means G-d is the Devil.  Ever see Time Bandits?  The character playing G-d is quite pleased with his sock-puppet ... of the Devil.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? I'm confused.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Didn't you just read what I wrote? I'm confused.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Postings are non-linear.  I am responding to something I missed, several days ago.

[g2perk]

Cool

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

I can't understand when people talk as if they know there is no God or Higher power.  But yet can't explain the natural phenomena that happens everyday in front of them.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

'
Going back to the first post ...

There is one power.  No higher, no lower.  And no need for explanations.  You eat, your body digests.  Explanations will not help you in your daily life.  You only need to pay attention to your body and feed it when it is hungry, with food you can digest.  Even a cave man can do it!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The link

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Excellent unbiased source.

[g2perk]

Excellent unbiased source.

I really enjoyed that. I learned a lot.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Solomon and everyone here I want to apologize.

The man The Reverend Monsignor George Lemaitre, was a Genius. He was the best if both worlds a Scientist and Theologian.  Mr. Lemaitre did not dispute the existence if God he embraced it along with his passion for research. I admire that, and now appreciate his theory. These are Quotes from him:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity

The following quote demonstrates a position held by Lemaître that theologians are more responsible for the church-science divide than the scientists:

Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.34



Monsignor Georges Lemaître has made numerous, lasting contributions to the modern world; to quote Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research. In these respects we must rate Lemaître's cosmology of the highest caliber."40Perhaps his greatest gift was the witness he gave as a Catholic priest, living every day the life of the mind and spirit, doing cutting edge science alongside his priestly duties. In every regard, he was unique. His life gives testament to the fact that when one trusts in God, giving one's life as a total gift, the Lord does wonderful things.41


The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned.

Comments anyone....[emoji6]

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

That is a good cut and paste, g2.  But I bet you understand little of what the man said.

Here is a quote from your quote:
'Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.'

What do the words 'authoritative', 'salvation' or 'doctrine' mean?  Do you know?

[Solomon Zorn]

This is not sound reasoning:

The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses

This statement makes assumptions about the Bible - namely, that it is the final authority on Salvation. It's not just science, but history that disagrees with the Bible. So what justification is there for believing it?

[g2perk]

He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.


Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.


Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I don't like so called authorities, so I ignore both.

[Solomon Zorn]

He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

That is NOT what he is saying. He is saying that if it's neccesary for salvation, then it's in the Bible.

This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.

Nothing new. A lot of believers in every field. It doesn't make them right about faith, or the Bible.

[g2perk]

I don't like so called authorities, so I ignore both.

Its a figure of speech

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Its a figure of speech

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

And I just coined one ;-)

[Hydra009]

He his speaking of the Doctrine of God's word. He says Relativity has not authority over the Trinity ( Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)

Salvation is how we are saved to go to heaven. This man is a Priest with all his heart with the highest passion in Science.

Nucleocosmochronology has not authority over the Psijic Endeavor (the Tri-angled truth).

CHIM is how we break free from the laws and anti-laws of Anu and Padomay.  The Red King has in his eye the Heart of Lorkhan, which he viewed sideways.