Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right

[LysanderShapiro]

Be that as it may, 99.9999% of English speaking people would take "divine being' to mean 'divine'. If we want to play semantics, you quoted and in turn I am quoting you; "God is not a divine being".
OK so grammatically that is suggesting that there are an indefinite number of 'divine beings' of which God is not one. (the indefinite article was used)
If I understand what you are saying, you are saying that God is, He has no being, He just is.
Personally thinking, since God exists then He has being. He is the divine being. (there is only one)

So to my thinking there is not much difference really between saying that 'God is not a divine being' and saying 'God is not divine'. But we don't have the direct and unabridged statement from the Pope and I've never placed a great deal of reliance on the press.

But God is not a being. He is the substance of to be, but to be a being means He is a product of creation, which is not so.

Of course people are going to misinterpret what the Pope said. But just people some people didn't get it means he was wrong on this. God is not a divine being. He is divinity in itself. God is not a being, he is as He put it Himself "I am who I am." As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, ipsum esse subsistens, meaning the substance of being itself.

In fact, the idea that people misinterpret God to be a being is why many can't find the logic in His existence because they assume he must have had a beginning to be a being rather than just being in of itself.

But I've been reading over and over again in here "The pope said 'God is not divine.'" He never said that. The full statement was "God is not A divine BEING." Divine was not the key word. The key part of it was calling him A BEING in the first place.

I'd say you had it closer to right in at least pointing out that God is THE Being if we're going to suggest he is some form of being. It's definitely more proper to recognize God as THE source of divinity rather than just a product of it. He's not a product of anything. Rather, everything is a product of Him.

If you think there is very little difference in saying "God is not a divine being" and "God is not divine," then I disagree with you and think you're very wrong.

Have you read other pontifical readings from Pope Francis on the nature of God, or just this specific one? If so, you'd fine how he celebrates God's divinity and omnipotence and uses it in his official apologies for the faith.

I'm not suggesting you are one of them, but there are many people eager to try and pin the Pope as being a heretic, and if they can, they will rearrange his statements to mean what they want them to mean rather than what he said and how it was meant. "God is not divine" is not what he said. "God is not a divine being" is what he said and they do in fact mean two very different things.

If I understand what you are saying, you are saying that God is, He has no being, He just is.

Even though, with your emoticon, you're suggesting this is a silly concept, I actually think you agree with me because I think you understand what God is and what God isn't.

 

[Ghid]

I so disagree with this. People do not understand the scriptures enough to see the wisdom within it to see the real scientific meanings written in it. Genetics, biology, agriculture, astronomy, physics, all in the scriptures, things written about for 1000's of years that are only being proven within the last 50 years! Matthew Fontaine Maury, having studied the scriptures, found in Job about the "paths of the sea" and set out to find them. He is known as The Father of Modern Oceanography. I myself have understood that "dark matter" is mentioned in the scriptures. If scientists would use the word of God, we'd be beyond Star Trek today. But instead we've become very good at killing one another.

I know of other examples of how religion has affected scientific ideas. Four are biogenesis, curved magnetic and electrical forces, Newton's Laws of Motion, and Newton’ observation of the seven colors of the light spectrum.

Biogenesis is the idea that living things only come from living things. I believe that Genesis 1 is the source of this belief. Aristotle may have been the source of the spontaneous generation idea. He saw that no one had found young eels, so he theorized that they came for inorganic sources. Until the nineteenth century, spontaneous generation competed with biogenesis. An experiment by Pasteur convinced almost everybody that biogenesis is the correct view. Today, school textbooks mention spontaneous generation as a disguarded theory, but not as a source of living organisms.

Faraday discovered the curving nature of magnetic and electrical forces. A book E = mc2 by David Bordinas is a kind of history of the nature of energy. In the Chapter about Faraday, Bordinas says that Faraday's kind of Christianity believed in circles connecting people with each other. When Faraday began studying electricity and magnetism all known forces operated in straight lines, so Faraday's belief about circular forces gave in a leg up to understand magnetic and electrical forces.

I don't know if anyone knows if Newton's religion affected his scientific ideas, but Newton spent so much time writing about religion I think the two must have affected each other.

There is a story about how Newton saw six colors in the spectrum, but he decided that there must be seven because of the seven days of creation, the seven planets, the seven known metals, the seven deadly sins and so on. Today, we know that some people can see more than twenty colors in the spectrum.

That is four more examples. If people would look, we likely might find many more.

 

[Godspell]

I so disagree with this. People do not understand the scriptures enough to see the wisdom within it to see the real scientific meanings written in it. Genetics, biology, agriculture, astronomy, physics, all in the scriptures, things written about for 1000's of years that are only being proven within the last 50 years! Matthew Fontaine Maury, having studied the scriptures, found in Job about the "paths of the sea" and set out to find them. He is known as The Father of Modern Oceanography. I myself have understood that "dark matter" is mentioned in the scriptures. If scientists would use the word of God, we'd be beyond Star Trek today. But instead we've become very good at killing one another.

The Bible has plenty of wisdom in it, and I do believe that. However, whatever evidence you think is contained in scripture that suggests certain scientific theory I guarantee can only be viewed retrospectively. And of course you yourself are falling prey to cognitive dissonance because you ignore the times where biblical stories do not allign with scientific theory. For instance evolution.

I will say that the wiser one becomes in scriptural truth and in scientific truth, the more they will begin to converge. Unfortunately, not many are very wise to scientific truth and even fewer to biblical truth.

 

[Silk]

Scientific theory does not equate to scientific fact/truth. As far as my reading in science goes, the more science advances - the more it is shown that the Bible as truth is uncontested. Most of "science" has only been around for a few hundred years, so naturally, one can only check "retrospectively". @Ghid makes an excellent point in her post - that "scientists" who took scripture literally, came up with some pretty huge scientific facts. (pssst, Ghid, Newton was more obsessed with scripture than science ...and he predicted 2020 as the second coming). My favorite answer to God couldn't have made the world in 6 days is:

 

[Where is the Messiah]

I guess it's important to define being. I'm open to others interpretation of being. Here is what I always assumed it means.
Being:
[bee-ing]
noun
1.
the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).


So if being is to exist, and something that is not a being does not exist.. Hmm. I would have to say God does exist, and by this definition, He is a being. Again, I'm only going by the definition of being that I know of.

 

[Silk]

I guess it's important to define being. I'm open to others interpretation of being. Here is what I always assumed it means.
Being:
[bee-ing]
noun
1.
the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).


So if being is to exist, and something that is not a being does not exist.. Hmm. I would have to say God does exist, and by this definition is a being. Again, I'm only going by the definition if being that I know of.

At the least, to say "God is not a divine being" in context or out, raises questions of why one would say it and expect positive response. A divine being would be one who is divine...not that He is not a being or divine as in holy. Nor does it imply He was created. As Calvin put it (paraphrased), plain English leaves one with ???'s what the Pope meant. Shapiro does not truly explain it, altho his explanation softens it.
I was stunned by Ab's video, tho.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I guess it's important to define being. I'm open to others interpretation of being. Here is what I always assumed it means.
Being:
[bee-ing]
noun
1.
the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).


So if being is to exist, and something that is not a being does not exist.. Hmm. I would have to say God does exist, and by this definition, He is a being. Again, I'm only going by the definition of being that I know of.

Indeed. Going by that strict definition, I'd have to go with it since I acknowledge God's total existence. Although there was another definition Thomas Aquinas gave which expressed being the product of something, which is why he didn't classify God as a being. In fact, this was often where he based his arguments against Atheism since, like today, many Atheists argue that Christians believe in a supreme being that inhabits the surrounding universe. But of course that's not how Christians recognize God.

And in this case, Pope Francis used this same example when he said that God is not a divine being -- he was making the same case that Aquinas and so many others before him made.

Bottom line, the pope never claimed that God is not divine. To claim God isn't divine is to say that God is not God at all.

 

[JohnC]

Yes but the bible does not teach evolution, so when the secular world declares evolution to be the truth, then they say the Bible is false.

Is it?

2 separate questions, 2 separate issues all together.

The bible does not teach the nuts and bolts of God's specific mechanism. It only says "God created." There are in fact very good scientists out there that are doing very good research - with the goal of finding out the truth... Trying to come to a better understanding of God's creation....

Do not put your time, energy, and resources INTO besmirching our brothers who are IN science and who ARE doing good research to learn more about God and His ways. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

What the secular world is after is making themselves into gods... They can couch this however they want - but it's always the same... Their goal is to use Science, politics, and whatever other means they can to declare the one true God nonexistant.... What they are trying to do is to declare man as God in God's place... That's pretty obvious if you watch the politics..

 

[Ghid]

Scientific theory does not equate to scientific fact/truth. As far as my reading in science goes, the more science advances - the more it is shown that the Bible as truth is uncontested. Most of "science" has only been around for a few hundred years, so naturally, one can only check "retrospectively". @Ghid makes an excellent point in her post - that "scientists" who took scripture literally, came up with some pretty huge scientific facts. (pssst, Ghid, Newton was more obsessed with scripture than science ...and he predicted 2020 as the second coming). My favorite answer to God couldn't have made the world in 6 days is:

Yes, Ike and I have so much in common.

He was a virgin, and so am I. He understood tides, and I use tides to surf. I’m learning about the Bible in English. He read it ancient languages. He made sun dials. As I sit here I can see clocks on cell phone, land line, computer, wall, stove, microwave oven, cable box, and the cars outside. I have a Miley Cyrus/Hanna Montana watch, but I never wear it. In the eighteenth century, both of us would hang for our opinions on religion. Sometimes my mother calls herself Mrs Irving Gleick. Ike’s biographer is James Gleick.

Isaac Newton by James Gleick

http://www.c-span.org/video/?176720-1/book-discussion-isaac-newton

 

[Silk]

OK - one last kick at the dead horse: I don't buy past or present thinkers who think God is not a Being, never mind that He is ALL divinity. I dunno how it is phrased in Italian, Spanish or whatever language you have. To say God is not a divine being in context or out is not a statement I would expect from any man of God. Stretch it all you like and it still stands out wrong, IMO.
I'm not Catholic but some of my best friends growing up were and still are. I am curious tho - some strange things have come out of this Pope's mouth. Aliens are your brothers - baptize them? Catholics and Charismatics should unite? Any consideration to St. Malachi's pope prophecy? I'm curious what Catholics all really think of this and recent past troubles with Vatican banking and the other thing. As a person who loves God and scripture, if I heard it from my pew, I would be doubtful of the leadership.

 

[calvin]

I thought about posting the Time piece on this. It was the only one, that I saw, that seemed to take it seriously and not push for any agenda. The NBC News piece may have been the absolute worst.

Well I think if you were aware of the article you should have posted a link to it.
From that article........... citing the Pope's own words...."Evolving Topics of Nature,” and he affirmed what Catholic teaching has been for decades. “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” emphasis added
I don't think it is at all helpful when the truth is mishandled as it has been in the other articles.
While his last quoted statement was probably meant to be safe enough, it does leave the door wide open to wholesale evolutionary error.
From a theist/creationist point of view, evolution (theistic or otherwise) has a major problem. Adam as the first man was the first created in the image of God and needs to be significantly different from any supposed antecedents. Evolution discounts this, and so discounts itself as a viable argument for our origins.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Well I think if you were aware of the article you should have posted a link to it.
From that article........... citing the Pope's own words...."Evolving Topics of Nature,” and he affirmed what Catholic teaching has been for decades. “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.” emphasis added
I don't think it is at all helpful when the truth is mishandled as it has been in the other articles.
While his last quoted statement was probably meant to be safe enough, it does leave the door wide open to wholesale evolutionary error.
From a theist/creationist point of view, evolution (theistic or otherwise) has a major problem. Adam as the first man was the first created in the image of God and needs to be significantly different from any supposed antecedents. Evolution discounts this, and so discounts itself as a viable argument for our origins.

Calvin, I think we've come full circle. Christians who find no issue with Evolution don't discount original sin and the fact that we are made in God's image. I'm not an Evolution loyalist at all. For the most part, I stay silent on the subject., but Pope Francis said absolutely nothing contradictory to the case for Christian doctrine and salvation. Howard Van Til of Calvin College once asked if the concept of special creation required of all persons who trust in the creator God of the Bible. He, including many other scholars (biblical and scientific alike) concluded that it is not. And they all also understood that it was no kind of retreat caused by modern science, especially with the writings of the early Christians in regards to Genesis.

Of course I disagree with you though that science dictates theology -- it doesn't. But above all, baiting is not welcome here.

 

[calvin]

<<Snip>>

Of course I disagree with you though that science dictates theology -- it doesn't. But above all, baiting is not welcome here.

Lysander I am seeing that you appear to have a serious English comprehension deficit.
I at no time have ever said or even hinted that "science dictates theology". nor was I bating anyone.
My post was targeting the misrepresentation of what people say.....in that particular post I was defending the Pope.

I am becoming increasingly aggrieved by your continuous misrepresentation of what I post. Please stop and think before you reply,
and unless you have been gifted by the Lord to see into the hearts and souls of others, please do not judge another's servant as you are continuously doing.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Lysander I am seeing that you appear to have a serious English comprehension deficit.
I at no time have ever said or even hinted that "science dictates theology". nor was I bating anyone.
My post was targeting the misrepresentation of what people say.....in that particular post I was defending the Pope.

I am becoming increasingly aggrieved by your continuous misrepresentation of what I post. Please stop and think before you reply,
and unless you have been gifted by the Lord to see into the hearts and souls of others, please do not judge another's servant as you are continuously doing.

I certainly didn't intend to judge. However, if I did without even realizing, than I am at fault for that and sorry. You're right that I cannot judge. I really may have misunderstood you.

If I do have an English comprehension deficit (which is very possible actually), then I ask you have a heart. I'm doing my best to keep up.

 

[R-C]

Lysander: if we look at your post #21 and the three elements of faith, i have to ask about the supremacy if God. If He is not also the Creator, how can any if the three follow?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Lysander: if we look at your post #21 and the three elements of faith, i have to ask about the supremacy if God. If He is not also the Creator, how can any if the three follow?

What are you talking about? Can you simplify your question? I'm not sure if you're saying that I suggested that God isn't the supreme creator or something else.

I did say in that post that God is not A supreme BEING, which is true -- He isn't. I'm using example in the same way that the early theologians did. Unless I'm mistaken (which I may be), it sounds like you read "God is not supreme," which is not what I said. The key part was that God is not A BEING.

Unless I am misreading everything, some of you are looking at the words "divine" and "supreme" as being the key words. The key words are "a being" which suggests that God is a product of something greater -- which He's not. He is where all products come from.

 

[KingJ]

Theistic evolution takes God as a given and seeks to understand how natural observations and Genesis can be reconciled in a meaningful way.

No it doesn't. The problem with TE is the E. Change it to Theistic scientist. Natural observations do not point to evolution. Natural observations are construed to justify evolution.

 

[KingJ]

The part the got me confused is when he says "God is not Divine"....That realy got my concern....

The Pope said ''God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life''.

You have to understand that the pope was speaking to the world. The world has many beliefs and gods. Some religions have beliefs in many gods. If the pope did not say the underlined, we would have a cause for concern. When the sentence is read as a whole it clearly reads as: '''God is not a ''Pen and Teller'' or one of the many Hindu gods.....God per the Catholic church, is the Creator of all.

 

[Major]

I guess it's important to define being. I'm open to others interpretation of being. Here is what I always assumed it means.
Being:
[bee-ing]
noun
1.
the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).


So if being is to exist, and something that is not a being does not exist.. Hmm. I would have to say God does exist, and by this definition, He is a being. Again, I'm only going by the definition of being that I know of.

And I agree with you ! Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

And I agree with you ! Seems like a no brainer to me.

And I agree too. If we're using the term "being" as just meaning in existence, then of course. But we can't count God as A being. Instead, He IS being. We're products of that being.