HEAVEN & HELL or REINCARNATION? what is your belief

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

@ KLAYTON...

For the Roman Catholics, they believe the Bible is NOT COMPLETE or IS NOT THE SOLE AUTHORITY as far as church doctrines is concerned. So they (Vatican) can invent, cancel, or modify church doctrines even if it contradicts the Holy Scriptures. Because they believe the Vatican itself is equal in authority with the Bible.. In the eyes of a True Catholic, the Pope is the Vicar of the Son of God. He is the representation of Jesus Christ in our present time. So whatever pronouncements they make especially the magisterium, it is considered as continuation sa Bible.

Clearing out some points here :

- The bible is complete, its been like that for how many centuries already . OT books - 46 , NT books - 27 , a total of 73 books.
- The church never INVENTS , CANCELS but it did MODIFY some to accept what is acceptable in the new times. ( ex.: Suicide victims used to not get church services but not anymore , a Holy mass can be celebrated for the dead.)
- The POPE is not a representation of Jesus Christ but the SUCCESSOR of St. PETER .
- The MAGISTERIUM has been like that ever since . The bible can not be changed since it is a compilation of works of different authors with the inspiration from the Holy Ghost.

Ang bibliya man gud , we understand it literally . In the casethat we dont see it in the bible means wala ni siya ni exist. I have been asking this question for ages , maybe years here panahon pa sa S n O , unsay word na di niom makita sa books from GENESIS up to REVELATION but it is very much existing ? Wala gyuy ni tubag pa ana.

So by saying the word PURGATORY is not found in the bible denoting its non existence , justified na dayon na wala siya ni exist is wrong.

[noy]

For the Roman Catholics, they believe the Bible is NOT COMPLETE or IS NOT THE SOLE AUTHORITY as far as church doctrines is concerned. So they (Vatican) can invent, cancel, or modify church doctrines even if it contradicts the Holy Scriptures. Because they believe the Vatican itself is equal in authority with the Bible.. In the eyes of a True Catholic, the Pope is the Vicar of the Son of God. He is the representation of Jesus Christ in our present time. So whatever pronouncements they make especially the magisterium, it is considered as continuation sa Bible.

are you 100% sure about what you're saying?

[Bears Grill]

can you please elaborate which part of the definition of theory i miss?
according to online dictionaries...
1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

does my understanding about theory differs to how it is widely defined?

@noy, there is a difference between the word "theory" as used in scientific community and "theory" as used by the layman. The common usage of word "theory" (in layman's terms) is a GUESS, a conjecture. In science, a "theory" is an EXPLANATION. Like how the American Association for the Advancement of Science defines it:

---

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

---

In the case of Evolution, Evolution is the fact. Evolution is the observed natural phenomenon. The theory explains it; it answers the questions of how evolution takes place, at what rate, etc.

did it somehow or in any way specifically say that the theory of evolution is the TRUTH and we ought to disregard what the Bible says about God making Humans..instead we should revise it to God made the First organism which eventually turned into HUMANS,however until now NO ONE knows what it was..?
all i see is an appreciation regarding Darwin's study.(i did see a link regarding POPE talking about the hostiliy of the early church against darwinians and that it was not right...or maybe it wasnt legit..oh well)

@noy, the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook. I agree wholeheartedly this statement by Fr. Consolmagno (Vatican scientist):

---

“It (the Bible) is not the dictated word of God…(meaning) God whispering this into some scribe’s hand who’s writing it down. We’re not Muslims. It’s not the Koran. It is a HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF DIVINE INSPIRATION.”

---

Now, those words from Fr. Consolmagno, to me, reflects a more enlightened view of Christianity. I mean, why dwell in the Dark Ages when people have fought long and hard for Enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to me.

...all i know about darwin is that He is the guy who thought that we came from apes or at least the like...bottom line was whatever the origin was, we did not originally came out as humans..

The scientific position regarding human evolution, especially with regards to apes and humans, is this: Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago somewhere in Africa.

Let me ask you. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific estimate. So 4.5 billion years ago, were there humans then? what about plants? what about the other life forms? From the fossil records, we see creatures that exist in the Cretateous period that did not exist in the Devonian period. We don't see rabbit skeletons in the Cambrian period or human skeletons in the Jurrasic period. Actually, we see creatures appear and disappear at various geological time scale. How do you explain that? If God created all living creatures at once, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence in the fossil record.

and what's with the Sarcasm?can you not talk without it?
you often say that you respect other POVs, does sarcasm comes along with respect?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was exasperated when I said "susmaryosep!" because I have to repeat myself again and again ad nauseam. We keep going back-and-forth about the word "theory". This is not the first time we've gone back and forth over some small subject, remember?

I do respect your views on the subject, but like all human beings, I will get exasperated when I fail to get my point across after several attempts.

My apologies. I propose that we just agree to disagree and leave the subject as it is indeed out of topic. Agree?

[jovipeorliohacokijo]

masabtan ra unya na ninyo tanan, kung moingon na ang vatican ug "SORRY" dili tinood ang heaven, hell ug purgatory. hapit na mga bro, huwata lng ninyo unya, post lng nya mo diri unsa inyo reaction, ayaw lng sa mo react karon ha, ky wa pa man ni nahitabo, unya na (manghangyo man diay) hehehe

[noy]

@noy, there is a difference between the word "theory" as used in scientific community and "theory" as used by the layman. The common usage of word "theory" (in layman's terms) is a GUESS, a conjecture. In science, a "theory" is an EXPLANATION. Like how the American Association for the Advancement of Science defines it:

---

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

---

In the case of Evolution, Evolution is the fact. Evolution is the observed natural phenomenon. The theory explains it; it answers the questions of how evolution takes place, at what rate, etc.



@noy, the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook. I agree wholeheartedly this statement by Fr. Consolmagno (Vatican scientist):

---

“It (the Bible) is not the dictated word of God…(meaning) God whispering this into some scribe’s hand who’s writing it down. We’re not Muslims. It’s not the Koran. It is a HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF DIVINE INSPIRATION.”

---

Now, those words from Fr. Consolmagno, to me, reflects a more enlightened view of Christianity. I mean, why dwell in the Dark Ages when people have fought long and hard for Enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to me.



The scientific position regarding human evolution, especially with regards to apes and humans, is this: Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago somewhere in Africa.

Let me ask you. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific estimate. So 4.5 billion years ago, were there humans then? what about plants? what about the other life forms? From the fossil records, we see creatures that exist in the Cretateous period that did not exist in the Devonian period. We don't see rabbit skeletons in the Cambrian period or human skeletons in the Jurrasic period. Actually, we see creatures appear and disappear at various geological time scale. How do you explain that? If God created all living creatures at once, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence in the fossil record.


I wasn't being sarcastic. I was exasperated when I said "susmaryosep!" because I have to repeat myself again and again ad nauseam. We keep going back-and-forth about the word "theory". This is not the first time we've gone back and forth over some small subject, remember?

I do respect your views on the subject, but like all human beings, I will get exasperated when I fail to get my point across after several attempts.

My apologies. I propose that we just agree to disagree and leave the subject as it is indeed out of topic. Agree?

of cours humans did not co-exist with pre-historic animals..it is also stated in the bible that plants and animals were created first...then humans came...
though there is a controversy on the 6-day creation...however i believed that they are not to be taken literally...
'cause we do not really know how people back then cout a single day..or how God does on the matter...

and if theory for you and in the scientifical concept is a fact..though i do not agree
i do not have to reason with you 'cause it would be disrespectful to do so.

about your proposal, i think it is the best thing to do. aside nga OT pud ta.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

masabtan ra unya na ninyo tanan, kung moingon na ang vatican ug "SORRY" dili tinood ang heaven, hell ug purgatory. hapit na mga bro, huwata lng ninyo unya, post lng nya mo diri unsa inyo reaction, ayaw lng sa mo react karon ha, ky wa pa man ni nahitabo, unya na (manghangyo man diay) hehehe

When kaha ni mahitabo?

[Bears Grill]

^^ @noy, sorry to interject. I thought of another way of explaining the word "theory".

In science, we also have "Germ Theory" or "Atomic Theory"? Does that mean germs and atoms are just hypothetical, that they're not facts? As you can see, both germs and atoms are taken as observed facts. The theory explains both phenomena and answers questions surrounding them.

I'll leave you with that, for whatever it's worth. Thanks for engaging with me. I'd rather have somebody that disagrees with me than be ignored.

[noy]

@ bears,
as per the link you shared earlier...
"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially"
i fully understand what your saying and i even agree with it.(scientifically speaking)
a theory is to be considered fact until/or a new discovery that could alter the current scientific theory.

like how early science thought that the earth was expanding.
see more:Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net
don't honestly know if the link was legit but it's the thought that counts..

*a scientific theory may be scientifically fact until a new and more specific explanation(theory) is realized.
therefore a scientific theory/fact may not necessarily be the Truth..
thanks bears, nice conversation

[noy]

When kaha ni mahitabo?

basin mao na nang feb 22 joke ra na bai jov

[Bears Grill]

of cours humans did not co-exist with pre-historic animals..it is also stated in the bible that plants and animals were created first...then humans came...

Still OT, but I can't help but pry your brain on this one. Just need your opinion.

I agree with you that Genesis is not supposed to be taken literally. But I don't know why you're using the order of creation in Genesis as basis to confirm with the evidence of the fossil record. Here's my question. You say plants and animals were created first and then humans came last. Were all the non-human animals created all at once? Or did the different species pop into existence at various intervals? What about bacteria and viruses? Did God created these organisms? As for humans, God created Adam and Eve as the first human couple and they gave birth to Cain and Abel. In Genesis, after the eviction from Eden, it says "Cain settled in the land of Nod had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son." Who was Cain's wife? There was only one female character in the beginning.

As you can see, in a creationist paradigm, you'll be hard-pressed to explain whether widespread incest was the norm at the beginning. You'll be hard-pressed to explain how a nuclear family could survive and multiply, given the dangers from predators in the wild, not to mention poisonous plants and animals. It's hard to imagine three people in a survival situation with no training whatsoever nor medical knowledge. Did God give them the initial training?

My opinion. If people really probed thoroughly into the creationist's story, the creationists will be squirming in their chairs and explaining them away with wild speculations. The Bible is not a science book. The origin of man is not to be found there literally.