News Stephan Hawking Declares There is No God

It is a political document more than a religous one. Note to the extent it describes Jesus and his position vis a vis God the Father. It is like a legal brief. That doesn't mean those who were in the argument weren't religous but they had been removed from faith and were becoming pendantic.
There is nothing in the creed that covers what Jesus said about himself, it is a distallation of what Paul wrote in his many letters. Paul never met or heard Jesus speak. In fact he was a Pharisee who persecuted early believers until whatever happened on the road to Tarsus.
Though now used as a statement of one's faith the creed was created as more of an oath. It was used as that to enforce orthodoxy after it was adopted. If clerics such as Arian didn't swear to it they lost their offices and were expelled from the empire.

 

"It also causes problems with religious dogma though"

This is an interesting statement and to be honest I don't you think you can defend it. I'll take a wild shot at a verifiable statement, "No dogma of the Catholic Church has ever been disproven by Science."

see if you can poke any holes in that...

Regarding the seven day creation, I think you are taking that too literally. You are confusing me with a Protestant. I am not Protestant. I do not believe the Bible is in every case literally true. There is a lot of symbolism involved. It is not an easy book to read, which is one good reason "lay people" need help in understanding what is meant. Which is why the priest and the Church are so helpful. Just for example the part where Christ says you should be as "wise as a serpent and simple as a dove".

How can a person read that literally. Its absurd....

It would be just as silly as harping on the creation story and seven days, etc. I haven't even read Genesis in a very long time but as I recall the earth was made first, before the sun. I would assume ancient people worked off the idea of the sunrising twice for a two day period. I don't think they had the 24 hour rotation concept quite developed at that point.

So what do you think they meant when they wrote about the first day then the second day? With no sunrise....the sun not having yet been created? You're being too literal.

I interpret it a lot like those old paintings you can find where the figures are painted according to there relative positions of importance. Where Christ has a huge head and the people next to him are real small, etc. You would have to belong to the ranks of the galactically stupid to think that means the artist thought Christ was a giant.

 

True regarding what? The symbolism of the act of creation? How can you say symbolism is true or untrue? I think for some reason you expect the Bible to be a doctoral thesis. I remember reading Beowulf in high school. No one in the room thought it was literally true. Why do you place these demands on the authors of Genesis.? I think you are just being difficult. You can't possible be serious about that.

I am sorry but the majority of the most wonderful literature ever written is not written like a thesis. It would be like you complaining that every movie is not a documentary. Thank God they are not all documentaries...that would be really boring.

And again, I repeat myself, why do you think the amount of time involved is relevant? It has no bearing on the act of creation. Zero. It is utterly, hopelessly irrelevant.

 

Maybe it would help for me to clarify one thing. I do not believe in evolution because it is a weak theory that doesn't explain the facts very well. My lack of belief in evolution is not caused by my faith in the Catholic Church. If evolution were true it would not impact my faith one iota.

 

I can see I will have to go about this differently. I will try to condense the points otherwise this will be chaos.

You originally used the term "dogma", not "dogmatic".

dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization

I was only aware of the use of the word dogma regarding Catholic beliefs. I have never heard the word used in another context. I have never heard someone discuss Protestant or Islamic "dogma". Therefore, I assumed you were referring to something specific. If not, then fine. What do you want me to do, I'm Catholic. Everytime I hear that word that is what it means.



dog·mat·ic
adjective \dȯg-ˈma-tik, däg-\
: expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted

1
: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>

This has a completely different meaning and if you want to change your initial expression now, fine. I have no problem with you saying that science has upset many people and clashed with their dogmatic beliefs. Christ upset a lot of people too. Christ really upset a lot of dogmatic Rabbis. I don't think he upset "Jewish Dogma". Maybe I am wrong on that though....is anyone on the forum an expert on Jewish Dogma?


Regarding why I mentioned the Catholic Church, etc....I am not here to defend Norse mythology or anything else that you mentioned. I don't believe that God created everything in seven days. If someone else does, well, Hoss, that is his problem, not mine.

God probably took less time than a week but that is up to Him. All He has to do is will it.

I am here arguing that Truth cannot contradict itself and and Science and the Catholic Church do not conflict. As you seem to agree their specific areas of focus rarely even overlap. When they do overlap then they should be in agreement. If they are not in agreement then one of them is wrong. I am not aware of the Catholic Church having gotten one wrong yet. For me that is an impressive record.

Science seems to be founded on the idea that they will get it wrong first and then adjust.....until eventually they get it right. One sounds divine and one sounds very human.