Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
One time, at band camp,
in the cafeteria,
some guy yelled, "This place
smells like crocodile!"
And all the girls threw their trays
right at the guy's face!
First of all, the rains fell for forty days and forty nights. The actual Flood lasted for a solar year. It might pay to actually read the text you are debunking.
Secondly, what papyrus? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Torah Scroll from which the story of Creation and the Flood come? That wasn't papyrus but animal skin (all Torah Scrolls have to be written on animal skin), and it was written by Moses at Mt. Sinai, where G-d dictated it to him letter-for-letter. Perhaps you would like to make a remark about that?
G-d dictated the portion about Noach because of the Noachide covenant with all humanity. He dictated the account of Creation only to refute the Nations of the World when they accused Israel of stealing the Land from the Canaanites. Bet you didn't know that either.
"Yet the bible says, Who is our Rock save God. The church was built on the Rock of Jesus Christ, the foundation stone that the builders rejected."
Why would a Godless Atheist give a hoot?
So, you're saying I'm a victim of the Satanic International Jewish Conspiracy?
Come on in; the water's fine!
See also Post #48, above, concerning the flood.
"Are you saying God looks like a human then?"
'Satanic' only in the sense that any human evil can be called 'satanic'.
Not really. The true church comes housed in tabernacles not made by human hand. So even one professing Christian, anywhere, anyplace at any time, is the Church.
However, where is the line drawn between animals and humans having souls? Some societies don't even recognize that other people have souls. therefore, I suppose that it is not up to mankind to determine who does or does not, possess a soul, even one's own.
The question, which you refuse to address, is whether your belief that man was originally immortal harmonizes with Darwinian evolution.
"Why would a Godless Atheist give a hoot?"
A very good question. Religion affects us all, even atheists. I've spend most of my adult life studying religion. It's a survival technique.
The vatican only speaks for the majority of catholics.
"It's a survival technique."
What does that statement mean??
Well of course not.
"Not really. The true church comes housed in tabernacles not made by human hand. So even one professing Christian, anywhere, anyplace at any time, is the Church."
Ah, well...OK. Wherever two or three have come together....
I suppose the final result of denominationalism will be the Church of Each Individual. Doesn't make much sense to me, really.
It is interesting that the largest denomination of all is one of the oldest. Apparently there's strength in the RCC's doctrine.
Your local home-based church doesn't have that advantage.
If you were to go to PH's "about" page you would see that he insists that evolution denies only the literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis and does not contradict in the slightest any other Biblical or post-Biblical miracle or alleged miracle.
That being the case, is s/he not also a "supernaturalist?"
""It's a survival technique."
What does that statement mean??"
From a geological perspective, my mom used to say my dad was always late because he measured time in millions of years. I say if it can be counted,and you can see the end, it is a few. From a divine perspective, there is an immeasurable.
Sure of what we believe and certain of what we cannot see.
Really? I suppose if you want to restrict "miracle" to something that "violates natural law", than you would have to use only natural law to explain the existence of the human brain, or eyeball. As a believer, the miracle of life is one of clearest indicators that God created the universe and that things do not exist merely as a result of "natural law". To deny God's supernatural input in creating a human child is to deny the very Word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.