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 ...
A fair point.
Of course, there's the question of why there is no appreciable gap in the Egpytians' record-keeping, which would be expected if their civilization was wiped out by a massive deluge. And why their records don't mention such cataclysm.
Can you briefly tell me how?
I'd appreciate it.
Kind of.
Ecclesiastes Ch 3, V 15 "That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."
It is a SERIOUS mistake to think God is constrained to his inanimate creation called "time". Time was created for the posterity of the human race, not as master to the Creator.
"at the first self righteous church of pascagoula? (mississippi squirrel revival)"
Just of the top of my non-scientist head, how about time-release genetic code or pre-programmed environmental changes?
Again, I have not see ID advocates say one way or another on the tinkering aspect. Am I missing something or is that requirement just your interpertation of ID?
The God of the bible does not have a human nature. Jesus did of course, but only after the Incarnation.
The unified deities are rare, and the creation account for all but one -- the bible's -- begins as though something else existed with the deity. The Coyoteman can furnish us with any number of these tales. The Hebrew story prevails out of proportion to its initial readership, not because of chance but because of logic.
Certainly, the Catholic Church is probably over-inclusive when it comes to who it includes in its numbers. But that's probably done by every other denomination. So, it doesn't likely change the percentages much.
I know of no non-catholics that place any value in what the vatican proclaims,
So, non-Catholic Christians do not agree with Vatican on issues of abortion, gay marriage etc.?
This statistic would support what I stated, thanks. However, my real point was really more focused on the term Christian and not specifically the emphasis on religion. For each "religion" there is a good deal of nominal (in name only) adherents. In many places people do not take any faith serious but someone builds a church or mosque and proclaims all the inhabitants as adherents to that group all of a sudden...but no real change has taken place in the person (in the case of Christianity) or awareness of their inclusion in that religion (in the case of other religions such as Islam).
According to the statistics that someone posted here that is factually UNtrue...and in any case, the vatican does not speak for Christianity, just for catholicism.
Never studied astronomy, eh?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system- it receives massive inputs of energy from the sun.
So, the evolution of life on this planet doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A short answer for a complex question:
Judaism in Old Testament times was created to differentiate the 12 tribes from others in the region they inhabited. The Old Testament was the compilation of the oral tradition and history of those tribes.
The Sabbath was a natural break in time, 1/4 of the moon's cycle. Everything then was based on the moon's cycles, because it was the most reliable time-keeper other than the day.
Having a day of rest and worship was important in keeping the commonality of these 12 tribes together. A history that linked them was another. 10 basic laws were another.
It's the history of the birth of a religion. It's fascinating.
Do I believe in the Bible? As a historical document of the beginning and evolution of a regional religion...sure. As the stories that held a people together...Sure.
I can say the same about Hindu scripture or even the Quran. I can say the same about the scriptures of every religion that has scriptures. They're very functional in creating and maintaining a culture.
Predestination arguments can drive a person stark raving mad crazy. The problem is a system that attempts somehow to work with the existential fact that men do choose, while doctrinally denying that they do. I know; I tried. Suffice it to say I am no longer a tulip eater. But I am a Christian.
I have a case in point. Look into Mt Saint Helen's and you will see examples of rapid erosion when large streams of water quickly move. (grand canyon???) You will also see an entire forest buried by silt, at the bottom of spirit lake. (petrified forest in Yellow stone?? Scientist think that it took millions of years to cover this forest HA!) it took minutes. Please if you are interested check out some of the web sites. Mt St. Helen's debunked a lot of theories about the evolution.
I agree that over-inclusion is not limited to the catholic church. Although, your assumption is that the over-inclusion is at a relatively equal rate between catholics and non-catholics. I don't believe that to be a sound assumption, but in all honesty neither of us know the hearts of 2 billion people so neither of us have the ability to present something approaching proof on the matter...simply evidences that would seem more anecdotal (and they would likely be accurate in both directions)
So, non-Catholic Christians do not agree with Vatican on issues of abortion, gay marriage etc.?
There is some agreement on these issues, however the source of the agreement is only to the extent that the vatican agrees with the Bible. That is to say, any agreement from non-catholics is not based upon it being proclaimed by the vatican but rather because it is found in the bible.
"The God of the bible does not have a human nature."
Oh, I'd disagree with that.
That deity had a creative impulse...as do humans.
That deity was in charge of humans, so it made laws.
That deity got ticked off when its underlings didn't follow its laws.
That deity killed every human on the planet, except one family, because folks didn't follow its laws.
Sounds pretty human to me.
Thanks.
It's only a paradox, and from a thorough reading of both Old and New Testaments, one sees that The Lord loves to speak in parables and paradox.
I think that more closely matches my view. And I say the following not to provoke a fight, but to highlight why we see the same thing in slightly different ways...the way the term "miracle" is "ordinarily" used depends on your background. Yours is obviously Catholic. Mine is not. I would hesitate to call either of us absolutely correct. Nor do I think our differences on this point are that significant or even that important.
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.