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 ...
That was an observation seeking an explanation. Evolution is an explanation seeking an observation. So far it is putting along in the dark and has done nothing but run into obstacles.
Morality and ethics are irrelevant unless one is a member of a society.
That's simply your interpretation, it certainly isn't dispositive. I just don't agree with it.
That does seem to be the case. I think we could both agree that if one takes just raw numbers catholics number about half of self professing Christians.
As for your comment on authoritative teaching, does this mean you can make any teaching inoperative if you don't like it? Is this the way you appoach your religion?
No. Perhaps if I restate it I might make myself better understood. The true authority is God's Word...the bible. If the vatican agrees with the bible then they are correct, where they disagree with the bible they are wrong. So rather they are right or they are wrong, it is not to the vatican that I look for authoritative teachings...because the true source is the bible. Is that clearer?
I vote for chocolate, creme filled.
Rephrased:
So then you are saying that there is a Moral Law, that these Laws are not relative to the individual in society?
Moral relativism at its finest. For instance, we have a man a woman and a baby living outside of society ion a mountain. The man decides he's grown weary of his wife and rapes the baby. Nothing immoral in that act?
That would be nice, but I think they were onto something. It was a serpent's egg.
That's still a society, of a sort. By raping the baby, he is likely to create feelings of hatred in his wife. Plus he's hurting the baby. Both of these things are counter-productive for the continued survival of him and his society. So, in that society, his actions are harmful and, therefore, wrong.
Putting forth a possibility to the table that the words allow. I don't get into these arguments much anymore, it's like trying to wrestle out of a giant marshmallow. I trust that God WILL show in the end exactly how what we know as science and what the bible reads, dovetails. A 6x24 hour creation (from whatever vantage point) wouldn't bother me.
There are moral rules, and they are not individually determined, but are created by the relevant society's needs.
Or tosses the baby into a volcano or whatever... who cares, it's man and however his might is distributed that makes the rules. In that scenario.
You might wish to involve yourself in some reading on non-locatlity and quantum physics. Everything seems to be tied together. particles seem to know what all other particles are up to. And things seem to know when they are being watched or examined. The study of photons is of particular interest; but, I'll leave it at that as I am still getting a grip on it. Have read too much recently to try and digest it here.
http://www.creationevidence.org
My response: The "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists.
For an alternative viewpoint try: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html.
Okay Palisades,
Know what? There IS a Moral Law. All I hear in your replies are "feelings" and moral relativism. Anyone can do whatever to whomever, and it's okay, right?
By definition Laws have Lawgivers. Who gives the Moral Law?
Always interested in more information. Thank you, I'll check it out.
Nope, it's a family unit.
By raping the baby, he is likely to create feelings of hatred in his wife.
He doesn't care, his prime directive is not his wifes feelings.
Plus he's hurting the baby.
Again, he doesn't care, he can have more babies.
Both of these things are counter-productive for the continued survival of him and his society.
How so? His prime directive has nothing to do with society and he can go find another wife and make more babies.
So, in that society, his actions are harmful and, therefore, wrong.
So you say but he syas, balogna, his prime directive is not society or family it is his own survival and self aggrandizement. Now why is it morally wrong for him to rape babies?
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.