Posted on 11/14/2005 5:12:54 AM PST by jodiluvshoes
In a remarkably odd statement this past week, the Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin!
In fact Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture said that "if the Bible were read correctly" that the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible."
"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".
He went on to advocate that the idea of creation is a theological one, while the substance of origins is a scientific one and that Catholics should "know" how science sees such things so as to "understand better."
(Excerpt) Read more at muscleheadrevolution.com ...
Looks like you have a lot of anti-Catholic baggage that you have a hard time controlling...
The modern Church is very open to scientific discoveries. They got a black eye with the whole Galileo affair and don't want to look like fools again.
Exactly right.
The Church stresses what is important...that God DID do the creating - and only God knows exactly what tools He used to create with.
If it turns out that God used evolution as a tool...that really isn't evolution in the true "random" sense - but is actually intelligent design. I won't argue with Him if I find out this is how He did it (ya know...after we die and get all those "answers" that probably won't matter much to us then)
If it turns out He literally formed creatures by His hand right out of the mud - each and every creature in this fashion...well, I won't argue there either.
FLASH!!!! BELIEF OR NON-BELIEF IN A LITERAL TRANSLATION OF GENESIS HAS ZERO RELEVANCE TO WHETHER YOUR NAME IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE!!!!!
That is all.
How Rome could reestablish its primacy in one fell swoop:
canonize Martin Luther.
Another thought:
Shouldn't we capitalize "universe" in deference to our scientific betters?
He wasn't. You're getting confused with Stalin, who was considering becoming an Orthodox priest in his youth. Brush up on some history, ok?
I can't believe anyone would believe the Adam and Eve story....
The subject is whether the Catholic Cardinal is correct in his interpretation of Genesis, and whether it is accepted as Catholic doctrine.
Your point about Father. Despite whether calling one's sperm donor father is correct or not, it still does not justify the Catholic Church's adopting a title that Christ explicitly said don't.
>>>Scientific proofs of evolution do not debunk the Bible, nor does the Bible deny the validity of science. God set it in motion, whether six thousand years ago or four billion.<<<
If there was no blueprint -- no design that was strictly adhered to -- there could be no prophecy. Therefore "scientific proofs of evolution" (so-called) is an attempt to debunk the Bible, whether intentional or not.
A naked couple living in a garden with a talking snake. Yep, sure is believable ...
The only ire that is showing is your blatant disregard of anything that goes counter to your established teachings.
That information is documented, and is plainly described in the book, "The Rise and Fall of Adolph Hitler." It is in other books that document his life, but that is the one I remember the title of.
Luther was a drunk who violated all of his vows, altered Romans to make it better support Sola Fide, and tried to get the books of James and Hebrews removed from the Bible because of their emphasis on works. This after eliminating the Apocrapha (Sola Scriptura anyone?) He also foolishly encouraged the German Princes to violently put down the Peasant Revolt since he was upset at their interpretation of the Bible and salvation (accusing the leaders of the revolt of antinomianism), and then was shocked when 50,000 or so people were killed. He also explained away his own personal failures by denying free will - read his thesis on Doctrine of the Enslavement of the Will, which he considered to be as important as Sola Scriptura. Note specifically his allegory of Man as a Horse, which rides off to do good or ill, not of it's own volition but simply because of which rider (God or Satan) has mounted it.
But that is mostly beside the point of the topic at hand. The Catholic Church did not persecute scientists for teaching that the earth orbited the sun, whereas Luther did.
Thank you. About how I feel about it
Document, yes.
Relevant how?
I got in before your zot!
That sounds a little bit like "you are allowed to have an opinion unless it disagrees with my opinion". But whatever. I'll take your word for it, and the next time a Catholic friend gives me a hard time for "interpreting the Bible on my own" I will pass on what you said (I assume you are Catholic).
"The Catholic Church did not persecute scientists for teaching that the earth orbited the sun"
I guess my public school physics' class could be wrong about that. I highly doubt it was mistaken, though.
Typo. Should be:
Document it, yes.
Relevant how?
The whole ID issue is too silly for words. Get off it already! And please, when commenting on Catholic teaching, know the facts.
Well then I guess you don't believe a dead man taken down from a cross and placed in a stone covered tomb could rise from the dead. Or is that somehow more believable?
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.