Replies

Russ ... you're undoubtedly a nice guy, but you've really got to start reading and understanding the posts you're replying to before you reply.

You’re missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.

Why would "many Christians" be more qualified than the Pope to interpret "Biblical truth," and therefore capable of determining the Pope was "distorting" it? Please be specific.

You've missed my point -- it's entirely possible to be a serious Christian and not reject the Theory of Evolution. That "many offended Christians" don't agree with JPII is irrelevent. I'm not saying JPII was right about this, I'm saying that unless you want to say the JPII was not serious about religion, or wrong, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate how. And how you'll demonstrate he was wrong about Catholic doctrine is an event I eagerly await.

Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that can’t read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.

Don't preseme I'm ignorant of the doctrine of Papal infallibility or how it works. You are the one who made a howler of a post that seemed to confuse Papal infallibility with being "without sin."

Do you know what the Pope actually wrote about evolution, btw? (It's on the internet, but it requires no little concentration to parse. This could present a problem).

(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)

I was responding to your post 383, which was directed to steve_b.

First of all, thank you for being kind in your reply and not personally attacking me personally or my educational level because of grammatical errors. I must apologize for getting excited at times and not proof reading what I post back. Many on this board feel those posting replies are inferior if grammatical errors are made. They love making snide remarks and posting put downs discounting what they say by counter replies pointing out the errors. Perhaps my perspective is incorrect from your point of view, but the emotions I feel when those attacks are leveled on myself and others is one of defense, protection mode.

Now more to the point of my reply, you wrote:
Why would "many Christians" be more qualified than the Pope to interpret "Biblical truth," and therefore capable of determining the Pope was "distorting" it? Please be specific.
Specifically, Christians are no more qualified than the Pope in biblical interpretation. In so saying that, just because he is the head of the church does not make his word final on what the bible says or how it says it. There are many leaders of other denominations who were appalled by the Papal explanation of evolution. Yet, where was the mainstream press? They didn’t cover the dissenting views; they covered the Pope’s statement. The implication, from many Christians perspective, was that beliefs we grew up with, i.e. GOD gave us the bible as his truth. It's GOD's instruction book to his people. It says what it says, and God means what it says. It’s not a collection of fables. It’s not a set of suggestions.
You also wrote:
You've missed my point -- it's entirely possible to be a serious Christian and not reject the Theory of Evolution. That "many offended Christians" don't agree with JPII is irrelevant. I'm not saying JPII was right about this, I'm saying that unless you want to say the JPII was not serious about religion, or wrong, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate how. And how you'll demonstrate he was wrong about Catholic doctrine is an event I eagerly await.

I disagree with that premise. I believe that you cannot be a serious Christian and try to change who and what GOD is. Not trying to change the subject here, but as an example: it’s like the Episcopal Church Bishop who recently said that Homosexuality was acceptable to GOD or voting for a politician who openly is pro-choice, which from my perspective is pro-abortion. Again, please accept my apologies if you feel I’m trying to throw the basketball game by bringing in a different subject matter to the discussion, but I feel it represents the point I’m trying to make. Which is you might ask? With regard to Christians who believe in evolution, I believe these are people trying to change GOD into their image, not who and what he really is, from my perspective.