Skip to comments.
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
The Scotsman ^
| May 5, 2006
| IAN JOHNSTON
Posted on 05/05/2006 8:21:56 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-216 next last
Interesting perspective. Of course, let me be the first to point out it's one man's opinion, and certainly not canonical.
To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry
To: Right Wing Professor
The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began. It also reminds us that scientists, Christian and otherwise have been wrong about a lot of things and right about others.
3
posted on
05/05/2006 8:24:47 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: Right Wing Professor
Considering we have no idea how long a "day" is in God's time, I can easily reconcile the earth's creation in 6 days to a scietific view of it taking billions of years by men's reckoning.
4
posted on
05/05/2006 8:28:55 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: Right Wing Professor
What a shameful apostate.
The Catholic Church has fallen so far!
5
posted on
05/05/2006 8:32:46 AM PDT
by
Elpasser
To: Right Wing Professor
Nice try Padre....but Creationism is not Paganism.
pa·gan (pgn) KEY
NOUN:
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.
ADJECTIVE:
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European roots
OTHER FORMS:
pagan·dom (-dm) KEY (Noun), pagan·ish (Adjective), pagan·ism (Noun)
6
posted on
05/05/2006 8:34:46 AM PDT
by
fizziwig
(Bushbotulism is a terrible thing to have....please get help..)
To: Right Wing Professor
...a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.
He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events. Interesting.
7
posted on
05/05/2006 8:35:42 AM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
To: theDentist
Considering we have no idea how long a "day" is in God's time, I can easily reconcile the earth's creation in 6 days to a scietific view of it taking billions of years by men's reckoning. Yup. Also, the very term "day" is frequently used, even in modern English, in very vague ways. For example: "Back in the day of the victrola, audio recording was poor at best.", or, "The day of reckoning had arrived for this corrupt politician."
"Day" is frequently used to mean nothing more specific than "a period of time". Used in that way, the exact length of time is not given and is usually irrelevant. How long the creation took is far less important than the fact that it did occur, and that it was performed by Almighty God.
8
posted on
05/05/2006 8:37:41 AM PDT
by
TChris
("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
To: curiosity
9
posted on
05/05/2006 8:37:58 AM PDT
by
Varda
To: cripplecreek
> The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began.
Greece (Ionia specifically)?
Not sure I see the connection.
10
posted on
05/05/2006 8:40:13 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: Right Wing Professor
Either God created the universe and Man or there is no God, it's that simple.
The details of how he did it, or how long it took, are irrelevant.
To: orionblamblam
The fact that there is a Vatican astronomer does remind us where much western science began.
And the church had near total control over it.
12
posted on
05/05/2006 8:42:47 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: Right Wing Professor; Rodney King
He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events. Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods.
The point is not whether "nature gods" are responsible for natual events. It is whether God is responsible for (a) nature (by creating it), and (b) manifestly unnatural events such as the Incarnation of God the Son in a virgin mother and the Resurrection. If Christians are to believe in those two events, then I don't see how it could be paganism for them to also believe in "creationism". This brother should stick to astronomy.
Now you tell me. After believing all these years that God created the dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, but the dinosaurs drowned about 4,000 years ago when they couldn't fit into Noah's Ark.
At least, I know that Noah's Ark was found by a CBS documentary crew.
[/s]
To: cripplecreek
> And the church had near total control over it.
Indeed. But then they lost control, and western science finally really got going. The Vatican observatory wasn't built until, IIRC, sometime in the 1500's... and the Rennaissance, driven by resurgent western science and secular learning, was several hundred years old in Italy at that point.
15
posted on
05/05/2006 8:47:22 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: Right Wing Professor
Well, being only ONE man's opinion does make it micro-canonical; macro-canonism has not been proved.
16
posted on
05/05/2006 8:48:59 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: TChris
Yup. Also, the very term "day" is frequently used, even in modern English, in very vague ways. For example: "Back in the day of the victrola, audio recording was poor at best.", or, "The day of reckoning had arrived for this corrupt politician." I think you're ignoring the fact that it is irrelevant how the word is used in English or any other living language, vaguely or otherwise. What matters is how it is used in Hebrew. In the case of the Genesis account, when you combine it with the context of "and there was evening and morning," which is typical Hebrew literature denoting a specific period of time, the clearest meaning of the words is a normal, regular day, not an indefinite period of time. If we stop taking Scripture at its clearest meaning and viewing everything within the context, then we leave all of Scripture up to the wildest forms of interpretation. It's exactly that which leads to all forms of heresy.
To: Right Wing Professor
Creationism doesn't rise to the level of Paganism.
18
posted on
05/05/2006 8:52:04 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Right Wing Professor
God has designed the Bible for his own purposes. He remains vague when he wants, he makes parables when he wants, he explains specifically when he wants, he includes poetry when he wants, he writes allegorically and symbolically when he wants. He does it for reasons. There are reasons why different versions of the gospel are included in the one book (to reach out with different angles of the same story for minds that think in different ways IMO).
To insist that the Bible must speak literally at all times and on all subjects is an attempt to limit an omnipotent and omnipresent God and bind him to literalism. He won't be bound. But people may bind themselves with it. He can write symbolically, allegorically, poetically, artistically, literally, or however he wants and needs for his own purposes and to reach and instruct different people at different times.
19
posted on
05/05/2006 8:53:00 AM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: Porkandbeeny
"If we stop taking Scripture at its clearest meaning and viewing everything within the context, then we leave all of Scripture up to the wildest forms of interpretation. It's exactly that which leads to all forms of heresy."
And, it's why we have hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations of Christianity, each based on some interpretation of Scripture.
The creation story in Genesis could hardly have been written any other way, considering its audience, which had no concept of millions of years, nor could it have understood the idea of evolution in the first place.
The first chapters of Genesis are an allegory. It's that simple.
But, I suppose some folks believe it is, as written, a detailed account of how things happened. That's their privilege, as it is the privilege of other Christians and Jews to see it as allegorical.
Anyone who claims to have a full understanding of the Bible is fooling with you. That's impossible, as those hundreds or thousands of denominations of Christianity affirm.
20
posted on
05/05/2006 8:53:36 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-216 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson