Posted on 05/05/2006 8:21:56 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.
Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said 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.
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. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.
"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."
Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".
"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.
There's a tagline in there somewhere!
Speaking of knowlege, is this that famous tree...?
Interesting, the old brother has a point. Bible worship is paganism.
When the church was all powerfull it did a lot of damage to good science. I'm not thrilled with the mixing of the two. There was a time when openly saying that the earth and planets revolved around the sun was seen as blaspheme and could be deadly.
I prayed to God that he would make me a wealthy man and he said, "In a couple of days your request will be granted."
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.
In other words, you think God intended that all people should just get whatever they want out of the Bible? God didn't have a specific message in mind that he wanted all people to receive?
I believe that God does want us to know the truth. Jesus said, "Sanctify them by the truth, your word is truth." If truth is something that is based on anyone's interpretation, then it is no truth at all. And I reject the idea that an omnipotent God is unable to make something clear enough that it can be understood. I cannot agree with your statement that it is impossible.
The reason there are so many demoninations is not due to the impossibility of understanding. It is due to man's own sinfulness and lack of perfect ability to understand, and his unwillingness to accept what God clearly says.
But once again, I fall back on what I said before: We must take Scripture at its clearest meaning, taking into consideration the context of verse, chapter, book, and entirety of Scripture. In this case, the context makes it fairly clear that we're talking about a normal day, not any great length of time.
The "morning and evening" day is defined by the rotation of the earth. Does Genesis declare that the earth has always rotated at its current rate? Nope.
The length of the "days" of the creation is doctrinally irrelevant. It's hard for an idea to be a heresy when it simply doesn't matter one way or the other.
The definition of faith is not denying the truth once it is known, but believing the truth before it is known.
There was more fun, when a pope [say, Julius II] would not stir without consulting his astrologers, even in the matters of military urgency. [That's where Nancy Reagan got her ideas about arranging WH schedule]. Sometimes it was in minor matters so it could be winked at, and sometimes in major decisions. That's the proper genesis, function and the job title of Guy Consolmagno's position.
He's right, and it is insanely destructive. Thomas Aquinas said the truth cannot contradict itself, and that no really proven truth can contradict other truth. A Christian has nothing to fear from science - as long as it IS science, and not assertion posing as science.
The evolutionary process really appears to be true* But ever since Darwin's day, unfortunately, it has been used like a crowbar to "prove" - or rather to assert - wildly unscientific claims that Mankind is simply another beast, ot that we have no free will, or There Is No God. This in turn sets off our sola scriptural FReepers who honourably - but mistakenly - feel that they must defend one literal exegesis of Genesis to the death.
*Certainly for all flora and fauna except man. There is an interesting lack of speciation in the fossil record of hominids up to and including "Lucy" which seems to indicate that something unique has happened in Man's case. But the fossil record is as yet too sparse to make supportable conclusions. I am confident that disinterested research will lead us into all Truth.
Too much "canon' fodder" already.
"The reason there are so many demoninations is not due to the impossibility of understanding. It is due to man's own sinfulness and lack of perfect ability to understand, and his unwillingness to accept what God clearly says. "
"Issues such as this are indicative of the necessity in forming scriptural interpretation in the context of the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. When Christians began reading the words contained in the scriptures outside of the Apostolic Traditions taught in the Catholic Church, they began generating thousands of interpretations that resulted in absolute confusion."
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)
I find your definition of faith far more confusing than the clear meaning of Scripture. Furthermore, your argument about the rotation of the earth is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you assume that creation took longer than six normal days, but you're supporting the idea that creation took longer than six normal days by citing the possibility that the earth rotated slower. It's a circular argument. (If A, then B, therefore A)
I don't insist that others believe anything. I do say that if you choose to ignore the clear meaning of any one piece of Scripture, then you must do the same to the rest of Scripture, and then who is to say that man is really sinful? Did Jesus really actually live? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? The foundation of Christian faith crumbles and belief is just a pretty way to harness the young and bring some comfort to the old.
I believe that if we are not willing to take God at his word then we might as well not believe at all. I, however, choose to believe what God clearly says, and not seek an alternative interpretation that doesn't actually fit the text.
Labelling a follower of your own belief "pagan," merely because that person insists on a literal interpretation of scripture is deceit. And who is the father of lies, according to the very same scripture that this man purports to follow?
"I don't insist that others believe anything. I do say that if you choose to ignore the clear meaning of any one piece of Scripture, then you must do the same to the rest of Scripture, and then who is to say that man is really sinful? Did Jesus really actually live? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? The foundation of Christian faith crumbles and belief is just a pretty way to harness the young and bring some comfort to the old. "
I've been saying for a couple of weeks that ID is a form of animism. I noticed this when a freeper made an explicit reference to being able to see intelligence in cellular mechanisms.
I think a couple of our ID posters who like to quote Shapiro are pushing a form of animism.
I find your definition of faith far more confusing than the clear meaning of Scripture.
OK, but is it faith if your are hoping for something that is untrue? I would argue that it is not true faith. If it is, then Christianity has no claim to faith any more than a Buddhist or Muslim, since they all believe in things they do not see. The difference is truth. Of all the differing beliefs, they cannot all be true. There must be only one truth, one faith. The rest are false and powerless.
Furthermore, your argument about the rotation of the earth is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you assume that creation took longer than six normal days, but you're supporting the idea that creation took longer than six normal days by citing the possibility that the earth rotated slower. It's a circular argument. (If A, then B, therefore A)
No, not a circular argument, but a possibility, yes. We are presented with widely known, common, overwhelming evidence that the creation of the earth took longer than six of our current days. There are a number of ways that the Genesis account can be seen to harmonize with those plain facts. I have only presented one possibility, not proclaimed it to be the certain truth.
I simply don't get some people's denial-based faith. It's almost as if some believe that their religion isn't supposed to make sense or harmonize with plain truth. I believe all truth, be it religious, scientific, economic, political, etc., is self-consistent and harmonious. Where they do not appear to harmonize or agree, one part or another is simply not true.
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.