The Vatican's defence of Charles Darwin, strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists.

Yesterday, when I read this story:
www.news.com.au...
one of my first thoughts was to give it a day, then see what everybody here at ATS had to say about it.
Amazingly, I couldn't find anything about it on the site when I looked today (I used the search to check for this story on this site, maybe I missed something), so I figured it'd be good to start a new thread on it. Please let me know if this has been covered somewhere else on the site.
Now, for the conspiracy part of this story...
Living here in Los Angeles California, a few other places I haven't seen this story reported are:
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
CNN
USAToday
...and the list goes on...

What's up? Am I just crazy or is this a fundamental, historic change in the church's stance on the Bible?!?!?

I mean, I know they've been moving in this direction:
www.timesonline.co.uk...
for a while now, but this is really big.

I see this as a first big step towards people finally seeing the relationship between religion and science as "Science explains the how, religion explains the why." In other words, religion itself, and the various texts accociated with it, give our lives meaning, and science explains the mechanics of the universe.
Maybe we're seeing the dawning of a new age, one in which we can FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY have a partnership between christian religion and science.
Yes, I am an optimist.

Any thoughts anyone?



That's my two cents
Thanks

This something that has taken a long time to come into being.
With all the court battles that have been going on in the american courts over the teaching of evolution / creationism as well as intelligent design, the church and taken a beating in the media due to the hard right wingers that are backing the moves.
I believe as Einstien said.
Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind

Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better". [...] "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim."

To me this is interesting (to say the least) coming from an institution where the exact opposite approach to interpreting scripture is employed in support of its central practice of worship, the Eucharist:

from Paragraph #1381 of the RCC Catechism:
"That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason [...] St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"

source (emphasis is mine)

quote: from Paragraph #1381 of the RCC Catechism:
"That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason [...] St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"

Tsk, tsk, triple tsk. I would have to say that St. Thomas depends more on his "religion" than his own spirituality. Those who truly know GOD must understand that Christ HAS to be apprehended by the senses. If not then one only gets their relationship with GOD from books and man. It is the senses that brings one close to Christ and GOD. It is the senses that are Christ and GOD.

The catholic church is actually very progressive in regards to consideration of science... they already admit that the world is far older than a few thousand years that the protestants and Jews claim...

they also have the jesuits (scientists for lack of a better term)...

they also have an observatory, that doesn't spend one minute looking for the hands of god... but rather studies science like astronomy...

I personally feel that if someone wants to keep christianity healthy, then they need to accept that science has already disproven some parts of the bible...
do what i do...
write those off, as less evolved (excuse the pun) ideas, that didn't have the pertenant info to make a valid supposition at that point in history.

Nothing new here. RCC has always been fine with evolution, as long as one believes it was guided by God.

You know not all scientist are atheist and no all atheist are scientist, so I don't see what it should be a reason to target the scientific community and excommunicate them.

The Catholic church is very full of intelligent educated men and many have also degrees on sciences.

So I guess I am very please that they would take a stance like that.

Now if I can only get to understand why religious fundamentalist wants to render our education system useless I don't get it, if you leave it to them schools would be reading the bible all day just like fundamentalist muslin do with the Koran and their children.

I get it makes it more easier to manipulate when adults.

Originally posted by Crazy Chemist
Nothing new here. RCC has always been fine with evolution, as long as one believes it was guided by God.

With all due respect, I don't really think that's true. Could you please provide examples to back up your claim? As far as I'm aware, the Vatican has ALWAYS backed creationism, as in: "man was created in God's image, and therefore could not have evolved from apes, because God is not an ape", that type of thinking.

I'd be very interested in reading any papers or pronouncements published by them that said otherwise.

The question is, what does the vatican know that the laity doesn't? I think it's a whole hell of a lot.

They've got all those ancient texts in their super-secret library, archives, etc.

They know something about E.T.'s/demons/whatever. Have you ever seen all the UFO's in medieval christian paintings? It's hella freaky.

Originally posted by DarthRumsfeld

Originally posted by Crazy Chemist
Nothing new here. RCC has always been fine with evolution, as long as one believes it was guided by God.

With all due respect, I don't really think that's true. Could you please provide examples to back up your claim? As far as I'm aware, the Vatican has ALWAYS backed creationism,

Could not the same request be made of you?

I don't know if the RCC balked against Darwin originally or not (doubt it after the whole Galileo fiasco), but in the last 40 years, they certainly have not supported the Hovind'esc literal 6000 year creationist nonsense.

Originally posted by DarthRumsfeld

Originally posted by Crazy Chemist
Nothing new here. RCC has always been fine with evolution, as long as one believes it was guided by God.

With all due respect, I don't really think that's true. Could you please provide examples to back up your claim? As far as I'm aware, the Vatican has ALWAYS backed creationism, as in: "man was created in God's image, and therefore could not have evolved from apes, because God is not an ape", that type of thinking.

I'd be very interested in reading any papers or pronouncements published by them that said otherwise.

www.catholic.com...

www.cin.org...

Originally posted by DarthRumsfeld
Yesterday, when I read this story:
What's up? Am I just crazy or is this a fundamental, historic change in the church's stance on the Bible?!?!?

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks

When you call the catholic denomination the "church" that is misleading because the catholic church is not true christianity that saves people. So this is another step for them of moving further from God and true salvation.

Additional thoughts of mine are if you are catholic get out from that denomination.

I don't see how the "Vatican" can say that Darwinism and the Two Creation Myths of the Jews as they appear in the confused texts of Genesis in the Torah (Heb. Bere#h) are in any way compatible at all.

After all any close reading of these texts show that the two Creation Myths in Genesis differ as to their own Order of Creation and much of their contents (and even the name of the clan god is different (FIRST MYTH uses Elohim for the divine name: Chapters 1 to 2:4a and SECOND MYTH uses YHWH elohim for the divine name, which was not even "revealed" until Exodus chapter 3: Chapter 2:4b to the end of chapter 4).

In the first Creation Myth in Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2:4a, Vegetation is "bara" (lit. "created out of nothing") BEFORE the sun, stars and moon. This is in CONTRADICTION to Darwinian evolutionary theory which stipulates that Galaxies and Stars (and later planets) were formed before life like vegetation could exist on them.

There is no "Adam & Eve" in the First Myth of Creation : male and female are created together "in the image of Elohim" (i.e. Elohim is androgynous) "and he called THEIR NAME ADAM" (see Gen chapter 5:1-2 where the First Myth Author, called P (for Priestly)who sounds like the prophet Hezekiel's hypothetical twin brother c. BC 550) continues the Myth begun in Gen chapter 1:1 to 2:4a.

The Second Creation Myth of the Jews (with its different Weltanschauung, word order, Syntax, vocabulary, spelling, sentence length, style of utterance from the P writer) beginning in Gen 2:4b seems to show Man being created BEFORE the animals as some kind of Gardner on a pre-existing earth or garden, and the animals seemed to have been similarly "shaped" from pre-existing material e.g. mud (not bara-created from nothing) and brought to the Man for naming.

Only at the end was no sexual partner found for Adam in the 2nd Myth of Creation, and some material had to be taken from Adam's "side" to make Chayyah, (the sg. form of the Heb word for "living" or "life" = Chayyim) which English speaking peoples call "Eve."

None of these Mythical Stories (or the Canaanite Creation Mythical fragments contained in pieces of proto-Isaiah and e.g. Job for example) have any bearing whatsoever on modern science or Darwinism.

I assume this is what the "Vatican" was trying to get across in their own convoluted way without drawing too much attention to all those pesky details.

Galileo and Copernicus of course were excommunicated, but that was many years ago, and the Vatican has since 1990 finally come clean finally to declare that, yes, the earth does revolve around the sun (see attached link)

www.dslnorthwest.net...

and that the poetical mythical story in Joshua chapter 10 about Joshua commanding the Sun and the Moon to Stand Still (taken from the long lost poetical work The Book of the Wars of YHWH) so he could be avenged on his enemies must therefore be interpreted as poetical imagery, not as literal history scientific fact.

Originally posted by dbrandt
When you call the catholic denomination the "church" that is misleading because the catholic church is not true christianity that saves people.

I suspect a billion Catholics would disagree with you. What makes you think you have the "true faith" and they don't?

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
I don't see how the "Vatican" can say that Darwinism and the Two Creation Myths of the Jews as they appear in the confused texts of Genesis in the Torah (Heb. Bere#h) are in any way compatible at all.

The Catholic church does not promote Biblical infallibility. It views itself as god's authority on earth, not the Bible. It views the Bible as inspired and usefull, but not inerrant. They also recognize that the Bible contains many allegorical stories, such as Genesis, that are not supposed to be taken literally.


After all any close reading of these texts show that the two Creation Myths in Genesis differ as to their own Order of Creation and much of their contents (and even the name of the clan god is different (FIRST MYTH uses Elohim for the divine name: Chapters 1 to 2:4a and SECOND MYTH uses YHWH elohim for the divine name, which was not even "revealed" until Exodus chapter 3: Chapter 2:4b to the end of chapter 4).

In the first Creation Myth in Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2:4a, Vegetation is "bara" (lit. "created out of nothing") BEFORE the sun, stars and moon. This is in CONTRADICTION to Darwinian evolutionary theory which stipulates that Galaxies and Stars (and later planets) were formed before life like vegetation could exist on them.

There is no "Adam & Eve" in the First Myth of Creation : male and female are created together "in the image of Elohim" (i.e. Elohim is androgynous) "and he called THEIR NAME ADAM" (see Gen chapter 5:1-2 where the First Myth Author, called P (for Priestly)who sounds like the prophet Hezekiel's hypothetical twin brother c. BC 550) continues the Myth begun in Gen chapter 1:1 to 2:4a.

The Second Creation Myth of the Jews (with its different Weltanschauung, word order, Syntax, vocabulary, spelling, sentence length, style of utterance from the P writer) beginning in Gen 2:4b seems to show Man being created BEFORE the animals as some kind of Gardner on a pre-existing earth or garden, and the animals seemed to have been similarly "shaped" from pre-existing material e.g. mud (not bara-created from nothing) and brought to the Man for naming.

Only at the end was no sexual partner found for Adam in the 2nd Myth of Creation, and some material had to be taken from Adam's "side" to make Chayyah, (the sg. form of the Heb word for "living" or "life" = Chayyim) which English speaking peoples call "Eve."

None of these Mythical Stories (or the Canaanite Creation Mythical fragments contained in pieces of proto-Isaiah and e.g. Job for example) have any bearing whatsoever on modern science or Darwinism.

I assume this is what the "Vatican" was trying to get across in their own convoluted way without drawing too much attention to all those pesky details.

Galileo and Copernicus of course were excommunicated, but that was many years ago, and the Vatican has since 1990 finally come clean finally to declare that, yes, the earth does revolve around the sun (see attached link)

www.dslnorthwest.net...

and that the poetical mythical story in Joshua chapter 10 about Joshua commanding the Sun and the Moon to Stand Still (taken from the long lost poetical work The Book of the Wars of YHWH) so he could be avenged on his enemies must therefore be interpreted as poetical imagery, not as literal history scientific fact.

Originally posted by dbrandt
When you call the catholic denomination the "church" that is misleading because the catholic church is not true christianity that saves people. So this is another step for them of moving further from God and true salvation.

Additional thoughts of mine are if you are catholic get out from that denomination.

Almost every church calls itself "the one true church" so don't go getting all egotistical...
the catholic church has as much right to that claim as you do...
and the statment that they are "the church" is egotistical, but no more so, than the statment you made...
also, it is not true, that they are moving away from salvation. They save souls all time... they just make it a little more difficult than saying "jesus I accept you" they make you prove it thru devotion that strengthens the soul.
(by reading endless books about what being saved means)

read more on what the catholic church is, rather than listening to your pastor or supposed fellow christians. My pastor called them statue worshipers...
shows how ignorant and petty he is... (he also retired for being a hypocritical Pill popper)

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I believe as Einstien said.
Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind

You have been reading my signature!

Originally posted by blackholebrain
coming from an institution where the exact opposite approach to interpreting scripture is employed in support of its central practice of worship, the Eucharist:

Go back and read John 6

You know ... where CHRIST says that unless you eat of the
flesh of the Son of Man you won't have (eternal) life in you.
And then there is the part that He says 'Amen, Amen I say
to you my flesh is real food, my blood is real drink .... '

that is also my signature now
it is how I believe science and religion should work together instead of trying to tear each other apart or denying each other.

Originally posted by dbrandt
the catholic church is not true christianity that saves people. So this is another step for them of moving further from God and true salvation.

Oh brother.
Comeon db... I thought you were better than that.

www.catholic.com...

God CAN use evolution to create people. Saying that believing
God had a creating hand in this manner is somehow anti-God ...


There is scientific proof of natural selection and evolution.

www.catholic.com...

When Cain killed Abel he was afraid to go out 'among the others'
because they'd kill him. Who were 'the others'? Probably the
Neanderthals that died out 30,000 years ago. Believing that
God used Evolution to bring about Adam and Eve in no way
takes God out of anything and in no way takes away from
scripture. If anything .... some of the stories in scripture are
firmed up a bit by the theory that God used evolution.


[edit on 11/10/2005 by FlyersFan]