It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
it is how I believe science and religion should work together
instead of trying to tear each other apart or denying each other.


Yep. Like the quote said - they can't be fully appreciated without
each other. Science tells us of the wonders of God's creations and
Religion tells us of the Wonders of God Himself. God is in Science
and Science is in Religion ... even if Science doesn't know it yet.




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'm a Catholic and when I was younger and going to sunday school our priest told us that if we (as in, us kids) wanted to learn about how the universe worked on a nuts-and-bolts level we should go out and read a book on science, not the Bible.

The Catholic church has always been the foremost Christian denomination in terms of expenditure of resource on engaging in scientific and philosophical debate. In part this may be because of its size and age, but also I think it is because the Catholic church is simply not a fundamentalist organization in the sense of the term meaning "extremist." (Some parts of it certainly are, though.) These groups think the Bible is the answer to every question that could ever be posed in the world. As Thomas Aquinas said, "Beware the man of one book."

I go to a Jesuit uni, and we have a fine science department, I should add.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The Catholic Church had its founding on the interpretations of St. Paul. It was his influence which began what is now referred to as Christianity, encompassing Catholics and Protestants alike.
What keeps coming up into the debate, though, is the Pauline Heresy coming out of the collaboration with Rome of the Herodian Sadducees and Pharisees, and then temporarily joining with the non-collaborative Purist Sadducees and the Zadokites. Almost immediately thereafter, Paul split again, taking the middle road, and establishing Christianity as we know it today.

The non-collaborative sects, which refused to accept the authority of Rome, included the Essenes, of which Jesus was a member. Once Paul realised that joining with the non-collaborators could jeapordize the authority of Rome due to the bloodline of Jesus (and his brothers) and their rightful place as Kings and High Priests of Jerusalem, he not only denounced them but actively hunted them down.

sources:

www.perceptions.couk.com...
www.vision.net.au...




[edit on 10-11-2005 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This probably hasn't made much news, since its not news. The RCC has long been accepting of Darwin's Evolutionary Theory (well, since JPII was pope its been expresslely accepting of it).

Masqua, interesting, but please stay on topic.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Masqua, interesting, but please stay on topic.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Nygdan]


You're right, my post does seem off-topic and it's because I didn't define how the changing stance of the Vatican pertains to the concepts of the Christian churches as they were established by, and due to the Pauline Heresy.

The problem was that the Romanised Christianity desired to accredit all knowledge available to the laity as coming only from the bible. Anything which existed outside of the doctrine was either supressed or changed to suit their will. When Charles Darwin made his brave speculations on the theory of evolution, the established authorities must have been horrified by the thought of an earth much older than the >7,000 years, the idea flying, as it did, in the face of accepted doctrine. (never mind the monkey business)

And so it was with every advancement as it occured...the center of the universe was not earth, the earth was not flat and not all pagans were illiterate simpletons. If it did not conform to the dogma as they had established it, then it was fought. It's only after centuries of denial, when their arguments no longer stand the test of the sciences, that they are willing to capitulate. Interestingly enough, the Vatican has apologized only recently for the Inquisition, the burning of heretics as well as their mistake in persecuting Copernicus.

This new development in the case of Darwin and evolution is only the latest of a number, interestingly enough, coming within the last decade.





[edit on 10-11-2005 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

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?



I am sure they would too. Religion/faith is one of those touchy subjects, that people get very protective of. That's why you can't make someone choose the same faith you have. You can only tell them of what the truth is and show the differences and why they are differences, and then everyone has to make the final choice themself.

I know I am saved and will live forever with God because I live it everyday. I've read and continue to read the Bible and and live my life for Jesus Christ. I follow Jesus Christ. Now this means nothing to some, they will simply say that is my opinion, and they would be right. That is where my faith is placed, in HIM, and I can't give anyone else part of my faith. I can tell you about the faith I have in Christ, but anyone else in the world who would desire this would have to believe for themself. So I know the truth because God has revealed Himself to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. He saved me, I can't and didn't do anything to save myself. That is very liberating to know you don't have to earn heaven. Once you know it's available freely through Christ you want to know why and after you find out why you realize the cost of your salvation and you want to live right and do right and be right, because of what it cost Jesus. You literally don't want to hurt Jesus anymore than you already have.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.



We've discussed this before. I am saying that the catholic church is not the truth. Am I saying all catholics are unsaved, no. Just like I can't say all the people who go to my church are saved. Jesus gave up much more than we can grasp right now to bring us salvation.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
I am saying that the catholic church is not the truth.


We know you're saying it, but what we don't know is why you're saying it, or what makes you think yours is true and thiers isn't. If you have nothing to back up what you are saying other than "because i believe it", you'd be better off to stop insulting Catholics.

I can insult your faith and theirs of course since neither of you have anything of substance to offer.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I thought that this weeks bible study might help some of you out here. My point here is that GOD saves(through Holy Spirit) his chosen children, which he elected before the beginning of time. Everyone else is a dead man walking until HE saves them.

Ephesians 2:1-10
And you hath he quickened, who WERE DEAD in trespasses and sins(*You can't save yourself if you're dead);
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air(the devil), the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when WE WERE DEAD in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them.


Until Christ does a work in you, you're in a blind circle of sin and you can't save yourself no matter how hard you try.

When we live for Him and glorify Him we are able to see how selfish we were and how low we had fallen. Through Him, our life becomes about others-the way it was meant to be(before the fall).

*If you're not living for God, you're living for yourself.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
You can only tell them of what the truth is ..


(YOUR version of religious truth??
)

And the truth is that the world is much older than 7,000 years.
The truth is natural selection DOES happen. It is well documented.
The truth is that GOD can use any means He decides to make
people, and if God used evolution then there is no harm in
admitting that He did. The position of the Catholic Church is that
as long as you acknowledge that GOD made people - in what
ever fashion He desired - then that is NOT going against God in
any way.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Hey ProdiCaliforniaSon:

What does your post [which seems to quote an odd English translation mishmash from Saul of Tarsus' circulatory letter to the Church of Laodacea, or in some Greek MSS copies, to the Pauline Church at Ephesos, "to the Ephesians"] have anything to do with the Price of Tea in Mexico?

I believe this thread is about the present Church of Rome's awkward stance on the ongoing debate of scientific Darwinian Theory v. (the so-called) Fundamentalist Literalism (via the confused and contradictory version text witnesses) of the r"Bible" especially the two myths that can be found in Genesis chapter 1:1-2:4a and Genesis Chapter 2:4b to the end of chapter 4 which seem to be at odds in a number of places with modern scientific/evolutionary thought.

Can you stay on topic por favor?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
and if God used evolution then there is no harm in
admitting that He did. The position of the Catholic Church is that
as long as you acknowledge that GOD made people - in what
ever fashion He desired - then that is NOT going against God in
any way.



You obviously agree with the catholic church's stand on evolution. Is that because you believe it, or because the pope and other catholic leaders say that is how it happened?

With evolution that means death occurred before "whatever" evolved into man. The Bible tells us that physical death occurred after the fall of man. There was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. Death is a result of sin.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
This is not a thread to discuss what you gotta do to get saved, nor to re-debate the great schism. Lets stick to the topic.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by FlyersFan
and if God used evolution then there is no harm in
admitting that He did. The position of the Catholic Church is that
as long as you acknowledge that GOD made people - in what
ever fashion He desired - then that is NOT going against God in
any way.



You obviously agree with the catholic church's stand on evolution. Is that because you believe it, or because the pope and other catholic leaders say that is how it happened?



Science doesn't contradict the Catholic perspective or vice versa... they adapt to it...
Science does contradict the protestant perspective, and disproves it totally...
that is the main difference in the two perspectives...

remember that protestant churches (whole sects) come and go in a generation, the catholics have staying power, due to their acceptance of scientific proof that contradicts the bible...

those that don't realize this are symbolically in nursery school studing fairytales, compared to the indepth theosophical investigation by the various intellectuals of the catholic church.

Who are you going to listen to in an emergency? a home grown uneducated "know it all"
or an experienced professor of sociology with leadership experience?

not trying to knock any beleifs, just to put them into perspective as to why it is so important that ANY church accept the "truth" of science, rather than just the emotional strength of "warm fuzzy feelings"

I am not catholic, but am very glad that this mainstay of christianity is taking a stand, that can prevent the religious dumbing down that is being forced upon america.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Crazy Chemist: In reference to the links you supplied, here's a quote from the first link:

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)."

So, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the Vatican had taken this stance in the 1950's.
I don't think that most Catholics/Christians here in America know this, even now.
The people I've met in the Catholic church are not just opposed to evolution, they are violently against the idea.

I myself have always felt that the concept of a deity using a mechanical process like evolution to create physical bodies for His children makes perfect sense. That is why I've had hours and hours of discussions with church members, trying to get them to see that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I've really angered a lot of people by taking this stance, and, lo and behold, I've just been stating the Vatican's position all along.

Boy, now I'm really going to piss some people off when I point this fact out to them, hehehehehe...



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
You obviously agree with the catholic church's stand on evolution. Is that because you believe it, or because the pope and other catholic leaders say that is how it happened?

The Catholic church doesn't say exactly what happened.
What is says is that it is okay to believe in what Science has
proven as true - Natural Selection - as long as you believe that
it was GOD who programmed it.

I believe what I believe. I don't seek 'approval' from anyone.

I don't believe in Evolution. I don't disbelieve it. I don't care.
I KNOW that natural selection does happen. That's a bit different
from the full Evolution theory. However, if God decided to use
Evolution ... that's fine by me. He can do what ever he wants
in His intelligent designing. Believing or disbelieving in Evolution
doesn't change my faith in Him and His creating power.



The Bible tells us that physical death occurred after the fall of man.
There was no death before Adam and Eve sinned.


Then Adam and Eve lived at least 200,000 years ago because
the undeniable facts show that people did indeed live during the
past 200,000 years. I tend to think they lived 30,000 years ago -
about the time that the Neanderthals died out. 'The others' that
Cain was afraid of ... my guess ... Neanderthals. Science shows
us that they absolutely exhisted. No question.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Then Adam and Eve lived at least 200,000 years ago because
the undeniable facts show that people did indeed live during the
past 200,000 years. I tend to think they lived 30,000 years ago -
about the time that the Neanderthals died out. 'The others' that
Cain was afraid of ... my guess ... Neanderthals. Science shows
us that they absolutely exhisted. No question.



Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!

www.wayoflife.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
How far does a modern "educated" 21st century western citizen of a 1st world country take e.g. the Creation myths of the Jews in Genesis (both the P version in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a and the JE version beginning in 2:4b to the end of chapter 4 etc.) as in any way "scientific"?

Walking & Talking Snakes that were later cursed to crawl on their bellies?

Solid Firmaments (Heb Raq'iaq = "pounded out (and inverted) dome") that don't exist except in ancient man's fertile imagination? Waters above Firmaments?

Should we also take the Creation Myths of the Egyptians (e.g. Shu & Tefnut for one) as Science as well? What about the Creation Myths of the Ohlone Tribelets? Or the Hindu myths of Creation in the Rg Veda?

Why should the Creation Myths in the confused writings of the Jews be especially examined for scientific veracity or truths, to the exclusion of 5,000 other myths, many of which are far older and more sophisticated in content?

What does the Vatican, I wonder, think about all the archaeological discoveries in the Middle East since 1850 (e.g. the 50,000+ cuneiform tablets of the Akkadian Library) which pre-date the writings of the Jews by nearly 1000 years, which clearly shows from whence the various Jewish Creation Myths had been adapted by the Yahwistic priests after the Babylonian Exile, where those very priests had come into contact with their sources?

Is Rome willing to admit that the Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis (and the fragmentary Creation Myths in Proto Isaiah (chapters 1-39) and Job were adapted from the pagans?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Is Rome willing to admit that the Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis (and the fragmentary Creation Myths in Proto Isaiah (chapters 1-39) and Job were adapted from the pagans?


Interesting question... they might, or at least not prohibit that from possibility. There really are only a few basic tenets of the Catholic church that could be summarized in no more than a page or two, and none of those tenets involve Biblical infalibility in the slightest. Beyond those, the church is pretty open minded.

Considering that the church has allowed for mythology in the Bible by declaring that evolution does not contradict the Catholic faith, does it really matter what was the fundamental source of those myths?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join