Vatican Agrees with Darwin

[Cowabungaa]

In your face Inquisition?

Genius

Although - I don't think this helps Darwins case any - when have the Vatican been right about anything?
It also proves how 'up to date' they are given that pure darwinism doesn't exisit anymore, sure the basic premise of evolution does but so much of his 200 year old science, 200 year old perceptions have been revised by modern dating techniques (he was married - that isn't what I meant) the electron microscope, our greater understanding of the universe etc that our current model doesn't really resemble Darwins publications anymore, so way to go purple dress wearing, big hat'ed biggots, way to go for keeping up with the times.

PS any form of incrimental evolution is incompatable with Christian beliefs, the entire premis of the bible is that man couldnt die until he disobey'd God and ate the fruit from the tree he wasn't supposed to. That introduced death as a concept and a reality into the world, if there is no death then there is no natural selection, there are no 'millions of years of genetic trial and error' to see which are the more advantageous traits for survival, because you aren't surving anything! Geez, if the pope didn't even read the first page of the bible how on earth did he get that job!

I mean seriously, you rekon an english lit teacher would get away with "yeah - Jane Ayre, good novel, about a chick, and some robots big angry plasma gun wielding ROBOTS!!!"

Given that that story is ment to be interpretated literaly. Evolution, and LOADS of other scientific things, are just incompatible with a certain path of Christianity, namely the literal path wich is used by a lot of different sub-groups all around the globe in different forms. However, I think that current theological science sees Genesis as Jewish poetry about the history of there people.

snip

Also Jhon Paul II did infact acknowledge Evolution, but in the same address he rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul.

/rant

Given that such a thing exists, there is nothing that points that way ;-) But it is funny to see how they would reject it per definition. That already shows the fail tbh.

 

[Hawgh]

I liked it better when they decided that there wasn't a Limbo

 

[Kevvers]

PS any form of incrimental evolution is incompatable with Christian beliefs, the entire premis of the bible is that man couldnt die until he disobey'd God and ate the fruit from the tree he wasn't supposed to.

It's called a metaphor.

Gaining knowledge means gaining sapience.
Death means eternal damnation.

So, the story means that when humans evolved into sapient beings we also gained understanding of morality, meaning we could now end up in hell for sinning.

If we evolved, then this 'understanding of morality' as you put it isn't informed by God as some divine revelation like in Genesis, but something more gradual with intermediate steps with proto-people having a part-man part-animal consciousness and 'morality' is informed by what are necessary rules for a group of clever apes to survive.

 

[Seydaman]

plug in evolution usb drive to christianity port...beeeppp... compatable...service error....fixing......fixed but glitched....

 

[elmaxx]

In your face Inquisition?

which one?
1. the Medieval Inquisition (1184- 1230s)
2. the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
3. the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821)
4. the Roman Inquisition (1542- ~1860 )

in either case, they finished a couple of centuries ago...

The Vatican is famous for back tracking. Like when the pope decided purgatory didnt exist anymore, just like that.

So are we sad or upset that a religious body is trying to make amends of their mistakes? I for one am glad that finally dialogue is being given a chance before burning witches. We've definitely come a long way since then.

I would love to think it's just me, but whatever the Vatican says its never a popular choice, personally as a catholic (i consider myself one... take that as you want) i am ecstatic that Christian morals are finally given a chance, smart and intelligent dialogue to resolve disputes, someone once said "Treat thy neighbor as you wish to be treated" or something... and with due respect new doors of dialogue are being open through mutual respect and intelligence. These are indeed good news.

I guess that also means they denounced that the Earth began on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am.

Lies! it was 8:59 am. xD

 

[elmaxx]

A lot of people feel like they need faith, no matter how old the system is. It's just good that now they won't have to take that faith and plug their ears with it now.

Being stubborn can be fancied by anyone, religious or not.

 

[Copter400]

This is good. This is progress. I have hopes that even if religion and science don't come to an agreement in the future, they'll at least stop meddling in each other's business.

 

[BlueMage]

Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.

An utterly retarded way of thinking.

If you're wrong, and can be proven thus, it takes more balls (and thus is more deserving of respect) to say "Yes, I was wrong." and alter your beliefs to more accurately reflect reality.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

huh...i can't be sure but I think this can't be true...please? It's like, too random.

*brain implodes*

ahh, thats better.

 

[uncle-ellis]

sell outs.

 

[bjj hero]

In your face Inquisition?

which one?
1. the Medieval Inquisition (1184- 1230s)
2. the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
3. the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821)
4. the Roman Inquisition (1542- ~1860 )

in either case, they finished a couple of centuries ago...

The Vatican is famous for back tracking. Like when the pope decided purgatory didnt exist anymore, just like that.

So are we sad or upset that a religious body is trying to make amends of their mistakes? I for one am glad that finally dialogue is being given a chance before burning witches. We've definitely come a long way since then.

I would love to think it's just me, but whatever the Vatican says its never a popular choice, personally as a catholic (i consider myself one... take that as you want) i am ecstatic that Christian morals are finally given a chance, smart and intelligent dialogue to resolve disputes, someone once said "Treat thy neighbor as you wish to be treated" or something... and with due respect new doors of dialogue are being open through mutual respect and intelligence. These are indeed good news.

I guess that also means they denounced that the Earth began on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am.

Lies! it was 8:59 am. xD

Elmaxxx, purgatory used to be a staple of Catholic religion. Something that exists as sure as oxygen. The thought being that if people went straight to heaven or hell upon death then why bother to prey for the departed? So Gods waiting room was invented. The church would even accept bribes to shorten loved ones stay in purgatory... talk about taking advantage of the vulnerable.

When people stopped paying to jump the queue (Its like Catholics invented two teir health care) The pope decided it didnt exist anymore. Less moving with the times more seeing a scam has come to its natural end.

 

[elmaxx]

Elmaxxx, purgatory used to be a staple of Catholic religion. Something that exists as sure as oxygen. The thought being that if people went straight to heaven or hell upon death then why bother to prey for the departed? So Gods waiting room was invented. The church would even accept bribes to shorten loved ones stay in purgatory... talk about taking advantage of the vulnerable.

When people stopped paying to jump the queue (Its like Catholics invented two teir health care) The pope decided it didnt exist anymore. Less moving with the times more seeing a scam has come to its natural end.

Yes, i am aware of Martin Luther's thesis, and personally i think they where revolutionary and wholly necessary, and i hope people keep doing this, Questioning Answers and searching the truth.

And yes, i agree with you plus i am thrilled to know that dialogue is happening and giving results.

 

[P1p3s]

you're assuming it's metaphorical language and no litterary study has ever placed it as such - there are lots of litterary forms in the bible, and certainly there is picture language but your description is a little bit grasping, while I appreciate your inventiveness and I like the conclusion you've drawn it simply isn't scientific to say something is attempting to paint a metaphorical picture of something when there is no linguistical evidence that it is - it is written as a historical account, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't but the language, grammer and style is all intended for it to be taken as a litteral depiction not as a trippy metaphorical image of science that hadn't even been considered that many eons ago.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Elmaxxx, purgatory used to be a staple of Catholic religion. Something that exists as sure as oxygen. The thought being that if people went straight to heaven or hell upon death then why bother to prey for the departed? So Gods waiting room was invented. The church would even accept bribes to shorten loved ones stay in purgatory... talk about taking advantage of the vulnerable.

When people stopped paying to jump the queue (Its like Catholics invented two teir health care) The pope decided it didnt exist anymore. Less moving with the times more seeing a scam has come to its natural end.

That doesn't make it less stupid. Afterall, for ages it was simply real, and then they decided "O wait, now it doesn't exist anymore!" (and why would it be ány different with Hell and Heaven then?) Too bad, but that's not how reality works, you can't decide if something is real or not. O boy, if we could....ooo the possibilities!

 

[bjj hero]

ITs good you can actually discuss this sort of stuff. People tend to stick with their own and dont hear conflicting views, athiest and theists (too many religions to list) alike.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

i have been waiting for someone to try and say 'god created Evolution' for a long while now

Like Francis Collins? He suggest that god could be behind evolution. I don't agree with him personally but I will listen to him, as the man knows far more about it than anyone here.

 

[Lord George]

Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.

An utterly retarded way of thinking.

If you're wrong, and can be proven thus, it takes more balls (and thus is more deserving of respect) to say "Yes, I was wrong." and alter your beliefs to more accurately reflect reality.

Well when the church finally admits that it has been wrong about God and the whole Bible farce and there is in fact nothing their then I'll admit they have balls but this is just pandering to popular opinion

 

[Kevvers]

They have learnt from the whole Galileo debacle.

Actually, there was a good scientific reason to disbelive Galileo at the time--no stellar parallax could be observed, which a heliocentric model predicts.

Whether there is good reason or not to disbelieve the theory is irrelevant because he used his Papal powers to force him to retract his theories

Whether it's relevant or not depends on the question we're asking.

-- which were correct -- because they were contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. So really it was Science vs. Wrong Science and Authoritarian Religion.

Actually, it was Bad Proof/Right Hypothesis vs. Good Science given the Scientific Tools available and Somewhat Authoritarian Religion. From what I've been able to figure out, the science that Galileo was condemned for was actually Really Bad Science--first of all, his proof using tides as evidence of the Earth's movement was wrong, and second, he EXPLAINED AWAY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO HIGH TIDES EACH DAY! That's the kind of refusal to deal with empirical facts that you'd expect from a Young Earth Creationist.

Fact is, Galileo was never totally right--Kepler was.

Oh well, its not the like pope is supposed to be infallible when he decides these things, is it?

Nope--that doctrine was only developed in the 19th Century, and the "things" where a Pope's decision is considered infallible is limited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Also Galileo was not "kind've a prick" as you put it, he was a decent human being, the father of modern science and who has done more to edify mankind than any amount of popes.

Not from what I've read about him. Seems to me more a case of people who are anti-religion elevating him to the status of an anti-saint for their own ideological purposes.

He didn't ignore it or make it up, his theory was that it the tides were sloshing around because of the earth's movement like water in a bowl. He was wrong, but he came up with a theory at least. The church was just wanted to ignore it and stick with a theory which was just as bad -- the main beef is they didn't argue using science, they argued using the courts, heresy, intimidation.

The fact that he can be considered infallible at all hardly helps your case.
Why is it that Catholics always try to turn this blantant authoritian abuse of power by the Catholic church into an attack on religion in general? Its nothing to do with the protestant Christian churches, most protestants I know are equally appalled by this.

 

[Marbas]

Hehe I've now lost the slightest respect I may have had for the Church, I mean even if your completely wrong about something you should never admit it, at least if they stuck to their beliefs I'd have respect for them, though I'll not give them more creditability.

So if, say, you happened to believe in Santa Claus and then figured things out, you'd not be able to admit that you were wrong without losing respect for yourself?

Standing up for your mistakes and working to fix them is called learning. Standing by your word because you're too proud to admit, or understand, that you can do wrong is called stupidity. Please do explain why the latter would be more worthy of respect.

With no proof to deny the existence of a fat man who rides around on a sledge, I'm not going to admit that he doesn't exist. If you have principles its better to stand by them, then just turn into a spineless organisation who bends over backwards for whatever view is popular.

Is that why scientists still think the earth is flat and that the speed of light is constant and that DDT is completely safe and that malaria is caught from breathing in bad air and that women have inferior brains to men?

The speed of light is constant if the medium it's traveling through doesn't alter. The other ideas have long been discredited in the scientific community.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Uncompetative]

So... snakes have nothing to do with angels?