Vatican endorses Evolution...disses Creationism

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Where in the bible does it say that Adam and Eve were the only two created?

where does it say that they weren't the only 2 created?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the thing that i never understood is that if someone believes Adam and Eve to be a true story, how do they handle the fact that we would all be inbreds then?

If you take a liberal reading of the Bible then you can view the Adam and Eve story as a myth about people's struggle against human nature or that God created more than just Adam and Eve or some such.

If you adhere to a literal reading with every word having to be 100% true then you have to invoke other things.. I've heard stuff preached such as the genetic code was perfect then and only became corrupted due to sin and that took time so the first generations didn't have to worry about that. Of course that doesn't cover the same problem after a global flood, so I've also heard it preached that there was a shell of metallic hydrogen around the earth holding up (or in, I forget) the water for the flood and that blocked out cosmic radiation so there was no inbreeding problem, or something like that. Basically the answer is "make stuff up because the Bible is infallible so any unanswered questions don't need a real answer because the Bible is right anyway".

[Ch40s]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

To a person that believes god created the hurricane, what's the difference? Sure they know it don't form by god stirring his finger in the ocean, but they still think it was created by god.

Do they?

I, personally, do not know of anyone who believes such a thing. I know avid church goers and people who have studied religion, why don't any of them think such a thing?

Like I said, I believe religion is meant to be interpreted and applied on a personal level. Just because their religion takes a certain stance on one thing doesn't mean they have to believe in it as well or interpret it in the same way.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nobody has said anything about anybody being stupid, and this discussion is about how the Catholic church denying the literal Adam and Eve stuff anyway.

You seem to be saying "sure, the people who take it seriously might deserve criticism, but the rest of us who just pay lip-service don't". That seems a little flimsy to me.

No, I believe the people who take it seriously are entitled to their beliefs and interpretations. Perhaps if they are using their interpretation for some sort of wrong-doing or fanaticism then they may be criticized. If the Vatican stood by Creationism yet were passive and meek about it, why should we bully them into believing otherwise? Why do we want to insult everyone affiliated with a certain belief when only a handful of said believers are causing trouble?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They are interfering with scientific study, public policy and public education. And it's tax-free!

Certainly these issues should be addressed, but do we really have to generalize and persecute those who are of the same affiliation but are not part of the issue?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

where does it say that they weren't the only 2 created?

So if it doesn't say they were the only two created then it's possible that Adam and Eve are one example of many. Inbreeding not necessary.

You asked.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ch40s

I, personally, do not know of anyone who believes such a thing. I know avid church goers and people who have studied religion, why don't any of them think such a thing?

I personally know people who would agree with the sentiment that the hurricane was sent to New Orleans by God to punish them for their wickedness. Same with that tsunami, it was punishment from God for their godlessness. These people are out there.

No, I believe the people who take it seriously are entitled to their beliefs and interpretations.

I agree, but there's no reason those beliefs and interpretations can't be criticized and disputed either. I support someone's right to believe the earth is flat, but I also support others' right to criticize that belief.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Do you REALLY believe that 20% of Americans fit this category as YOU define it?

I don't.

I just saw a poll about this:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=5

• 8% of Americans classify as evangelicals (not based on self-description; see the Evangelical research archive for the definition of an evangelical) (2007)
• 35% are born again but not evangelical (not based on self-description; see the Born Again research archive for the definition)(2007)
• 40% are other kinds of Christians, or else did not respond.
• 10% of all Americans are atheists or agnostics (2007)
• people of other faiths comprise 7% of the US population (2007)

Of course the context here is accepting evolution, in which case it's far more than 20% that do not.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ch40s

Do they?

I, personally, do not know of anyone who believes such a thing. I know avid church goers and people who have studied religion, why don't any of them think such a thing?

I wrote down a short list of pretty common sentiments that we heard after the hurricane. Only the truly nutty said "got did it to punish the sinners", but people say the other stuff all the time. "My house/life got saved by God", "my relative went to God", "God willing, we'll be okay in the end".

I don't know what the people you know believe, but this is the kind of thing we hear all the time after a something bad happens.

Unless, I guess, what these people mean is "the hurricane happened naturally, but God saved me from it" or "God decided my mom's time was up, while the hurricane was coincidentally happening" or "the hurricane happened, and God had nothing to do with it, but hopefully he'll help us out now that it's gone".[/quote]

Originally Posted by Ch40s

No, I believe the people who take it seriously are entitled to their beliefs and interpretations. Perhaps if they are using their interpretation for some sort of wrong-doing or fanaticism then they may be criticized. If the Vatican stood by Creationism yet were passive and meek about it, why should we bully them into believing otherwise? Why do we want to insult everyone affiliated with a certain belief when only a handful of said believers are causing trouble?

Of course they are entitled to their beliefs and interpretations. So am I, and I'm also entitled to criticize whatever I want to criticize. "It's their belief, so you can't criticize it" doesn't cut it.

And again, nobody is being insulted, and the Catholic church is denying literal creationism, so it's kind of confusing that you keep talking about how it is okay that they believe in it.

Originally Posted by Ch40s

Certainly these issues should be addressed, but do we really have to generalize and persecute those who are of the same affiliation but are not part of the issue?

Who exactly is being persecuted? Generalized -- okay, maybe.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I wrote down a short list of pretty common sentiments that we heard after the hurricane. Only the truly nutty said "got did it to punish the sinners", but people say the other stuff all the time. "My house/life got saved by God", "my relative went to God", "God willing, we'll be okay in the end".

Would you consider Pat Robertson to be "truly nutty"? For the record, I would - but he was one of those who claimed that Katrina was God's punishment. So did Hal Lindsey, and Charles Colson [link]. Let's not forget Jerry Falwell, who attributed blame for 9/11 as follows:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

Admittedly, none of these people are Catholic. It is good to see that the Catholic church has taken the stand that they do, but the scary thing is that (especially in the US) people are leaving the Catholic and other "moderate" churches in droves and flocking to the evangelical faiths. That is the reason that there is such a push to introduce "Intelligent Design" garbage into the science classes. People like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have more influence on American beliefs than the Pope. Especially when the President is one of them.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I wrote down a short list of pretty common sentiments that we heard after the hurricane. Only the truly nutty said "got did it to punish the sinners", but people say the other stuff all the time. "My house/life got saved by God", "my relative went to God", "God willing, we'll be okay in the end".

I don't know what the people you know believe, but this is the kind of thing we hear all the time after a something bad happens.

Unless, I guess, what these people mean is "the hurricane happened naturally, but God saved me from it" or "God decided my mom's time was up, while the hurricane was coincidentally happening" or "the hurricane happened, and God had nothing to do with it, but hopefully he'll help us out now that it's gone".

I think a lot of that stuff is said without thought. Almost as a figure of speech.

I say God Damnit all the time...I certainly don't think I am asking god to damn whatever the target of my rage is at the time.

[missdpuck]

I say "God damned post office" yeah he already did.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Would you consider Pat Robertson to be "truly nutty"?

Who wouldn't?

That Charles Colson fellow is interesting. I'd never heard of him. His claim that Hurricane Katrina was a warning from God that America should be better prepared for the next terrorist attack is pretty good.

A six-year-old who lost his home, school, and dog to the flood might ask "why doesn't God just stop the terrorist attack, instead of wrecking everything and killing my dog?"

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who wouldn't?

That Charles Colson fellow is interesting. I'd never heard of him. His claim that Hurricane Katrina was a warning from God that America should be better prepared for the next terrorist attack is pretty good.

A six-year-old who lost his home, school, and dog to the flood might ask "why doesn't God just stop the terrorist attack, instead of wrecking everything and killing my dog?"

The 3 million + supporters who campaigned for Robertson to be the Republican Presidential candidate in 1988 probably wouldn't agree that he was a total nutjob. Neither would the 1.7 million people in the Christian Coalition.

The sad fact is that Robertson (and his ilk) has more sway in the American populace than the Pope does.

As to your other point, many people (especially Americans) believe in the power of prayer, and will credit being "cured" by Jesus. The cure could be of cancer, or drug addiction, or some other affliction. The hypothetical six-year-old might ask "why doesn't Jesus just cure everyone of cancer"? The answer, to my 6-year old and to your 6-year old, is the same - because God does not exist.

[missdpuck]

And Robertson would tell the 6 yr. old that it is not for us to understand god, his ways are not our ways....blahblahblah.....

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

I disagree - I think gods and religion were invented by primitive people to explain what was not understood at the time. For instance, volcanic eruptions were caused by vengeful volcano gods, and could be prevented by the sacrifice of virgins. We now know this is ridiculous, because of scientific discovery on how volcanoes work.

Did you think that up all by yourself?

I think it's a little more complicated than that.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Every religion tries to explain "why", but the religious texts are also full of the "how". Unfortunately, religion tends to answer the "how" questions incorrectly. The earth is more than 6000-odd years old, the earth does resolve around the sun, and pi does not equal 3, all in contradiction to the Bible. The Koran and other religious texts are similarly filled with errors. Believers in biblical inerrancy gloss over these contradictions, and assume that science is incorrect. I don't know about you, but I would not want to drive over a bridge designed by a Christian engineer who decides that pi=3 based on 1 Kings 7:23.

Where in the bible does it say that the earth is 600 years old?

Where in the bible does it say (scientifically) that the sun revolves around the earth?

1 Kings doesn't seem to be written scientifically, plus measuring in cubits isn't exactly "exact." Pulling form this verse that Pi =3 is REALLY stretching it.

Although it is certainly true that some Christians have interpreted verses to believe those things at different points in history.

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.

I know that, and you know that, and an increasing number of Churches finally seem to be admitting that (Vatican, Church of England's recent apology to Darwin). It'd be nice if they were a bit quicker on the uptake though, hundreds of years to "come around" is a bit long.

As you say that hasn't stopped many churches over the years from obstructing science because they interpreted verses to believe those things, even to today.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Where in the bible does it say that the earth is 600 years old?

Where in the bible does it say (scientifically) that the sun revolves around the earth?

1 Kings doesn't seem to be written scientifically, plus measuring in cubits isn't exactly "exact." Pulling form this verse that Pi =3 is REALLY stretching it.

Although it is certainly true that some Christians have interpreted verses to believe those things at different points in history.

The Bible is NOT a science textbook.

Probably the best known of the biblical chronologies was produced by Rev. James Ussher in the 17th century. It determined that creation occured on Oct. 23, 4004 BC. Info here on how he came to that conclusion. He correlated biblical information (for instance, there is an unbroken male lineage from Adam to Solomon, complete with dates, provided in the bible) along with known historical events to come up with those dates. This calculation is still accepted by many Young Earth Creationists. I will point out that in 2008, a Gallup poll revealed that 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[link] This same page references a Harris poll which shows support for evolution decreasing in the US over the past 10 years.

My point is that a very significant proportion of the US population believes that the earth is 6000-odd years old, specifically because the bible says so.

There is a (admittedly fringe) group called the Association for Biblical Astronomy (formerly the Tychonian Society) who interpret the bible to say that the earth does not move and that all heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. Here are some relevant verses to support their view:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Admittedly, none of these specifically say that the sun revolves around the earth, but if the earth does not move that is the conclusion that must be made. Also, I point out that some people reject the most obvious of scientific facts because they contradict their own interpretation of the bible.

As for the pi=3 remark - I just want to make the point that if the bible were written by the omniscient creator of the universe, then he should be able to provide a bit more accuracy. Here is what the verse says:

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 1 Kings 7:23.

The addition of the word "approximately" before the words thirty cubits would make this statement true. The fact that this (admittedly slight) inaccuracy occurs in the bible is suggestive that the book was written by primitive men and not by an omniscient creator.

I fully agree that the bible is not a science textbook; unfortunately, 44% of Americans reject all science that does not correlate with the bible.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

44% of Americans reject all science that does not correlate with the bible.

BS

[missdpuck]

44%? Had no idea. That's scary.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

BS

BS on your BS.

Not really adding much to the debate there, are you?