Slashdot Mirror

We can't prove that there wasn't a shadowy actor who made slight nudges to evolution over the course of billions of years to lead amino acids to humanity.

In other words, we cannot yet disprove theistic evolution.

Personally, I have nothing against you if you want to believe in a god who made really tiny nudges like that, good on you

Nor do I.

but that's not the god most religious people appear to believe in.

Many Christian denominations, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, accept the scientific consensus that Earth is billions of years old. Old Earthers since Saint Augustine in the fifth century have reconciled this with the creation week of Genesis 1 using a day-age theory, citing other scripture to justify interpreting a "day" of creation as a metaphor for an arbitrarily long era. Some day-agers accept evolution in a theistic form; others, the progressive creationists, posit created families within which God has allowed microevolution to happen.

Now as for "most", I'm curious about the fraction of believers who belong to old-Earth denominations, young-Earth denominations, or denominations that take no position on Earth's age. The Roman Catholic Church falls into the last category.

• Catholic Answers, "The Trouble With Yoga" https://www.catholic.com/magaz...
• Alternet, "Fear the Dark Art of Yoga! Why Conservative Christians Are Freaking Out After Yoga “Miracle”" http://www.alternet.org/belief...
• Christian Assemblies International, "The Spiritual Deception of Yoga", https://webcache.googleusercon...
• Christianity Today, "Should Yoga be Banned from Public Schools as a Religious Activity?", http://www.christianitytoday.c...

http://forums.catholic.com/ and in particular http://forums.catholic.com/for...

The Church's official, or at least semi-official position on refugees, is not one universally shared by the membership. Conservative Catholics are starting to look a lot like they're Evangelical counterparts.

http://forums.catholic.com/ and in particular http://forums.catholic.com/for...

The Church's official, or at least semi-official position on refugees, is not one universally shared by the membership. Conservative Catholics are starting to look a lot like they're Evangelical counterparts.

http://forums.catholic.com/

Take a perusal. This is a site largely populated by various strains of Traditionalist Catholics, and yes, they say some rather intemperate things about the LGBT community.

And what does it matter how many people Jesus killed? His followers have killed plenty. Do you think the Templars went into Eastern Europe with flowers and gum drops to convert all the heathen Prussians and Lithuanians? Christendom's marshal nature has been on display ever since Constantine declared he'd seen a cross in the sky. No matter how much you'd like to sever Christianity's militaristic zeal to convert, it most certainly existed, and a somewhat more benign form persisted to the modern day, where all those kindly missionaries went into China and Africa to convert all those nasty heathens, all with the approval of the foremost Great Powers of Europe, who wanted the natives nice and softened up.

Did you read your first hit Google link? It answers none of the questions I raised. A better link http://www.catholic.com/quickq... avoids the whole question all together by taking no stance until life is found. The problem with that is the Bible speaks as though it was written by the all knowing yet does not seem to know anything beyond the sciences of its written age.

http://www.catholic.com/magazi...

Now, why do you have to analyze a joke so much? Would it have been better if I had said that Jesus stoned her instead?

> Don't forget "social justice".

Jesus is the original SJW.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

You can read more here if you are interested.

No you can't. Christianity and it's doctrines are not all from the Bible. Catholicism says this out right. Sola scriptura (scripture alone) is heretical. And they have given quite a few definitive arguments about why that is, ironically using the Bible itself.

http://www.catholic.com/projec...

http://www.catholicbasictraini...

Aren't there like three actual sins against humanity, all of them including domination of the weak or innocent? 1. Murder -- killing an innocent or someone who poses no threat to your life; 2. Rape, of anyone; and 3. -- Wait, is there a third?

Were you thinking of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance? (Second paragraph.)

No, I can confirm I've heard similar rationalising.
Everything from getting embarrassed and changing the subject to "That part doesn't apply in today's modern age"

How do you rationalise it to yourself if it isn't the bury your head in the sand technique?

I think that we could agree that it is possible to know the right answer to a question or problem, but not know how it was derived. Some of what you refer to is that simple: right answer, don't know how it was obtained. There is a lot of that in society since few people go to the trouble of deriving all knowledge from first principles themselves.

But lets be a little more specific about some of the factors that would come into play. One of them is the body of law involved. The Bible contains many sets of rules or laws, some of which only apply in specific circumstances. For example, there are rules that apply specifically to worship by priests in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. As you may well know, the 2nd temple was destroyed nearly 2,000 years ago and hasn't been rebuilt since. If you aren't a Jewish priest conducting worship in the Jewish temple that has yet to be rebuilt in Jerusalem then those laws would never apply to you. I will also note that there is only one place where the temple can be built according to the law, and that place is currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest place in Islam. The bottom line is that the purpose and scope of the law matters. The Ten Commandments are generally applicable, the laws governing Jewish priests conducting worship are very narrow in scope.

Beyond the question of the body of law and the applicability is the earthly ministry of Jesus, the Christ. The purpose of the sacrifices made in the Jewish temple were in essence as payment for breaking God's laws, for sinning. Christians believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity and whoever believes in Him as savior has their sins forgiven. As a result Christians are not obligated to have sacrifices made to pay for their sins in the temple. Various other laws would also not apply for a similar reason.

You can find explanations of the sacrifice that Jesus made and its meaning here or here.

I hope that helped.

"Hitler's armies famously used the slogan "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") on their uniforms, and had a cozy relationship with the Vatican."

Hitler brutally suppressed Catholics in Germany during the years of his 'third reich.' Moreover, the Nazis sent thousands of Catholic priests to the concentration camps in Poland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/catholic-martyrs-of-the-holocaust

"Hitler's armies famously used the slogan "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") on their uniforms, and had a cozy relationship with the Vatican."
Hitler brutally suppressed Catholics in Germany during the years of his 'third reich.' Moreover, the Nazis sent thousands of Catholic priests to the concentration camps in Poland.

Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed.

Evolution as a whole does not undermine the narrative, does it? It does undermine a very specific belief, that Adam was the father of all humankind. That is a crucial point, because that is where the whole Fall/Redemption belief system starts. If Adam is symbolic or metaphorical, then the whole later part of a human blood sacrifice to atone for that Fall or to perfect the relationship or whatever is rendered unintelligible. That is why this church is willing to admit that evolution is true in general while clinging to a completely incorrect idea of Christian monogenism.

As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".

Then why are you bringing it up in a discussion about the belief in a biblical Adam? And do I need to point out that the Flood myth is also a scientifically invalid idea that has been refuted? There was never a global flood, and there was never just two human beings.

No one is proposing a literal match between biblical Eve and mitochondrial Eve, not even the church. Again, the church clearly states that genesis contains figurative language. Again, my original statement was that I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.

Certainly, once you strip all of the details away and squint hard, they appear similar. This is true for virtually all religions with metaphorical language. Not a vote of confidence.

That is a quite gratuitous interpretations of "figurative language".

It is my own belief that it is rank mythology. Take it however you like.

What I seem to mostly disagreeing with is your interpretation of the vatican statements. You seem to be reading in things that are not there at times.

What I find funny is that I have to explain basic Catholic theology to someone who is at some level defending it. You can go to any Catholic apologetics website and find that out. I can point you to cathechism after catechism. They will all point you to a simple belief: Adam and Eve were literal people who are the parents of all other humans. Any other view is considered heretical by the Catholic church. This was true the entire time I was a Catholic, and it hasn't changed in the intervening time.

And, again, the whole point zooms past you. There were never two human beings on the planet. Never. Not once. Ever.

You keep repeating this like a creed. For you, it is an act of faith, and you seem convinced that just repeating that like a broken record will make it more true. But since that "fact" is the core of the discussion, that's precisely what you need to prove.

I claim that this "fact"of yours is patently false, because it is so easily falsified with myriads of counter examples. There was a time where a single person on Earth knew relativity, and then he taught others and relativity became part of humanity.There was a time where a single person on Earth knew how to do fire, and then he taught others and fire became part of humanity. There was a time when a single person on Earth knew how to send an e-mail, and then he taught others and e-mail became part of humanity. There was a first blue rose. And so on.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single part of our human heritage that appeared all over the place at once. Whether it's physical like skin color or cultural like cave painting, we always observe a starting point followed by contamination.

So what is there really behind your statement that there were never two human beings on the planet? The fact that proto-humans lived in tribes? The fact that the hypothetical first human had to mate with non-humans, and was therefore not so different from them? Or the fact that you don't know how to define "human" precisely enough to be able to pinpoint that first human?

The Catholic church claims that there were only two people at one point,

It's not the Catholic church, it's the Bible, so it's all Muslims, all Jews, all Christians including non-Catholic.

though they claim that these could have been drawn from a group of proto-humans.

I, not the church, claimed in this thread that based on modern science, we know the first human was drawn from a group of proto-humans, and then taught the second human to be human (because what makes us human is largely social and not genetic). And I find it reasonable to believe that the second "human" in this transmission chain was the mate of the first one. I am not sure that this hypothesis is true, but it's definitely the most plausible scientific hypothesis that I can derive from the theory of evolution and observation of knowledge transmission. It's not derived from the Bible, however, it does match the account in the Bible relatively well.

If you want to claim that there were always multiple humans, you need to blur the definition of human. With a blurred definition, you blur the boundary in space and time. With a crisp definition, the first human becomes unique. The Bible chose a crisp definition, the knowledge of good and evil.

the Catholic church requires that this bit of Genesis be interpreted LITERALLY. And this point is LITERALLY false.

Again, you seem to think that by repeating and SHOUTING your creed, you will make it more credible.

But no, the Catholic church does not require literal interpretation of Genesis, on the contrary.

And no, the existence of a first human is not false, if we define humanity based on any kind of knowledge or sapience, as I tried to demonstrate time and time again. It is highly likely to be true because all our experience with science, knowledge, genetics or epidemics is that there is always a "patient zero". At that point, I am tempted myself to say that is't my own point that zooms past you, and I'm very sorry that I can't get it across. If there are "patient zero" or "inventor zero" for everything we know, then logically there has to be a "human zero". Claiming that we "know" otherwise in all caps is not going to address this argument.

No, wacky heresies have surrounded the Christian church pretty much since its inception. Consider the Albigensian heresy from the 11th Century which holds that the world is a creation of an evil deity.

Reference: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

The problem there, is, if my wife and I don't want to have another child, should we be celibate? We don't want another child, ever. Should we lie next to each other every night for the rest of out lives and never have sex again? Or are we sinning by not pumping out a litter?

In the matter of fact, yes:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I cannot resist to give a link to a legendary Monty Python classic "The Meaning of Life":
The Protestant View

Woah woah woah. Evolution VS Creationism is way, way different than a debate about Birth Control and Condoms. Also, we are sticking to our guns by believing these things about birth control/condoms/evolution.

And, since you wanted citations, here's citations from the Church Fathers themselves:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

If you want Catholics to "stick to their guns", then they would be doing exactly what they've been doing for the past 2000 years (doctrine-wise)

Woah woah woah. Evolution VS Creationism is way, way different than a debate about Birth Control and Condoms. Also, we are sticking to our guns by believing these things about birth control/condoms/evolution.

And, since you wanted citations, here's citations from the Church Fathers themselves:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

If you want Catholics to "stick to their guns", then they would be doing exactly what they've been doing for the past 2000 years (doctrine-wise)

They are just not encouraged to THINK about it.

Really?... Start here if you'd like. It illustrates internal debates beginning way back with St. Augustine, and continues today. Google can turn up thousands more.

Hell, The US Catholic Church can't even decide which translation to use! ...and note the last link, an informal guide to choosing. I'll expand the relevant bit:

"At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed. Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation, but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier. There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order. Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations. "

The only universal recommendation I could Google up is that literal translations are better than dynamic (pre-interpreted to make more readable) translations. So, err, for an organization that you purport to be all big on control, you'd think that they would not only have one translation, but that they would recommend one which was dynamic (that is, pre-interpreted), no?

As for the Index Libororum Prohibitorum, its purpose has changed dramatically over the years, and for the past and present centuries, holds little if any of what you're representing it as. You may want to actually look up what it really is (link provided for convenience).

if you are born with the orientation to view members of your own sex as sexual objects, then you are who you are, and as long as what happens is between consenting adults, there is no crime committed, legally or spiritually

I love how you think you have the religious authority to tell me what is considered sinful or not. And I believe that if you were in the Middle East right now, you'd find that it isn't quite "legal" over there... Legality has nothing to do with it. Morality does, though.

i will respect no religious organization that is so caught up in mumbo jumbo that it thinks it has a right to tell people to deny themselves who they are.

You wouldn't argue that someone with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism should become and alcoholic, right? That's what I thought...

pedophile priests

Which the Church has been trying to take care of and officially disapproves of. Even if they didn't disapprove of pedophile priests, what good reason would they have to randomly molest children around the world? It sounds a little far-fetched, doesn't it?

helping spread AIDS in africa by telling people not to use condoms

Condoms don't help at all. The entire point of condoms is so you can have sex without getting pregnant, and you can get AIDS orally if I'm not mistaken. The answer isn't condoms but sexual self-control. Handing out condoms would deny the life-giving aspect of sexuality that God put in it since the beginning of sexuality itself, therefore being sinful. Those with AIDS are called to live lives of Chastity, as are homosexuals. We're not animals; we don't have to act on our desires all of the time.

continuing to population time bombs like in the philippines by denying people a right to family planning

Ever hear of Natural Family Planning? That's abstaining from sex when you're most fertile to minimize the risk of pregnancy. We have self-control, don't we? If you don't want kids, just don't have sex! Is it really that hard?

if jesus christ were alive today, compassionate man he was, he would be speaking out against the catholic church as an abomination of his beliefs

You may be right that he'd criticize some of the things that happen within the Church, but He certainly wouldn't criticize their policies and doctrines because they've been virtually the same since the very beginning of Christianity itself. Extremely large citation needed on your part.

what the bleep do these people know about human sexuality and why should we listen to their ideas about it, considering they have no experience with it

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that anybody with a decent education should know that you don't have to have sex to know all about it... That should have been obvious.

the catholic church really needs to shut up about any and all issues having to deal with human sexuality. it can't seem to do anything on that subject matter except cause evil in the world

Like you and your illogical Church-bashing, as I've pointed out above?

Of course there's not. Kepler wasn't launched until almost 2000 years after the last book of the Bible was wrapped up.

If you want more on Kepler ST, but want it blended with bible-believing religious types, you already missed one event but you can probably still join the conversation now from the comfort of your armchair...

And yet, as I have posted elsewhere, it is very clear that you must be absolved by a priest.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

Note that the information contained in this link is declared NIHIL OBSTAT by the Censor Librorum, and given IMPRIMATUR by the Bishop of San Diego.

It is not a random comment from "teh interwebs".

What has been recognized, and no longer considered blasphemy, is that those outside the Catholic Church (for example, Protestants) could be forgiven by God directly.

If that was not clear enough, you can read the argument here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture.

So as long as an idea doesn't contradict tradition or scripture, we're all good with it?

Of course. And don't misunderstand what I said: by "doesn't contradict tradition", I mean that it is an accepted Catholic belief that the original Church Fathers believed, OR it can be shown to logically follow from those beliefs. For example, "limbo", while not an official Catholic doctrine, is a belief that logically descends from belief in purgatory (depending on who you ask).

Catholic.com on the Inquisition
Fr. Joe on the Inquisition and then some
I am going to be totally honest here and say that I don't 100% trust these articles. Note that these articles were written in 2004 and 1998, respectively. While some citations and statistics may be inaccurate or even wrong, it's no worse than many protestant citations. The articles are at least worth considering, however, and make some very valid points.

Also, Google's your friend.

Citations from the original Church Fathers to the contrary.

Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices.

Well I'd love to see a historically accurate source that doesn't fall to common misconceptions. Of course the Catholic Church is biased; who isn't? I can assure you though that it is truthful and doesn't lie to protect itself.

The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into.

First of all, you're forgetting where the Bible even comes from. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith, was never intended to be, and does not contradict the doctrine of purgatory, as the links I shared earlier stated rather clearly.

Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers.

The original church fathers did, in fact, believe in Purgatory; the belief that it was "introduced" comes from a misunderstanding about how Catholic doctrines are approved. The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture. The Catholic Church has not "invented" a single doctrine, and every single one of them was believed by the original church fathers.

I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.

Some priests take a vow of poverty, yes, but not all. Mostly, it's the church itself that needs the money for things like electricity, repairs, distributing materials, buildings, taxes if any, and whatnot. I don't see how donations to help the Church, assuming it's a decent place to give money of course, could possibly be a bad thing.

Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices.

Well I'd love to see a historically accurate source that doesn't fall to common misconceptions. Of course the Catholic Church is biased; who isn't? I can assure you though that it is truthful and doesn't lie to protect itself.

The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into.

First of all, you're forgetting where the Bible even comes from. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith, was never intended to be, and does not contradict the doctrine of purgatory, as the links I shared earlier stated rather clearly.

Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers.

The original church fathers did, in fact, believe in Purgatory; the belief that it was "introduced" comes from a misunderstanding about how Catholic doctrines are approved. The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture. The Catholic Church has not "invented" a single doctrine, and every single one of them was believed by the original church fathers.

I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.

Some priests take a vow of poverty, yes, but not all. Mostly, it's the church itself that needs the money for things like electricity, repairs, distributing materials, buildings, taxes if any, and whatnot. I don't see how donations to help the Church, assuming it's a decent place to give money of course, could possibly be a bad thing.

Sigh... The app was *never* approved as a replacement for visiting a Priest to forgive sins. It was only seen as something that can *help* you to want to ask for forgiveness. Also, contrary to protestant belief, the Bible (which is not intended to be the sole rule of faith, by the way, considering where we got it from) does not, in fact, contradict this Catholic practice:

Source 1
Source 2

Sigh... The app was *never* approved as a replacement for visiting a Priest to forgive sins. It was only seen as something that can *help* you to want to ask for forgiveness. Also, contrary to protestant belief, the Bible (which is not intended to be the sole rule of faith, by the way, considering where we got it from) does not, in fact, contradict this Catholic practice:

Source 1
Source 2

Haha, very funny. The truth is, contrary to popular perception (especially from protestants), that indulgences aren't sold; in fact, they are acts of penance done to reduce the required stay in purgatory, not a money-making scheme. In fact, if they were a money-making scheme, they're one of the least effective ones in existence. Indulgences were given for reading your bible, for reciting prayers regularly, and many other things. The times when money was involved were occasions where you'd give alms (charity), which is not buying it outright. Assuming that charity is a good thing, and assuming that the Catholic Church is a good organization to give money to (considering it's God's very own church for Christ's sake, literally), why wouldn't it be praiseworthy from God himself that you helped his Church?

Sources:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
Also, Google's your friend.

Haha, very funny. The truth is, contrary to popular perception (especially from protestants), that indulgences aren't sold; in fact, they are acts of penance done to reduce the required stay in purgatory, not a money-making scheme. In fact, if they were a money-making scheme, they're one of the least effective ones in existence. Indulgences were given for reading your bible, for reciting prayers regularly, and many other things. The times when money was involved were occasions where you'd give alms (charity), which is not buying it outright. Assuming that charity is a good thing, and assuming that the Catholic Church is a good organization to give money to (considering it's God's very own church for Christ's sake, literally), why wouldn't it be praiseworthy from God himself that you helped his Church?

Sources:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
Also, Google's your friend.

If you don't take it literally, then you're free to treat the psalms as historical narrative or the laws as poetry, etc. In other words, you could make it mean whatever you want it to.

Rather large misconception on your part. You're forgetting what the Bible was intended to be in the first place, and in effect making the Bible more than it was meant to be. Yes, the Bible is "inspired", as in, "God-breathed", but it isn't 100% correct on everything, nor was it intended to be. The Bible was written for the Church, by the Church with God's guidance, not for peoples' own interpretation. The Bible was never meant to be a super-accurate scientific document and it shows in various places with metaphors, similes, analogies, and other various wordings that are thousands of years old, therefore not necessarily following standard language and writing practices of today.

The Bible was always intended to be a collection of stories from the Jewish and Christian past, presented in a variety of narratives by a variety of authors (though all inspired). The Bible does not account for the intricate details of every single Jewish and Catholic tradition, simply because it wasn't meant to be the sole rule of faith. In the same way, it doesn't account for every scientific detail in a perfectly accurate manner at all times, and while it may be accurate about spiritual matters (assuming that's what you believe), there is nothing in the Bible or Catholic/Jewish tradition that says it is also 100% scientifically accurate, or meant to be, and Catholic/Jewish tradition has been around for a very long time and the Catholic church believes the very things that the original Church fathers believed back in their time; if anybody knew the correct way to interpret scripture, it would be the direct successors of the Apostles themselves, yes?

Obviously, the Bible isn't meant to be taken 100% literally at all times. Why then is the beginning of Genesis exempt from this? You'll find in Genesis that God said Adam would die "the day", not millennium, that he ate from that tree (depending on the translation: the NIV doesn't have it, but KJV, etc., have it). Yet, he lived to be well over 900 years old. Does this mean that each "day" in the beginning of Genesis was approximately a thousand years? No, but it does show that the word "day" is (and can be) used loosely to illustrate a biblical truth. When Genesis was written, I wouldn't expect Moses (or whoever wrote it) to use the exact number of millions and billions of years for everything that was made (or even to describe the process that they were made) hence the use of "day".

If you don't take it literally, then you're free to treat the psalms as historical narrative or the laws as poetry, etc. In other words, you could make it mean whatever you want it to.

Rather large misconception on your part. You're forgetting what the Bible was intended to be in the first place, and in effect making the Bible more than it was meant to be. Yes, the Bible is "inspired", as in, "God-breathed", but it isn't 100% correct on everything, nor was it intended to be. The Bible was written for the Church, by the Church with God's guidance, not for peoples' own interpretation. The Bible was never meant to be a super-accurate scientific document and it shows in various places with metaphors, similes, analogies, and other various wordings that are thousands of years old, therefore not necessarily following standard language and writing practices of today.

The Bible was always intended to be a collection of stories from the Jewish and Christian past, presented in a variety of narratives by a variety of authors (though all inspired). The Bible does not account for the intricate details of every single Jewish and Catholic tradition, simply because it wasn't meant to be the sole rule of faith. In the same way, it doesn't account for every scientific detail in a perfectly accurate manner at all times, and while it may be accurate about spiritual matters (assuming that's what you believe), there is nothing in the Bible or Catholic/Jewish tradition that says it is also 100% scientifically accurate, or meant to be, and Catholic/Jewish tradition has been around for a very long time and the Catholic church believes the very things that the original Church fathers believed back in their time; if anybody knew the correct way to interpret scripture, it would be the direct successors of the Apostles themselves, yes?

Obviously, the Bible isn't meant to be taken 100% literally at all times. Why then is the beginning of Genesis exempt from this? You'll find in Genesis that God said Adam would die "the day", not millennium, that he ate from that tree (depending on the translation: the NIV doesn't have it, but KJV, etc., have it). Yet, he lived to be well over 900 years old. Does this mean that each "day" in the beginning of Genesis was approximately a thousand years? No, but it does show that the word "day" is (and can be) used loosely to illustrate a biblical truth. When Genesis was written, I wouldn't expect Moses (or whoever wrote it) to use the exact number of millions and billions of years for everything that was made (or even to describe the process that they were made) hence the use of "day".

Note that the Catholic Church, from it's very inception (which is when Jesus made Peter his successor), never believed that the Bible was to be taken literally at all times (especially in Genesis). My source (Also, check out some of the other writings on that site: awesome resource!).

Actually, this world might be a better place if Islam was actually dragged BACK to the 11th century.
This is not a joke: islamic worldview actually used to be very progressive at about that time, or little bit later (12th and 13th centuries).
Scholars of that era would consider many current fundamentalist priests to be a disgrace, non-intellectual caricatures of earlier spiritual leaders.

True.

I wonder how many Slashdot regulars who get their jollies busting on Christianity* simply don't want to realize Islam is literally irrational.

* - and never bothered to actually READ the Catholic Church's postition on, say, evolution [cue ignorant exploding heads...]

It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them

The Catholic Church says that's wrong.

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 whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Looks like a an example of how God chose evolution for His method and pulled us from the pack and endowed us with a spiritual soul at the correct moment in order to make us human. Evolutionary theory and even the existence of life on other planets is not outside the realm of God. As humans we only know a small piece of the puzzle especially since we have fallen from grace through Original Sin. But if we follow God on His terms then we will get to the see the whole picture in the end. Those who think that God would not use evolution limit his power and mystery, and in my opinion limit their faith to something of their own creation. Check out http://www.catholic.com/ for more information about the Church and evolution (and more). Remember Pascal's Wager and you'll have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

AFAIK, the catholic church explicitly says that science and faith should not contradict one another.

Except, of course, when they do. In which case, Faith wins.

The only thing they 'cherry pick' as not being allowed as being a result from evolution is the human 'soul' (whatever that is).

False:

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâ(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâ(TM)s guidance, [...]

That's Creationism.

I believe that any 'spiritual element' of the human beings logically must, of course, be an epiphenomenon of the hardware which in turn evolved naturally. But I still think that the Vatican's definition was a very smart move.

Well they have had a long, long time to refine their deception, hypocrisy and doubletalk, so you'd expect that.

The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.

Yes, they do. The Catholic Church cherry-picks a few bits of Evolution to call "ok", to try and distance themselves from the crazier Creationists out there, but they still think humans are a "special creation" and, therefore, not the product of Evolution.

Straw man alert.

You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".

To wit:

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâ(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâ(TM)s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

And before you get your panties in a simplistic wad over this:

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Well, let's put it this way: If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading God, there is literally nothing in the entire universe that's "atheistic".

ok, sorry to have to keep doing this, but the christians fighting for creation in schools are very rarely, if ever, catholics.

search for "human evolution" at http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp if you need proof.

i thought it was well understood that fundamentalist christians despise catholics.

i know this is nitpicky, but the christians fighting for creationism typically don't like catholics (ie, where priests come from).
see the following quote from http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp:
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâ(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâ(TM)s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

The common misconception was that Galileo was trying to disprove something that was religiously important. But he was mostly just going on about something that everyone disagreed with. Pope Urban VII allowed him to discuss the possibilities of a heliocentric model versus a geocentric model as long as he didn't just claim it to be true, but the real trouble began when he made light of the Pope. He wasn't trying to disprove the dogma, but he was persecuted for attacking the authority that generated (or preserved) that dogma with his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems"

I think that's supposed to be the main connection here. It's not about what you believe, it's who you believe. Which still hasn't got anything to do with censorship.

The verse actually speaks quite clearly to both matters: neither the origin nor the correct interpretation is of human origin. Not to mention that the sort of interpretation you suggest ("putting on the mind of Christ," as some people claim) has lead only to multiplying schismatic groups all claiming the true interpretation, none of which accords with the early Church documents which we actually have, dating from the late 1st century. And what is "knowing" or "putting on the mind of" Christ? That changes from group to group--as long as your interpretation agrees with theirs, you "know" Christ?

This may not sway you from your way of interpretation, but be aware that you will search in vain for its appearance before the Protestant schism. The early Church knew nothing of that kind of individualistic religion, and the example of the Bereans does not mean what you think it does.

Regarding the Bereans, it was not for their searching the scriptures, but for their openness that they were commended. Read it again. They were "more receptive" (or noble, depending on the translation) "for they welcomed the message very eagerly," not because of their searching the scriptures. This is compared to the Thessalonicans, who rejected and jealously mistreated the Apostle. The Thessalonicans also searched the scriptures at length (which were not the Gospels, as you seem to be assuming, but rather the Septuagint--the Gospels did not yet exist in written form), but had not been open to the new (oral) teaching from Paul as the Bereans were. Remember, neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonicans being discussed in these passages were Christians. They were both Jewish communities to whom Paul came preaching out of the Jewish scriptures.

There's a much fuller explanation of all of this at this page, if you're interested. The whole idea of "sola scriptura" does not enter the equation, and was never read into that passage until Protestants decided they needed to reinterpret scripture to meet their needs.

Baptism of children is drawn from the Bible. A debate for a different forum. http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

FYI Giordano Bruno was not burned for his scientific views:

From http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=15401


Bruno's crimes were more profound than teaching an alternative cosmology. He taught a humanist, materialistic pantheism, which was rather incoherent. He was a defiant critic of many ecclesiastical doctrines. After rejecting Catholicism, he joined Calvinism, but was excommunicated by them and ejected from Geneva, appearantly because of his outspoken defiance of Church authority in Geneva too.

He was a humanist who published what he considered humorous works but others found them to be obscene. In 1584 he published "The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast", which was not about cosmology, but an attack on the Catholic Church.

In 1587, he was excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany. Seems this guy couldn't get along with anybody.

In 1591, he went to Venice (not too bright, either), and was tried before the Inquisition (not for his Copernican views, however). He was inprisoned for 6 years. After haven been given several terms in which to retract his heretical teachings, he was handed over to the secular authorities. They executed him.