Slashdot Mirror

The last pope did agree with evolution, please stop peddling lies.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

from

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm/

If you notice the Catholic folk hasn't spoke out against science in a LONG LONG time.

Actually the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, has said "God" used evolution to create life on earth. Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man.

Why does no one ever attempt to explain that God created man using evolution as a tool?

Pope John Paul II did accept that "God" made man using evolution. Here's his Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man. He delivered the Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996. Of course other Christians don't have a good opinion of Catholism or the Pope, some even believing they're devil worshippers.

I was going tow write a responce, but I'm not the most informed person on the subject. I'll let someone more knowledgeble than I make the point.

"Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible [four of the six are in chapters 17 and 18 and in extrabiblical works such as Sibylling Oracles (5, 159f.), the Apocalypse of Baruch (ii, 1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Eusebius Pamphilius, writing about 303, noted that "it is said that Peter's first epistle... was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

See also here, here, and here. Even your church admits Babylon in Revelation is Rome; why do you fight against your church? Are you showing signs of independent thought, of interpreting the Bible for yourself? Better watch out, your church still has the office that burned people for doing that.

You say you receive the eucharist weekly. The eucharist is one of the most heinous inventions of the Catholic Church. Well, they actually took it from the pagans (see Jeremiah 7:18, 44:19) as they did so much of their practices.

The RCC claims that the wine becomes blood, and the bread becomes flesh. Yet even the most docile Catholic notices that it still tastes like a slice of bland dough and cheap wine. Therefore the RCC came up with the doctrine of "transubstantiation". The mechanism for this is based on the work of Aristotle, as applied by "saint" Thomas Aquinas. In fact he supposedly got his sainthood for this use of a pagan concept to a Catholic doctrine. Aristotle taught that all matter has two components: "Accident" and "Substance". The "accident" is the outward appearance, while "substance" is its inner nature. This has of course been known to be utterly absurd and silly for centuries, but the RCC still clings to it as the explanation for transubstantiation. They claim that the wafer becomes the cookie god, an icon to be worshipped in direct, flagrant violation of the word of God by undergoing a change in its substance without changing its accident. The common phrasing of this is that the wine changes to blood "under the semblance of remaining wine". If at Cana Jesus had changed the water to wine "under the semblance of it remaining water", the master of the feast would have screamed "FRAUD" when he was told that the water was indeed wine, but under the appearance of remaining water. And he would have been right.

And if it does become flesh and blood, there's a far more severe problem. Ever since God allowed mankind to be omnivorous as Noah got off the ark, the consumption of blood has been forbidden (Genesis 9:4). For Jews, it was even more strongly forbidden, resulting in the death penalty (Leviticus 7:24, 17:10, 17:14). Yet Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". So He would never have given blood to His disciples to drink, whether real or "under the semblance". Blood is still forbidden to Christians, see Acts 15:29.

See also in John 6 that Jesus is clearly speaking spiritually when He says that He is break (or do you and the RCC maintain that He is a loaf?). And in 6:63 He makes it even clear

Q: What would you tell someone who asks, 'How can I be saved'?

A: "Repent, believe, and be baptized."

That's all you need for the basic question. You can go into more detail on what each of the terms means (just as you can with the different Protestant models of what one needs to do to be saved), but the concept itself is simplicity itself. Even the most rustic can learn it.

And unlike the different Protestant models, it takes into account all the elements Jesus, Peter, and Paul lay out on the three occasions when someone asks this question.

Matthew 19:1

The spirituality of the catacombs is moreover "social". The Christian, who is accustomed to say in prayer not "my Father" but "our Father", knows that in God's family one does not live separately, but socially. "Though many in number, we form one body in Christ" (Rom 12,59)...

Hundreds of pilgrims, buried in the Memoria of the ancient Appian Way (the Catacombs of St. Sebastian), invoke Peter and Paul, by scratching short prayers on the plaster of the triclia (hall for funeral banquets, in the open air): "Paul and Peter, pray for Victor - Paul, Peter, pray for Sozomenon".

At the entrance of the Crypt of the Popes in St. Callixtus, the wall is covered with prayers: "O St. Sixtus, remember in your prayers Aurelius Repentinus".

You want proof of the slaughters ordered by the popes,

No, I want proof of your assertion that Pope Innocent III ordered the slaughter at Beziers. Either provide it or apologize.

are you a priest or monk; or which are you training for?

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm just a layman.

Anyway, this book gives all the documentation of atrocities by popes you asked for.

That book contains many errors. See, for instance, this page and this one.

You claim the Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary.

Yes, she bore Christ, just as the Ark bore the three types of Christ.

For example, the tables of the law are in the Ark. Mary did not bear the law, but Christ did fulfill the law.

Christ is the Word, just as the Law is the Word of God. So the tables are a type of Christ. The Ark bore the tables, just as Mary bore Christ.

There is a pot of manna in the Ark; Mary did not contain food for all, but Christ is the bread of life (John 6:33-51).

Yes, Christ is the bread of life, and so the manna is a type of Christ. Mary bore Christ, just as the Ark bore the manna.

There is a budded rod of Aaron in the Ark; Mary did not contain a rod, but Christ is the anointed high priest, which is what the rod was about (also see Isaiah 11:1).

Yes, the rod is

Catholics don't nessecarily believe in creationism. As a matter of fact, a catholic preist was the first man to propose the big bang theory.

You assume I'm protestant; I'm not, I'm a baptist. Baptists existed from the beginning of the church

Baptists came out of the Protestant movement. There's no evidence that they existed before then.

whereas the RCC was started by Constantine

Have a look at this site. You'll see that the early Christians believed in the same things that Catholics do. For instance, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Protestants and the RCC both allegorize the book of Revelation, whereas independent evangelicals and baptists believe it as written.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allegorize". For instance, when you say that you "believe it as written", do you mean that there will literally be a woman riding a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns? (Rev. 17:3)

The point of disagreement is that we believe Jesus when he said "It is finished"; the RCC teaches that his finished work on the cross was not sufficient.

This isn't true. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to save all mankind.

The RCC teaches that penance and such are necessary,

Not for salvation as such, but to cleanse us in preparation for going to heaven. If our sins are forgiven but we die without doing penance, we'll still go to heaven, although perhaps first undergoing the cleansing of Purgatory.

that Christ must suffer again each time there is a eucharist,

No, this isn't true. The Eucharist makes present to us the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.

and that any who doubt transubstantiation are anathema.

We believe what Jesus said:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

And it has the utterly unscriptural invention of purgatory.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

If you really believe that, and apparently you do, how do you explain Acts 15 where James is the head of the church, when Paul went to dispute versus Peter for a ruling on circumcision for Gentile Christians. James rendered judgment in that case, clearly he was the authority, Peter was not.

James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (as the local bishop), but not the Church as a whole. In any case, the Bible shows us that Jesus did place the Church under Peter's authority, and He never did that for James.

You are trying to say the thief had somehow been forgiven, yet he knew that he was being justly executed, so he did not believe he was forgiven.

Let's say you murdered someone, and then you received forgiveness from God for the murder you committed. So if the police arrest you, you are brought to trial, and sent to prison (or executed) for your crime, would you consider that you are being unfairly treated by the government? Does having your sins forgiven somehow mean that you are suffering an injustice by being punished for your crime?

The only reason given in our holy bible that the thief was to be in paradise with our Lord that day is that the thief expressed faith in the Lord. Nothing else.

Actually, the thief does show repentance for his sins. "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." (Luke 23:41)

Salvation and Justification by faith alone (sola fide).

Strictly speaking, what the Bible teaches is that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism. Of course, when

You assume I'm protestant; I'm not, I'm a baptist. Baptists existed from the beginning of the church

Baptists came out of the Protestant movement. There's no evidence that they existed before then.

whereas the RCC was started by Constantine

Have a look at this site. You'll see that the early Christians believed in the same things that Catholics do. For instance, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Protestants and the RCC both allegorize the book of Revelation, whereas independent evangelicals and baptists believe it as written.

I'm not sure what you mean by "allegorize". For instance, when you say that you "believe it as written", do you mean that there will literally be a woman riding a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns? (Rev. 17:3)

The point of disagreement is that we believe Jesus when he said "It is finished"; the RCC teaches that his finished work on the cross was not sufficient.

This isn't true. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to save all mankind.

The RCC teaches that penance and such are necessary,

Not for salvation as such, but to cleanse us in preparation for going to heaven. If our sins are forgiven but we die without doing penance, we'll still go to heaven, although perhaps first undergoing the cleansing of Purgatory.

that Christ must suffer again each time there is a eucharist,

No, this isn't true. The Eucharist makes present to us the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.

and that any who doubt transubstantiation are anathema.

We believe what Jesus said:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

And it has the utterly unscriptural invention of purgatory.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

If you really believe that, and apparently you do, how do you explain Acts 15 where James is the head of the church, when Paul went to dispute versus Peter for a ruling on circumcision for Gentile Christians. James rendered judgment in that case, clearly he was the authority, Peter was not.

James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (as the local bishop), but not the Church as a whole. In any case, the Bible shows us that Jesus did place the Church under Peter's authority, and He never did that for James.

You are trying to say the thief had somehow been forgiven, yet he knew that he was being justly executed, so he did not believe he was forgiven.

Let's say you murdered someone, and then you received forgiveness from God for the murder you committed. So if the police arrest you, you are brought to trial, and sent to prison (or executed) for your crime, would you consider that you are being unfairly treated by the government? Does having your sins forgiven somehow mean that you are suffering an injustice by being punished for your crime?

The only reason given in our holy bible that the thief was to be in paradise with our Lord that day is that the thief expressed faith in the Lord. Nothing else.

Actually, the thief does show repentance for his sins. "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." (Luke 23:41)

Salvation and Justification by faith alone (sola fide).

Strictly speaking, what the Bible teaches is that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism. Of course, when

Well before getting on your high horse and claiming that this is all the fault of those miserable foreigners, the West can hardly claim to be blameless.

Zaire (Congo) had one democratic election. The winner Patrice Lumumba was assasinated on the orders of Eisenhower.

Before that the Congo was ruled by Belgium in what was the most brutal colonial regime of all. Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' is actually about the Belgian Congo, not Vietnam.

So I would say that the West really has no moral claim on patent royalties from the Congo until it gets round to paying damages for some of the attrocities it visited on the country.

Of course if you want to stay in your bubble the way to avoid listening to uncomfortable facts like these are to dismiss them as 'anti-American'.