Vatican Rejects Intelligent Design?

typobox43 writes "A Vatican representative has expressed a defense of the theory of evolution, stating that it is "perfectly compatible" with the Genesis story of creation. "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator"." Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down. The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.

Comments

my tagline

[MrByte420]

ssia

Meanwhile, back in Hell.

[Chas]

Hey Chuck! You just got a reprieve!

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

That's metaphorical. It was metaphorical the first time it was done, so there's nothing "cannibalistic" about the re-enactment of communion. And to be honest, that's the first instance I've heard that viewpoint come up since a some ignorant Romans took the words literally before the widespread adoption of Christianity.

Sorry, but all of the Church Fathers, not only in Rome but also everywhere else in the Christian world of the time, believed that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God, not a mere metaphor. This is obvious from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church (which was one whole half of Christendom at the time of the split) maintains the same doctrine as the Roman Catholic Church, and so it is not a Roman innovation. What is an innovation is the Protestant notion that it's just a symbol, because this has no grounds in the writings of the Fathers.

Re:time to stone Hemos I'm afraid

[Troed]

Oh I knew :) I'm one of those white people living in a civilized western country who's actually _read_ the Quran to better understand the conflicts people sometimes attribute to Islam (which is largely false).

However, claiming (as you do) that there are people (and I hope you mean reputable sources) who do not believe Jahwe, God and Allah to be the same religious entity brings a burden of proof upon you.

The current fascist war regime in the US becomes so much more fun when you know that Bush is saying "Allah bless America" every now and then.

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

The Coptic Church has the same doctrine on the Eucharist as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Anabaptists didn't come about until the 16th century in Germany. The Amish and the Mennonites are their biggest descendents. There were no "pre-400 AD Protestants". There were some heretical groups, such as the Gnostics and the Montanists, but they can't be called "Protestants" because that word refers to those who followed Luther's break with the Roman Catholic Church. Do you have any training in the history of religion, or are you just trying to get attention by injecting mentions of the Copts in places where they aren't especially pertinent?

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

The Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos is not in the Bible. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (there's no such thing as "Eastern Catholics" in English terminology) believe that it happened because there are no physical relics of the Theotokos. We only have her Veil, while for other saints we have various corporeal relics, such as the head of John the Baptist and the skull of St Anna. However, while the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatized this by a statement ex cathedra (making it a serious dogma), the Eastern Orthodox Church has not dogmatized it, although its members overwhelmingly believe in it.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jgardn]

But, to an ID thinker, and I am sure you would agree to this, they are trying to explain the gaps. Evolutionists are more than happy to ignore the gaps. The ID thinker is trying to fill them in. Quantum Mechanics raised more questions than it answered. So did Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. However, that did not mean it is not correct.