[Zionist Conspirator]

I found the creation story fit surprisingly well with what we know of the origin of the universe through science, albeit in symbolic form. I could definitely believe that this was true. I could not, however, believe that it was a journalistic style account of events, like something you'd read in the newspaper. So I immediately needed to know: is it required of Christians to believe that Genesis is to be taken literally? I asked people and looked around online, and quickly found that there was not unanimous agreement on this. I found people who laid out a pretty good case that, yes, it is required of Christians to believe that Genesis is a literal, blow-by-blow description of events that happened about 6,000 years ago; yet others made a good case that Christians should believe that it is truth conveyed through symbolism. I really couldn't tell who I should believe.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why atheists become Catholics and not Fundamentalist Protestants!

Does she really believe that "real presence" stuff? Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

[wideawake]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why atheists become Catholics and not Fundamentalist Protestants!

More accurately, this was one contributing factor to a particular atheist's decision to embrace Catholicism.

If this were her sole criterion, nothing would have prevented her from becoming a Methodist.

After all, nothing in Methodism authorizes an allegorical view of Genesis, but many Methodists still understand Genesis in this way.

[GoLightly]

Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

They've done it, tho I think it was only the body & blood that was transformed for one particular priest. The result was blood type AB.

[Claud]

Does she really believe that "real presence" stuff? Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

LOL...take a look at my #3....I meant to ping you but forgot.

[NYer]

Does she really believe that "real presence" stuff? Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

Science has already done this.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
  
  
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
  
  
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
  
  
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
  
  
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
  
  
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
  
  
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
  
  
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Miracle of Lanciano