Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope to debate evolution with former students
Reuters ^

Posted on 08/30/2006 7:46:06 AM PDT by Grendel9

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict gathers some of his former theology students on Friday for a private weekend debate on evolution and religion, an issue conservative Christians have turned into a political cause in the United States.

Benedict, who taught theology at four German universities before rising in the Catholic Church hierarchy, has pondered weighty ideas with his former Ph.D students at annual meetings since the late 1970s without any media fuss.

But his election as pope last year and controversies over teaching evolution in the United States have aroused lively interest in this year's reunion on September 1-3 at the papal summer residence of Castel Gondolfo outside Rome.

Religion and science blogs are buzzing about whether it means the Vatican will take a more critical view of evolution and possibly embrace "Intelligent Design," which claims to have scientific proof that human life could not have simply evolved. *** At his inaugural mass after his election last year, Benedict declared: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
This meeting has been touted for many months now. One has to wonder just how many of the subtopics discussed will actually be released to the public. Whatever the outcome, it will be viewed as Amusing by Atheists; Interesting by Born-Agains; Spiritually Uplifting by Family Bred Christians; and a Futile Attempt to Understanding Creation by non-Christians.
1 posted on 08/30/2006 7:46:07 AM PDT by Grendel9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

Also, it may be viewed as more evidence of the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon, by some fundies, as this may be viewed as a "secret meeting to determine the best way to carve up the world in the New World Order".

Are there 11 former students in this group?

By the way, I'm Catholic. It just wouldn't surprise me if the more paranoid would think this.


2 posted on 08/30/2006 7:57:31 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9
Jimmy Carter could sure throw a monkey wrench in the theory of intelligent design .
3 posted on 08/30/2006 8:02:32 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (( I.S.L.A.M. stands for - Islams Spiritual Leaders Advocate Murder .. .. .. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: shotgun ed

You mean we all evolved from bafoons or just Jimmy ?


6 posted on 08/30/2006 8:11:58 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (( I.S.L.A.M. stands for - Islams Spiritual Leaders Advocate Murder .. .. .. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Grendel9

Amazing ... that a man who claims to believe in God would doubt what God clearly states in the Bible. I see no need to "debate" evolution. The evidence is clear and God is clear that He created all we see and don't see in seven 24 hour days. So sad ... that a "debate" is needed to convince him.


8 posted on 08/30/2006 8:20:33 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
The RCC has never taught a literal reading of the Bible. Indeed, the Church regards this as part of the Protestant error.

The Catholic Church has never embraced Protestant creationism. Throughout Catholic Latin America, evolution is taught in church and public schools without any significant opposition or controversy.

9 posted on 08/30/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
"The RCC has never taught a literal reading of the Bible. Indeed, the Church regards this as part of the Protestant error. "

That's part of the problem with the RCC. It's not a "protestant error" it's an error not to take God literally when appropriate.

The RCC has no problem LITERALLY believing that bread and wine will convert to drinking His blood and eating His body. That's a literal that NO ONE should take. It's a sin to eat human flesh and a sin to drink human blood. That NEVER changed and to have imaginary cannibalism must grieve Him deeply. Communion is symbolic - not literally imagining you literally drinking His blood and literally eating His body - imagining it transforms into this - gives me the creeps - KNOWING it is SYMPBOLIC.
10 posted on 08/30/2006 8:37:33 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

"it will be viewed as Amusing by Atheists; Interesting by Born-Agains; Spiritually Uplifting by Family Bred Christians; and a Futile Attempt to Understanding Creation by non-Christians"

Oh, that's good. Can I play?

It will be viewed as:
Wishful thinking by atheists,
Unnecessary exegesis by born-agains,
Romanist perfidy by family bred Christians,
Rearranging deck chairs by non-Christians.


11 posted on 08/30/2006 8:44:24 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbmstr24

I was always curious about JPII's statement and how it was interpreted. Do you have any more information (links) on this matter?


12 posted on 08/30/2006 8:48:47 AM PDT by deputac (Drink Apple Juice; OJ Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Spoken like a true protestant.


13 posted on 08/30/2006 8:57:19 AM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nmh
The RCC has no problem LITERALLY believing that bread and wine will convert to drinking His blood and eating His body. That's a literal that NO ONE should take. It's a sin to eat human flesh and a sin to drink human blood. That NEVER changed and to have imaginary cannibalism must grieve Him deeply. Communion is symbolic - not literally imagining you literally drinking His blood and literally eating His body - imagining it transforms into this - gives me the creeps - KNOWING it is SYMPBOLIC.


[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
[47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
[48] I am that bread of life.
[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
[59] These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
[62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
[66] From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


You would have been one of the disciples that left him.

I suggest you actually read the doctrine of substantiation and maybe take a science class too. There's no issue with evolution. God can create however he pleases.
14 posted on 08/30/2006 9:04:34 AM PDT by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

Right, then. Cannibalism it is, mates!
Who's got the recipe?
Here it is, Cap'n.
Right, then.

"...flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron."*

Yummy.

*Micah 3


15 posted on 08/30/2006 9:14:43 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant

Last weekend's Gospel reading for us in the Roman Catholic faith, and one of it's baisc tenents.


16 posted on 08/30/2006 9:25:17 AM PDT by deputac (Drink Apple Juice; OJ Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nmh
That's part of the problem with the RCC. It's not a "protestant error" it's an error not to take God literally when appropriate.... It's a sin to eat human flesh and a sin to drink human blood. That NEVER changed and to have imaginary cannibalism must grieve Him deeply. Communion is symbolic - not literally imagining you literally drinking His blood and literally eating His body - imagining it transforms into this - gives me the creeps -

William Wycliffe translated the Bible into English, and one his followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution.

Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) onto the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of Hus came true!

Martin Luther went on to be the first man to print the Bible in the German language. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.

17 posted on 08/30/2006 2:31:27 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I am reminded of the graffiti we saw in Oaklahoma, of all places:

"Stop overpopulation. Support cannibalism."

18 posted on 08/30/2006 2:34:48 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

LOL


19 posted on 08/30/2006 2:36:08 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
Catholicism isn't receptive to truth.

Similar to Muslim terrorists, in years past Catholics would as you say, literally burn you at the stake, torture you to convert to their beliefs ... sound familiar?

Who could forget "Bloody Mary" or the Inquisition and Crusades? Same thing is going on with the Muslims and neither is Christian or Biblically correct - yet people still follow the "leaders" of their "faith".


Recently released FOX journalist "converted" to Islam with a gun pointed at them ... history repeats itself and people still defend both "faiths". Go figure!

The Bible and what is says is the secular worlds biggest enemy. It always will be till Christ comes and claims His own.
20 posted on 08/30/2006 3:25:48 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: deputac
The Italian word 'un' can be translated into the English indefinite article "a" or the English adjective "one".

So, when the Pope said something to the effect of "Evolution is more than 'un' theory, the Mainstream Media claimed that he had declared that "Evolution is more than a theory", when he had, in fact, said that "evolution is more than one theory".

Or something like that.

21 posted on 08/30/2006 3:36:25 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nmh

It's bad enough we have to listen to your anti-science crap, do we have to listen to you spout anti-Catholic crap, too?


22 posted on 08/30/2006 3:40:45 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smogger

Actually, he's not reciting a universall held protestant doctrine. Many denominations believe the Bible means what it says.


23 posted on 08/30/2006 3:46:20 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"It's bad enough we have to listen to your anti-science crap, do we have to listen to you spout anti-Catholic crap, too?"

I assume you are Catholic? It's not my fault that Catholicism does NOT believe in God creating all we see and don't see. I don't understand why as a Catholic you are so hostile to the Bible and what GOD states. As for Creation and GOD creating all - God is the AUTHOR of the Laws of Science. Your "knowledge" could dance on the head of a sharp pin with room to spare compared to God's knowledge.
24 posted on 08/30/2006 3:50:34 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I don't know why as a Catholic you are so hostile to the Bible and what GOD states.

Ummm, aren't you the one arguing that the Bible doesn't mean what it says in this instance?

25 posted on 08/30/2006 3:56:09 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

However, in "Truth and Tolerance," the Holy Faith sees the basic problem as the cleft between reason and faith, in a world where faith to many is nothing more than feeling. He quotes Werner Heisenberg worry(in 1927) that this may lead to disaster. The Chjristian view, as stated by the Holy Father in dis discussion of the wisdom books, that it was the concept of wisdom that brought together the personal God of Abraham together with the "High God"
of the pagans, who was not thought to have interest in the affairs of men.
"The rationality that is to be seen in the structure of the world is understood as the reflection of the Creative Wisdom that has produced it. The view of reality now corresponds to some extent the question Heisenburg formulated... "'Is it completely meaningless to imagine, behind the ordering structures and principles of the world as a whole, a consciousness whose intention these world express?" The radical evolutionists say, no. They are not open to a question posed by a great physicist.


26 posted on 08/30/2006 3:57:56 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

Can you believe there are some of us outh there who have gotten so sick of hearing about this we don't even want to hear the word "evolution."


27 posted on 08/30/2006 3:58:26 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

This is proof that you don't need brains to be a Pope. And I was raised Catholic.


28 posted on 08/30/2006 4:01:24 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse; Grendel9

... it will be viewed as Amusing by Atheists; Interesting by Born-Agains ..

and meaningless to most of us.


29 posted on 08/30/2006 4:05:16 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Uh.. Protestant denominations.


30 posted on 08/30/2006 4:07:53 PM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

I'm not sure on which side of the argument you stand by your comment. Please further your thoughts.


31 posted on 08/30/2006 4:08:06 PM PDT by john drake (Roman military maxim; "oderint dum metuant," i.e., "let them hate, as long as they fear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
'Can you believe there are some of us out there who have gotten so sick of hearing about this we don't even want to hear the word "evolution."'

I'm raising my hand here. And, if anyone is paying attention, there is the typical cast of characters continually wasting bandwidth with it. I thought it were more suited to the Smoky Backroom, but I'm thinking more that threads of that nature should be in the Religion section.

32 posted on 08/30/2006 4:08:12 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

""'Is it completely meaningless to imagine, behind the ordering structures and principles of the world as a whole, a consciousness whose intention these world express?" The radical evolutionists say, no. They are not open to a question posed by a great physicist."

To the extent that there is value in imagining that, say, there really is a tooth fairy, I suppose the question has merit. Science builds on proof, though, and not imagination. Ungrounded adoption of imaginings is the realm of faith, if not to say superstitious ignorance.


33 posted on 08/30/2006 4:10:53 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
Catholics don't believe Mark 14:22-24 is true?
34 posted on 08/30/2006 4:15:57 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nmh

I have two question to ask of you..first off, why do you say God created in seven 24 hour days....according to my reading of the Bible, creation occured in six days, not seven...I thought the 7th day was for rest...I have seen some posters on FR, those who follow the teachings of Pastor Arnold Murray, who believe in the 8th of creation, which is the day that they believe Adam was created...they seem to believe that the various human races is what was created on the 6th day...so why do you say 7 days?

Secondly I notice your tagline, where I assume you say that you support intelligent design..I wonder how that can be...considering that the leading proponents of Intelligent Design do not subscribe to literal creationism...they conclude that the earth is millions, perhaps billions of years old...they also accept common descent of man...they also admit, that altho their personal preference for the Intelligent Designer may be the God of the Bible, they admit, that the Intelligent Designer could very well be any other deity, even perhaps some space alien...also they state, that altho they believe that God, or some other deity was the Intelligent Designer, they also concede, that this God or deity, could very well be dead...

I am just curious as to how you seem to be able to meld these two very differing notions together...most strict literal creationists will not admit for the correctness of Intelligent Design, with all its beliefs, nor will those supporting Intelligent Design provide for the correctness of a strict literal creationist interpretation of the Bible...and when one looks at the stand that both creationism and Intelligent Design take, they are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum...they do not agree with each other in most areas...

So I do not understand how you can say something in one post which shows that you believe in a literal creation, while you tagline seems to indicate that you believe something different...

Thanks in advance for any answers...


35 posted on 08/30/2006 4:44:22 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
Martin Luther went on to be the first man to print the Bible in the German language.

Actually, the first printed German bible came out in 1466 - the Mentel Bible, which went through 18 editions until Luther's superseded it in 1522.

Dozens more versions appeared in the decades after.

Luther's claim to fame was that his captured the hearts of so many of his countrymen, becoming interwoven into the language itself and its idioms.

36 posted on 08/30/2006 4:52:20 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nmh
It's not my fault that Catholicism does NOT believe in God creating all we see and don't see.

Actually, the Nicene Creed is pretty clear on that: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

That's the creed that is said (or is supposed to be said) in every Catholic mass.

37 posted on 08/30/2006 5:01:44 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nmh
It's a sin to eat human flesh and a sin to drink human blood.

John 6:54-56.

Was Jesus telling us to sin?

38 posted on 08/30/2006 6:01:06 PM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

No, he was telling us to be cannibals. And we did it.


39 posted on 08/30/2006 6:06:31 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Re 20 Catholicism isn't receptive to truth. As I recall, humanists have never burned anyone at the stake, never persecuted any woman as a witch (and don't even worry about black cats or transubstantion), and generally have a better record in morality.
40 posted on 08/30/2006 8:24:03 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Re 26: The rationality that is to be seen in the structure of the world is understood as the reflection of the Creative Wisdom that has produced it. ...the Holy Faith....a consciousness whose intention these world express

I appreciate your post. Really.

Indeed, it is a wet bird that flies by night.

Baptists, Catholics, atheists can agree on that.

41 posted on 08/30/2006 8:38:07 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Re 36: Dozens more versions appeared in the decades after.

You are entirely correct. In fact, just in English it is hard to count the number of translations and versions. Some sites show how these different versions differ:

http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/scriptures/ http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/compare.htm

Because of these differences and contradictions, any claim as to being "the Word of God" rather silly.

42 posted on 08/30/2006 8:57:40 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Luther can claim to be the genius of the modern German language. His form of middle German became the standard. In the absence of political unity, it was he who may have kept platt Deutch and hoch Deutsch from becoming separate languages.
43 posted on 08/30/2006 9:51:29 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Is it "imagination" or a clearer perception of the nature of things. Sicnetists start by claiming authority over the interpretation of certain facts, for instance, over the biology of ducks, and end up claimsing knowledge over man. But while the biology of ducks is like the biology of man, anthropology is quite another thing. It does not even deal with the same kinds of facts. A man can look at a duck with some objectivity; indeed he cannot look at it subjectivity, that is from the point of view of the duck. Can a man look at another man as an obkect. Yes, when he deals with biological questions. No, when he looks at man "in the round." He always has to consider the one he sees in the mirror as well, and ask not only what is "he" , but WHo is he? and What and who am I? That's philosphy, buddy. Furthermore, he has to consider himself in relation to the nature he can see, and the nature of what he can see, and be aware that there are many things he cannot see.


44 posted on 08/30/2006 10:03:17 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

BS&W. The men who invented the guillotine and modern totalitarianism were "humanists. The Terror was far more destructive of life than the Inquisition. Nor were they always "humane" in their methods of murder. St. Just executed Catholics in the Vendee by crowding them onto a boat and sinking it in the river.


45 posted on 08/30/2006 10:08:08 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: RobbyS

" there are many things he cannot see."

Without a doubt. It's when he begins sacrificing and praying to, all the while talking to these things that some sort of proof is required, else there be no distinction between charlatans and schizophrenics. You attention is directed to the foundation of Mormonism and Joseph Smith's chicanery.


47 posted on 08/31/2006 7:53:25 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wbmstr24

Thanks for the link. I have seen a lot of talk about this quote from the Pope and, this translation, taken in full context with what he was saying and advocating, puts it into a much clearer light.

Not to mention the fact that, every time you come across something that John Paul II or Benedict XIV, for that matter, wrote or said, you can see that these men are a lot more than just "right wing ideologues." It is just a shame that those on the Left will often criticize these men for their beliefs and dismiss them just because they do not conform with present day values (if you can even call them values at this point in time).


48 posted on 08/31/2006 8:05:39 AM PDT by deputac (Drink Apple Juice; OJ Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: nmh

His Holiness certainly is NOT in need of
being convinced of God's participation in
The Beginning. I think the idea is to
determine a common ground between the
evolutionary evidence of scientitsts and
the inspired Word of the Old Testament.
Joseph Ratzinger is a very learned
theologian/scholar. As Cardinal, he
conducted these same kinds of "debates"
under the auspices of Pope John Paul II.
Men of the Church and people of Faith do
not need these debates to "prove" their
belief in the Word. But, as we know,
there are many gnostics, atheists, and
those simply unsure of what to believe.
These debates with other scholars and
scientists may well benefit those people.

Besides, most scientists will admit there are
some rather inexplicable "holes in their
evolutionary theory" and many more admit to
having experienced a Divine Presence or
miraculous intervention in their work.



50 posted on 09/02/2006 1:25:57 PM PDT by Grendel9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson