Skip to comments.Pope to debate evolution with former students
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 ...
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.
You mean we all evolved from bafoons or just Jimmy ?
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.
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.
"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.
I was always curious about JPII's statement and how it was interpreted. Do you have any more information (links) on this matter?
Spoken like a true protestant.
"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.
"...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."*
Last weekend's Gospel reading for us in the Roman Catholic faith, and one of it's baisc tenents.
William Wycliffe translated the Bible into English, and one his followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffes 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 Wycliffes 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. Foxes 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 Lords Prayer in English rather than Latin.
"Stop overpopulation. Support cannibalism."
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.
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?
Actually, he's not reciting a universall held protestant doctrine. Many denominations believe the Bible means what it says.
Ummm, aren't you the one arguing that the Bible doesn't mean what it says in this instance?
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.
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."
This is proof that you don't need brains to be a Pope. And I was raised Catholic.
... it will be viewed as Amusing by Atheists; Interesting by Born-Agains ..
and meaningless to most of us.
Uh.. Protestant denominations.
I'm not sure on which side of the argument you stand by your comment. Please further your thoughts.
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.
""'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.
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...
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.
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.
Was Jesus telling us to sin?
No, he was telling us to be cannibals. And we did it.
I appreciate your post. Really.
Indeed, it is a wet bird that flies by night.
Baptists, Catholics, atheists can agree on that.
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.
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.
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.
" 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.
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).
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.