Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    The catholic church has never made such comments that evolution was the churchs stand. Whoever made that up was obviously uninformed.
    I am just using the information given to me by a catholic girl, one who seemed to know what she was talkin about as she did start drawing on deeper catholic theology, especially about mary.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I have decided not to bring that up as I want to attack individual points not the entire religion.
    Arguably, Catholicism itself is not a religion but a denomination of Christianity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Well, the Catholic Church is based on the Bible, so it is obviously not mentioned in the Bible.
    But amny things that are used in the catholic church are in the bible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Arguably, Catholicism itself is not a religion but a denomination of Christianity.
    I am not saying catholisism is a seperate religion, simply pointing out its errors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know if I supposed to be replying here..being a Muslim and all...
    But I know quite a few catholic ppl and they are very religous....once we were talking abt evolution and my friend said that although she is a strong catholic herself, she is still confused abt the crossover between evolution and christanity....so, I am taking that this is something that has some catholics confused as well....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Where have they done this?
    Associated Press, October 23rd, 1996

    VENICE, ITALY--In keeping with his modern image, Pope John Paul issued a statement on 23 October calling evolution "more than a hypothesis"--strengthening the Roman Catholic Church's acceptance of the 137-year-old theory. While Catholic schools have long taught that religion and evolution need not conflict, many observers regard the Pope's statement as a boost for those battling the forces of creationism in U.S. public schools.

    The church first officially cast a favorable eye on evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Umani Generis, by Pope Pius XII. John Paul, in a speech before a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican this week, said that while the encyclical ``considered the doctrine of `evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis … new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. … The convergence … of results of work done independently one from the other constitute in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.''

    The Pope made it clear that while Darwin has the body, God still has the soul: ``If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.''

    "By this very clever move of the Pope," says Giulio Giorello, philosopher at the University of Milan, "it will allow Darwinism to be studied not as a hypothesis but as a real scientific truth, which will allow discussions on crucial issues such as bioethics."

    Italians made much of the statement. ``Pope says we may descend from monkeys,'' hooted the conservative newspaper Il Giornale, according to a Reuters dispatch. Astrophysicist Margherita Hack of the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste considers the Pope's move new and important. ``It is the first time that the church formally accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as proven theory,'' she says. The statement, adds molecular biologist Giorgio Tecce of Rome University, is part of ``a process of rethinking of the relationship between the church and scientific developments'' ongoing since the Pope's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo. This is good news for science, Tecce says, because the anti-Darwinian view ``has been used as an excuse by some in the scientific environment to put a brake on genetics and molecular biology.''
    http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Re...in_correct.htm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rose in Bloom)
    I don't know if I supposed to be replying here..being a Muslim and all...
    But I know quite a few catholic ppl and they are very religous....once we were talking abt evolution and my friend said that although she is a strong catholic herself, she is still confused abt the crossover between evolution and christanity....so, I am taking that this is something that has some catholics confused as well....
    I myself, being of evangelical/baptist origins, believe that the bible must be taken as complete truth. Catholics are under the power of the pope, so they must believe whatever he tells them to, due to papal infalibility, so it can be confusing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I myself, being of evangelical/baptist origins, believe that the bible must be taken as complete truth. Catholics are under the power of the pope, so they must believe whatever he tells them to, due to papal infalibility, so it can be confusing.
    True...I also think that any Holy book is to be taken as complete truth...the Bible, Quran..all of them...
    But yeah,..when ppl start making up thier own things in religions is when I start to worry and thats what confuses me! :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rose in Bloom)
    True...I also think that any Holy book is to be taken as complete truth...the Bible, Quran..all of them...
    But yeah,..when ppl start making up thier own things in religions is when I start to worry and thats what confuses me! :confused:
    Not going too deeply into it, sects like the mormans have tried to add bits, very unsuccessfully I might add, onto the bible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Not going too deeply into it, sects like the mormans have tried to add bits, very unsuccessfully I might add, onto the bible.
    :eek:...thats sad!!!
    But I know ppl have tried to modify bits of the Quran as well...some ppl r soooo arghhh! :mad: .....

    (How r u?..long time no see)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Not going too deeply into it, sects like the mormans have tried to add bits, very unsuccessfully I might add, onto the bible.
    And the Protestants have taken a few books out of the Bible than the Orthodox so.....?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rose in Bloom)
    :eek:...thats sad!!!
    But I know ppl have tried to modify bits of the Quran as well...some ppl r soooo arghhh! :mad: .....

    (How r u?..long time no see)
    I am fine, thank you for asking my lady.

    One thing the catholic church has done is to give preists the ability to fogive sins, which is a power only god has.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    And the Protestants have taken a few books out of the Bible than the Orthodox so.....?
    Taking things away is as bad as adding more. The bible should be taken as a single body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I am fine, thank you for asking my lady.

    One thing the catholic church has done is to give preists the ability to fogive sins, which is a power only god has.
    ...glad to hear that my knight in shining armour...

    I know a group of so-called muslims who made thier own prophet after Prophet Muhammed (pbuh):eek:...now thats really pushing it!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Taking things away is as bad as adding more. The bible should be taken as a single body.
    For the record I wouldn't mind knowing the books in the Orthodox version since I've come across justification of laws and morals using the Bible. For example, you could have a point mentioned in a book which only is found in the Orthodox verison which rebuts a view held by Protestants and/or Catholics but not many people would knoe this as the latter two are more dominant forms of Christianity.

    I agree with the single body though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    For the record I wouldn't mind knowing the books in the Orthodox version since I've come across justification of laws and morals using the Bible. For example, you could have a point mentioned in a book which only is found in the Orthodox verison which rebuts a view held by Protestants and/or Catholics but not many people would knoe this as the latter two are more dominant forms of Christianity.

    I agree with the single body though.
    I am taking evidence out of the NIV bible, which has the same content as the catholic one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Taking things away is as bad as adding more. The bible should be taken as a single body.
    But Jesus disn't write the New Testament, and neither did his apostles. Who made the original selections of what was in and what was out?

    The most 'authoritative' accounts of a historical Jesus comes from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century CE. Many heretical gospels had been written by that time but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four (a significant mystical number), which only then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, lost or ignored.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    But Jesus disn't write the New Testament, and neither did his apostles. Who made the original selections of what was in and what was out?

    The most 'authoritative' accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century CE. Many heretical gospels had been written by that time but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four (a significant mystical number), which only then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost or ignored.
    We are not going into this at present, that is for another discussion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    We are not going into this at present, that is for another discussion.
    It wasn't me who was having a dig at Mormons!
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    ...sects like the mormans have tried to add bits, very unsuccessfully I might add, onto the bible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    It wasn't me that was having a dig at Mormons!
    I wasn't having a dig at them as such, just making a subtle comparison between a sect like mormanism and a denomination like catholisism.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.