Vatican blasts Creationism as "useless"

[ReformedBaptist]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

"Creationism from a strictly theological view makes sense, but when it is used in scientific fields it becomes useless," Ravasi said.


Quoting the late Pope John Paul II, Ravasi said that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothesis."

The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible "excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text," Benedict said.

Rome never changes. Their attacks on the Word of God continue from their beginning.

RB

 

[Matt Black]

How on earth is this an attack on the Bible??! It's an attack on an erroneous fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 &2.

And quite right too.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is clearly an attack on the Word of God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How on earth is this an attack on the Bible??! It's an attack on an erroneous fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 &2.

And quite right too.

So you believe that when the Bible says that God created the earth in six days, that he really didn't create the earth in six days and just said that anyway?

 

[Matt Black]

I don't believe it should be interpreted literally, no. Nor do most Christians, historically or contemporaneously.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why is it libs think they speak for everybody.

 

[tinytim]

"the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text,"

That is an attack on the word of God no matter how you feel about evolution or creationism...

Somethings are to be taken literally in the Bible.. some symbolically, but he used the word "never"... which is just as dangerous as saying we "always" have to take everything in the Bible as literal.

 

[Matt Black]

He also qualifies it with the word 'simply'; the two have to be read together.

For the record, I am not one of those nasty-wasty 'libruls' either. It however never ceases to amaze me how an attack on one method of Biblical interpretation can be construed and conflated as an attack on the Bible itself.

Plus ca change, meme ca change...:BangHead:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The Papacy is Antichrist. This is an attack on the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. To use a confession's statement to highlight this:

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

 

[Revmitchell]

The distortion of scripture in the way non literals do is not simply a different method of interpretation. It is a clear distortion and a major section of scripture and the results of this distortion effects more than the creation issue.

 

[Matt Black]

That's weird; you see, I would regard the literalist interpretation as producing the distortion in more than a few places...."The Bible says..." is always the beginning of the discussion, never the end.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't believe it should be interpreted literally, no. Nor do most Christians, historically or contemporaneously.

Do you believe we should interpret the resurrection literally?

 

[Revmitchell]

That's weird; you see, I would regard the literalist interpretation as producing the distortion in more than a few places...."The Bible says..." is always the beginning of the discussion, never the end.

Of course you do. This non literal manner allows for all kinds of personal interpretations.

 

[larryjf]

I don't believe it should be interpreted literally, no. Nor do most Christians, historically or contemporaneously.

I challenge this assertion. Please provide evidence that what you claim is true and that you are not bearing false witness against historic and contemporary Christians.

The text of creation in Genesis is clearly written as a historical narrative.

I always find it interesting when folks take the clear words of the Bible and feel the need to twist them because of what science postulates. The world has fallen in sin, we see things with sin-tainted eyes, yet they trust these observations above and against the Scripture, which is God's word, untainted by sin.

 

[larryjf]

That's weird; you see, I would regard the literalist interpretation as producing the distortion in more than a few places...."The Bible says..." is always the beginning of the discussion, never the end.

Perhaps you could site those places instead of just making another comment without any facts to back you up?

 

[Revmitchell]

I challenge this assertion. Please provide evidence that what you claim is true and that you are not bearing false witness against historic and contemporary Christians.

The text of creation in Genesis is clearly written as a historical narrative.

I always find it interesting when folks take the clear words of the Bible and feel the need to twist them because of what science postulates. The world has fallen in sin, we see things with sin-tainted eyes, yet they trust these observations above and against the Scripture, which is God's word, untainted by sin.

Libs have a habit of interpreting the Word of God by using outside means rather than itself. In this case science interprets scripture. And unreliable science at that.

 

[Matt Black]

Do you believe we should interpret the resurrection literally?

Yes; that's clearly historical

 

[larryjf]

Yes; that's clearly historical

How do you decide that it's "clearly historical?"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes; that's clearly historical

Nice foundation. We will stand upon the Word of God.

 

[Matt Black]

So will I

How do you decide that it's "clearly historical?"

Consensus of the teaching of Jesus' Church