Vatican: Darwinism compatible with Christianity

[Juan.Camaney]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

^^^ link, no cliffs.

A few people in the athiest and other religion threads brought this topic to light and I kept telling people that christianity and other religions are more accepting of current scientific data than what their preconceived notions say.

Nothing really to debate here (athiest versus religion) but just a presentation of factual data that religions do accept other theories as compatible. We are moving away from a literal interpretation of scripture.

[Krasch]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

^^^ link, no cliffs.

A few people in the athiest and other religion threads brought this topic to light and I kept telling people that christianity and other religions are more accepting of current scientific data than what their preconceived notions say.

Nothing really to debate here (athiest versus religion) but just a presentation of factual data that religions do accept other theories as compatible. We are moving away from a literal interpretation of scripture.
And that can only be a good thing as our understanding of the universe and its contents increases.

[ddoubleez]

:juan:

[fmb]

Thankfully, some modern religions understand the principles of the chosen religion were predicated before the great impact of science on our knowledge base. Possibly, this could be seen/interpreted as a "maturation" of some religions?

[Car Enthusiast]

Juan do you think that christianity can move beyond the literal interpretation of the scripture and still be christian though? I mean the bible is really the only thing to go by when it comes to being a christian, and if you don't believe in it literally then how can people really call themselves christians?

[Krasch]

I would think that a literal interpretation isn't necessary to be Christian myself. (Coming from a former Catholic)

Whether one believes in the Jesus of the Bible as literal fact, or as a historical person used as allegory and parable to guide people to a better way of living, the stories themselves have value either way IMHO.

But yeah I'm also interested to hear Juan's take on this.

[shiiboi]

I'd take it a step farther, and say that too literal a readiing of religious scripture interferes with its interpretation and is damaging.

I was raised catholic also, and we were never taught that the bible was literally true, instead that it was 'inspired' by god, that it had a 'spiritual' truth.

After all, it was the catholic church who defined which scriptures were considered to be part of the canon-- and the arguments for and against assorted books' inclusion during the 5th century (for theological and / or political reasons) is a well-documented part of church history.

The catholic church knows that the bible wasn't written by apostles or other eyewitnesses and that they are an unreliable source of history. I've always found it odd that fundamentalist christian sects regard the bible as being perfect and unquestionably accurate-- particularly since they rely on english translations made during the 16th century.

[Krasch]

I'd take it a step farther, and say that too literal a readiing of religious scripture interferes with its interpretation and is damaging.

I was raised catholic also, and we were never taught that the bible was literally true, instead that it was 'inspired' by god, that it had a 'spiritual' truth.

After all, it was the catholic church who defined which scriptures were considered to be part of the canon-- and the arguments for and against assorted books' inclusion during the 5th century (for theological and / or political reasons) is a well-documented part of church history.

The catholic church knows that the bible wasn't written by apostles or other eyewitnesses and that they are an unreliable source of history. I've always found it odd that fundamentalist christian sects regard the bible as being perfect and unquestionably accurate-- particularly since they rely on english translations made during the 16th century.
Which was itself an extensively edited piece of work, forget about possible errors...

(Check out "The Adventure of English" book and/or TV series which dealt extensively with this topic as it had a huge part in shaping the English language itself)