Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

In the past I've often heard the Catholic Church speak forcefully against creationism. There was also an editorial by the Austrian Archbishop supporting it, but in general the Church is against it. But this is a pretty bold statement by the Vatican Astronomer: "Believing that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism."

I'm not much for theology, but his statement makes sense to me...

How would creationists respond to this?

Maybe I'm looking at his statements too literally, but I'm not sure I follow his logic on this one.

He says that like it's a bad thing...

This SOUNDS like a good thing and all, but I wonder if it will just fuel another intra-christian war against the Papists.

It doesn't make sense at all. 6 day creation IS in the bible and God took a break in the seventh day. (side comment: If God NEEDS to take a rest, then he is neither perfect nor omnipotent. A perfect being doesn't need anything, or he is not perfect.)

Christianity IS a pagan religion. Jesus is one of many demigods who died for the sins of the world and rose on 3rd day. He is born on winter solstice. That idea is pagan origin without no Scriptural support.

"The Mother of God" is also a pagan concept. Catholicism IS another form of paganism.

Actually it is never clearly stated when Jesus was born. Scholars think that more than likely it was in March or April. The celebration of Jesus' birth, however, was tied to the Winter Solstice celebration by early Christians. All this represents is another fallable human construct in Christian religious practices.

That human construct is not fallible at all. It was simply a tool, and quite a useful one, too.

The Europeans of late antiquity / early middle ages could best identify with birth (or in this case re-birth) of their God as coinciding with the Winter Solstice because that's the way the World works. It's the darkest time of the year, and into that time is born the 'light of the world'. That the early church fathers recognized this shows, imho, quite a bit of foresight on their part.

You're giving them too much credit. The adoption of the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ on or about Winter Solstice was meant more to associate a big event in one cultural celebration with a big event in another. Christian dogma is filled with bits of dogma from various early religions and cultures, it is a large part of the success of Christianity.

Eh... I like giving credit where it's not quite due.

Nonetheless, such a blatant ruse would not have survived the millenia on its own. That Christianity became the de facto religion of Europe is due, in large part, to the alignment (whether purposeful or not) of its mythology to the Earth's own natural cycles. It feels right to have a big-ass party as the days start getting longer. It feels right to celebrate the flowering (quite literally) of the Earth in the Spring. And yes, it feels right to celebrate the death of the God, only to have Him reborn again, just as there is no spark of life in the Earth for a time, yet it always comes back.

Question: If Christians believe that the Bible is written by God, with proxies doing the job for him, how can the most venerable Christian church in the world discount the very first words of the Bible?

It was just God's way of sticking up for labor.

Because it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

a) If God is perfect then, why would he make the book so ambigous?

b) And continuing on the assumption that God is perfect, why wouldn't he state that his supreme book were not to be taken literally?

Who ever said that God made the book?

If my understanding of Christian theology is correct, he oversaw the creation of it, and just had people writing it by proxy (which is what I originally said).

Eye for an eye and turn the other cheek?

Exactly - people made the book. Whether or not you believe in God, people made the book. People make mistakes, create, use discretion and generally tamper with anything they can get their hands on.

Jesus being born at Christmas is just like Jesus being crucified the last friday before easter : this is symbollic, it doesn't have as purpose to be scientifically accurate.

If we celebrate the birth of Jesus on the winter solstice, it's because the days are getting longer afterwards (on the Northern hemisphere). It's simply a symbol.

By the way, the same is true with the Genesis and the creation of the world in 7 days. This is an allegory, it has never been meant to be understood as a factual truth. Modern litteralists such as the Creationists are mixing up spirituality and temporality. What matters in the Bible is the spirituality or if you like better, the morality of its messages. It has never been meant as being a scientific Historical truth.

Are you muslim ?

Only the Koran has been created by the own hand of God. Neither the Old nor the New testimonies have. The old one has various hebraic writers and is admitted as such. As for the Gospels, well, they have been written by 4 different men, which are admitted as not direct witnesses of the events, and for which the interpretation of the life of Jesus differs.

Eye for an Eye is from the Old testimony, turn the other cheek is from the New testimony.

The Bible isn't a user manual, it's a collection of stories on morality and life. It has been written in order to make you think, not to blindly obey. All contradictions in the Holy books are assumed, and this as much by the Jews, the Roman catholics or the reformed churches.

Before you get carded, let me warn you that such reasoned, thoughtful posting will not be tolerated on the Politics board or any of it's sub-fora.

<-- as English isn't your first language.

Says who? How do you pick and choose what should be literal and what should be metaphorical?

Many versus in the bible has been taken literally until modern advancement of science and morality which renders literal interpretation hard to accept.

If that's true, then what makes it special? What's so holy about it? My college text books has better collection of stories on morality and life.

Because that's the only way modern man can temporize and rationalize to himself in order to overcome the internal intellectual conflicts caused by believing the supernatural parts of the bible.

So then, it's quaint hokum and salve for the fearful.

But I've always wanted to ask an anti-Bible Inquisitor: what's the point? Why is there this ongoing need to challenge this major tenet of Christianity?

Personally, I don't understand how the Bible can have any sacred connotation for an individual that does not affiliate him or herself with one of the religious organizations that hold it holy.

Comparing the Bible to college textbooks and challenging people to explain why it's 'better' than them is largely irrelevant. If you think a college textbook has more moral significance than the Bible, then you're set, aren't you? Fantastic! If not, and you want that view adopted by Christians (that College Textbook X has better stories on morality and life than the Bible), doesn't that make you an evangelist too?