Comments on: Pope Benedict XVI: “We’ve scientifically proven that these bones could be old enough to be St. Paul’s, so they must be St. Paul’s.” Err… WTF?

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:29:07 +0000

So, the Pope is claiming that we have the bones of the lying spin-doctor who so idolized his (gay) dead lover that he re-spun the old story of Mithra, set to the then fashionable idea of a single God (Aten), into the Jesus fairytale?

I say desecrate the bones of this enemy of humanity in the most disrespectful manner possible!

By: Sibyl

Sibyl — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:52:36 +0000

Test number two: Was the person in the box actually beheaded? Pretty easy to determine, and somehow I doubt it.

By: dog

dog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:01:21 +0000

mercurialohearn: Take another look that sentence you quoted. The operative word is ‘rushed’. I didn’t say that the Pope and Vatican have never upheld any scientific claims, but most of the time they lag far behind everyone else, especially when science calls into question some belief or other.

You mention that the Vatican has accepted Evolution. I suppose you know that Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. When did the Vatican officially accept the theory? Just recently. I leave you to decide whether they rushed or took their time.

And do you remember how quickly the Vatican dismissed radio-carbon dating when it proved the Turin Shroud was nowhere near old enough to be Jesus’?

By: mercurialohearn

mercurialohearn — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:57:55 +0000

“And since when have the Pope and the Vatican rushed to uphold a scientific claim, anyway?”

I don’t blame you for not keeping abreast of the goings on in the church, but doing so every once in a while might help you from asking questions, such as the one above, that make you appear to be foolish.

from wikipedia:

The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 – 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

By: dog

dog — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:54:47 +0000

Val, you have to realize that this evidence is rather weak, not least because the bones in question were dated to the 1st or 2nd century. This means that the margin of error of the dating process means that the bones could very well be from after St. Paul’s time.

Secondly, imagine investigators working on a murder case identifying a body solely based on what a witness they never met said several years ago. Now imagine the witness having made that statement nineteen centuries ago. How reliable would that be?

By: Val

Val — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:57:24 +0000

Some facts neglected above that are available to anyone with a need to know, not just assimilate from other people’s quick supposition:
-Rome’s leaders persecuted Christians, who were forced to hide important tombs and relics (which is why oral tradition is considered relevant evidence for much of all history).
-three years ago the tomb containing the sarcophagus was discovered, exactly underneath the epigraph Paulo Apostolo Mart (Paul the Apostle and Martyr) at the base of the altar of the basilica, exactly where the Emperor Theodosius (379-395) and popes had saved and presented it as being Paul’s tomb
Recap: Bones scientifically dated the first century are found exactly where oral then written records confirm, under a marker identifying the tomb as that of Paul the Apostle. I guess it could all be coincidence.

By: Meshif

Meshif — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:04 +0000

The Church made a leap in logic in claiming that the artifact’s identity was proven. Let’s not forget, however, that unlike their American protestant counterparts, the Roman Catholic Church does care about the nature of reality, no matter how badly they understand science. Pope John Paul declared that a belief in evolution is not contrary to Catholicism, and this specific news story shows that the Church does believe that carbon dating has value as a scientific test. You will notice that this makes the Catholic church quite a lot more reasonable that christiananswers.net

I’m not saying that they’re perfect people, but remember the differnce between harmless idiocy, like “we have the banes of an apostle” which may or may not be tre, and HARMFUL idiocy, like the willful rejection of every tenet of modern though and science, which is going at the same time.

By: Elroc

Elroc — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:44:24 +0000

Typical religious thinking, its kind of like “we cant think of anything that can make the universe so an invisible magical man did it (and he hates gays too, so don’t be one of those)”