Cardinal says evolution is incompatible

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I see. I suppose I'd rate it about the same.

The same as I would rate it (mid-Wackiness) or the same as PD, DD or YCECOYS (high-Wackiness)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same as I would rate it (mid-Wackiness) or the same as PD, DD or YCECOYS (high-Wackiness)?

The same as you, perhaps a little higher.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually the RCC says you can never know whether a particular individual will be entitled to God's salvation. It's a good point you raise though; why does Church dogma have to be infallible? You'll have to take the rest up with LH; trying to defend Papal Infallibility is straining even my Devil's Advocate skills.

Actually the RCC says you can never know whether a particular individual will be entitled to God's salvation.

Except the saints. More accurately, the Church teaches that you can never know whether a particular person will be condemned.

why does Church dogma have to be infallible?

So the Church does not inadvertantly end up requiring people to sin.

You'll have to take the rest up with LH; trying to defend Papal Infallibility is straining even my Devil's Advocate skills.

The Doctor seems to be playing at several games here. If he requires a justification of Papal Infallibility given belief in the Bible, then I've already provided that in the 'Infallibility' thread. You've done a good job of showing that belief in Papal Infallibility is not atypical of Christian doctrine. However, the Doctor needs to clarify what he's taking as a given; i.e., specify the goalposts. This, I believe, was the point of your "thinking inside the [Christian] box" comment.