General Discussion

Cleita

(75,480 posts)

41. I went to Catholic schools before 1990.

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:14 PM

Nov 2012

They recognized, Galileo, Linneaus and many other scientists from that time were right. I had very good science classes in Catholic school and there was no Creation nonsense ever mentioned in our science classes. Of course there was plenty of it in religion classes but never did they cross each other.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope [View all] FarCenter Nov 2012 OP

We can settle this... KansDem Nov 2012 #1

Ha! Brilliant arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #15

The LONG FORM! n/t LadyHawkAZ Nov 2012 #28

A chortle and two guffaws to ya rock Nov 2012 #34

DUzy!!!!! nt valerief Nov 2012 #37

This means it is actually 2016 already..... time for another Presidential race!!!! scheming daemons Nov 2012 #2

It would also push creation back from 4004 to 4008 BC and make the earth 6023 years old! FarCenter Nov 2012 #5

He is, in Catholic fashion, accepting scholarship as a worthwhile thing cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #3

This one's going to require the LONG FORM birth certificate HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #4

annother warrior in the war on Christmas, whoda thunk it? mulsh Nov 2012 #6

So was he the midwife? Autumn Nov 2012 #7

While I am a big critic of the Catholic church hierarchy bluestateguy Nov 2012 #8

Yes, very serious...they recognized Galileo was right in the 1990's HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #9

+++ LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #12

That is false. The church accepted that Galileo was right long ago cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #13

Yes, the not admitting anything wrong part is patently obvious. HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #24

I went to Catholic schools before 1990. Cleita Nov 2012 #41

Ha ha! Yeah. Shadowflash Nov 2012 #27

So Jesus was born BC and I'm chronologically a few years younger. I like it. libdem4life Nov 2012 #10

Actually, it would mean we are now in 2016-2018 instead of 2012 scheming daemons Nov 2012 #17

And this statement from the article is also worth noting, BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #11

"probably" linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice? arcane1 Nov 2012 #20

Gee, YA THINK??????????????? kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #21

Actually, I've heard that we may not have translated those passages well. Shocker. gkhouston Nov 2012 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #14

My Jesuit university taught us 4 BC Prism Nov 2012 #16

That was the catholic best estimate when I was growing up also cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #18

I was wondering why this is considered new info. oswaldactedalone Nov 2012 #26

Did the Pope just learned about it? LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #44

4 BC is when Herod died. So he could have been born "no later" than 4 BC. ieoeja Nov 2012 #29

This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #33

Dionysius approximated the conventional date dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #19

I'm trying ... GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #22

I'm agnostic and biblical chronology still fascinates me a great deal Posteritatis Nov 2012 #25

Proof positive Rambis Nov 2012 #30

I have only one question matt819 Nov 2012 #31

My interest in the Pope is with a person in a position of power. I find it interesting that... Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #32

Did he personally witness the birth of Jesus? meow2u3 Nov 2012 #35

Pope fires salvo in War on Christmas. Bill 'Draft-Dodger' O'Reilly (R) is gonna be pissed Berlum Nov 2012 #36

Pope to BillO: "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." pinboy3niner Nov 2012 #39

Unless you believe the Gospel of Luke, of course muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #38

Having a census requiring everyone LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #45

I was always taught this in parochial school and that was sixty years ago, Cleita Nov 2012 #40

This makes as much sense as arguing about the birthdate of DavidDvorkin Nov 2012 #42

A fictitious character was born earlier than a previously recognized arbitrary date... SidDithers Nov 2012 #43