Did you really contribute to the discussion with this reply? It seems more like valueless and arrogant sarcasm which happened to be more upvoted than any of the sane replies I got. Wonderful stuff. I tried to have a decent discussion but it turned into an angry hatefest. Notice I never attacked anyone, and all my replies were intended only to further the discussion or to address specific points in replies or raise issues I had with what others were saying. But you go, you go on the attack, your community is right there behind you.
> but I don't see why we need to interpret a long-ish, otherwise non-theological piece uncharitably over the use of a single word once.
Because the words are in the general sense and I'd like someone to show me why "man", as it was originally phrased, needs any kind of redemption.
Maybe we don't need a tailbone or some troublesome cancer causing genes, but fixing bad genes isn't redemption. It's a judgement-free mechanical fix for a machine, a biological equivalent to the flipping of bits in programming code. I'm not redeeming my code by making it more optimal when I fix a bug. So why would changing our genes be redemption?
Due to the bit about redemption and that it was the Pope's words I considerably doubt he was speaking about anything other than original sin. If you find your genetics equatable to sin from which you need redemption, you should consider aiding gene therapy research or something then, because you cannot change your genes by reading the writings of religious leaders.
> His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment."
That's going to segue (thanks for the spelling check davidw) obviously into some religions thing about the soul or something. And I take issue with having to be redeemed. I do not need to be redeemed.