I actually think it's a smart move by the Catholic church, to be honest. Just because the history and science in the Bible is wrong or inaccurate, doesn't mean that the spiritual teachings are in any way invalid for those who believe in them. I mean, the story of Noah doesn't have to be literally true in order for the underlying message to get across, just as one example.
I see that a big barrier to religion in the modern world is that to believe a literal interpretation of every word in the bible requires believing in things we know, scientifically, to be inaccurate. By changing the focus, and admitting "Hey, we know it's not a perfect historical and scientific document", and emphasizing the spiritual component, they remove that barrier.
We found out in the Renaissance that an organized church trying to dictate science doesn't even remotely work. Galileo and Copernicus were, after all, RIGHT, regardless of how heretical the Church found their teachings. For the church to truly admit that its teachings on religious and spiritual faith is entirely seperate from science and history is huge, and a big step in a positive direction.
Oh, and Donnel, I completely respect and support your choice to believe "goddidit" and that the Earth is 6000 years old, etc. However, what I can't, and won't, support is attempting to teach any such thing in actual science classes. Religious faith & belief is by definition not science, and has no place being taught as such.
-Arlos
Catholic Church now says parts of the Bible may not be true
Moderator: Dictators in Training
<sigh>
So you know where I'm comming from, I was raised Catholic in a very conservative diocese (region), one where the bishop was very much oriented to strict church teaching, and did not present personal views as church teaching. When I was a teen, my family moved to a more liberal diocese where quite a bit more was considerd subjective and not neccecarily concrete. Most of the "breaking news" in the article I came in contact with 10 to 20 years ago in both situations. As an adult, I am not a practicing Catholic. I refuse to be what I refer to as cafeteria catholics... taking what I like off the menu and leaving the rest. That being said I do still have a high respect for the church, and many of my personal beliefs coincide with it's teachings.
First of all realize that this is not technically official Catholic doctrine. Several Bishops writing a letter does not doctrine make.
Understand also that the Catholic Church is facing a situation of nearly critical levels where the priest hood is concerned. Fewer and fewer men are pursing the life of a priest as time passes. Certain areas of the world have seen a dramatic decline in the number of Catholics also. Many within the church feel that this is at least in part due to the unpopular positions the church takes, and feel that the church needs to either reverse or modify these positions. Many others do not agree with this view, instead viewing the church as traditionally has been, slow to change, guarded against the influences of what is popular during the current time.
The Catholic Chruch however is not a democracy, church doctrine is not dictated by a general consensus.
Some of this is linked to a movement within the church to make the church more appealing, other parts of it are not really changes in teaching but simply stating what was already there, what the churches view has been for as long as I can remember. No doubt that some leadership is testing the waters with the new pope. During the recent papal elections, and even after the fact there has been a lot of buzz concerning high profile stances the church takes. Who would the new pope be, and would he make major changes. I'll predict that the answer is no, historically the Catholic Church has been slow to change, I just don't see this changing. Yes there have been, and will be some minor changes, but I doubt you will see any large sweeping changes to the basic tenants of the Catholic Faith.
The reason I stated I thought this was a poor move from the political perspective, is that it tends to give licence to invalidate parts of the bible in an end run method. Specifics are good, but broad generalizations about the accuracy of scripture will tend to breed a leave and take situation. Leave what you don't like, take what you do, mold your perception of scripture around what you'd like to see, not neccecarily what is there. I worry that it could lead to multiple watered down versions of the Catholic faith. If other Christian religions follow suit... the same could be true there.
Most if not all Christian religions have some basic concepts that are the same, most of them taken on faith because they can not be scientifically proven (and yes arguably they can be scientifically disproven). Things such as virginal conception, the resurection, the accension of Mary... these things are core beliefs, and yet they are not scientifically valid, they are taken as a matter of faith, that through God, anything is possible, that God is not bound by the rules of science. To base what is taken as litteral, and what is taken as parabolic or symbolic on what can be proven or disproven by science is a very dangerous path for any Christian church to take.
The title of the article it's self shows this:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
Truth is the word used, not accuracy and the entire Bible is refered to, not just specific parts. I really feel the author was just trying to be sensational, and I think that that conclusion is errant.
So you know where I'm comming from, I was raised Catholic in a very conservative diocese (region), one where the bishop was very much oriented to strict church teaching, and did not present personal views as church teaching. When I was a teen, my family moved to a more liberal diocese where quite a bit more was considerd subjective and not neccecarily concrete. Most of the "breaking news" in the article I came in contact with 10 to 20 years ago in both situations. As an adult, I am not a practicing Catholic. I refuse to be what I refer to as cafeteria catholics... taking what I like off the menu and leaving the rest. That being said I do still have a high respect for the church, and many of my personal beliefs coincide with it's teachings.
First of all realize that this is not technically official Catholic doctrine. Several Bishops writing a letter does not doctrine make.
Understand also that the Catholic Church is facing a situation of nearly critical levels where the priest hood is concerned. Fewer and fewer men are pursing the life of a priest as time passes. Certain areas of the world have seen a dramatic decline in the number of Catholics also. Many within the church feel that this is at least in part due to the unpopular positions the church takes, and feel that the church needs to either reverse or modify these positions. Many others do not agree with this view, instead viewing the church as traditionally has been, slow to change, guarded against the influences of what is popular during the current time.
The Catholic Chruch however is not a democracy, church doctrine is not dictated by a general consensus.
Some of this is linked to a movement within the church to make the church more appealing, other parts of it are not really changes in teaching but simply stating what was already there, what the churches view has been for as long as I can remember. No doubt that some leadership is testing the waters with the new pope. During the recent papal elections, and even after the fact there has been a lot of buzz concerning high profile stances the church takes. Who would the new pope be, and would he make major changes. I'll predict that the answer is no, historically the Catholic Church has been slow to change, I just don't see this changing. Yes there have been, and will be some minor changes, but I doubt you will see any large sweeping changes to the basic tenants of the Catholic Faith.
The reason I stated I thought this was a poor move from the political perspective, is that it tends to give licence to invalidate parts of the bible in an end run method. Specifics are good, but broad generalizations about the accuracy of scripture will tend to breed a leave and take situation. Leave what you don't like, take what you do, mold your perception of scripture around what you'd like to see, not neccecarily what is there. I worry that it could lead to multiple watered down versions of the Catholic faith. If other Christian religions follow suit... the same could be true there.
Most if not all Christian religions have some basic concepts that are the same, most of them taken on faith because they can not be scientifically proven (and yes arguably they can be scientifically disproven). Things such as virginal conception, the resurection, the accension of Mary... these things are core beliefs, and yet they are not scientifically valid, they are taken as a matter of faith, that through God, anything is possible, that God is not bound by the rules of science. To base what is taken as litteral, and what is taken as parabolic or symbolic on what can be proven or disproven by science is a very dangerous path for any Christian church to take.
The title of the article it's self shows this:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
Truth is the word used, not accuracy and the entire Bible is refered to, not just specific parts. I really feel the author was just trying to be sensational, and I think that that conclusion is errant.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Oh and I keep forgeting to mention... I am starting to think that the apocalypse is near. I base this on the fact that Zanchief used the words "reasonable" and "fundamentalist Christian" in the same sentence 8).
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
RaMBaMThe Bible explicitly states that its text will remain binding forever, with neither change, addition nor subtraction. The Bible says (Deuteronomy 13:1), "All this word that I command you, you shall keep and do. You shall not add to it, nor subtract from it."
גם זה יעבור
Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.
Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
Darcler wrote:No I have. But I thought you said something about this, pre-MindiaBan, and you shortened something out, like a popular phrase, though now that you say that, I could be remembering wrong and it was a name or a book.
I was just curious.
You remember when he said
Ganzo wrote:Shma is not a comandment
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
-
kaharthemad
- NT Traveller
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
- Location: Somewhere South of Disorder
Imagine wearing Saran wrap as clothing... and nothing else. Now imagine there being a picture of this. Now imagine what would happen if some of the people from NT got ahold of said picture, think you would ever hear the end of it?
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I do want to make sure that it is clear. I am very passionate about what I believe and don't make compromises with my doctrine. However, my doctrine tells me that not all will believe regardless of what I say or do.
This gives me some leniency in the "raving psychotic lunatic" department (Mindia?).
This gives me some leniency in the "raving psychotic lunatic" department (Mindia?).
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
brinstar wrote:PS the world needs more donnels and fewer mindias!
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
-
Zanchief
Donnel wrote:I do want to make sure that it is clear. I am very passionate about what I believe and don't make compromises with my doctrine. However, my doctrine tells me that not all will believe regardless of what I say or do.
This gives me some leniency in the "raving psychotic lunatic" department (Mindia?).
Many of us could learn something from Donnel, I think.