Catholic Church now says parts of the Bible may not be true

[Donnel]

Now you are just teasing me.

Queue Lueyen with more apocolyptic pronouncments.

[Lueyen]

Well for my part, I'd think you know I'm serious, I sent you a pm a while back about it. As far as Zanchief goes, I don't think he's joking either, again he gave you a compliment that comming from him is high praise indeed.

Now if I was going to tease you I'd do something like this:

[Donnel]

It's only funny, if you know why, sir. :P

[Lueyen]

It's also funny because only a few people know I'm taking a jab at you .

[Bigrozz]

To be honest, I don't need to explain it.

My position though, is that if you say that one part of the Bible is false, then none of it has credibility as a religious text.

I believe the whole Bible to be true and inerrant.

I don't have to explain because of faith. Your explanations, though you view them as scientific fact, to me are nothing more then a person "finding a different answer." Which is fine. Not everyone is going to believe, no matter what.

Goddidit

Oink

I completely agree with Donnel. I also believe the Bible is inerrant and sufficient . This sentence could not be more true.
"I don't have to explain because of faith. "

This might be like swatting a wasps nest but, Protestants have long believed that Catholics are not Christians, so the decision about the bible comes as no big surprise to me. I was a Catholic for 28 years ( Baptism, communion, Confirmation), and I learned more about Christianity at a bible church in one year than I did my whole time as a Catholic.

Like Donnel I would not try and force my faith upon others, but I would pray that someday God would reveal himself to you as he has done to me.

Edit: I spell Gud

[kaharthemad]

This might be like swatting a wasps nest but, Protestants have long believed that Catholics are not Christians, so the decision about the bible comes as no big surprise to me.

Not all protestants believe that actually the count is few and far between.,

[Donnel]

I for one don't think that the every Catholic is not a Christian.

[Lueyen]

This might be like swatting a wasps nest but, Protestants have long believed that Catholics are not Christians

Honestly to make the statement that Protestants don't believe Catholics to be Christians is I think a bit overboard as you are encompassing quite a few different religions under one umbrella, including some who's differences with Roman Catholicism are pretty minor.

[Donnel]

Broad generalizations ftw!

[Bigrozz]

Sorry went a little to general there. I am not saying that there are no Christian Catholics; I remained a Catholic for a year after I gave my life to Christ. Let me narrow my statement a bit.

"There are conservative/Calvinist Protestants that are concerned that the changes Catholic organization are making are not conducive to Christianity."

Don't forget the original reasons that the Protestants left the Church. Protestants were mortal enemies of the Catholics a not more that a few hundred years ago. Catholics would and could kill a protestant on sight and were often rewarded for it.

John McArthur has a good series on the biblical problems with the Catholic Church. While many may consider him a controversial/radical pastor, he backs all his claims up with biblical evidence.

The broad generalization was my fault; I have a habit of doing that when trying to prove a point.

Isn't the common Catholic practice to excommunicate someone for attending a protestant church? I find that a little more intolerant than the comments that McArthur and the like make.


Disclaimer: I have nothing against Catholics, my entire family is Catholic. I love them all and hope to see them in Heaven.

[Lueyen]

Isn't the common Catholic practice to excommunicate someone for attending a protestant church?

Um... not that I've ever heard of.

[Langston]

On the original topic:

The Catholic Church announcing that it accepts that some of the Bible is not literally true is a good thing. It shows a willingness to accept that the power of parable and metaphor is stronger than the pose of intransigent "TRUTH". Considering that, according to what is taught about him, Jesus himself taught with forms of morality stories... it's a good way of helping a student to relate a sometimes complex concept to their life through the use of a story or terms to which they have some identification.

The Bible is mostly that - a very long and wordy morality story.

I do believe, however, that there are many parts of the Bible that are historically valuable... details might be embellished and time frames might be subject to debate - but lineages and information about the interaction of nations/peoples as depicted in the Bible have been verified to some extent and prove to be a very unique source of historical fact.

Once you get to the supernatural occurrences in the Bible, though, you step into the realms of belief through Faith... and the argument and debates stop there.


As for the commentary on Catholics being (or not being) Christians... I always find it humorous when people say that. Invariably it's a Protestant who wears his "faith" on his sleeve in some petty attempt to be a "better" Christian than the next person. The whole Catholic debate is similar to an epeen contest on the internet - no one is right and no one is wrong - but someone's slinging mud in an attempt to make themselves look like they are better or know more. Fact of the matter is you're no more "right" or "wrong" than anyone else. So shut your fucking piehole. If you believe differently than another person, bully for you. No one died and made any Protestant the sole care-taker of the definition of "Christian". Your opinions and faith are your own - as are the Catholics' - and frankly, you're both probably wrong about a great many things... but only time and the end of our individual lives will bring about that true realization to what is what. Till someone receives that postcard from the Beyond, folks need to learn to be more accepting.

[Arlos]

I have no problem with people believing in the absolute literal truth of everything in the Bible. I may disagree with them, but it is every person's absolute right to believe in whatever they want. You want to believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and all of the geological evidence for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old was put there by God when he made the place for some unknown reason, by all means, feel free. You want to believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklesiezure, again, feel free.

My sole caveat in all this is that beliefs like that MUST be kept OUT of public schools, and especially the science curriculums therein. Believing that the Earth is 6000 years old is a religious belief, it is not science. As a religious belief, it has no place whatsoever in a public school, and furthermore, as a blatantly non-scientific belief, it certainly has no place in any sort of science class. This holds true for all such sciences: geology, biology, evolution, etc. For example, you can believe in creationism, or it's repackaged clone "Intelligent Design", but since neither one are in any way science, keep them the hell out of science classes.

Again, I have no issue whatsoever with any religious belief whatsoever. My sole objection to religions are when they attempt to force non-believers to follow there mores, or when they attempt to insert religious belief tenets into the secular arena, ie schools, science classes, etc.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

So Arlos how do you handle a situation where on a test the question is asked:

How old is the Earth?

If someone believes it to be 6000 years old and answers that, are you going to tell them they answered wrong? Based on the curriculum you would have to wouldn't you? In effect you are saying believe what you want but when I ask you, you must say that you believe different?

[Malluas]

the bible is a teaching book not a history book.. Being a catholic.. i just look at is a book that tells stories to make a point.

and plenty of the book has been proven to not be accurate..

lets take the moses story. he didn't part any sea.. he led them thru the Reed Sea (Red sea in the story) which was a big huge bog with lots of holes in it. They knew where they holes were cause of a scout the was leading ahead... the pursuers just rushed forward and fell in the holes.

the bible talks about him parting a see then having it crash on the pursuers.

most of the jesus healing people is just to get the point across be nice to people.

In my sophmore year in high school our theology teacher (a priest) had us discuss all of this. and he explined tha real moses story (as i wrote above) compared ot the bible stuff like that.

its just a teaching book

[Lueyen]

Honestly Malluas I've had agnostics explain what the bible is better then "just a teaching book". It does, even if embelished or innacurate have historical significance, be it litterary influence or simply giving insight to people and society at the time it was written.

As far as Jesus healing people to get the point across to be nice to people... unless you chalk that up to stories that didn't really happen (which I'm sure you would find is contrary to Catholic interpretation of the scripture). I'd say the message there is a little more then be nice to other people.

I'm not sure how long ago you attended high school, however what you did point out is that when you did you were taught what biblical and historical scholoars have come to believe happened in certain events contrary to the exact litteral text... ie that the stories were in some cases embelished, be it by intent to embelish or by perception.

Again, the idea/admission that some of the events described in the bible were not completely scientifically or historically accurate is not something new for the Catholic Church.

[Ouchyfish]

God is going to punish all of you sinners for talking this doubting Thomas shit.

[Arlos]

So Arlos how do you handle a situation where on a test the question is asked:

How old is the Earth?

If someone believes it to be 6000 years old and answers that, are you going to tell them they answered wrong?

Yep, that's exactly what you'd do. Remember, this is happening in a science class, thus the answer expected is the scientific answer. Though, I doubt I'd word the question that way. A better question would be, "What is the best scientific estimate for the age of the earth?"

Do remember, while it's perfectly your right to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that the Earth is flat, etc. you must also be aware that science disagrees with you, and you are ignoring the evidence of the natural world in holding that belief. So, don't expect a whole lot of agreement with your position among the general population. Honestly, I consider holding the belief that the world is 6000 years old to be just as silly as believing that the Earth is flat. Your right to believe it, tho.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Honestly, I consider holding the belief that the world is 6000 years old to be just as silly as believing that the Earth is flat. Your right to believe it, tho.

-Arlos

Well actually....

In all seriousness though, and yes I'm playing devils advocate somewhat here:

Yes your question is much better, as it removes the "trap" in the original question. Do you not see however the similarity in asking someone to accept even for the sake of discussion (ie conform to what is given as truth) and asking or forcing them to say the pledge of allegiance with the words "one nation under god included"? In both cases you don't technically have to mean it, or believe in it, but you are still being asked to conform to what one side feels is correct.

Yes I understand science can be proven... to the degree that anything is ever proven (remember science did once say the world was flat), while you accept the proof, others may not, where they accept proof of the existence of God in whatever form, you do not.

Let me delve into it a bit further. Science (yes very broad umbrella) makes so many advances on a daily basis in so many areas that it is impossible for the average person to keep up on everything in minute detail. I've read somewhere a guestimation that for the average person to catch up with knowledge and understanding of the bleeding edge of modern science as of today will take around ten years. Because you can not personally verify and recreate yourself every single experiment, every single result, a certain amount of it you have to take on faith. Yes I'm aware that the world wide science community verifies everything out there, but again where you are concerned if you have not personally verified something is so, a certain amount of faith in the methods and the system is required. In essence even though you "know" it can be proven you have not done it yourself, but have faith that others have done so, and that it has been verified, but in the end you still accept proof because someone else said it was so... not all that different from accepting the Bible as proof?

[Arlos]

Except that it IS possible to go read the scientific papers where the results of the experiments and observations were published. Also, in order to BE published, they must undergo rigorous peer review, where at least theoretically, several teams of other scientists examine the work before it is published to try and shoot holes into it. These papers list in excruciating detail exatly what was done and how, so that anyone who wishes to may attempt to re-create the exact same experiment.

Obviously, no such thing is possible with religious faith. The very definition of faith is that you believe in something regardless of whether or not there is evidence that supports your belief. Do you see how this is fundamentally different from science?

Do you not see however the similarity in asking someone to accept even for the sake of discussion (ie conform to what is given as truth) and asking or forcing them to say the pledge of allegiance with the words "one nation under god included"? In both cases you don't technically have to mean it, or believe in it, but you are still being asked to conform to what one side feels is correct.

I do see a surface similarity, but it falls apart under closer examination. First, there is the question of constitutionality of a governmentally sponsored declaration of belief in and subjugation to a specific religion's diety. Imagine how up in arms if that passage were to say, "One nation, under Satan", "One nation, under Buddha", "One nation that specifically denies the existence of any God," or "One nation, under Vonkaar's Wang", etc. Those are all equivalent statements to "One nation, under God"; they all promote specific dieties, etc. Why is it OK for the government to promote one diety but not another? Especially when the government is not supposed to be promoting ANY diety?

Also, again, there is a big difference between scientific theory and religious belief. When the age of the earth is taught in science class, you're presenting a piece of data that has been researched by thousands of people with literally mountains of evidence to support it; all of which can be researched and checked. There's a huge difference between asking someone in a science class to give the scientific answer to a question and requiring someone to swear allegiance to a given faith-based construct.

-Arlos