LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 The inspired sacred writings one accepts is most often determined by the major faith group one is born into. In Hinduism - Rig-Veda; Buddhism -Pitakas; Taoism - Tao Teh Ching ; Christianity - Old and New Testaments; Islam - Koran; Judaism- Old Testament (or Torah); Mormonism - The Book of Mormon; Confuciusism - Five Constant Verses. For members of these faith groups, these writings form basic dogma and are used as "proof" of the validity of these various belief systems. Not too many members of these religions examine these supposed inspired writings objectively. Comments? Objections?
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Joshua McDowell
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Ever hear of Christolography? I agree the bible and other sacred texts should be read within the context in which they where written, and should not be accepted blindly. Knowledge of the historical context and facts should be a positive influence in properly understanding the teachings of the bible (and other texts). As for the 'fiction' contained in the bible, I agree that one has to seperate it from the actual dogma contained in the texts. For example, Adam and Eve - cute story, but I don't buy that it actually happened word for word. At best, if something of the sort did happen, the text on Adam and Eve is a symbolical representation at best.
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 "For example, Adam and Eve - cute story, but I don't buy that it actually happened word for word." That's a shame. "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe" John 20:29
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Adam and Eve To Seth To Enosh To Methuselah To Lamech To Noah To Shem To Nahor To Terah To Abram (Abraham) To Isaac To Jacob (Who is Israel) To Judah To Perez To Hezron ... To Obed To Jesse To David To Solomon To Abijah ... To Jacob To Joseph...the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. No Adam and Eve....No Jesus.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 07:38 AM'] As for the 'fiction' contained in the bible, I agree that one has to seperate it from the actual dogma contained in the texts. For example, Adam and Eve - cute story, but I don't buy that it actually happened word for word. At best, if something of the sort did happen, the text on Adam and Eve is a symbolical representation at best. [right][snapback]613165[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response: I agree with you but the Catholic Church does not (or did not - its hard to keep up with these changing teachings)! Pontifical Biblical Commission "On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis" 1909: "III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? Answer: In the negative. " Moreover there is this from the Papal writing of Pius X "Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae" 1907: "Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions." In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent. You do believe that, don't you?
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 When reading Genesis, God is calling in heaven for Adam and Eve who have 'hide' themselves from God. Now youtell me, would God actually be looking for anyone? He knows everything! And then be shocked that the apple was bitten into? please And I suppose you do not believe in the theory of evolution then? How about this, before there was the earth and sun, there was no days. Then how then did it take God 6 days to create everything? Did He have a timex to keep track of the time? Of course not! It is because the 'six days' is symbolic.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:26 AM'][snip] In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent. You do believe that, don't you? [right][snapback]613178[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You're dam right I do! If one thing marriage has taught me is that women ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT responsible for man getting kicked out of heaven! Areyou kidding me? That's the best part of Genesis right there! If I am a fool to believe it, then let I be a fool... and happily so...
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 And where does it say "God was shocked"? Everything in context. Or maybe you don't believe in the Bible? You can't get around the fact that Genesis was not recorded as an allagory, and that without Adam and Ever there would be no Jesus. Correct, there is no time with God, but God separated the light from the dark, the earth rotated, and the day was born to man. Morning and Night. The First Day. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Do I believe in evolution, micro evolution, yes, its scientifically proven. Macro-evolution, absolutely not, its nothing more than a bad theory.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:20 AM']Adam and Eve To Seth To Enosh To Methuselah To Lamech To Noah To Shem To Nahor To Terah To Abram (Abraham) To Isaac To Jacob (Who is Israel) To Judah To Perez To Hezron ... To Obed To Jesse To David To Solomon To Abijah ... To Jacob To Joseph...the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. No Adam and Eve....No Jesus. [right][snapback]613175[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response: And here, Brother Adam, you begin by assuming as true precisely what is at issue - the literal historical nature of scripture. We all know that our first parents were really Fred and Wilma Flintstone.
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) haha. So I'm assuming you accept a historical reading of Genesis then and that you were playing 'devils advocate' since you offer no argument. With as many Catholics that reject the scriptures, there are plenty of others who will argue for athiestic concepts like macro-evolution. I need all the people I can get helping me argue for the Bible and good science. God Bless, Adam Edited June 16, 2005 by Brother Adam
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:42 AM']haha. So I'm assuming you accept a historical reading of Genesis then and that you were playing 'devils advocate' since you offer no argument. With as many Catholics that reject the scriptures, there are plenty of others who will argue for athiestic concepts like macro-evolution. I need all the people I can get helping me argue for the Bible and good science. God Bless, Adam [right][snapback]613188[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response: Perhaps we can examine the literal historical nature of scripture as we go along. But regarding Genesis, doesn't it provide scriptural support for cloning? Wasn't Eve made from a rib of Adam? LittleLes
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 So do you take everything in the bible litterally? Somewhere in the old testament, it is said that: "He who has his privee removed shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". That means that a man with his p**** cut off will not enter the kingdom. I will look for that context, but you get the picture... a lot of things in the bible can be very very dangerous if taken litterally.
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 And why do you both post "Response:" is this not stating the obvious?
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:54 AM']So do you take everything in the bible litterally? Somewhere in the old testament, it is said that: "He who has his privee removed shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". That means that a man with his p**** cut off will not enter the kingdom. I will look for that context, but you get the picture... a lot of things in the bible can be very very dangerous if taken litterally. [right][snapback]613195[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It also says "You shall take a rebellious child to the city gate and have the elders stone him to death". Yet, we are not under Levitical law anymore! Praise God! You are right, not everything is literal (you shall take your eye and pluck it out), not everything is historical (Proverbs), but the account of creation is historical, and yes God made it in 6 days, He said so Himself.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:54 AM']And why do you both post "Response:" is this not stating the obvious? [right][snapback]613196[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't do that, that's just LittleLes trying to emphasize his longing need for attention.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Do you mena to tell me that the Catholic Church still has the potition that the book of Genesis is historical? Pinch me here, I think I missed something. The only historical fact I retain from Genesis is Eve bitting the apple first after being tempted. I think THAT is the climax of the bible and the rest is just denoument.
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 When I have to argue creationism with Catholics I feel like it is the flip side of arguing transubstantiation with Protestants. "What do you mean it is really Jesus' body and blood?" "God said so in John 6" "Oh, well you can't take everything literally. DANG!
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:05 AM']Do you mena to tell me that the Catholic Church still has the potition that the book of Genesis is historical? Pinch me here, I think I missed something. The only historical fact I retain from Genesis is Eve bitting the apple first after being tempted. I think THAT is the climax of the bible and the rest is just denoument. [right][snapback]613201[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I always thought the climax of the Bible was the Paschal Mystery.
Recommended Posts