Melchisedec Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:56 AM']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? [right][snapback]613142[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'd like to add that Buddhist and I also believe Taoist do not believe the text to be inspired , but simply written by wise indivuals, awakened indivuals. Pure Land buddhism does believe in inspiration, but the purest form of buddhism , theravada believes in no such thing. [i] Carl Sagan once asked the Dali Lama what he would do if science was able to disprove a central tenet of their Buddhist faith, and he replied, "Tibetan Buddhism would have to change." Sagan pressed him further. "Even if it were a really central tenet, like reincarnation?", he asked. "Even then," said the Dali Lama.[/i]
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]o 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.[/quote] # Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) # Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) # Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788. These are dogmas related to the Garden of Eden
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I know that hot stuff, but does the church still uphold the position of Genesis being historical?
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:13 AM']I know that hot stuff, but does the church still uphold the position of Genesis being historical? [right][snapback]613209[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well the only references you were making about Genesis were in regards to the Garden of Eden. You say you don't buy it which is your right. Since you weren't specific on what you believed and what you considered "story", I thought it would be a good idea to show what Catholics are required to believe.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:21 AM']Well the only references you were making about Genesis were in regards to the Garden of Eden. You say you don't buy it which is your right. Since you weren't specific on what you believed and what you considered "story", I thought it would be a good idea to show what Catholics are required to believe. [right][snapback]613213[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 10-4 But now, does the church still teach that creation is true as per the HISTORICAL account of Genesis?
Sarah_JC Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I certainly don't speak for everyone, but here's my $.02. The Bible was INSPIRED by God, not DICTATED. Genesis was one of the last books to be written in the Old Testament, estimated at 150 B.C. God put it on the heart of the writer of Genesis that certain truths needed to be revealed to the people. God revealed these truths to the writer (see Jamie's post) The writer thought that a creation story would be a good way to explain these truths. Explaining other questions too, like "why do we have to rest on the sabbath?" and "why are women so hard to understand?" (Okay, there's actually two accounts of Genesis written by different people. And then there's a third group of people who combined the two... but you don't need to know this stuff) The point is, the Church does not say that we have to believe that the first sin was eating a piece of fruit. (And Dicadus, find me the part where Eve eats an "apple" and not just an unmentioned type of fruit.) Eve's sin (and Adam's too!) was to mistrust God, the tree is just a symbol. But the rest of Genesis is historical fact... you know, Abraham... Sarah... the twelve tribes... all real people. I love the creation story, there is so much truth to be found in it. Just, not necessarily historical truth. We have no proof that it didn't happen just like that, but we have no proof it did. If Adam and Eve were the first ones, there was no one there to record the play by play. So the Church does not say we have to believe this literally, word for word. And yes, whoever said the Bible had to be read in context is correct. And learn the real meanings of words wherever you can. Jesus didn't just say "Eat my body" he said "Knaw on my body" the word he used means knaw, chew. Doesn't that create a stronger image? It makes the point pretty clear. No wonder people said "This teaching is too hard, who can accept it?" So I'll sum up. Bible=inspired, not dictated Apple= what apple? tree=symbol Genesis=true, but not historical fact (the Adam and Eve part... the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, that's a fact) God= good This is what several priest have told me in regards to Genesis, but none of us are the Pope, or God Himself, so please feel free to disagree.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Sarah_JC' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:00 AM']I certainly don't speak for everyone, but here's my $.02. [snip] (And Dicadus, find me the part where Eve eats an "apple" and not just an unmentioned type of fruit.) Eve's sin (and Adam's too!) was to mistrust God, the tree is just a symbol. [snip] So I'll sum up. Bible=inspired, not dictated Apple= what apple? tree=symbol Genesis=true, but not historical fact (the Adam and Eve part... the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, that's a fact) God= good This is what several priest have told me in regards to Genesis, but none of us are the Pope, or God Himself, so please feel free to disagree. [right][snapback]613233[/snapback][/right] [/quote] thank you for correcting me... yes, it was a fruit, and not specifically an apple i do apologize. Eve's sin - disobeying God. Adam's sin - following Eve's example. as for your executive summary: Bible - fully agree Apple - Tree- Agree Genesis - Adam and Eve part, cute story, the rest (slavery, Abraham and stuff... yes, i take that as historical) God - the best there is, no doubt. And to add my footnote to this summary: Story of creation: story of orignial sin, what was that sin? Was it disobediance? Was it to envy God's knowledge? Does this orignial sin fit in the seven deadly sins? hmmmm... I need to reflect on that...
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:33 AM'] 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. [/quote] Response, Really? And who recorded the events described in Genesis? Was he a witness, or even told by a witness? Nothing mandates that Jesus had to have "Adam and Eve" as his first parents. Again, you are assuming that the geneology of Jesus found in the Bible is factual. And as far a "believing the Bible," please note that we are attempting to separate fact from fiction in the Bible. You might rightly conclude, then, that I don't believe that everything reported in scripture is factual.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:53 AM']I don't know, are you God? [right][snapback]613194[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, No, I don't claim to be God. But like members of the Catholic clergy, I regard myself as his special agent.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:05 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] Response: I don't think that the Church really considers Genesis to be literally true anymore. But it's still on the books. The Church doesn't admit error in it's teachings especially when they are papal teachings. It just kind of lets the errors fade away and hopes that no "true believer' will notice. And if Eve bit the apple first, doesn't that mean that she, and not Adam, was guilty of the Original Sin? LittleLes
EcceNovaFacioOmni 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] I believe you are refering to this: [quote]No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:2, NAB[/quote] It does not say the kingdom, it means the community of the Israelites. It is condemning castration and vesectomy.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:11 AM']# Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) # Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) # Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788. These are dogmas related to the Garden of Eden [right][snapback]613206[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, De fide, but probably not true. That's difficult for some conservative Catholics to face. Littleles
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote]This is what several priest have told me in regards to Genesis, but none of us are the Pope, or God Himself, so please feel free to disagree.[/quote] I've had priest professors tell me the same thing. However if these priests are teaching that A. There was no paradise 2. Humanity did not come from a single pair iii. There was no fall from grace or original sin Then they are teaching heresy. Debate about six days v six thousand years. Debate the fruit. Debate the talking serpent. Debate whether the serpent was Satan (no mention of that in Scripture) But it is a dangerous statement to say "Adam and Eve.. just a story"
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:21 AM']Well the only references you were making about Genesis were in regards to the Garden of Eden. You say you don't buy it which is your right. Since you weren't specific on what you believed and what you considered "story", I thought it would be a good idea to show what Catholics are required to believe. [right][snapback]613213[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response: "Catholics are required to believe." Really? But that has changed so frequently. For example, do you realize that Catholics no longer have to believe that it is the will of God that Lutherans be burned at the stake as heretics? But its still on the books.
Kilroy the Ninja Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:39 AM']Response: "Catholics are required to believe." Really? But that has changed so frequently. For example, do you realize that Catholics no longer have to believe that it is the will of God that Lutherans be burned at the stake as heretics? But its still on the books. [right][snapback]613260[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Les you really need to get past this "on the books" thing. It grows tiresome.
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:41 AM']Les you really need to get past this "on the books" thing. It grows tiresome. [right][snapback]613264[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And its been proven false on these debates more times than I can count.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:38 AM']I've had priest professors tell me the same thing. However if these priests are teaching that A. There was no paradise 2. Humanity did not come from a single pair iii. There was no fall from grace or original sin Then they are teaching heresy. [/quote] But probably historical fact nonetheless. Littleles
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:43 AM']And its been proven false on these debates more times than I can count. [right][snapback]613265[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, Really? Lets take a look. From Pope Leo X's Bull Exsurge Domine: "With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication...." "33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." This Bull was directed against Luther and Lutherans. Catholics were required under the penalty of "an automatic major excommunication" to believe that it was the will of God that they be burned at the stake. It's still on the books. Sorry LeRoy and hot stuff. LittleLes
Kilroy the Ninja Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:54 AM'] It's still on the books. Sorry LeRoy and hot stuff. LittleLes [right][snapback]613280[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Who is LeRoy? You can't even get the names right?
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 16 2005, 10:58 AM']Who is LeRoy? You can't even get the names right? [right][snapback]613284[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Kilroy, LeRoy, Roy Rogers.... What's in a name?
Recommended Posts