Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Adam and Eve You're name is Adam Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" referring to his wife... Sorry just trying to interject some humor while the athiests and Christians duke it out
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Do you know how much I get slugged for 'transmitting original sin'?
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:49 PM']"do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense". The tree that our parents ate from has metaphorical ramifications, we use it all the time, but t'was a tree none the less. [right][snapback]613385[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, I'm afraid not. The "metaphorical" sense is quite different from the "literal historical" sense claimed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission for the first three chapters of Genesis. But if you want to argue that they really mean the same thing, can we extend your claim to "This is my Body" being metaphorical as well? LittleLes
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 yep, that's right. God didn't mean it when he seperated day from night. He lied to you. I'm sorry. There was not morning or night. Jesus didn't die for your sins either. Sorry. He was just kidding in John 6. He really just wants to you be happy and think whatever you want to think about that old worthless document called 'the Bible'
Technicoid Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:09 PM']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" PBC "On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis: " 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 TO 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. Then I concluded : "In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent." What precisely are you claiming I misinterpreted or misposted? I've capitalized the key phrases leading to my conclusion. You can find both documents on the web or in history books if you want to check the accuracy of these two quotations. (Actually they are cut and pastes from the web).[/quote] Yes. I saw both quotes, and I concur that you changed nothing in them. What you did was you read and interpretated those lines without regard to anything else that was written in that document. I provided a summary at the end of the post. Did you miss that? The section as a whole did not say that we are bound to accept that the literal words "THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT" are scientifically precise descriptions of specific events. It says that we cannot dismiss the literal meaning as an impossibility. Given that none of us were on hand to witness the events, how can we claim something to be a scientific certitude in the positive or negative? Given that we cannot provide empirical that such things did not happen, we cannot claim that the literal historical is [i]in doubt[/i]. In particular, it says the the exegetical methods the commission at that time was analyzing were not sound and could not be used to claim that the literal historical meaning of the chapters in question is in doubt. Also, the last paragraph makes it clear that the commission is not equating the terms literal/historical with scientific: [quote]VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the negative.[/quote] No, we are not bound to seek meticulously after exactness in scientific language in these passages. Yes, the intention of the sacred author was to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech at the time and suited to the understanding an capacity of men. Your reading of the text is informed by a 20th-21st century mindset. The commission is saying that it needs to be read within the context of the time in which and for the purpose for which it was written. By your response, I see that you didn't intend to mislead anyone. However, this use of proof-texts out of context can lead to such misunderstandings. From the concepts I draw, you cannot say that we are bound by conscience to accept that Eve was literally tempted by Satan in the form of a serpent. You can only say that we are bound by conscience not to dismiss it out of hand and claim that it's purely allegorical or simply a literary device. It conveys literal truth, even if it doesn't describe events in a scientifically precise manner.
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Now calm down Brother... calm down... We're looking for a discussion, not a fight (well, at least I am). I can appreciate that you believe the bible in a litteral sense. I for one am not convinced of this, not forthe first three books of Genesis anyways. Nor do I believe I should be ex-communicated because of it. Nor should it be taken as evidence that I throw away everything in the bible either - can we have a basis of mutual respect betweeen us?
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:19 PM']We had the Crusades to take back the Holy Land from the fanatical Muslim Turks who invaded and oppressed the Christians there, and did not allow Christian pilgrims safe passage to visit the Holy Land. [right][snapback]613418[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, That's the rationalization used to justify the Crusades, but how much of it is really true? Perhaps you would like to start a separate thread on the cursades which we pursue this one on fact and fiction in scripture. LittleLes
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:51 PM']You can only say that we are bound by conscience not to dismiss it out of hand and claim that it's purely allegorical or simply a literary device. It conveys literal truth, even if it doesn't describe events in a scientifically precise manner. [right][snapback]613530[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A most excellent post my friend, I must compliment you. A question: Having, as per good conscience, considered the litteral possibilty creation as depicted in the bible, is it possible and/or permissible to accept a conclusion that these are not historical events and thus and allegory, while retaining in good faith the teachings of the Catholic church?
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:47 PM'] Two quick points - there are not two creation stories. there is one. Response, No. There are two different accounts. An easy way to prove this is to simply record the sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. There are two Flood accounts also. LittleLes
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:46 PM']yep, that's right. God didn't mean it when he seperated day from night. He lied to you. I'm sorry. There was not morning or night. Jesus didn't die for your sins either. Sorry. He was just kidding in John 6. He really just wants to you be happy and think whatever you want to think about that old worthless document called 'the Bible' [right][snapback]613514[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Question, Wouldn't it have been John who was "just kidding" in John 6? I don't think Jesus was still around when it was written. Littleles
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:51 PM'] The section as a whole did not say that we are bound to accept that the literal words "THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT" are scientifically precise descriptions of specific events. It says that we cannot dismiss the literal meaning as an impossibility. [/quote] Response: It says exactly what we are bound to accept and what we may not call into doubt. Use the plain meaning of words. And Pius X says Catholics are bound in conscience to accept all PBC decisions. Again, " In particular MAY THE LITERAL HISTORICAL SENSE BE CALLED IN DOUBT in the case of facts narrated... THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT. Answer: IN THE NEGATIVE. Literal = adhering to fact or to the ordinary or usual meaning (as of a word). Historical = a chronological record of actual events. Unless someone wants to engage in a little "lets pretend," that simply is what is said. LittleLes
Don John of Austria Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:15 PM']Response: Are you serious? Scary if you really believe that. But you would not be alone. I think we are presently engaged in a war with some groups that hold that same view. Of course, the Church once did too. That's why we had the Crusades. LittleLes [right][snapback]613411[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You mean people who are actually devotees of their religion. And w are hardly at war, more of a "low intensity conflict" still Yes Islam also teaches that it is THE TRUTH, and those who wich to bring he world to that truth are willing to fight for it, that doesn't make them monsters it makes them Men. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to die, is not fit to live. He is only a sniviling coward. Osama ben Lauden is my enemy, of thatthere is no Doubt but he is an enemy I can respect, he has given up a very cushy life in Saudi Arabia for what he believes, That is not a trait to be dismissed but to be admired. He is an enemy I could sit and have a cup of coffee with( I'd say a beer but aas a faithful Muslim he would not drink one). Of course the Church still does, everything that is not True should fall away, and oneday it will. You see we already know the end of the Story--in the End Christ Wins.
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:47 PM'] Btw, the Catholic Church teaches we have to believe in our parents as the first two people on earth. We cannot believe in a group of 'humanoids' that wandered around and God struck souls into two of them. Now if They called each other Adam (first man) and Eve (first woman) or if "Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" refering to his wife is a moot point. [right][snapback]613456[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response: This teaching is not really being insisted upon these days with good reason. Mainly, because there is no scientific evidence to support it. And should it be disproven scientifically and the multiregional evolution of man proven, the whole story of original sin, the Immaculate Conception, etc. falls. And we don't "have to believe" something that is proven to be untrue. LittleLes
Don John of Austria Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:58 PM']Response, That's the rationalization used to justify the Crusades, but how much of it is really true? Perhaps you would like to start a separate thread on the cursades which we pursue this one on fact and fiction in scripture. LittleLes [right][snapback]613541[/snapback][/right] [/quote] We have had MANY MANY threads on the Crusades why don't you go up to search read them ALL and then pick one you'd like to respond to that would save all of us a lot of time going back and fourth over and over them.
Don John of Austria Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:16 PM']Beg to differ. No one claims the world would be peaceful without religion. But we know that it would be safer without religious zealots out to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their God. What we do know is the world isn't any better with bible toting Christians. [right][snapback]613413[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I said the destruction of untruth is the Will of God, I would prefer not to kill people who don't believe in the Truth, but if they are particularly hostile about it, persecute Christians or repeatedly attempt to bring the Fathful to ruin I see no Moral objection to it. In all of history the Church has never Killedanyone for whatthey believed, nor have they ever handed over anyone to the Civil Authorities for punishment for what they believed, they have only punished or handed over for punishment people for what they DID, ussually because they would not stop teaching untruths even after multiple chances to Shut UP!
Melchisedec Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:06 PM']I said the destruction of untruth is the Will of God, I would prefer not to kill people who don't believe in the Truth, but if they are particularly hostile about it, persecute Christians or repeatedly attempt to bring the Fathful to ruin I see no Moral objection to it. In all of history the Church has never Killedanyone for whatthey believed, nor have they ever handed over anyone to the Civil Authorities for punishment for what they believed, they have only punished or handed over for punishment people for what they DID, ussually because they would not stop teaching untruths even after multiple chances to Shut UP! [right][snapback]613660[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The problem with your assertion is that your so called truth is one derived only from faith which in term is not founded on facts. In the end to believe in your religious beliefs requires one to have faith in the church fathers, inspiation by the holy spirit , and infallibility. These are things that only faith could resolve. They are far from facts. Yet, if people chose to expose this, or to express there own views to counter that, Yes the church had was integral to their deaths. It is not Gods will that I see being done, but that of people who are adamant about destroying any contrary view. If God really wanted all these untrue beliefs, he could easily remove this element. Why does God need an ant to do his work? The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do. If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first.
Don John of Austria Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:56 PM']Response: This teaching is not really being insisted upon these days with good reason. Mainly, because there is no scientific evidence to support it. And should it be disproven scientifically and the multiregional evolution of man proven, the whole story of original sin, the Immaculate Conception, etc. falls. And we don't "have to believe" something that is proven to be untrue. LittleLes [right][snapback]613655[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually there is a great deal of evedence to support it. Look into the DNA studies "looking for an Eve" there is a good deal of evidince for this. She Lived 150,000 years ago. There is Also evedence that ALL men had the same ancestrial Father 60,000 years ago--- This actually fits very well with Genisis Noah would e the common male ancester but the wives of Noahs sons where not of his blood and there for would have had unbroken DNA from Eve where as All men would have recieved their Y chromosome from Noah not Adam and therefore would have a much more recent common ancestor.
Melchisedec Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:54 PM']You mean people who are actually devotees of their religion. And w are hardly at war, more of a "low intensity conflict" still Yes Islam also teaches that it is THE TRUTH, and those who wich to bring he world to that truth are willing to fight for it, that doesn't make them monsters it makes them Men. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to die, is not fit to live. He is only a sniviling coward. Osama ben Lauden is my enemy, of thatthere is no Doubt but he is an enemy I can respect, he has given up a very cushy life in Saudi Arabia for what he believes, That is not a trait to be dismissed but to be admired. He is an enemy I could sit and have a cup of coffee with( I'd say a beer but aas a faithful Muslim he would not drink one). Of course the Church still does, everything that is not True should fall away, and oneday it will. You see we already know the end of the Story--in the End Christ Wins. [right][snapback]613650[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You have given credence to the 911 hijackers. They were men you could respect because they fought for what they believed. They were not cowards as you say, but men, because they died for what they believed. Now you can sit and tell me that it was justified to do these things. That the world is better for this. I disagree. They were monsters who killed innocent people. You are absolutely no different than they in principle. The result speaks for itself. But people like you never learn, it takes those with higher level of morality and respect to rebuild the chaos those like you have waged on this earth.
Don John of Austria Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:17 PM']The problem with your assertion is that your so called truth is one derived only from faith which in term is not founded on facts. In the end to believe in your religious beliefs requires one to have faith in the church fathers, inspiation by the holy spirit , and infallibility. These are things that only faith could resolve. They are far from facts. Yet, if people chose to expose this, or to express there own views to counter that, Yes the church had was integral to their deaths. It is not Gods will that I see being done, but that of people who are adamant about destroying any contrary view. If God really wanted all these untrue beliefs, he could easily remove this element. Why does God need an ant to do his work? The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do. If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first. [right][snapback]613670[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote]The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do.[/quote] That after your whole statment about fact an Faith you would choose to say this is laughable. The [i]Fact [/i]is you have no rights that you cannot defend yourself. In a state of Nature I can kill you for your women or for your food or because I don't like what you say and you have absolutly no "RIGHTS" at all. Science does not give us rights and you certianly cannot defend the Idea of rights through any use of it. Rights only Exist if there is a Creator which demands them. Nature gives you only three rights 1 submit to the will of the Strong 2 run from the strong 3 fight the Strong [quote]If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first.[/quote] You se unlike most of the people here I completly believe that it is your right to fight, even when you are wrong, it is one of the things that makes us human, the ability to choose to fight even when flight is a much better option.
Melchisedec Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:26 PM']That after your whole statment about fact an Faith you would choose to say this is laughable. The [i]Fact [/i]is you have no rights that you cannot defend yourself. In a state of Nature I can kill you for your women or for your food or because I don't like what you say and you have absolutly no "RIGHTS" at all. Science does not give us rights and you certianly cannot defend the Idea of rights through any use of it. Rights only Exist if there is a Creator which demands them. Nature gives you only three rights 1 submit to the will of the Strong 2 run from the strong 3 fight the Strong You se unlike most of the people here I completly believe that it is your right to fight, even when you are wrong, it is one of the things that makes us human, the ability to choose to fight even when flight is a much better option. [right][snapback]613681[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't need a sky daddy to tell me whats right or wrong. Your doctrine of infalliblity only allows you to be a mindless robot and do as you are told. You basicly dont have to ever ponder issues of morality and right/wrong. You just do what you infallable church tells you to do. The truth is that the mind is capable of abstracting issues like this. The very reason you dont plunge a dagger into your leg because it causes harm to you, is the same reason we can understand the concepts of right and wrong. Absolute morality, is arbritrary at best.
Recommended Posts