Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.
-
you mean the inverted pyramid? lolOriginally posted by shade343:I wonder where the truth of christianity is hiding...somewhere in France? -
in other words, if the pope says cannot be honest, they cannot be honest even if they want to ah? i didn't know that one's morals are answerable to the pope. i thot they were answerable to God only.Originally posted by Icemoon:You need the managing director, the Pope, to approve first mah.
The popes hold/held the keys and are the rocks .. the bishops and cardinals are not.
-
Please note, it is only the RC's that have said this, protestants still believe in the WHOLE truth of the bible...Originally posted by HENG@:AHAHAHAHA i knew it! All along i've been saying this but would the xtians believe me? nooooooooooooo. we know better. the church knows better. blah blah blah. in reality the church DID know better, and hid the truth from all of u till now. Looks like some people have to start eating humble pie now. Meanwhile I have to applaude the church for finally deciding to be truthful, just like a church should always have been. might have been late, but better late than never. -
They can say anything they want, but their words don't carry much weight.Originally posted by HENG@:in other words, if the pope says cannot be honest, they cannot be honest even if they want to ah? i didn't know that one's morals are answerable to the pope. i thot they were answerable to God only. -
Before certain people jump to conclusions, here are some points to take note of:
1. The traditional RC position is that the bible is one of the two infallible sources of divine revelation. In fact the Roman Catholic understanding of inspiration is far more mechanical than the traditional reformed understanding.
No one, of course, even the strictest inerrantist would (a view to which I subscribe) ,would claim that the bible teaches astronomy, but all would claim that the bible is inerrant in all that it intends to communicate. Nor would any claim that the bible contains mistakes in the autographa.
2. The Truth of the Bible is not always a literal Truth. Truth can be allegorical and symbolic as well. Not only that certain stories in the Bible can have both literal and allergorical Truths in them.
3. The article is a maladroit way to attack conservative and fundamentalist Protestants who take a literal view of Genesis 1-3 and Revelation.
The article contains a quite off-topic attack on Intelligent Design. A few years ago Ruth Gledhill was feted in conservative circles but she turned very negative towards evangelicals in the past couple of years over, branding them as ‘judgmental’ (i.e., differing from *her judgments) over homosexuality and single motherhood. She made it clear she felt ‘got at’ by conservative Christians.
The Times has become very agnostic or even hostile toward Christianity (with gay writer Matthew Parris - EnglandÂ’s Andrew Sullivan- leading the charge), reflecting the upper-middle class English establishment in its post-Christian hissy.
And finally some of the terms used in the article are meant to MISLEAD:
Take the terms TRUE and UNTRUE for example. I could give more misleading terms used.
As mentioned earlier the Pope hasn't commented. The Pope will do so after he consults his Cardinals and Bishops. -
till today .. I still dunno what's the belief of plo30360.
is he catholic, protestant or other religion or agnostic? -
I always tot he is a Muslim, given his past topics.Originally posted by Icemoon:till today .. I still dunno what's the belief of plo30360.
is he catholic, protestant or other religion or agnostic?
And yeap to that, the sooner the RC wakes up to the illogicality of the bible, hopefully the protestants will wake up their idea too... -
I am glad to see the Catholic Bishops make some of the modern understanding of the bible more available to the Catholic laity, it is just a shame that poor use of language in this article will lead to much misconception. The thesis put forward by the Bishops in this document will be nothing new to many Catholics and other Christians alike. Far from the Catholic Church suggesting it can pick and choose what it decides is "true" in the Bible, it simply shows how reasonable the Christian faith is, and shows how modern methods of literary criticism can be used to help us explore the Truth expounded by the Bible. The Bishops are trying to draw peoples attention to the Truth by helping people understand the Bible, and that understanding is greatly aided once you abolish the fundamentalist barrier of having to accept everything written in the Bible as being in the factual/historical genre which much of the bible was simply not written in. James Potter, Kingston-upon-Thames
-
x2Originally posted by A dot dot B dot dot:I am glad to see the Catholic Bishops make some of the modern understanding of the bible more available to the Catholic laity, it is just a shame that poor use of language in this article will lead to much misconception. The thesis put forward by the Bishops in this document will be nothing new to many Catholics and other Christians alike. Far from the Catholic Church suggesting it can pick and choose what it decides is "true" in the Bible, it simply shows how reasonable the Christian faith is, and shows how modern methods of literary criticism can be used to help us explore the Truth expounded by the Bible. The Bishops are trying to draw peoples attention to the Truth by helping people understand the Bible, and that understanding is greatly aided once you abolish the fundamentalist barrier of having to accept everything written in the Bible as being in the factual/historical genre which much of the bible was simply not written in. James Potter, Kingston-upon-Thames -
As an historian, my research has lead me to believe that most of the Old Testament is folklore that has been passed down through time or stories that have been "borrowed" from other people and different times. It was monks long ago that picked and chose what went into the Bible; who are they to decide what's right and wrong, what should be left in or out? I am a Christian and am finally glad that the Catholic Church has yielded way to common sense. It's not the actual literal truth that matters, it's the message it sends. Robin Castellanos, San Antonio, Texas
-
All the comments A dot dot B dot dot took from can be found here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1812166_1,00.html -
oh so honesty doesn't carry weight, only appointment. so once again i ask u hor, morals are answerable to the pope or God?Originally posted by Icemoon:They can say anything they want, but their words don't carry much weight.
this religion should be called Popeianity, not Christianity. -
funny. from even longer ago, it seems to me that more protestants i know do not actually believe in the whole truth of the bible. instead they have even earlier acknowledged that some parts of the bible aren't written in a literal context. of course if u wish to use the bible to justify any of your bigotry such as hatred against Jews(something about "their blood on us") or other people, then thats fine really.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Please note, it is only the RC's that have said this, protestants still believe in the WHOLE truth of the bible...
But the ones who believe in the whole bible being literal have always been the weak minded fools who refuse to think deeper and just accept what they superficially see. -
in the event the Pope refuted their stance .. are you saying the Pope is dishonest?Originally posted by HENG@:oh so honesty doesn't carry weight, only appointment. so once again i ask u hor, morals are answerable to the pope or God?
this religion should be called Popeianity, not Christianity.
who defines who is honest and who is not? you? aren't you guilty of bigotry then? -
The bible cant be literal everywhere right?Originally posted by HENG@:But the ones who believe in the whole bible being literal have always been the weak minded fools who refuse to think deeper and just accept what they superficially see.
come on .. who wants to be the first to pluck out his eyes?
-
As a former journalist now working as an Anglican minister, and with a robust evangelical theology, I am surprised that the latest Roman Catholic report is regarded as news. To believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as I do, in no way requires a literalistic interpretation of every verse: it all depends, as the catholic bishops rightly say, what sort of literature it is - poetry, letter, history or whatever. When the Psalms speak of Lebanon "skipping like a calf" we recognise it as a figure of speech. Likewise, it seems to me that the early chapters of Genesis, taken in their own context, require a non-literalistic interpretation - how else can the Bible speak of evening and morning before it speaks of the creation of the sun? The ancient writers were not fools and we should not demand of the text what it does not even demand of itself. - Rev David Baker, Surbiton
-
Finally, the Church admits that the Bible is God's word in "human language." I would say it is fair game to reinterpret the entire Bible and to take with a grain of salt those bigoted texts which espouse doctrines no longer relevant in our day and age. As the Church points out, this is human language, and with human language comes human myopia and bigotry of the human spirit. Thank you, Catholic Church, for admitting what many of us have known all along: the Bible is a piecemeal selection of texts and scriptures put together with political motivation. And, those texts and scriptures were written down in some cases centuries after the death of Christ and are akin to myths with grains of truth. Blasphemous be the man who writes his own words and ascribes them to God. That is pure arrogance. - Michael Marcil, Salem, Massachusetts
-
As a Muslim, this is exactly the reason we believe that God found the need to send another Prophet after the Prophet Jesus; that His Word had been corrupted, and now contained inaccuracies that needed clarifying/amending. You will find that the Koran is free of such contradictions with science. - Kamran Younas, Houslow
-
We're getting closer. Perhaps a mere 2,000 years more and the Church will have caught up with ideas of rational thought. And from there it should be no time at all before our brave Christian soldiers stop crusading against our unholy enemy combatants. - Steven McCowan, Miami, Florida
-
which imman or will the ayatollah admit the Quran is just another human-inspired book?Originally posted by iveco:As a Muslim, this is exactly the reason we believe that God found the need to send another Prophet after the Prophet Jesus; that His Word had been corrupted, and now contained inaccuracies that needed clarifying/amending. You will find that the Koran is free of such contradictions with science. - Kamran Younas, Houslow
I guess they are all dishonest heh? -
haha. its not who defines who is honest. it's "WHAT" and we all know the what the truth is, and if u refuse to acknowledge the truth, or if u supress it, its being dishonest. such a simple logic, u fail to understand it? im (un)impressed.Originally posted by Icemoon:in the event the Pope refuted their stance .. are you saying the Pope is dishonest?
who defines who is honest and who is not? you? aren't you guilty of bigotry then?
since when is calling someone who is dishonest bigotry anyway?
its common knowledge that some parts of the bible are inaccurate. nobody is asking u to give up Christianity or anything, just asking u to acknowledge that there are certain parts of the bible not meant to be taken literally. is this so hard for u to do? -
no it's not hard.Originally posted by HENG@:haha. its not who defines who is honest. it's "WHAT" and we all know the what the truth is, and if u refuse to acknowledge the truth, or if u supress it, its being dishonest. such a simple logic, u fail to understand it? im (un)impressed.
since when is calling someone who is dishonest bigotry anyway?
its common knowledge that some parts of the bible are inaccurate. nobody is asking u to give up Christianity or anything, just asking u to acknowledge that there are certain parts of the bible not meant to be taken literally. is this so hard for u to do?
-
from the number of Christians i've spoken to, this is basically the impression u'd get!Originally posted by Icemoon:The bible cant be literal everywhere right?
come on .. who wants to be the first to pluck out his eyes?
like i said, weak minded fools who are lazy to think deeper.
these are the superficial christians. the ones who just point fingers at others and say "u're not xtian, u're sinning, u're going to hell"
the laudable ones, true ones, are those who dig deep and think hard about christianity and what it means to be one. -
You are mistaken. You got the wrong impression. Like I said, if your hypothesis is true (that many xtians read the whole bible literally), then we should have many xtians plucking out their eyes liao. Reality proves otherwise.Originally posted by HENG@:from the number of Christians i've spoken to, this is basically the impression u'd get!
like i said, weak minded fools who are lazy to think deeper.
these are the superficial christians. the ones who just point fingers at others and say "u're not xtian, u're sinning, u're going to hell"
the laudable ones, true ones, are those who dig deep and think hard about christianity and what it means to be one.
come on .. even weak minded superficial christians will not believe literally the "plucking out the eyes" part. -
Originally posted by HENG@:
I'm impressed. An unbeliever claiming to know the truth and proclaiming the majority of the Christians [he came across] do not.
haha. its not who defines who is honest. it's "WHAT" and we all know the what the truth is, and if u refuse to acknowledge the truth, or if u supress it, its being dishonest. such a simple logic, u fail to understand it? im (un)impressed.
Btw .. I think Chin Eng still waiting for your eccelstiates (sp?) verse or something?