U big dummy u can't fix stupid

juliamajor · #76 Aug 16, '14, 11:55 am

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.[23]

juliamajor · #77 Aug 16, '14, 11:59 am

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

St. Augustine of Hippo
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[16]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.[17]

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

St. Augustine of Hippo
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[16]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.[17]

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our minds

Achilles6129 · #78 Aug 17, '14, 11:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

The Bible is divinely inspired- inspired, not physically written by Him.

Same thing. The words in the Bible are written by God through a human agent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

Figures of speech ,hah. That is just comical. . Everything is literal until you think it isn't.

Like I said before, when figures of speech are used in the Bible Scripture makes it obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

As far as the Hebrew view of the world-just google it.

How the Jews interpreted Scripture is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Bible actually says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

- then there are a heck of a lot of things that should exist but do. Like the Holy Trinity. Find those exact words and I'll pat you on the shoulder

Not too difficult:

"19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Mt. 28:19 (NASB)

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:

You do understand that I'm not Catholic? It doesn't matter to me what Pope John Paul II says; it only matters what God says. Obviously I disagree with his statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

See above.

What you're saying is that we should give up Genesis (and therefore, any sort of sound Biblical hermeneutic) because extra-Biblical evidence appears to be against it. I think that the words of God are more important than that, and so does the Apostle Paul:

" In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: 2 proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." 2 Tim. 4:1-2 (NRSV)

Had God wanted to say he created the world through evolution he could have. Had he wanted to indicate there wasn't a global flood he could have. He did not.

oldcelt · #79 Aug 17, '14, 11:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles6129

We'll just have to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. Have you visited sites run by creationist scientists, like Creation Ministries International (http://creation.com/) ? They claim that there is good evidence of a global flood and good evidence against evolution.

No...in this case it is fact versus fiction. Floods leave behind evidence....a worldwide flood would leave it everywhere. Not only is there no disruption of native population, no physical evidence has been deposited of any even regional flood in the entire Allegheny National Forest. Not far away there is great evidence of the final Ice Age. I've seen these....I have sampled them.

Noah's Flood was not worldwide.....and that is a fact.

Achilles6129 · #80 Aug 17, '14, 11:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldcelt

No...in this case it is fact versus fiction. Floods leave behind evidence....a worldwide flood would leave it everywhere. Not only is there no disruption of native population, no physical evidence has been deposited of any even regional flood in the entire Allegheny National Forest. Not far away there is great evidence of the final Ice Age. I've seen these....I have sampled them.

Noah's Flood was not worldwide.....and that is a fact.

We will have to disagree.

It ultimately comes down to the fact that the words of God trump any other form of evidence that can possibly be presented. What do you think of that philosophy?

clem456 · #81 Aug 17, '14, 6:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles6129

We will have to disagree.

It ultimately comes down to the fact that the words of God trump any other form of evidence that can possibly be presented. What do you think of that philosophy?

The Word of God is not designed to "trump" other forms of evidence. The bible is not a science or history textbook.

Aloysium · #82 Aug 17, '14, 8:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by clem456

The Word of God is not designed to "trump" other forms of evidence. The bible is not a science or history textbook.

But, it does speak of what is miraculous.
Scripture describes the influence of the Word on history, which culminates in His incarnation.
It thus tells of miracles.
Among the miracles is the creation of man.
Science cannot explain miracles. Attempts to do so scientifically are nonsense.

juliamajor · #83 Aug 17, '14, 10:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles6129

Same thing. The words in the Bible are written by God through a human agent. It's not the same thing.It least the way you state.You seem think that the human inspired writer acted as a dictaphone for God. No brain activity needed on the part of the human author.

Like I said before, when figures of speech are used in the Bible Scripture makes it obvious. [i]Figures of speech aren't always obvious. Idioms are limited to a place and era.over the centuries language changes-all languages change and many forms of speech- like slangs are radically different from age to age. Understanding literary forms alter. English is way different than Hebrew or Greek- and the figures of speech- seemingly so obvious to you in a translation can and are very different in the original tongue.What a translator does is not always true to the original language . it can't be because the symbolism in the original text would be incomprehensible to modern, english readers.

How the Jews interpreted Scripture is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Bible actually says. [/b]What the bible says is open to interpretation. Everyone interprets the bible to one degree or another. How do you know what is really being said if you don't interpret scripture? Scripture has been studied, interpreted and argued over for thousands of years- if the answers were so easily obtainable and pat- then why discuss it at all?

Not too difficult:

"19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Mt. 28:19 (NASB)
That's very cute , but do you see the word 'HOLY TRINITY " anywhere? You must actually believe that doctrines and dogmas were handed over the same time scripture was. Doctrine for the most part evolved.Concepts such as the the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic union-heaven and hell were defined and fought over for centuries . They didn't leap full formed out of the Bible.. Early church had to fight different heresies for a very long time until the carved out the meaning of what a Christian is and what a Christian should really believe in order to be considered a Christian.
Look up the Nestorian ,Arianism,Manichean heresies- that should get you started.

You do understand that I'm not Catholic? It doesn't matter to me what Pope John Paul II says; it only matters what God says. Obviously I disagree with his statement.I'm not a Protestant Fundamentalist so you know I don't the bible literalistically And how do you know what God is really saying unless you interpret .

See above.

What you're saying is that we should give up Genesis (and therefore, any sort of sound Biblical hermeneutic) because extra-Biblical evidence appears to be against it. I think that the words of God are more important than that, and so does the Apostle Paul:
Again we speak of trying to understand the scripture in the light of the original intent and the original language and style it was written in. All scripture is not narrative
" In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: 2 proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." 2 Tim. 4:1-2 (NRSV) Yes, when logic fails quote a verse.-this one is about teaching not fundamentalism. Paul as Rabbi and Pharisee would know the worth of teaching and the interpretation of scripture.

Had God wanted to say he created the world through evolution he could have. Had he wanted to indicate there wasn't a global flood he could have. He did not.

[b] how do you know that if you don't interpret.? it must be nice that scripture is so crystal clear to you when to us other poor mortals must ponder over it and try to struggle to make certain that we are truly following God.

clem456 · #84 Aug 18, '14, 5:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aloysium

But, it does speak of what is miraculous.
Scripture describes the influence of the Word on history, which culminates in His incarnation.
It thus tells of miracles.
Among the miracles is the creation of man.
Science cannot explain miracles. Attempts to do so scientifically are nonsense.

Agree.

Hans W · #85 Aug 18, '14, 4:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliamajor

[b] how do you know that if you don't interpret.? it must be nice that scripture is so crystal clear to you when to us other poor mortals must ponder over it and try to struggle to make certain that we are truly following God.

Two types of people have it really easy when it comes to reading the Bible:

The ones think it's total nonsense, concocted by some goat-herding, bronze-age people.
The other lot takes every word literally.

PJM · #86 Aug 18, '14, 4:07 pm

Quote:

=RockPigeon;12249762]Often when speaking of Catholicism to others, they have a problem with the Violence of God in the Old Testament. Specifically, the violence performed for minor tasks, such as when Uzzah tries to stop the Ark from falling over and is killed for touching it, or when Elisha kills the boys for making fun of his being bald, or other rules about killing, many seen in Deuteronomy.

What is a good way to respond to these points? One can agree they are certainly startling.

As a catechist I have too encountered this.

My response is to:
1. Ask for a specific example or examples

2. Then point out that it is always a response from God's necessary Divine Justice.

Can't can permit evil; BUT NOT desire it except as a just response to man's disobedience.

The Plagues inflicted on Egypt are an excellent example of this

God Bless,
Patrick

clem456 · #87 Aug 19, '14, 5:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

As a catechist I have too encountered this.

My response is to:
1. Ask for a specific example or examples

2. Then point out that it is always a response from God's necessary Divine Justice.

Can't can permit evil; BUT NOT desire it except as a just response to man's disobedience.

The Plagues inflicted on Egypt are an excellent example of this

God Bless,
Patrick

It's also important in RCIA or other catechetical settings to point out that the human authors of Scripture have an imperfect understanding of God's will. They don't write Scripture in a trance or tape record God's word. God does not move the pen, so to speak.
Passages where God's will is interpreted as commanding the Israelites to slaughter innocents must be read with that understanding.

This is perhaps the root of much misunderstanding in regard to the Old Testament. Christians are continually coming to know God. For new Christians, as they come to know Jesus, he is revealed to them as the fullness of truth and revelation, He is THE Word of God. But the inconsistencies are obvious between Jesus and the "God of the Old Testament". There are not two Gods, there is only one who is unchanging. Each and every passage must be read in the light of the person of Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies about who God reveals himself to be must be worked out in that difficult relationship between the human and divine. The inconsistency is on the part of human understanding of God's will, not in God's nature. God cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings. It's not in his nature, the Cross is evidence enough of that.

But far from disqualifying these passages, God still speaks inspired words to us through these difficult passages, giving us life through Christ who fulfills them. If we can move past insisting on literist interpretations of God's word then we can hear his word much more fully. That's why it is said in RCIA that it is not a program but a process, the goal of which is to know Jesus Christ. All Scripture and Church teaching leads us to know Christ.

clem456 · #88 Aug 19, '14, 5:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans W

Two types of people have it really easy when it comes to reading the Bible:

The ones think it's total nonsense, concocted by some goat-herding, bronze-age people.
The other lot takes every word literally.

Perhaps the wisest post of the bunch.

Following The Word is not easy. Understanding scripture for the sake or our own understanding is not the goal.
Scripture not only requires our literal understanding, it asks for our very life, given over to Christ. "Knowing" is more than understanding the words on a page with our limited human knowledge. Knowing in a biblical sense is to enter into a relationship, to give our full selves to Christ as he gives himself to us. Scripture leads us to a relationship with Christ.

"When you find the God you think you fully understand, you've probably built yourself an idol".
I believe that is attributed to Augustine, but in any case it is an unpopular truth in our "enlightened" times.

dmar198 · #89 Aug 19, '14, 6:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by clem456

It's also important in RCIA or other catechetical settings to point out that the human authors of Scripture have an imperfect understanding of God's will. They don't write Scripture in a trance or tape record God's word. God does not move the pen, so to speak.
Passages where God's will is interpreted as commanding the Israelites to slaughter innocents must be read with that understanding.

This is perhaps the root of much misunderstanding in regard to the Old Testament. Christians are continually coming to know God. For new Christians, as they come to know Jesus, he is revealed to them as the fullness of truth and revelation, He is THE Word of God. But the inconsistencies are obvious between Jesus and the "God of the Old Testament". There are not two Gods, there is only one who is unchanging. Each and every passage must be read in the light of the person of Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies about who God reveals himself to be must be worked out in that difficult relationship between the human and divine. The inconsistency is on the part of human understanding of God's will, not in God's nature. God cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings. It's not in his nature, the Cross is evidence enough of that.

But far from disqualifying these passages, God still speaks inspired words to us through these difficult passages, giving us life through Christ who fulfills them. If we can move past insisting on literistinterpretations of God's word then we can hear his word much more fully. That's why it is said in RCIA that it is not a program but a process, the goal of which is to know Jesus Christ. All Scripture and Church teaching leads us to know Christ.

Something in your post appears to me to contradict the Church's teaching about Scripture. Dei Verbum 11 says:

[The Church] holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.

And: "[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit."

The human authors may not have a perfect understanding of God's will, but God certainly does, and it is God who wrote each and every one of the passages that give you trouble. Therefore, I don't think we can blame the troubling passages on the authors' imperfect understanding, because "they have God as their author" "in their entirety, with all their parts."

To say that the human authors wrote things down in a way that was "inconsistent" with "God's will" appears to contradict this statement: "they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." To suggest that they assigned things to God's will that were really incompatible with God's will appears to contradict this statement: "[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit." If the text affirms that God commanded X, then it seems to follow that we should regard that statement as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And, if that analysis is correct, then it appears to be a simple case of whether we are going to believe Him in what He says He commanded or not.

Finally, the idea that God "cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings" appears to contradict daily reality: innocent people are slaughtered at the hand of other human beings every day, and God appears to tolerate it. You said, "the Cross is evidence enough" of your point, but I would say it illustrates the opposite: it seems to me that, on the Cross, God tolerated the slaughter of Himself at the hands of other human beings.

Do you see why I am troubled by what you say?

clem456 · #90 Aug 19, '14, 6:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198

Something in your post appears to me to contradict the Church's teaching about Scripture. Dei Verbum 11 says:

[The Church] holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.

And: "[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit."

The human authors may not have a perfect understanding of God's will, but God certainly does, and it is God who wrote each and every one of the passages that give you trouble. Therefore, I don't think we can blame the troubling passages on the authors' imperfect understanding, because "they have God as their author" "in their entirety, with all their parts."

To say that the human authors wrote things down in a way that was "inconsistent" with "God's will" appears to contradict this statement: "they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." To suggest that they assigned things to God's will that were really incompatible with God's will appears to contradict this statement: "[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit." If the text affirms that God commanded X, then it seems to follow that we should regard that statement as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And, if that analysis is correct, then it appears to be a simple case of whether we are going to believe Him in what He says He commanded or not.

Finally, the idea that God "cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings" appears to contradict daily reality: innocent people are slaughtered at the hand of other human beings every day, and God appears to tolerate it. You said, "the Cross is evidence enough" of your point, but I would say it illustrates the opposite: it seems to me that, on the Cross, God tolerated the slaughter of Himself at the hands of other human beings.

Do you see why I am troubled by what you say?

Yes,
It is God's will that every line of scripture was written. But the authors do not always have a perfect understanding and expression of God's will -in the events of their times-. The authors of scripture do not operate outside free will. That is not the meaning of inspiration.

I can see where the word "tolerates" causes confusion, because the slaughter of innocents at the hands of others has always taken place. Maybe condone is a better word.

The Cross is God's gift of himself, taking these evils of humanity on himself. It is not justification for the killing of innocents.

Benedict's discussion of this in Dei Verbum is key:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be..._In_The_Church

Quote:

...we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

U big dummy u can't fix stupid

Monday, August 25, 2014

Return of Nephilim by LA Marzulli and Augusto Perez How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?