Adam's Curve Ball

[Thomas]

Does seem a bit odd I suppose, but my family was among the 1st to immigrate from Germany in the late 1600's. Long before the Catholic invasion.

So what then, Lutheran? I don't think they teach creationism either...

My granddad always told us our religious beliefs came over with us...

Ahh. The creationist interpretations start around the 18th century, when people were trying to make scripture correlate with science, so the idea might be older than the contemporary American ideas ... but really the 'forward thinkers' have moved on now. Trying to match Scripture and science is seen as a misinterpretation of Scripture; it's not whatScripture is, or what Scripture is talking about ... as I've said elsewhere, the noisy American element seems to be about 150 years behind contemporary thought.

My dad used to say, "You can make a literal interpretation of scriptue, but not literally as written."

Good enough. I'd say it depends on what Scripture you're talking about. There are many genres. Psalms and Proverbs are two completely different literary streams, for example. Exodus and the Epistles, and so on ...

 

[Thomas]

I didn't say theologians teach this stuff...if is what is taught in the elementary levels of the religion...

Sorry, Wil, but I'm a bit all 'doubting Thomas' on this one. Not until I see evidence will I believe!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

We're far from literalist though. At least not the variety associated with the American south.

I don't take everything in the Bible literally, but I do take all of it seriously. The origins of literal interpretation is a non-issue for me, but I do find it incredible naive to suggest that literal interpretation did not exist prior the the formation of the United States. Or, because it may not conform to what others believe that it is wrong. I wonder if non-conforming religious beliefs was one of the reasons your ancestors left their homeland?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

unfortunately that's one of the biggest issues I see with the Bible as a "God Given" source. If it says 1 thing literally, how can one be sure that it is not meant to be taken that way. Obviously it just didn't work for me, until I started reading it as a 3rd person's story that someone recorded to the best of their ability, with a few gems thrown in over time.. IMO of course

The Bible's like that. There's lots of different ways to read it. What works for one doesn't work for another. Take NJ and I for instance. We often draw the very same conclusions from scripture, but while I drive myself crazy trying to understand every line, he just concentrates on the overall story and the lessons behind it.

So what then, Lutheran? I don't think they teach creationism either...

They probably did use the Luther Bible, but as far as I know my predecessors, then as now, didn't identify with any particular religious divisions. They simply called themselves Christian and studied the Bible in small private groups.

I've said elsewhere, the noisy American element seems to be about 150 years behind contemporary thought.

A fundamentalist bashing others for being behind in contemporary thought. Might take a while to wrap my head around that one.

I do find it incredible naive to suggest that literal interpretation did not exist prior the the formation of the United States.

I think because I mentioned the late Pastor Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel on another thread, it was assumed that's where my beliefs came from. Not true. His program does have a following down here, partly because of his name, but mostly because his teachings are similar to the way many were taught long before his show ever aired.

I wonder if non-conforming religious beliefs was one of the reasons your ancestors left their homeland?

Could be. The story that's been passed down is that my family came over on a trade voyage, but Australia was not their destination and that they were blown off course in a storm and the ship was too badly damaged to return. I don't know how true that is, but it does predate the arrival of other Europeans from Germany and Poland by quite a few years.

 

[Thomas]

A fundamentalist bashing others for being behind in contemporary thought. Might take a while to wrap my head around that one.

LOL. I think you're wrong there on two counts.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

"You can make a literal interpretation of scripture, but not literally as written."

That is a very profound statement to me. You know, many attempt to discredit the Bible by saying much of it is metaphor rather than fact. To me though, it matters little. The two are interchangeable. As this thread has shown, actual events can be used to set-up metaphorical scenarios and metaphorical scenarios can be applied to actual events. It's like the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush". Taken literally, we should all carry a bird in our hand in the hopes of exchanging it for two more in the nearest shrub! Ridiculous of course, but this saying can be applied in a literal sense to many different scenarios and so it is with the Bible.

 

[wil]

You know, many attempt to discredit the Bible by saying much of it is metaphor rather than fact.

everyone I know that reads parts of the bible as metaphor, allegory, parables, metaphysic, etc...does not do it for credit but deeper understanding...

It's like the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush". Taken literally, we should all carry a bird in our hand in the hopes of exchanging it for two more in the nearest shrub!

I've always understood it to mean...literally... That what you have...you have..what you don't have is a possibility.... Why risk losing the bird you have for dinner now...as it isn't likely you'll obtain the other...

 

[wil]

** discredit...

 

[wil]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools.html

.
Many students and parents ask us this question. They are looking for a school in agreement with their biblical views. I have been compiling this list for years. It is updated regularly as new information comes to us . We are certain that this list is not complete; it is a work in progress. However, to our knowledge, this is the most complete list available. It continues to grow.

According to information we have received, the following schools accept and teach a literal Genesis—including a six 24-hour day Creation, no death before sin, a global Flood and a young Earth.

In most cases, we have personally checked with an authority at the school. Many schools have asked to be added to this list.

​

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

"According to information we have received, the following schools accept and teach a literal Genesis—including a six 24-hour day Creation, no death before sin, a global Flood and a young Earth."

Mis-interpretations of scripture like this are why Creationism gets such a bad rap. First of all, the Bible clearly states that 1 day for God is as a 1000 years for us. Second, those 6 days spoke of in Genesis were to repair the earth, not to create it in the fist place. Things like that use to infuriate my dad. He always told us, when you come to read the Bible, check what you think you know at the door and just read what's written. It's all there if you pay attention.

That is a very profound statement to me. You know, many attempt to discredit the Bible by saying much of it is metaphor rather than fact. To me though, it matters little. The two are interchangeable. As this thread has shown, actual events can be used to set-up metaphorical scenarios and metaphorical scenarios can be applied to actual events. It's like the old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush". Taken literally, we should all carry a bird in our hand in the hopes of exchanging it for two more in the nearest shrub! Ridiculous of course, but this saying can be applied in a literal sense to many different scenarios and so it is with the Bible.

Nicely put.

 

[wil]

I was just allowing everyone to see the dozens of colleges that teach it...

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Understood and my comment was in response to those teachings.

 

[Thomas]

everyone I know that reads parts of the bible as metaphor, allegory, parables, metaphysic, etc...does not do it for credit but deeper understanding...

And reading elements of Scripture that are clearly intended to be read literally deepens the understanding still. It's because so many assume that its all metaphor, etc., that they miss the occult implication.

I've always understood it to mean...literally...

Quite, but you can't read all literature according to the same rule. The Book of Proverbs is a book of proverbs. The Book of Psalms is a book of psalms. There are many genres, and yet people still insist in implying one universal rule, when all scholarship agrees that, whether you believe it or not is one thing, but assuming it's all one thing is patently an error. Every book has to be taken in context.

 

[wil]

I've yet to meet the people who think it all metaphor... I've met atheiss whonthink it all BS...jews who believe the first half, Muslims who believe it to be corrupted, Christians thy believe it all literal..but nobody who thinks it all metaphor...

Did you take a look at that list of schools Thomas? Each year tens of thousands more get their theology degree and/or become priests and go in to write more books and teach more congregations and raise more children on a literal belief...

 

[Thomas]

I've yet to meet the people who think it all metaphor...

Quite. It isn't ...

I've met atheiss whonthink it all BS...jews who believe the first half, Muslims who believe it to be corrupted, Christians thy believe it all literal..

Well I'm sure, from what I've been told, that anyone can find someone to support every permutation of interpretation. That's why I tend to look at scholars and not public opinion, and then peer review scholars.

Did you take a look at that list of schools Thomas? Each year tens of thousands more get their theology degree and/or become priests and go in to write more books and teach more congregations and raise more children on a literal belief...

OH I'm not disputing that! I was talking about Catholicism specifically. I don't think any of the schools listed are Catholic or Orthodox. Religion is big business in the US, it's a commercial enterprise, so it's not surprising, really. In fact it's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I was talking about Catholicism specifically. I don't think any of the schools listed are Catholic or Orthodox. Religion is big business in the US, it's a commercial enterprise, so it's not surprising, really. In fact it's exactly what I've been saying.

US has no exclusive on that mate. Religion is big business all over the world and the Vatican leads the way.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/

http://humansarefree.com/2012/03/christian-church-is-biggest-financial.html​

 

[Thomas]

US has no exclusive on that mate. Religion is big business all over the world and the Vatican leads the way.

Of course. That's my point. The vatican is big, but then it has the biggest membership.

But getting back to the point, my response was to Wil's comment that Catholicism teaches creationism, which I very much doubt. I see no evidence of it, so assume Wil just lumps Catholics in with everyone else, regardless.

In fact, if one reads the commentaries of the Fathers on the issue, the ideas are very 'forward thinking' and are still relevant today. Catholic theology generally is cutting edge stuff. So is good Anglican (N.T. West, for example) and Orthodox (Louth, Hart). Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote a great textbook on theology. Bernard Lonergan is a giant not only of theology but of human understanding generally. He's Canadian, mind. But Hart and Dulles are American. Merton is cutting edge 'mysticism' (although his background was European) and so it Standl-Rast (but he again is European).

So I'm obliged to say that while the American Christian denominations generally seem locked into the 18th/19th century, the old Traditions are out leading the way in speculative thought.

Your dad got annoyed by 'misinterpretation'. So did mine – he believed in Adam and Eve. But we all have to move with the times ...

 

[wil]

But getting back to the point, my response was to Wil's comment that Catholicism teaches creationism, which I very much doubt.

In elementary school, I lived next to a catholic.school and had a number of neighbor kids who attended as friends...in high school, make friends who attended and girls I dated, and as you know most lately..3 dozen boy scouts and their Catholic parents... I got no clue what was taught in the classes...never went...but those people believed in a literal Genesis, a literal flood, and creationism as we know it.. You, may doubt all you wish...but as the Jesuit priest/prof at loyala said...most are shocked to find him teach allegory and metaphor in the grad school level...because the congregations aren't taught it... And it isn't until masters or PhD level they hear it from him...

 

[Thomas]

In elementary school, I lived next to a catholic.school and had a number of neighbor kids who attended as friends...in high school, make friends who attended and girls I dated, and as you know most lately..3 dozen boy scouts and their Catholic parents... I got no clue what was taught in the classes...never went...

Quite. That's rather my point.

but those people believed in a literal Genesis, a literal flood, and creationism as we know it.

Well as for the first two, so did my dad. That was a generation ago, actually three generations now, as a generation is usually 25 years. Times move on, and people move on, but 'we' tend to think of people now as we did then. Your argument seems to be based on 'old' evidence ... ?

'Creationism' I'd have to ask you to clarify. Six 24 hour day periods? Probably, my dad never questioned that either. But the 'young earth' and the 'gap theory' – I doubt Catholics believe that ...

... but as the Jesuit priest/prof at loyala said...most are shocked to find him teach allegory and metaphor in the grad school level...because the congregations aren't taught it... And it isn't until masters or PhD level they hear it from him...

I can't comment, I don't know who this Jesuit said, to whom, in what context, when, and why ...

... and I've still had no actual evidence from you other than hearsay.

I'm not saying your wrong. Personal experience tends to define one's world, but to assume that defines the world as such is usually an over-statement.

I went camping with the cubs and scouts when I was a kid. I missed Sunday Mass, and it was no biggie for my parents, who are as Irish Catholic as you like. So while I can understand your experience defines your ideas, it doesn't define mine. My experience was different.

If you question how most people understand the Big Bang, then you'd probably find an equivalent degree of assumption and error. No-one makes a song and dance about that. And really, whether the six days are metaphorical, actual; whether a day means a day, a thousand years, or an indeterminate period of time ... is largely irrelevant. Catholic faith is founded primarily on the Propositions defined in the Creed, their prayer on the propositions of The Lord's Prayer. Catholics are not dogmatically obliged to believe anything other than 'God made the world' – the detail is something for theologians and critics to fuss over.