Creationism Is Paganism, says Vatican Astronomer
- Thread starter China Cat Sunflower
- Start date
littlemissattitude
Creative Thinker
Thank you. That is just the sort of thing that I was getting at, although I'm not sure that Catholicism is larger than all the other Christian denominations combined. Still, a lot of other denominations also do not accept YEC. You are also correct that I wasn't making any judgment as to who is right or wrong - just talking numbers.AletheiaRivers said:As I understand it, Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination. That fact alone would make a literal interpretation of Genesis (YEC) a minority view. That is not speaking as to whether YEC is a correct or incorrect view, just that it is a minority view.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Quahom1 said:
Q,
This is not a reflection of my current attitude toward catholicism. One of the reasons I left Seventh-day Adventism was that church's unreasonable attitude toward the RCC. Here's the thing: I think that an anti-catholic attitude is pretty much stock in trade for a lot of fundamentalist denominations. I want to find out if any of our fundamentalist friends here are willing to be up front about what their church teaches vis a vis the RCC.
Chris
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Come on now... The Catholic Church is now saying that the Bible isn't true. The current official position of the RCC is that evolution is correct, and Revelation is to be discounted.
I read that Martin Luther wasn't going to include Revelation in his Bible, but when the wood cut illustrations came back from the artist he just couldn't resist the propaganda value of the beasts with papal crowns on their heads.
Chris
I read that Martin Luther wasn't going to include Revelation in his Bible, but when the wood cut illustrations came back from the artist he just couldn't resist the propaganda value of the beasts with papal crowns on their heads.
Chris
lunamoth
Episcopalian
China Cat Sunflower said:
Well, that's never been my attitude toward the Catholic Church, but I guess you already knew that. It's no secret that Protestantism in general and fundamentalism in particular take a dim view of the RCC, and consider it the anti-Christ. A chip on the shoulder attitude, though, is what is going to keep many people away from dialogue here...
lunamoth
lunamoth
Episcopalian
China Cat Sunflower said:
I don't think the RCC is saying that the Bible isn't true. Sounds like pretty good sense they way they are approaching this. The people who are most going to rail against this are already railing against the RCC anyway. I think the RCC is right on target here.
2 c,
lunamoth
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
China Cat,
To remind:
It is one thing to present a conflicting viewpoint, something to make others think. It is quite another to attempt to demolish what others have built. Seems to me you haven't spent much time building anything, you are more interested in tearing others down. And you demand that your actions be acceptable? Hardly. Further, what kind of faith can possibly be of any benefit, if the *only* thing it can do is destroy?
You are not obliged to believe. You are not obliged to agree. You are obliged to conduct yourself with manners. If that is not acceptable, then you will be invited to play elsewhere. The choice is yours.
Either help us build a dialogue between faiths, or go play in another sandbox. There is enough demolition in the world without putting up with it here.
A person with any lick of common sense would know that a person living in a glass house shouldn't run around throwing stones.
To remind:
Just who is it that is really levelling ad hominem attacks? Hmmm? Seems to me your actions conflict with your statement. Hard to take your comment seriously when you keep levelling attacks such as this. The reformed agnostic druid lumberjacks DO have a place where they are free from ad hominem attacks, and it is NOT where the fundamentalist druid lumberjacks reside. Further, there is no license for the reform lumberjacks to attack the fundamentalist lumberjacks in the house they have built, a cause you seem to have taken upon yourself with a vigor. Then you cry "foul" when the favor is returned? Last I checked, "do as I say, not as I do" is the very essence of hypocrasy.
It is one thing to present a conflicting viewpoint, something to make others think. It is quite another to attempt to demolish what others have built. Seems to me you haven't spent much time building anything, you are more interested in tearing others down. And you demand that your actions be acceptable? Hardly. Further, what kind of faith can possibly be of any benefit, if the *only* thing it can do is destroy?
You are not obliged to believe. You are not obliged to agree. You are obliged to conduct yourself with manners. If that is not acceptable, then you will be invited to play elsewhere. The choice is yours.
Either help us build a dialogue between faiths, or go play in another sandbox. There is enough demolition in the world without putting up with it here.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
lunamoth said:
Yeah, I do too. I think they're making remarkably good sense. What I find interesting is how and where the line is drawn. The RCC now says that cetain parts of the Bible aren't literally true, but other equally non-scientifically palatable parts like virgin birth are still off limits. It's like a constantly eroding line in the sand. "O.K., this far and no farther...well, maybe a little more-but no farther...well, maybe...." I wonder how long until they're willing to chuck the whole thing. I think it's entirely political.
Chris
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Well, I am not RCC but I really don't think this marks a significant change in the RCC's approach to the Bible. It may be a more public expression of it, and in language that intentionally shows the distinction between the RCC and the new literalism, but I don't think it's all that radical. They are not saying that anything is 'not true' in conveying God to us, only that the Bible is not a science text, which is it not. Even the Gospels each have their spin, yet we can still trust that they each tell us something important, and consistent, about Christ. Going along with my sacred view thread, the Bible is More than the sum of its words.China Cat Sunflower said:
And your example of the virgin birth, and I would add the miracles and the resurrection, well, we know that those things are not scientific. What is the problem? They were not scientific 2000 years ago either, but that did not stop people from believing. I think that the RCC is making it clear that 1) it was not science and 2) it was not magic. It's never been right to think of the truth of the Bible in those terms, and to think that way is a form of superstition.
2 c,
lunamoth
Last edited:
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Chris, those personal jabs are not cool. Guess I'll be bowing out of this conversation now.
luna
luna
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Smileys come in handy when you're pointing a realistic-looking water gun at someone.China Cat Sunflower said:
To start, I've never understood the anti-catholic or anti-semitism, or racism, or whateverisms... Mostly because I wasn't raised that way, and didn't exist in a mono-anything vacuum I think. I still don't know all the history which leaves such hatred or predjudices amongst people. The funny thing is I wear my hair long....but at times see people with long hair and have prejudicial notions about their politics and work ethic....bad very bad...hopefully I'll grow.
As I see it there are different levels of understanding in most churhes. In sunday school, the youngins are taught the basics...just like any book you pick up Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms say...their is a picture book version, an elementary school version, a middle school version...and the unabridged...and then somewhere along the line, maybe you'll get into the history of the writer, the time period it was written, the nuances of the society at the time, and the society being written about....and maybe some undercurrent of thought that isn't specifically in the writings but intimated to.
We go through the bible the same way...and if perchance one would make it with open eyes to reading about all the authors and editors of the bible, the history of its actual creation as a collection of stories...the judaic and then later christian cannonization of same. And somewhere along the line you have a teacher teaching masters and/or doctoral level at a Catholic or Jesuit or most any religous university saying..."don't tell me you think this actually happened...this is metaphor"...and over half the class goes into shock... I've heard this over the years from so many... and the answer is always the same... the masses aren't ready for this information.
That was the thinking during canonization, that was the thinking of Paul establishing churches. That was the thinking of the authors and editors of the bible.. we gotta mix some of the pagan stories in here, keep it all within the realm of acceptablity.
And today it appears true as well....we are not ready.
As I see it there are different levels of understanding in most churhes. In sunday school, the youngins are taught the basics...just like any book you pick up Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms say...their is a picture book version, an elementary school version, a middle school version...and the unabridged...and then somewhere along the line, maybe you'll get into the history of the writer, the time period it was written, the nuances of the society at the time, and the society being written about....and maybe some undercurrent of thought that isn't specifically in the writings but intimated to.
We go through the bible the same way...and if perchance one would make it with open eyes to reading about all the authors and editors of the bible, the history of its actual creation as a collection of stories...the judaic and then later christian cannonization of same. And somewhere along the line you have a teacher teaching masters and/or doctoral level at a Catholic or Jesuit or most any religous university saying..."don't tell me you think this actually happened...this is metaphor"...and over half the class goes into shock... I've heard this over the years from so many... and the answer is always the same... the masses aren't ready for this information.
That was the thinking during canonization, that was the thinking of Paul establishing churches. That was the thinking of the authors and editors of the bible.. we gotta mix some of the pagan stories in here, keep it all within the realm of acceptablity.
And today it appears true as well....we are not ready.
Jeannot
Jeannot
wil said:
To me, at least, this makes sense.
flowperson
Oannes
Most are definitely not ready.
flow....
flow....
AletheiaRivers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
China Cat Sunflower said:
In the past JW's believed RC was Babylon the Great. I don't know if they believed RC was the anti-Christ.
On the record - I'm seriously considering converting to Catholicism. I'm torn. I'm also interested in the Episcopal church. It will be one or the other. I felt I had to say that, in the event that my comment above seemed anti-Catholic in any way (although I don't see how, and don't know why it inspired CC to react the way he did).
AletheiaRivers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
littlemissattitude said:
You are welcome. I understood your comments to be exactly what you intended them to be.
AletheiaRivers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
Thanks Q. That does help.Quahom1 said:
AletheiaRivers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
China Cat Sunflower said:
It's my understanding that the RCC has always held a metaphorical/historical view of the Scriptures.