Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)

    How can the catholic church officially accept that evolution is in fact true when it completely undermines the entire religion. If creation is dismissed as a story that shows the character of god, rather than a factual account of the 6 day creation, it automatically opens up the rest of the bible to be called a story, thus destroying the religion.
    Look at the alternative: According to your thinking [unless I misunderstand what you are saying], if you don't hold every single little thing in the Bible to be true, it "opens up the rest of the Bible".
    So, if you want to avoid having to opening up everything, you have to accept every little detail as true.
    Yet, there are plenty of examples that show that the Bible has to be taken metaphorically (especially in the Old Testament). For instance, the Bible says that the number pi is 3 and that it is a sin to cut your hair.

    Quite clearly, except if your a fundamentalist, you have to accept that some of the stuff the Bible says is not absolutely true and has to be taken metaphorically and understood within its historical context.

    Of course the question now is, where (if at all possible) do you draw the line between what you don't have to take too seriously and what you just have to accept if you don't want the whole thing to collapse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    They are saying that god created evolution, so therefore he was still the designer. Therefore you automatically cast doubt on god's omnipotence as you cast doubt on his ability to create the entire universe in 6 days.
    your logic is flawed. you also cast doubt on God's ability to create the world in eight days, and in nine days, and in nine hundred days etc....
    Then you have adam and eve dismissed, taking away orginal sin, another stumbling block.
    Do you honestly think that you could conceivably live an entirely "Christian" life, without breaking any of Gods commandments, without once feeling jealous, or feeling like taking revenge? Creation is an allegory and Genesis 3 (The Fall) demonstrates that in relation to God man is fallen and imperfect (ie not as perfect as God). Original sin is a concept that describes our fallen nature, we are born as such and there is nothing we can do about. The life and death of Jesus redeems us of this original sin and gives us the chance to flourish spiritually.

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Well, the Catholic Church is based on the Bible, so it is obviously not mentioned in the Bible.
    No, the Catholic Church is based on a series of proclamations and edicts made by Popes and the higher clergy. The Protestant denominations base their faith and practises on what is in the Bible. However, it is true that the Catholic faith did not come around until approx 400 AD under Emporor Augustine (? I think, Correct me if I'm wrong), and so would not be mentioned in the Bible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    However, it is true that the Catholic faith did not come around until approx 400 AD under Emporor Augustine (? I think, Correct me if I'm wrong),
    The Emperor you chose iss indeed correct.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    We are not going into this at present, that is for another discussion.
    In fact, I think this is very relevant.

    The historical context of how the Bible evolved into what it is, shows that it is not just one indivisible block created by God.

    That strengthens the position of the Catholics not to take everything literally as the historical context has to be taken into account.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Oh come on, you have papal infalibility, so if the pope decides something should be changed or done, no one can argue.
    incidently, to pope is another sore point. Where in the bible did it ever say that the pope should exist, as having a man, which many times in the past have done very ungodly things, should be able to dictate what goes on in the chuch.
    I'll try and answer these questions for you. Before anyone starts, I'm not discussing personal belief here, just clarifying what actually is and isn't Catholic teaching where I can, because lots of people really don't understand this.
    Ok, first of all, papal infallibility. From reading this I'm not sure if you've realised that this is not something that is actually implemented often. Catholics do not believe that every little thing the Pope says is infallible: so if he says he thinks Chelsea will win the league this season that doesn't mean that the billion RCs in the world all agree. It only happens in quite specific, unusual circumstances (I've actually forgotten what these are) and its called speaking ex cathedra I think. The current pontiff has NEVER done this, I can't remember the last time it happened. But the point you should be aware of is that papal infallibility being invoked is spectacularly rare.
    As for the Pope thing: the Biblical basis for this is the "On this rock I will build my church" etc speech that Jesus says to Peter. Now you may or may not agree with this but thats the Biblical justification used. Though I'm not actually sure why you started this thread (you could have found this out yourself!) I hope this has been of help to you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Look at the alternative: According to your thinking [unless I misunderstand what you are saying], if you don't hold every single little thing in the Bible to be true, it "opens up the rest of the Bible".
    So, if you want to avoid having to opening up everything, you have to accept every little detail as true.
    Yet, there are plenty of examples that show that the Bible has to be taken metaphorically (especially in the Old Testament). For instance, the Bible says that the number pi is 3 and that it is a sin to cut your hair.

    Quite clearly, except if your a fundamentalist, you have to accept that some of the stuff the Bible says is not absolutely true and has to be taken metaphorically and understood within its historical context.

    Of course the question now is, where (if at all possible) do you draw the line between what you don't have to take too seriously and what you just have to accept if you don't want the whole thing to collapse.
    The old testiment laws were mostly nullified due the new testiment events, so most of the mosiac law is not valid now as it was concerned with jewish law, although things like the 10 commandments are still valid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    There's a valuable lesson to be learned from the bible. And that lesson is: if you're going to pen a book that is used to form a religion some time in the future, make sure it is full of metaphors and allegories that can be interpreted in any number of ways to the advantage of said religion depending on the current philosphical climate, and never under any circumstances spell things out clearly and unambiguously to avoid the text being shown to be a load of cobblers.
    This is not an attack on the bible, rather simply an anylsis of the catholic idiology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    The old testiment laws were mostly nullified due the new testiment events, so most of the mosiac law is not valid now as it was concerned with jewish law, although things like the 10 commandments are still valid.
    Proving my point. You accept that some of the stuff in the Bible is not necessarily true. Does that mean you "open up everything"? If you're a Christian, that can't be the case, can it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Proving my point. You accept that some of the stuff in the Bible is not necessarily true. Does that mean you "open up everything"? If you're a Christian, that can't be the case, can it?
    I am not proving a point. Christians are not bound by the jewish laws, the bible states the the old law has been nullified as jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I am not proving a point. Christians are not bound by the jewish laws, the bible states the the old law has been nullified as jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
    As far as I know, the Bible = OT + NT

    So, if "Taking things away is as bad as adding more. The bible should be taken as a single body." and if you have to take everything literally, then I don't see how Christians are not bound by the "Jewish laws".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    As far as I know, the Bible = OT + NT

    So, if "Taking things away is as bad as adding more. The bible should be taken as a single body." and if you have to take everything literally, then I don't see how Christians are not bound by the "Jewish laws".
    The jewish laws involve the levitical laws, what must be done for the jews to be clean in the sight of god and other things like that, which all revloved around sacrificing and since jesus was the pefect sacrifice, all the laws which were bound together by sacrificing were no longer required.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    The jewish laws involve the levitical laws, what must be done for the jews to be clean in the sight of god and other things like that, which all revloved around sacrificing and since jesus was the pefect sacrifice, all the laws which were bound together by sacrificing were no longer required.
    Okay fair enough.

    But still, you have to admit that you cannot take everything literally the Bible tells you.

    Besides, there's the point made by another forumite about the historical context in which the Bible was created. What justification do you have for "taking the Bible as a single body", if in fact it came togehter from a number of little bits and pieces that were put together by a few priests in the first few centuries BC. Surely, if there is no justification for the Pope's power over christians, then there can't be for these priests'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Okay fair enough.

    But still, you have to admit that you cannot take everything literally the Bible tells you.

    Besides, there's the point made by another forumite about the historical context in which the Bible was created. What justification do you have for "taking the Bible as a single body", if in fact it came togehter from a number of little bits and pieces that were put together by a few priests in the first few centuries BC. Surely, if there is no justification for the Pope's power over christians, then there can't be for these priests'.
    I do not think the pope should lord over christians, as no one should be greater than others, only they perform different jobs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I do not think the pope should lord over christians, as no one should be greater than others, only they perform different jobs.
    Yes, I understand that.

    So, if you have that opinion about the Pope, how can the peope who patched together the verstion of the Bible we have now, nearly 2000 years ago, have such powers in your eyes? Why do you think their choices were absolutely the right ones? After all, perhaps one or two gospel accounts should have been added or one or two removed. How do you know they were right in their choices, if no man can have the powers Catholics believe the Pope to have? How do you know the version of the Bible you have, is the "right one", the real thing?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Yes, I understand that.

    So, if you have that opinion about the Pope, how can the peope who patched together the verstion of the Bible we have now, nearly 2000 years ago, have such powers in your eyes? Why do you think their choices were absolutely the right ones? After all, perhaps one or two gospel accounts should have been added or one or two removed. How do you know they were right in their choices, if no man can have the powers Catholics believe the Pope to have? How do you know the version of the Bible you have, is the "right one", the real thing?
    faith that god actually made it so the correct ones were used. there are many things that are wrong with the catholic church, including the ioldisation of mary. The pope is another thing wrong with it, as one man cannot be seen as more important in god's eyes and should not present himself as such.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    faith that god actually made it so the correct ones were used.
    If I understand you correctly, that means that God made the Bible in a way that he knew the people who put it together would make the "right" choices.

    But how do you reconcile that view with the Christian belief that God gave people free choice?

    If those people made their choices freely, how can God have predicted them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    If I understand you correctly, that means that God made the Bible in a way that he knew the people who put it together would make the "right" choices.

    But how do you reconcile that view with the Christian belief that God gave people free choice?

    If those people made their choices freely, how can God have predicted them?
    Without going into it much, predestination is the reason behind it. free will is an illusion, god knew what everyone would be doing before he even made the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    god knew what everyone would be doing before he even made the world.
    Even the falling of his most senior angel?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Without going into it much, predestination is the reason behind it. free will is an illusion, god knew what everyone would be doing before he even made the world.
    I must confess my knowledge of christianity is very limited, but that surprises me a lot... I was pretty sure that God gave man free will.

    Anyway, how can the concept of sin arise then? How can good and evil exist within humanity if people can't make those choices? How can God judge a person if he knew beforehand what that person would do, if he didn't even give that person a chance to become a good/bad person?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Even the falling of his most senior angel?
    yes, even that. Even before god created the world, he knew about the fall and the subsiquent events and knew he would have to sacrifice his son on the cross. To comprihend the reasons why god did all of this is impossible, so it is no good asking my why he did it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.