<p>umm....kind of like creationism versus evolution?</p>
<p>The Catholic Church does not promote Creationism (Genesis literalism) or Darwinistic evolution. These are both seen as extremes, even dangerous extremes. The Church's view, in this day and age, is something of a middle road. It holds that God did create the universe, but based on what we know from scientific discoveries, not exactly like it went down in the opening chapters of Genesis; likewise, it also holds that evolution is a reality, but based on our faith in God, not Darwin's atheistic version of evolution where man is nothing but a mere animal. </p>
<p>A lot of people seem to be surprised by this ("What?! The Church actually listens to science?!"), but them's be the facts.</p>
<p>Please do not waste your time trying to find logic in faith. If you really want to, read Aquinas or Aristotle...but I still do not think you will find any answers.</p>
<p>Aquinas is nice but pointless...if you want logic that bad then you're doomed</p>
<p>Oddly enough, I believe the mitochondrial DNA evidence is that many of us (whites and asians) were in fact decended from one mother.</p>
<p>apparently black people had more mothers, and thus are more distantly related to each other that whites/asians are. </p>
<p>Politically incorrect, but that's what the science says (at this point anyway.)</p>
<p>Well, that makes sense. The greatest diversity in genotypes should be present near the origin of modern homo sapiens; the relatively recent offshoots (non-Africans) have had less time to diverge genetically. Analogy: while most speakers of Germanic languages live in North America, the greatest diversity among these languages is in Northern Europe, where the branch originated. </p>
<p>I don't see how this has anything to do with poltics.</p>
<p>"The Bible is a great work of fiction?"</p>
<p>I think not. It shows all the classic signs of being cobbled together by a committee. A good editor could trim half the chaff. And don't get me started on the overuse of dei ex machinis...</p>
<p>Whoever said Adam and Eve can be symbolic figures and not literally a man and a woman definitely didn't go to sunday school. </p>
<p>I'm a christian and thoroughly believe genesis to be true. </p>
<p>Science provides truth and the truth is God. Science leads to God</p>
<p>Lets take a look at a few discoveries...</p>
<p>Science tells us a dense particle greated a big bang and some how everything was created.
Now
where did that matter come from? Everything must come from something. </p>
<p>Evolution: This theory tells us that we are descendents of an ancestor. So now Christians should be thinking duh. Adam and eve</p>
<p>According to evolution we are descendents of monkeys and we were not created first. Read the bible. It tells us that human beings were created after everything else. Also in the book of genesis, the physical characteristics of Adam and Eve are not mentioned. So all evolution is doing is changing some interpretations of the bible. </p>
<p>Also according to the bible everything was created within 6 days. Scientists tell us it took many years. Well this is God were speaking about. His time frame can be different from ours. </p>
<p>The bible is a great work of fiction. People like you should not speak. Have some respect. You shouldnt make such accusations. How do you know it is indeed fiction? We can not prove or disprove that our religion is the truth. Hence faith.</p>
<p>You call it blind faith. That it is based on no evidence. However you are wrong. We do have evidence, just not as substantial as that of science. Science is logic and logic has limits. Science can never tell us why. Only how. And wouldnt you think that there are answers to all questions?
The only difference between people is how we try to get that answer. </p>
<p>Atheists are funny dont you think? They create the word perfect and say nothing and no one is perfect. How was that word derived then? Human imagination? I think not. I think it is our mind subconsciously reminding us that a greater being exists.</p>
<p>If you want to go into a theological debate with me I would be more than happy to have a professional discussion with you. But if youre going to use Da Vinci Code tactics then you are clearly not an intellectual.</p>
<p>I will take you up on your offer of a theological debate. </p>
<p>I assert that, while the Book of Genesis (and every other book of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament) is the Word of God and 100% inerrant and infallible, that there are certain stories found in God's Holy Word that are not meant to be interpretated in a literalist way. So, God, in inspiring His chosen authors to pen exactly what they did and nothing more, purposely designed certain stories that He meant for us to interpret symbolically and metaphorically -- in other words, critically, finding the truth in them in between the lines. (Accepting the fact that God meant for certain stories in His Book to be interpreted in a critical manner by no means, to my mind, suggests that His Book is not 100% divinely inspired, inerrant, or infallible. It just means that God is a creative writer, and utilized different ways of revealing the truth to us.)</p>
<p>What do you say about that?</p>
<p>examples please?</p>
<p>"Adam and Eve were created by God then sent to earth as punishment because they took an apple from the forbidden tree.
When they went to Earth, they had three kids; two guys and a girl. The guys fought over the girl so one guy killed the other and had sex with the girl."</p>
<p>Haha, what in the hell are you smoking kid? That is totally not how it goes.</p>
<p>krnpsychopath:</p>
<p>For instance, the arc of the Book of Jonah, in which the main character, Jonah, is hurled overboard into the ocean and swallowed up by a whale...</p>
<p>**And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. </p>
<p>Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish, saying, "I called to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and thou didst hear my voice. For thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me. Then I said, 'I am cast out from thy presence; how shall I again look upon thy holy temple?' The waters closed in over me, the deep was round about me; weeds were wrapped about my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me for ever; yet thou didst bring up my life from the Pit, O LORD my God. When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple. Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their true loyalty. But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to thee; what I have vowed I will pay. Deliverance belongs to the LORD!" </p>
<p>And the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.<a href="Jonah%201:17,%202:1-10">/B</a></p>
<p>I think it is clear that God is speaking to us here in a symbolic way. The message that we are to take from this story is not that this event actually happened, but something that, upon critical interpretation, is much deeper and more meaningful: that no matter what kind of horrible situation we find ourselves in, if we have faith in the Lord and repent what needs repenting, we will find deliverance. In looking at the story this way, it becomes a metaphor for all of life's troubles and hardships, and thus is powerful and timeless. </p>
<p>Again, the fact that I see this as a symbolic or metaphorical tale as opposed to an actual historical event in no way lessens it being 100% God's Word for me. Every single word, every sentence, every image, is God-inspired. God wrote it. But God is simply telling us a story, to make a higher point, similar to how Jesus told the first Christians parables to make other points and lessons (the Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule, etc.).</p>
<p>In my previous post i stated that "So all evolution is doing is changing some interpretations of the bible. "</p>
<p>Fides I agree with you in that the purpose of stories is to learn about what God is trying to portray.</p>
<p>However I think it is wrong to state that events in the bible have not occured. All events have occured. Why else would the bible have identified only specific portions as parables? It is to differentiate what is true and not true. Therefore the ones not labeled parables are true events.</p>
<p>Parable:</p>
<p>noun 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.<br>
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</p>
<p>The parables that Christ has told may have been real events. We dont know and we may never know.</p>
<p>The reason why we should analyze the bible in both symbolic and literal aspects is to gain both "facts" and values. </p>
<p>I quotes facts because to non-christians they are nto considered to be facts. But when scientists discover something about our past we should try and link it to the bible. Since the bible is true then all scientific discoveries that are true must support or be supported by the bible.</p>
<p>A literal analysis will keep ourselves from letting atheist scientific community to give us doubts. We do this by arguing that their evidence supports our faith.</p>
<p>What better way to make them acknowledge that our God is true?</p>
<p>BTW I'm enjoying this discussion. I hope we can both learn from each other.</p>
<p>"I quotes facts because to non-christians they are nto considered to be facts. But when scientists discover something about our past we should try and link it to the bible. Since the bible is true then all scientific discoveries that are true must support or be supported by the bible.</p>
<p>A literal analysis will keep ourselves from letting atheist scientific community to give us doubts. We do this by arguing that their evidence supports our faith."</p>
<p>I think you are caught up in a narrow definition of what is "true." Biblical truth does not have to mean "this really happened." As I outlined on the Book of Jonah, the truth of the story is found in its message and not that it was an actual historical event. Even if it did not happen in real life -- and I do not believe that it did -- the story is still 100% true. It would only be untrue if the message in the story went against the laws of God or the doctrines of our faith. Such books did exist and were used in ancient Jewish (Old Testament) and early Christian (New Testament) circles for many years, and after awhile it was decided that they were non-canonical and cast aside -- not because the events in them were determined to be non-historical, but because the messages in them went against the laws of God or the doctrines of their faiths in some way. </p>
<p>As for a totally literalist approach as a kind of defense against atheistic/scientific attacks upon our faith, I think that my approach renders their points moot before they even have a chance to make them. I don't feel the need to defend the case for the actual historiocity of Adam and Eve or Jonah's aquatic adventure because the truth in them, for me, is not that they actually happened but is their underlying message. How could anybody, with any amount of scientific evidence, disprove that? How could they possibly cast doubt over believers if we take this approach? The answer is that they cannot. If a scientist discovered absolutely irrefutable, empirical evidence that there was no Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden or Noah's Arc, it would not succeed in making the slightest dent in my religious conviction that these stories are 100% true and the absolute Word of God.</p>
<p>True: adjective 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. </p>
<p>This was the definition I was going by.</p>
<p>"If a scientist discovered absolutely irrefutable, empirical evidence that there was no Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden or Noah's Arc, it would not succeed in making the slightest dent in my religious conviction that these stories are 100% true and the absolute Word of God."</p>
<p>So if they proved that Christ did not exist then it wouldn't matter? The whole point of the New testament IS to show that Christ died for us. If God was just trying to tell us he loved us and made a story like that it would be useless.
It's like having a girl tell you that they love you but they never do anything to show that love but write a letter. How much more of an impact would it make if she DID something? </p>
<p>God doesn't just talk, he DOES.</p>
<p>Absolutely; God does act, and most of what is in the Bible, especially the New Testament, is historical and should be interpreted literally. When it comes to the Gospels, the Acts, and the events described in the Pauline Letters and Catholic (General) Epistles, we as Christians must believe that these things really happened. No doubt about it. Our Christian faith hangs on them being historical. But there are also parts of the Bible, almost all limited to the Old Testament, that are not meant to be taken literally. And our Christian faith does not hang on them being historical.</p>
<p>What difference does Jonah's story being a historical event or a symbolic tale have on Christ's saving mission? Not much. The same could be said of the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, or Noah's Arc. To my mind, that they are historical truths or symbolic truths has absolutely no impact on my belief in Jesus and His teachings.</p>
<p>So, there are certainly things that must be taken literally -- the majority of things in Scripture, in fact -- but others that need not be and, in my mind, were not designed to be. The inevitable question is, How do we know which is which? How do we know what to take literally and what to take merely symbolically (although no less seriously)? In order to answer this question, I believe that we need to look to an authority, an earthly but divine interpreter that God personally gave to us to help us understand His vast and often very complex and complicated Book. I recognize this authority as the Church that Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles spread, the Church that the New Testament writers were members of, and the Church that actually officially decided which books were the Word of God and compiled the Bible into what it is: the Catholic Church. </p>
<p>Without this authority, we are lost. We risk being drawn into extremes, such as fundamentalism on the one hand or extreme liberalism on the other. If there is a single reason why Christianity today is so divided -- there are currently over 30,000 different Christian denominations, all of them disagreeing with one another in some way over what the Bible is telling us -- it is because Christians have lost sight of the importance of having a sole authority that unites them, which is actually God's greatest gift to us. All of this chaos within Christianity began with the Protestant Reformation, when groups of Christians began splitting away from the Catholic Church, abandoning their historical roots and their Biblical authority.</p>
<p>"So, there are certainly things that must be taken literally -- the majority of things in Scripture, in fact -- but others that need not be and, in my mind, were not designed to be. The inevitable question is, How do we know which is which? How do we know what to take literally and what to take merely symbolically (although no less seriously)? " - AGREED</p>
<p>"In order to answer this question, I believe that we need to look to an authority, an earthly but divine interpreter that God personally gave to us to help us understand His vast and often very complex and complicated Book. I recognize this authority as the Church that Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles spread, the Church that the New Testament writers were members of, and the Church that actually officially decided which books were the Word of God and compiled the Bible into what it is: the Catholic Church."
-DISAGREE</p>
<p>The Catholic Church claims that the Pope is infallible.</p>
<p>the Pope himself is human...Peter denied Christ...even after the death of Christ Paul lectures Peter after he drifts away from the teachings of Christ.</p>
<p>According to the Catholic church Peter was the first Pope am I right?</p>
<p>I dont understand the Catholic Church. Why is the Pope considered infallible?
Having the Pope as a leader and a symbolic figure would be great. But whose to say he's never wrong? Even Peter failed at times.</p>
<p>They say that the Pope has the Holy Spirit. We all do.
They say the Pope acts upon the judgement of the Holy Spirit. That is false. As humans we are not perfect. This is because we dont always follow the will of God. </p>
<p>The Pope should be considered just another pastor. Not a demi-god</p>
<p>Like most non-Catholic Christians, you misunderstand. It isn't your fault. Why Catholics do what they do and believe what they believe is not always immediately self-evident. We have a long history with a lot of growth and development behind us.</p>
<p>Catholics (and many Protestants as well) hold that Saint Peter was the first pope. This is evidenced in the Gospels, in which Jesus tells Peter that he is the Rock on which He will build His Church. For reasons we don't know, Christ singled out Peter. Even with all of his faults, He gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom." </p>
<p>What the office of the pope is is simply that of the head pastor of the Catholic Church (the real Head of the Church is Christ). The pope is just our main shepherd. The doctrine of infallibility does not mean that the pope is a demi-god or that he cannot make mistakes. The pope often does make mistakes, very grave ones, and it would not be wrong at all for Catholics to believe that many popes turned out to be bad men and ended up in Hell. He is just a human being -- a human being who is called to a position of great importance, but a human being who can fail in his mission as well.</p>
<p>What papal infallibility means that that, ONLY when he is preaching *ex cathedra<a href="speaking%20on%20serious%20issues%20on%20the%20Christian%20faith%20and%20Christian%20morality">/i</a>, given the importance of his position as the main representative of the Church in the world, God will watch over him in such a way as to not allow him to fall into doctrinal error. The last time a pope spoke ex cathedra (the pope actually has to say, "I am now speaking ex cathedra" for his message to be considered infallible) was some 40 years ago.</p>
<p>In short, the pope is just as human as you or I, and just as prone to mistakes and sinfulness. The only exception is in certain rare circumstances when something very important needs to be communicated to the Church, something so important that God will not allow the faithful to be misled.</p>
<p>My Catholic father picked me up for Thanksgiving break and minutes into the car-ride conversation, punched me in the gut with his words</p>
<p>He said something along the lines of:
"You know, single gay men might feel a little lonely between 20 and 40, but life gets better after that. You probably won't even think about having a partner once you reach that age."</p>
<p>Me: (eyeroll in the dark)
In my mind, i looked forward to the day i would tell him about my boyfriend.</p>
<p>it was definitely not a good way to start break</p>
<p>"it is loaded with metaphor and symbolism. The essential message in it to grasp is that the universe has a Creator -- God -- and that human beings are His children."</p>
<p>Hey Fides, nice to see you and I agreeing on something! We should celebrate this momentous occasion! ;-)</p>