S
Samboyant
Guest
what is wrong with liberation theology? it only helps the poor, the ones that NEED help. the rich dont need the money they have. they dont need the power they have.
- Status
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
The rich earned their money. And Jesus did NOT force people to donate or redistribute, He instead asked, He left it up to the rich. When people give their money of their own free will, it is charity. When the governments takes the money against the will of the people, it is (in my opinion) stealing.
Even Jesus allowed the rich young man to go away from Him because he did not want to sell all his possesions and follow Jesus.
I
ILoveTheLordGod
Guest
The way I see it:
Read a book and trying making a summary.
What you write down will be a generalization and if there are minor details, chances are they might not be 100% exact, but the general story is true.
I’d say that it’s possible that God didn’t want to reveal everything to us so we could have excitement and curiosity and discover things on our own. The Bible just tells us a generalization and whom we should acknowledge responsible for all of these.
There is one theory in science that states that life came from non-life (such as rocks). Isn’t that similar to God making man out of dirt?
After all, it is God’s story based on Moses’s point of view. If there are things he forgot to jot down nobody will ever know.
What I know is that the Bible tells us enough what we need to know. There’s no “God made the chicken before the egg” because it isn’t necessary.
Read a book and trying making a summary.
What you write down will be a generalization and if there are minor details, chances are they might not be 100% exact, but the general story is true.
I’d say that it’s possible that God didn’t want to reveal everything to us so we could have excitement and curiosity and discover things on our own. The Bible just tells us a generalization and whom we should acknowledge responsible for all of these.
There is one theory in science that states that life came from non-life (such as rocks). Isn’t that similar to God making man out of dirt?
After all, it is God’s story based on Moses’s point of view. If there are things he forgot to jot down nobody will ever know.
What I know is that the Bible tells us enough what we need to know. There’s no “God made the chicken before the egg” because it isn’t necessary.
S
starsmurf
Guest
My “thoughts” come from my Christian Community Bible - Catholic Pastoral Edition. My information on the writing of the Pentateuch comes from the introduction to each book, especially Genesis. This Bible has introductions from Catholic Bishops, so it’s not some dodgy one that doesn’t follow the Church’s teachings, I think it was done by the Catholic Bishops Conference. I’ll give a couple of quotes below:
“This is what we find in Genesis - a book that was gradually formed bit by bit through several centuries. It finally took definitive form in the fifth century BC when the Jewish people, having returned from the Babylonian captivity forever fixed the expression of their faith.”
“Who wrote the book of Genesis?
There was not one author, but several. … Scribes surrounding the king wrote the laws and beliefs of the nation. During Solomon’s reign (10th century BC) an unknown writer, often called “the yahwist” wrote the first history of God’s people.”
The book of Exodus in my Bible has different fonts for the four seperate accounts that were added together to form the final book.
I am a little puzzled as to why you find the statement I gave offensive. When I converted to Catholicism, the priest talked about how the books of the Bible were written gradually. I was under the impression that all Catholics knew this. I’m certainly not going to state something that is contrary to what the Church teaches.
T
Tomster
Guest
From a different perspective -
From antiquity the evil in the world has often been an excuse of atheists: “God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law.” The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. “Atheists”, no less than others (and perhaps more so), are frightened by creation’s terrors. Unbelievers often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their unbelief but ironicaly this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a supposed motivation. Atheism fails to explain the existence of evil. They say we are able to identify evil as evil because the knowledge of what is evil evolved in our brains. But if that is true then there is no such thing as objective evil. Instead, evil is subjective. We may generally agree that something is evil, but that is only because of “similar molecular interactions in our brains that happened to evolve,” not because that thing is itself evil. There is no immaterial, objective standard which defines evilness.
One might think that atheists could agree with all this, but it is not so simple. Atheists could dispose of objective evil, but then they lose their raison d’ etre. God is no longer “responsible” for creating or allowing evil because there is no such thing as true, objective evil. It is all just in our heads.
In fact, atheists very much do believe there is an objective standard. And they very much “hold God” to that standard. They go right to the central issue of whether there is “a God” or not. They cannot then turn around and drop their weapon, as though they never used it. Furthermore, atheist ethics are necessarily irrational, because no amount of math, physics, biology, etc. can ever get science from the facts of what it is, to the morals of what should be. It is all very well to say that cruelty is “bad” and compassion “good,” but why?
Only faith can answer that.
A certain Jesuit, a Father Wasmann S.J., wrote at the beginning of the 20th century: " . . . In many scientific circles there is an absolute Theophobia, a dread of the Creator. I can only regret this, because I believe that it is due chiefly to a defective knowledge of Christian philosophy and theology." Is it possible that he has given us a key to the real issue of those who are so pretentiously known today as “New Atheists” and perhaps merit the rather less flattering title of “Theophobes”?
From antiquity the evil in the world has often been an excuse of atheists: “God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law.” The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. “Atheists”, no less than others (and perhaps more so), are frightened by creation’s terrors. Unbelievers often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their unbelief but ironicaly this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a supposed motivation. Atheism fails to explain the existence of evil. They say we are able to identify evil as evil because the knowledge of what is evil evolved in our brains. But if that is true then there is no such thing as objective evil. Instead, evil is subjective. We may generally agree that something is evil, but that is only because of “similar molecular interactions in our brains that happened to evolve,” not because that thing is itself evil. There is no immaterial, objective standard which defines evilness.
One might think that atheists could agree with all this, but it is not so simple. Atheists could dispose of objective evil, but then they lose their raison d’ etre. God is no longer “responsible” for creating or allowing evil because there is no such thing as true, objective evil. It is all just in our heads.
In fact, atheists very much do believe there is an objective standard. And they very much “hold God” to that standard. They go right to the central issue of whether there is “a God” or not. They cannot then turn around and drop their weapon, as though they never used it. Furthermore, atheist ethics are necessarily irrational, because no amount of math, physics, biology, etc. can ever get science from the facts of what it is, to the morals of what should be. It is all very well to say that cruelty is “bad” and compassion “good,” but why?
Only faith can answer that.
A certain Jesuit, a Father Wasmann S.J., wrote at the beginning of the 20th century: " . . . In many scientific circles there is an absolute Theophobia, a dread of the Creator. I can only regret this, because I believe that it is due chiefly to a defective knowledge of Christian philosophy and theology." Is it possible that he has given us a key to the real issue of those who are so pretentiously known today as “New Atheists” and perhaps merit the rather less flattering title of “Theophobes”?
O
OscarsMama
Guest
Having a conversation about God with somebody who does not believe in God is practically impossible. You have to determine why they are entering into a conversation with you in the first place (like many other posters have said). Then you can determine how you should phrase your answer.
I think that simple answers are the best. Where do you think that Moses’ dreams came from??? God. Everything comes from God.
I think that simple answers are the best. Where do you think that Moses’ dreams came from??? God. Everything comes from God.
S
Samboyant
Guest
Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The people are Caesar. At least in America.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Yes, once you’re rich you get more with less work, but in order to get to that point you still need to work hard, so the problem to liberation theology still stands.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Please provide evidence that the Church teaches that the Torah was written by Moses.
Thanks.
Jim Dandy
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Then where do you suppose the stone tablets came from? Did they materialize from Moses’ dream/hallucination?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Council of Trent - Fourth Session - Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures
For starters…
S
starsmurf
Guest
Your quote calls them “the five books of Moses”, not the five books written by Moses. A theologian friend told me it was a name commonly used at the time for the Torah/Pentateuch. Your quote simply gives a list of the books of the Bible so that there is no doubt as to what books the Church says are Scripture. The quote makes no mention of who the authors of these books are. My theologian friend said that he does not know of any Church teaching that states that Moses was the author of the Torah.
Do you really think a Bible with commentaries that state the gradual, multiple authorship theory would be recommended by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Phillipines, if the idea of multiple authors was contrary to Church teaching?
Do you really think a Bible with commentaries that state the gradual, multiple authorship theory would be recommended by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Phillipines, if the idea of multiple authors was contrary to Church teaching?
C
crazzeto
Guest
I think that the Council of Trent was written with Moses being the author of the 5 books (hence their name), which was commonly believed at the time. I did say that the council document was for “openers”, you will find references to the authorship of the Torah all over the place in Christian thought through the centuries.
It has always been accepted Moses wrote the Torah, I accept the thinking of Trent and the fathers. Do I think a Bishop could possibly say something in error, it certainly is most possible. It’s even possible something which shouldn’t receive an imprematur receive one, we know of many such cases. These are not infallible declarations.
What I quoted though, is found in an infallible declaration. With understanding of the thinking of the fathers who wrote the document, I will accept that Moses is the author.
C
crazzeto
Guest
@starsmurf,
Incidently, understanding your argumentation. You say it was written that way in Trent merely because “it was a tradition”… Ok, fine argumentation… But I would challenge this, find an alternate reason for the existance of this tradition of calling the books the “Five books of Moses”. The Tradition exists, because by tradition Moses is the author of the books.
Incidently, understanding your argumentation. You say it was written that way in Trent merely because “it was a tradition”… Ok, fine argumentation… But I would challenge this, find an alternate reason for the existance of this tradition of calling the books the “Five books of Moses”. The Tradition exists, because by tradition Moses is the author of the books.
R
redneck22
Guest
I suppose he is implying that Moses may have been deluded, delusional or deceptive however Jesus himself affirms Moses’ writings as true, the atheist doesn’t believe what Moses wrote so how can he believe what Jesus says?
*Luke 27:24 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? 27 **And beginning at Moses **and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
John 5:46 For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?*
Our faith is based on fact, the fact of the resurrection, the fact of special creation, so I suppose you could present to the atheist some modern day discoveries that demonstrate the scripture to be true and his religion of naturalism to be false like : Matter not coming into existence from nothing, life not assembling itself naturally with no intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, life reproducing after its kind (apes don’t reproduce humans), all pervasive absolutes like the laws of logic, morals, fine tuning of the universe and the origin of information and codes without a mind.
S
starsmurf
Guest
I said that a theologian friend said that it was a common name at the time, not a traditional name in the sense of Tradition and Scripture, you said that, not me. The “tradition” of calling the books the books of Moses is due to the Jewish idea that Moses wrote them, they were the Books of the Law and Moses was the Lawgiver.
You state in the post above the one I’ve quoted that the quote you gave from the Council of Trent shows that the Church infallibly teaches that Moses was the author. No, you are reading that into the quote because you want to. The statement from the Council of Trent is about what books make up the Bible, not who wrote those books.
You then go on to say that a bishop can make an error. The multiple author theory isn’t just in a slipped-in sentence, it is in several places in different commentaries. I also think that a Bishops’ Conference might know more about what the Church actually teaches than you do. Are you saying that you know better than several bishops? With respect, I think it is more likely that you are making an unintentional error rather than the Bishops’ Conference. If the multiple authorship theory were wrong, the commentaries in this Bible would have been changed in later editions as it is a popular Bible, so someone would have noticed. As it hasn’t been, I think it is correct. I have also read it in other Catholic books, but I don’t have them to hand to quote from.
Can I respectfully ask why you are so convinced that the Church teaches that Moses wrote the books? You seem to be accusing me and “Jim Dandy” who describes himself as “Industrial Strength Catholic” of not following Church teachings. I went through a lot to join the Catholic Church, so my faith means everything to me, it isn’t something I take lightly. I have been taught this by my approved Bible and by the priest who prepared me for confirmation. I also attended talks that stated this at my university Catholic society, our priest was present and didn’t object to it, which he would have done if anything were contrary to Church teachings.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Starsmurf, you can’t dance around it… They didn’t call the books “the five books of Moses” for no good reason. The reason is that by tradition, Moses wrote them. This is a true belief of the Jews, and of the Christians who live in the new and last covenenat.
In fact here is a jewish source, still discussing this tradition:
myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Origins_of_the_Bible/Authorship/Torah_of_Moses.shtml
Your write in so far as this much Starsmurf, the Catholic church never set out explicitly to dogmatically proclaim that Moses wrote the Torah. And as far as that goes your free to believe whatever you want about it.
I’m just here to remind you that your bucking thousands of years of Christian and Jewish tradition to do so, which would include ignoring the spirit and general thought process of the people who were at Trent. I really do find it odd that so many Christians stive so hard to understand what “bretheren” meant two and three thousand years ago (hey, very good thing to know) but then turn their back on the living traiditon of the Church.
I’m with our Jewish friends here, and the fathers. Moses wrote the Torah.
Edit
Incidently, I what I did say is that Trent shows the belief of the authorship of the Torah, labled as being Moses. And yes, I did say Bishops can be wrong, they can be… Or do you not believe that William Morris former Bishop of Toowoomba was wrong for supporting gay marriage? Bishops can be wrong in very profound ways (like what I just stated) or more usually, they can just be wrong about something small and simple (like you and I can be wrong about something small and simple).
I’m not rejecting the authority of the Bishops, I’m stating clearly that I beleive (for good reason) that Moses wrote the Torah. And I find… Curious the idea that it “wasn’t written until Solomon” as has been stated. This would suggest that the Judges, King David and many others lacked the Torah… I’m sorry, I can’t accept that. I find too much biblical evidence to the contrary. They had the Torah, which means it must have existed before Solomon.
Respectfully, while scripture is infallibe… I would urge you not to view introductions as scriptures.
In fact here is a jewish source, still discussing this tradition:
myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Origins_of_the_Bible/Authorship/Torah_of_Moses.shtml
Your write in so far as this much Starsmurf, the Catholic church never set out explicitly to dogmatically proclaim that Moses wrote the Torah. And as far as that goes your free to believe whatever you want about it.
I’m just here to remind you that your bucking thousands of years of Christian and Jewish tradition to do so, which would include ignoring the spirit and general thought process of the people who were at Trent. I really do find it odd that so many Christians stive so hard to understand what “bretheren” meant two and three thousand years ago (hey, very good thing to know) but then turn their back on the living traiditon of the Church.
I’m with our Jewish friends here, and the fathers. Moses wrote the Torah.
Edit
Incidently, I what I did say is that Trent shows the belief of the authorship of the Torah, labled as being Moses. And yes, I did say Bishops can be wrong, they can be… Or do you not believe that William Morris former Bishop of Toowoomba was wrong for supporting gay marriage? Bishops can be wrong in very profound ways (like what I just stated) or more usually, they can just be wrong about something small and simple (like you and I can be wrong about something small and simple).
I’m not rejecting the authority of the Bishops, I’m stating clearly that I beleive (for good reason) that Moses wrote the Torah. And I find… Curious the idea that it “wasn’t written until Solomon” as has been stated. This would suggest that the Judges, King David and many others lacked the Torah… I’m sorry, I can’t accept that. I find too much biblical evidence to the contrary. They had the Torah, which means it must have existed before Solomon.
Respectfully, while scripture is infallibe… I would urge you not to view introductions as scriptures.
- Status