A
- Status
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
Probably tens of millions more than the number of people who care what a person ripping him on a message board thinks.
E
einna
Guest
I am sure many people have contacted him about this. The good thing is no one is forced to listen to O’Reilly if they don’t want to and others have the freedom to listen to whoever they want. We might not like what they say, but at least we have the freedom to disagree and argue their point. He has the right to his opinion in the USA, even if it goes against what other believe. It is others responsibility to find out what the Catholic church truly teaching and not just believe some guys on TV; although I like O’Reilly.
B
Booter
Guest
The point he was trying to make is that Catholics don’t see the Entire Bible as a literal history book. Some stories (I.E. Jonah and the Whale) are allegorical and told to make a greater point. He didn’t say he didn’t believe in Adam and Eve. He said the story of creation is not necessarily supposed to be a literal history story. No Spin
E
einna
Guest
I agree with you, but there are many Catholics that believe word for word in the Bible. I was taught as you were, for example, when Jesus multiplied the bread and wine. I was taught it was his words and faith that sustained the people through the night not making more bread and wine. Maybe different Catholic schoolstaught different things.
W
WildCatholic
Guest
That is strange. I’ve never heard that. I thought he literally did multiply it. I do remember though that One of our teachers said that people who had been “possessed” by demons may have had mental illness and Jesus cured them. But Adam and Eve are real. It’s Dogma
B
Booter
Guest
Now that I disagree with…the multiplication really did happen…I’m no expert but the only allegory Jesus used was his parables…I believe everything Jesus did in the New Testament he actually did historically…Allegory I think comes more into play in the Old Testament…Teaching that Jesus didn’t actually multiply the loaves and fish is heresy
S
severus68
Guest
Something wrong with social justice? Am quite sure Christ if he lived today would be all for it.While Bill is entitled to his own opnion and I do think that politicallyhe makes good points, i’ve never thought he’s been a good rep for his faith. For one thing I swore he’s said Civil Unions are okay, but not gay marriage. Also, I think it was either him or Sean Hannity who made a big deal about eating meat on a Friday, and i think both of them support birth control (if i’m wrong on any of this, someone please correct me)
Either way, I think O’reilly and Hannity are what i like to call “conservative cafeteria catholics” While they feel they aren’t as bad as those liberal catholics who support social justice and the like, still pick and choose what they like. If you want good Catholic guys to listen or watch, just go to EWTN. Can’t go wrong with EWTN:thumbsup: **
B
buffalo
Guest
Some interesting facts in the book
America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists
Read Rodney Stark’s new book, on the other hand, and you’re like to draw an entirely different conclusion. “Americans benefit immensely from being an unusually religious people–blessings that not only fall upon believers but also on those Americans who most oppose religion.” Interacting with a wide-ranging bibliography of over 350 studies (listed at the back of the book), Stark argues that, compared to less religious and nonreligious people, religious people
- engage in less criminal behavior and more prosocial behavior (chapter 2);
- experience higher marital happiness and lower divorce rates, while producing more and better-behaved children (chapter 3);
- report more and better sex with their spouse, and less cheating (chapter 4);
- experience better mental health, and probably better physical health too (chapter 5);
- give more generously in terms of money and time (chapter 6);
- and are better educated, more successful, and less credulous (chapter 7).
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
He should read this very important Catechism reference:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
S
severus68
Guest
Catholics believe the Bible was inspired by God. Genesis is allegorical. God may have taken 6 million years or 6 seconds to create the world etc. God did create men (man and woman) and they disobeyed, went against Him - the Fall.
B
buffalo
Guest
Magisterial Source?
C
Crude
Guest
Are you really arguing that genesis cannot even be seen as partly allegorical? That you can’t affirm a single pair of first parents, yet still believe there is allegory in Genesis?
B
buffalo
Guest
The literal comes first then the allegory per the Catechism.
The Catechism states there is figurative language affirming actual historical events.
M
MyPseudonym
Guest
Yes, I was thinking about contacting him that way.
E
einna
Guest
Now I am not saying what I was taught was right, my point was that different Catholic schools around the country probably taught different things and that is where O’Reilly might have come up with what he did. It isn’t that he is a bad Catholic, it is that he is true to the faith he was taught.
B
buffalo
Guest
Me thinks Bill O’Reilly is a wee bit influenced by scientism.
Great video here:
The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis
S
Seeker1961
Guest
There are “Catholic Fundamentalists” that do believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that everything happened exactly as written.
I went to Catholic Schools and University and I was taught what you outlined above. There are historical sections, there are allegorical sections, there is poetry…many books in one. The truth is not in the idea of an actual man named Adam or an actual woman named Eve-but I have had Catholics argue me on that point.
M
MyPseudonym
Guest
O’Reilly said that the nuns taught him that many of the stories in the Old Testament are allegorical.
- Status