Fact or Fiction !>

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
No, temptation is real, even if the “devil” is symbolic.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not teach that the devil is “symbolic.” The devil, Satan, is real and active, and has been since the beginning of human history (Genesis ch. 3). I don’t see how anyboy could look around at the state of affairs in Western society today and not see the devil working overtime.
from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Click to expand...
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”
Click to expand...
2852 “A murderer from the beginning, . . . a liar and the father of lies,” Satan is “the deceiver of the whole world.” Through him sin and death entered the world and by his definitive defeat all creation will be “freed from the corruption of sin and death.” Now “we know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.”
Click to expand...
The Lord who has taken away your sin and pardoned your faults also protects you and keeps you from the wiles of your adversary the devil, so that the enemy, who is accustomed to leading into sin, may not surprise you. One who entrusts himself to God does not dread the devil. “If God is for us, who is against us?”
Click to expand...
 
Mea_Culpa said:
The Catholic Church does not teach that the devil is “symbolic.” The devil, Satan, is real and active, and has been since the beginning of human history (Genesis ch. 3). I don’t see how anyboy could look around at the state of affairs in Western society today and not see the devil working overtime.
Click to expand...
How would you know that it is “the devil” at work, rather than sinful human beings? What do the devil’s “fingerprints” look like.
 
garysibio said:
First, let me say that I accept the events of Gen 6-8 as being completely historical. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates to me that there is anything allegorical about the early chapters of Genesis.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that says that the narratives therein are histories, but they are definitely stories. The ancient Jewish authors were not reporters but storytellers who wanted to convey moral truths and not historical or scientific truths. They were not historians who wrote a history book or scientists who wrote a science manual containing talking snakes, giants and a universal flood. They merely told a story, which could have been based on an actual event. Thus all this talk about whether this or that actually happened is irrelevant, for it is like asking whether what happened in the movie The Sound of Music, with all that singing, actually happened the way it was told by Hollywood, although it is based on a true story.
 
wbarquez said:
There is nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that says that the narratives therein are histories, but they are definitely stories. The ancient Jewish authors were not reporters but storytellers who wanted to convey moral truths and not historical or scientific truths. They were not historians who wrote a history book or scientists who wrote a science manual containing talking snakes, giants and a universal flood. They merely told a story, which could have been based on an actual event. Thus all this talk about whether this or that actually happened is irrelevant, for it is like asking whether what happened in the movie The Sound of Music, with all that singing, actually happened the way it was told by Hollywood, although it is based on a true story.
Click to expand...
your suppositions,analogy and conclusions would be correct except for the fact that God is the author of the Bible [OT & NT] and so it is inerrant in all its parts which includes where it touches on history and/or science - btw this is required acceptance by all Catholics/Christians - twinc
 
StAnastasia said:
If “creation science” is really science, why is it rejected by the world’s scientists, the world’s schools, and the Church? Who does that leave in support of it but you, Twinc?
Click to expand...
This argument is the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Examples of this fallacy include television commercials which state “Four out of five doctors agree…” and Infomercials narrated by “Nutritionist and Medical Doctor So-and-So.” Authority should be used as a buttress, not a foundation. Consider: Is he speaking outside his area of expertise? Are there equally competent authorities who disagree? Has his view been superseded by further research? Is the quote in context? Was it a misprint, corrected in the Errata of the next issue? Is he just plain wrong? Secondly, not “all the world’s scientists”, as you imply, reject Creationism and Intelligent Design in favor of Darwinism/Evolutionism (See here). It’s evident that you are basing your opinion on this matter entirely on the opinions and authority of others. scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions.

Further, to compare Creationism to “astrology and witchcraft” is not only pretty arrogant, also it’s ignorant and demonstrates a purely emotional, rather than logical foundation for your arguments.
 
WJL said:
This argument is the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Examples of this fallacy include television commercials which state “Four out of five doctors agree…” and Infomercials narrated by “Nutritionist and Medical Doctor So-and-So.” Authority should be used as a buttress, not a foundation. Consider: Is he speaking outside his area of expertise? Are there equally competent authorities who disagree? Has his view been superseded by further research? Is the quote in context? Was it a misprint, corrected in the Errata of the next issue? Is he just plain wrong? Secondly, not “all the world’s scientists”, as you imply, reject Creationism and Intelligent Design in favor of Darwinism/Evolutionism (See here). It’s evident that you are basing your opinion on this matter entirely on the opinions and authority of others. Scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote. More atheists are have been entering the science fields than theists in the past century. This skews the results of actual science because these atheists are using the name of “science” to push their naturalistic theories for the origin of life and its alleged evolution. The truth is most “scientists” accept evolutionism, not for scientific reasons but, for philosophical reasons. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Hooke, and Newton—who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions.

Further, to compare Creationism to “astrology and witchcraft” is not only pretty arrogant, also it’s ignorant and demonstrates a purely emotional, rather than logical foundation for your arguments.
Click to expand...
 
wbarquez said:
There is nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that says that the narratives therein are histories, but they are definitely stories. The ancient Jewish authors were not reporters but storytellers who wanted to convey moral truths and not historical or scientific truths. They were not historians who wrote a history book or scientists who wrote a science manual containing talking snakes, giants and a universal flood. They merely told a story, which could have been based on an actual event. Thus all this talk about whether this or that actually happened is irrelevant, for it is like asking whether what happened in the movie The Sound of Music, with all that singing, actually happened the way it was told by Hollywood, although it is based on a true story.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Sacred Scripture is called sacred because all of it is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. To reduce the Bible to just another book with stories that convey moral truths is to put the Bible in the same category as other manmade books.

As far as the events described in the Bible, these were things God could do, just as Jesus could raise the dead. Understand that human science has no business understanding the work of God, especially as it is currently practiced.

Peace,
Ed
 
WJL said:
Further, to compare Creationism to “astrology and witchcraft” is not only pretty arrogant, also it’s ignorant and demonstrates a purely emotional, rather than logical foundation for your arguments.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There is no more foundation for a creationist view of biology than there is for an astrological view of astronomy, or for the efficacy of witchcraft. The point is, educational time in the classroom is short enough as it is that there seems little point in allocating part of it to teach a creationist view of biology, thereby cutting short our childrens’ education in the basics. That would be like spending part of a geography class teaching both sides of the controversy over whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true (there are geocentrists out there, you know!).

StAnastasia
 
wbarquez said:
There is nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that says that the narratives therein are histories, but they are definitely stories. The ancient Jewish authors were not reporters but storytellers who wanted to convey moral truths and not historical or scientific truths. They were not historians who wrote a history book or scientists who wrote a science manual containing talking snakes, giants and a universal flood. They merely told a story, which could have been based on an actual event. Thus all this talk about whether this or that actually happened is irrelevant, for it is like asking whether what happened in the movie The Sound of Music, with all that singing, actually happened the way it was told by Hollywood, although it is based on a true story.
Click to expand...
wbarquez, you are essentially correct, although most scholars would see some core of historical truth underlying the Exodus and Sinai narratives. The creation and flood stories definitely have the character of myth.
 
On what basis then do you accept the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, including His ressurection? What do scholars have to say about what He did?

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Not at all. There is no more foundation for a creationist view of biology than there is for an astrological view of astronomy, or for the efficacy of witchcraft. The point is, educational time in the classroom is short enough as it is that there seems little point in allocating part of it to teach a creationist view of biology, thereby cutting short our childrens’ education in the basics. That would be like spending part of a geography class teaching both sides of the controversy over whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true (there are geocentrists out there, you know!).

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
so is it heliocentrism or geocentrism - prove it - every morning you see the sun rise and you also see it set but some blind scientists obviously cant see that - daft I call it - twinc
 
twinc said:
so is it heliocentrism or geocentrism - prove it - every morning you see the sun rise and you also see it set but some blind scientists obviously cant see that - daft I call it - twinc
Click to expand...
"Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun. In 1835 the Catholic Church removed Copernicus’s book from its index of restricted books. It is fitting to mention Copernicus’s book here. Bessel’s successful measurement of a parallax ellipse established the Sun as the central body of the solar system, but it was not certain that the Sun was at or near the center of the universe.’

Read more: Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html#ixzz0fpKnyzbl
science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
 
StAnastasia said:
"Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun. In 1835 the Catholic Church removed Copernicus’s book from its index of restricted books. It is fitting to mention Copernicus’s book here. Bessel’s successful measurement of a parallax ellipse established the Sun as the central body of the solar system, but it was not certain that the Sun was at or near the center of the universe.’

Read more: Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html#ixzz0fpKnyzbl
science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
Click to expand...
exactly as I read it and no dispute the sun is the centre of the solar system and solar mass but not of the Universe mass.The earth is the centre of the Universe mass - twinc
 
twinc said:
exactly as I read it and no dispute the sun is the centre of the solar system and solar mass but not of the Universe mass.The earth is the centre of the Universe mass - twinc
Click to expand...
No, it’s not.
 
StAnastasia said:
How would you know that it is “the devil” at work, rather than sinful human beings? What do the devil’s “fingerprints” look like.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what the devil really wants - for us to believe that he doesn’t exist. The devil is not an allegory, and he’s not a symbol. He’s real - that’s what the Church has taught and teaches today. (CCC 385 & 2852).

Saying that the devil is real is not an excuse for anybody to do evil. He can tempt us, but he can’t make us do anything. We have free will - as did Adam and Eve, our original parents. They succumbed to the devil’s temptation and committed orginal sin. Their culpability for the sin was not lessened because they were tempted by the devil.

Jesus, the one without sin, was also tempted by the devil, but he did not succumb - he’s the model we should be trying to emulate, not Adam and Eve.

As far as what the devil’s fingerprints look like - they look like the child abuse scandal in the Church, they look like child pornography, they look like drug addiction, they look like Auschwitz, they look like an aborted fetus, they look like the economic crisis we’re now in. Yes, for all these things, human beings had to assent to evil in some way, they had to believe in a lie.

“He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Jesus says the devil is the father of lies - all lies, all deceptions can be traced back to him. When people give in to a lie (it’s not that bad, everybody’s doing it, it’s my body and my choice) they’re giving in to the devil, the father of lies.

Moral relativism would have us believe that there is no devil, there is no right and wrong, there is no such thing as sin. The devil is a symbol, sin is all in our heads, right and wrong are outdated concepts. What we need now is “tolerance.” We need to tolerate every kind of moral depravity, because it might hurt somebody’s feelings to tell them they are sinning and that they need to stop and repent.

The tragedy is that this kind of thinking (the smoke of Satan - Satan’s smokescreen) has infiltrated the Church, even being taught in seminaries and Catholic universities.

No, the devil is not a symbol, sin is real, there are moral absolutes, there is right and wrong, the Bible is inerrant in it’s teachings, and the Catholic Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)
 
Mea_Culpa said:
Moral relativism would have us believe that there is no devil, there is no right and wrong, there is no such thing as sin. The devil is a symbol, sin is all in our heads, right and wrong are outdated concepts.
Click to expand...
Your logic escapes me. Even if one doesn’t belief in a personified force known as “the devil” it does not follow from this that there is no right and wrong, or no sin.
 
StAnastasia said:
Your logic escapes me. Even if one doesn’t belief in a personified force known as “the devil” it does not follow from this that there is no right and wrong, or no sin.
Click to expand...
True, however there many gullible, illogical people out there who would be led astray by any language that could be interpreted to mean that there is no fallen being, name Satan, who personifies the ultimate rejection of God’s love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top