L
LawyersGunsAndMoney
Guest
You’re being a little obtuse. Cultural influences aren’t always explicit and conscious.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GordonP
Guest
Au contraire. A LOT of American conservative Catholics have picked up A LOT from American conservative Protestantism. Especially Calvinism. A real lot. And it is not at all true that you know nothing about Calvinistic beliefs.So some people were exposed to the mythical Protestant virus which transformed them about this one topic? That is not true. I know nothing about Protestant beliefs.
Simply by living in the US, you were brought up in an environment where Calvinism and Puritanism were the default form of religion, the reference standard, so to speak. You absorbed a lot simply by living in the States, and even more so if you live among Evangelicals in the South.
If you are a conservative Catholic, chances are high that your Catholicism has been strongly influenced by Calvinism and other strains of conservative Protestantism. Like I said, it is one of the most striking features of American conservative Catholicism to those who are familiar with European Catholicism.
“Virus” was, by the way, an apt choice of words. It’s amazing how many American conservative Catholics have been “infected” without even knowing it. It’s in the air you breathe and the water you drink. You can’t avoid it.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I can and have avoided it.
G
GordonP
Guest
Actually, it’s been more than cross-pollinization, and more of a total realignment. Conservative Catholics have a lot more in common with white Evangelical Protestants than they do with moderate and progressive Catholics, and moderate and progressive Catholics have a lot more in common with liberal Mainstream Protestants, Reformed Jews and Buddhists than with Conservative Catholics.There has definitely been a lot of cross-pollinization of thought here in the US.
It’s not all bad, truly, but it’s something we need to be aware of.
T
TMC
Guest
I have taken more than a “peek” at Job many times. Obviously my reference to storehouses of snow and hail was a reference to the book of Job - what else would it be? I am also not disputing your claim that God is omnipotent, and not saying that you were merely “implying” that God is omnipotent. Not sure where you are getting that.I would engage you further, but after your childish “snowball” remark I would say not a snowballs chance in hell…
People ask about folks who might believe in YEC then when one sets about to discuss it they are ridiculed or spoken down to.
And for the record there speedboat…I am not implying God is omnipotent, I am telling you straight up He is…
I humbly suggest you take a peek at the oldest known book of the Bible, Job 38 to be exact…
I am truly not understanding the point you are making here. As I asked before, are you saying that if one believes that God is the Three Os, then one must believe in YEC and disbelieve evolution? Are you a proponent of YEC or a detractor from it? You haven’t said. I am sorry if you feel you are being ridiculed or spoken down to, but I am not trying to ridicule your position - you have not given a position.
S
Sbee0
Guest
There certainly can be a bit of crossover between Catholics and Protestant thought. We see it at Mass with songs that are entirely Protestant and borderline contrary to Church teaching being sung. Amazing Grace comes to mind.
E
edwest211
Guest
I’m sure the Church noticed.
M
Michael_Anthony
Guest
Luther actually invented Sola Scriptura (one of his two basic premises of the Reformation), so at least early Lutheranism did support Sola Scriptura.
T
TMC
Guest
Creationism is largely a side-effect of 19th century Christian revivalism in the US. It certainly has had some influence in some quarters in the older churches, but by and large, churches like the Catholic Church, most Lutheran denominations, Anglicans and the like, have never advocated sola scriptura, YEC forms of Creationism are less palatable.
I believe @niceatheist actually means to refer to the form of scriptural exegesis sometimes called “fundamentalism,” which is a doctrine invented in the fairly recent past that purports to apply the “literal” meaning of scripture. Sola Scriptura Christians can be, and often are, fairly progressive and can adopt various forms of scriptural interpretation. (Forgive me if I am wrong about your meaning niceatheist.)Luther actually invented Sola Scriptura (one of his two basic premises of the Reformation), so at least early Lutheranism did support Sola Scriptura.
(Of course, fundamentalism is neither fundamental nor literal, but that may be a topic for another thread.)
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
Are you American?
T
TrueRomanCatholic
Guest
Yes. Me!
The Earth is only ~2019 years old.
The Earth is only ~2019 years old.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Look up the Hebrew Calendar. The current year is 5779.
T
TrueRomanCatholic
Guest
They don’t know what they’re talking about, in my opinion.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So what was your opinion on the age of the planet?Look up the Hebrew Calendar. The current year is 5779.
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
That’s like saying, “In my opinion, all of your historical and religious knowledge and heritage is false, sorry :tipping_hand_woman:”
N
niceatheist
Guest
Well, Luther’s dedication to Sola Scriptura was called in to question even back in his day. Erasmus accused Luther of rejecting Rome’s authority to guide Biblical interpretation, under the pretense that no interpretation was necessary, and then turning around and re-interpreting the Bible to his own pleasure.
While I’m not sure Jewish scholars ever out and out advocated for allegorical interpretations of scripture, but they certainly didn’t read, for instance, the Cosmography laid out in Genesis as literal (seeing as by and large it looks like a version of the Sumerian/Akkadian cosmography of a flat earth with a crystal dome or firmament above it). Classical Jews would, of course, known and accepted a round Earth, and would have reinterpreted Genesis as not being an account of the literal shape of the Earth.
And that’s always been the problem. Augustine noted that certain interpretations would, on the face of it, look ludicrous even based on the knowledge that had accumulated by his time:
"Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)"
De Genisi ad litteram
While I’m not sure Jewish scholars ever out and out advocated for allegorical interpretations of scripture, but they certainly didn’t read, for instance, the Cosmography laid out in Genesis as literal (seeing as by and large it looks like a version of the Sumerian/Akkadian cosmography of a flat earth with a crystal dome or firmament above it). Classical Jews would, of course, known and accepted a round Earth, and would have reinterpreted Genesis as not being an account of the literal shape of the Earth.
And that’s always been the problem. Augustine noted that certain interpretations would, on the face of it, look ludicrous even based on the knowledge that had accumulated by his time:
"Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)"
De Genisi ad litteram
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would say it’s the other way around, if anything. My Irish grandparents were a good deal more “Calvinistic” than my parents or me. So were the Alsatian ones. The Italians were not, but being northern Italians, they were not like southern Italians were then or are now. If Europeans are not now like that, then Europeans have changed just as Americans have.
American Conservatives do approach similarity with American Fundamentalists. But American Fundamentalists are not classic Calvinists, and most Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals. As Flannery O’Connor said, Southern Fundamentalists hold more in common with Catholicism than they do with classic Protestantism.
American Conservatives do approach similarity with American Fundamentalists. But American Fundamentalists are not classic Calvinists, and most Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals. As Flannery O’Connor said, Southern Fundamentalists hold more in common with Catholicism than they do with classic Protestantism.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I agree with you. But what was time before time existed? What is time at the speed of light? What is time in the event horizon of a black hole? What is it in quantum mechanics in which progression of movement seems to be simultaneous even at distances? Time is not an absolute. As Einstein postulated, time is a “thing” and is relative to other things.The way I see it, God wants us to discover our physical world through science. There is evidence that the earth is very old. Would God try to deceive us and have all this evidence that the earth is very old if it really was only a few thousand years old? I’d say no.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The Earth is only ~3019 years old.
You’re both wrong, according to Archbishop Ussher, who was, after all, the grandaddy of Genesis-based calendars. Ussher calculated the date of the Creation as October 23, 4004 BC, which means that tomorrow, May 23, AD 2019, the Earth will be exactly 6021 years and 7 months old.Look up the Hebrew Calendar. The current year is 5779.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I believe ancient Jews did adopt an allegorical view of at least some portion of scripture- was that not one of the purposes of Midrash? By biblical times, there was a general understanding that the earth was round, and (as you point out) early Christian scholars understood that the creation accounts were not literal.While I’m not sure Jewish scholars ever out and out advocated for allegorical interpretations of scripture, but they certainly didn’t read, for instance, the Cosmography laid out in Genesis as literal (seeing as by and large it looks like a version of the Sumerian/Akkadian cosmography of a flat earth with a crystal dome or firmament above it). Classical Jews would, of course, known and accepted a round Earth, and would have reinterpreted Genesis as not being an account of the literal shape of the Earth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.