Junia the female apostle

[jmcrae]

I agree. But the way we think of “inerrant” has changed significantly in the last 150 or so years, hasn’t it. Do you disagree that Leo XIII thought the Bible historically inerrant, or that the Church no longer teaches that?

As I understand it, the Scriptures are inerrant, but they do not contain sufficient information to be reliable on certain subjects - in other words, the information that the Scriptures contain on these subjects is accurate, but there is not enough information to learn anything useful about these subjects from the Scriptures - the reason is that these subjects are not the actual subject of the Scriptures, which is: the relationships of human beings with God and with each other.

Because the Bible is not a book about science, any reference it makes to scientific subjects are, by necessity, incomplete, and therefore not particularly useful to scientists. It is also not (primarily) a book about history, so although there are references to historical subjects, again, it is incomplete, and thus, less reliable than books that are, in fact, intended to be historical.

The dogma on the inerrancy of Scripture developed away from a belief in the historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture, and toward a more spiritual and less literal interpretation.

Some theologians have gone this route, it’s true - but I don’t think they are in line with the Church’s tradition by doing so, and I think that this particular school of thought will come to a dead-end and disappear, as it works itself out , together with the literalist view that Scripture can or ought to teach us about science and history as well as about religion (which both developed at around the same time, interestingly enough).

On the other hand, it has always been generally understood that the Scriptures are not intended to cover every subject in depth - even St. Augustine knew that, and made fun of people who thought that the world was only 4,000 years old during the time of Christ.

 

[SemperFidelis]

See all you do is ignore the point, skirt the issue, and pretend you never we are referring to something else again.

Actually it was you who ignored the point. I actually asked you what the point was and you failed to answer. The point was women’s ordination. In your post that I quoted above you at no time made any reference to the topic of this thread. In my post above I actually tried to get this thread back on topic. Any time you disagree with one of my points you call me legalistic and arrogant (which is a total cop out and is the only thing you can say because you have absolutely no sources that refute any of my arguments) and claim that I have taken something out of context. Where in any of the posts in this thread have I taken something out of context? I have references to links where the entire article is published. If that is out of context, than you need to recheck what “out of context” is.

I think I’ll wait a few years till I speak with you again.

It’s going to take you more than a few years to come up with an argument that will refute anything I have said so far.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s really amazing to me that you would choose to speak for a “we” that only exists in your head. Each of us in these forums speaks for himself or herself. There is no monolithic “we.”

**It amazes me that you have nothing else to talk about except that I used we to express a similar opinion held by several of us here. You is often used in the same sense, meaning the other side of the argument. **

As I understand it, the Scriptures are inerrant, but they do not contain sufficient information to be reliable on certain subjects - in other words, the information that the Scriptures contain on these subjects is accurate, but there is not enough information to learn anything useful about these subjects from the Scriptures - the reason is that these subjects are not the actual subject of the Scriptures, which is: the relationships of human beings with God and with each other.

Because the Bible is not a book about science, any reference it makes to scientific subjects are, by necessity, incomplete, and therefore not particularly useful to scientists. It is also not (primarily) a book about history, so although there are references to historical subjects, again, it is incomplete, and thus, less reliable than books that are, in fact, intended to be historical.

Some theologians have gone this route, it’s true - but I don’t think they are in line with the Church’s tradition by doing so, and I think that this particular school of thought will come to a dead-end and disappear, as it works itself out , together with the literalist view that Scripture can or ought to teach us about science and history as well as about religion (which both developed at around the same time, interestingly enough).

On the other hand, it has always been generally understood that the Scriptures are not intended to cover every subject in depth - even St. Augustine knew that, and made fun of people who thought that the world was only 4,000 years old during the time of Christ.

I think I agree with most of what you said. I was impressed just today with a baptist tract I read on Clement 1, arguing that fundamentalist “scripture is word for word true” comes from Clement to them. They claim both Irenaeas and Augustine had respectively 3 and 4 different ways of looking at scripture, literalism being only one.

That the Church will probably definitively take a flat stand on in favor of evolution and the big bang seems inevitable to me.I just has nothing really to do with the truth of what the bible is about, faith and salvation.

Actually it was you who ignored the point. I actually asked you what the point was and you failed to answer. The point was women’s ordination. In your post that I quoted above you at no time made any reference to the topic of this thread. In my post above I actually tried to get this thread back on topic. Any time you disagree with one of my points you call me legalistic and arrogant (which is a total cop out and is the only thing you can say because you have absolutely no sources that refute any of my arguments) and claim that I have taken something out of context. Where in any of the posts in this thread have I taken something out of context? I have references to links where the entire article is published. If that is out of context, than you need to recheck what “out of context” is.

It’s going to take you more than a few years to come up with an argument that will refute anything I have said so far.

You young whippersnappers always think you know it all. LOL…and pssst…people who see the world mostly in terms of black and white …well its part of the classic definition of fundamentalism, or as I think Benedict has referred to it…“intellectual suicide.”

 

[catharina]

Spiritmeadow (is that a whippersnapper name?) -

Your little (repeated) rant on folks whom you assume see the world in black and white and your hating to confide what that really means? Well, Mr. Dude, folks who use the “royal we” when speaking only for themselves - what that means falls into a very serious category of psychiatric impairment. You do know that, don’t you? It’s very offensive to ME and to my inclination to take you seriously when YOU suddenly procalim YOURSELF to be a “WE.” Best to you (and your other personalities?). Peace and ta-ta.

 

[christcnection1]

Perhaps some of these posts are getting a little over-heated. I hope and pray this is not taking away from anyone’s focus concerning more weighty matters. I am just speaking in general and I am not making any assumptions. These are just words of love and caution.

God Bless,
JB

 

[catharina]

Perhaps some of these posts are getting a little over-heated. I hope and pray this is not taking away from anyone’s focus concerning more weighty matters. I am just speaking in general and I am not making any assumptions. These are just words of love and caution.

God Bless,
JB

Agreed. Our Lord offers His great and holy Church to all.
All that any need do is remain faithful to His teachings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow (is that a whippersnapper name?) -
huh?

Your little (repeated) rant on folks whom you assume see the world in black and white and your hating to confide what that really means?

**The poster I believe knew what it referenced. Go back through the posts and you will find it. **

Well, Mr. Dude, folks who use the “royal we” when speaking only for themselves - what that means falls into a very serious category of psychiatric impairment.
**1. Not a dude. 2. I have explained to you twice what I meant. Get over it. I think you might be the one in need of assistance now.Aren’t you a bit over the top? **
You do know that, don’t you? It’s very offensive to ME and to my inclination to take you seriously when YOU suddenly procalim YOURSELF to be a “WE.” Best to you (and your other personalities?). Peace and ta-ta.

**take an aspirin and lay down. Don’t know what got you all riled up…You’re obsessing. **

 

[catharina]

**take an aspirin and lay down. Don’t know what got you all riled up…You’re obsessing. **

Unless you’re a doctor, you shouldn’t hand out medical advice; unless you’re a psychiatrist, you shouldn’t be making a diagnosis regarding obsessions.

Actually, you’re a lawyer?
Retired, but still … ?

Now that I’ve read the profile on your personal blogspot, I have no further questions or comments in regard to you. All is clear. Best wishes to you nonetheless.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Unless you’re a doctor, you shouldn’t hand out medical advice; unless you’re a psychiatrist, you shouldn’t be making a diagnosis regarding obsessions.

Actually, you’re a lawyer?
Retired, but still … ?

Now that I’ve read the profile on your personal blogspot, I have no further questions or comments in regard to you. All is clear. Best wishes to you nonetheless.

LOL…there is nothing on my blogsite profile that would be any different than what anyone would assume from my posting here. Whatever I seem to be that most dangerous of creatures the dreaded “progressive”…Not everybody is a conservative dear. And I think You started the psychiatric diagnosing…So quickly we forget.