Just changing the narrative?

[JackVk]

How would you respond to the claim that, when something contradicts doctrine or Sacred Scripture (Genesis and evolution, for example), that Christians simply “change the story” to make it fit, or just dump it altogether?

Note: the question is not about evolution, as there are plenty of resources on the subject, but rather on the question of changing to adapt (and therefore, compromising).

 

[grannymh]

How would you respond to the claim that, when something contradicts doctrine or Sacred Scripture (Genesis and evolution, for example), that Christians simply “change the story” to make it fit, or just dump it altogether?

Note: the question is not about evolution, as there are plenty of resources on the subject, but rather on the question of changing to adapt (and therefore, compromising).

“change the story” to make it fit, or just dump it altogether? is known as the civil right to free speech, emerging Christianity, progressive Christianity, breaking bread with one’s neighbor or friend, stealth Arianism, and the Big Tent symbol.

Pius XII responded to the above in 1950, Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 and 12.

1. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

 

[mikekle]

How would you respond to the claim that, when something contradicts doctrine or Sacred Scripture (Genesis and evolution, for example), that Christians simply “change the story” to make it fit, or just dump it altogether?

Note: the question is not about evolution, as there are plenty of resources on the subject, but rather on the question of changing to adapt (and therefore, compromising).

Sure, I see this all around me, especially in my parish, if some biblical teaching does not really mesh well with modern secular life, it is simply interpreted in a way that does fit, or justified thru twisting verse around, or using other verses in defense.

Ever noticed how beneficial a religious community seems to be to a city, state, country?

Pretty comical when people use the old verse about “giving Caesar what is Caesars and Gods what is Gods”, of course they will say that is literal and to be obeyed, but when it comes to giving all your riches away, or something else that benefits or doesnt mesh well with modern secular life, suddenly those things are not meant to be taken literally, lol

 

[Moro_Rock]

How would you respond to the claim that, when something contradicts doctrine or Sacred Scripture (Genesis and evolution, for example), that Christians simply “change the story” to make it fit, or just dump it altogether?

Note: the question is not about evolution, as there are plenty of resources on the subject, but rather on the question of changing to adapt (and therefore, compromising).

The same evidence is available to everyone , both secular and believer

Wheras the Bible believing Christian is reading the evidence through the 'lens ’
of Sacred Scripture, the Word of God
The secularist, or doubter is reading the same evidence through Secular (usually unbelieving ) word of man
There are some excellent Creationist apologists , but they’re not allowed to
teach in schools or higher education - hence the ’ Argument ’ becomes a bit
one-sided. Anyhow I believe being so contentious , this topic is temp. banned on CAF:shrug:

 

[JackVk]

Anyhow I believe being so contentious , this topic is temp. banned on CAF:shrug:

I am aware of that. And that wasn’t the focus of my question.

 

[LethalMouse]

One has to consider context in all things and question if it is accurate.

I made a post once on this forum that stated due to the usage of my medium I would nake a subsequent post. Without the subsequent post the first was not in context or properly explained. My first post was then quoted without the second being taken into account and “flamed” as wrong. My first post was “wrong” in the context it was quoted, but not in truth.

So the question is, is the narrative being changed in reality, or are the contradictions falsely presented?

In between atheism and now I read an article of bible contradictions and expected it to verift my atheism. It was GOOD, the quotes were completely contradictory and made the bible seem highly illegitamate. But being a fan of knowing things accurately I read the totality of the versus. Not one quote in context contradicted the other. I was rather astonished to find this, and I “debunked” the contradictions while wanting them to exist, and without a bias commentary to show they did not. Simply reading more than on sentance or paragraph showed clearly the supposed contradictions did not exist from the examoles in the article.