Sure this has been discussed before but

[scottm]

Luke claims to be reporting history. We believe him with respect to the Magnificat, but somehow we don’t believe him on other things. Weird.

John, as Jesus’ disciple, claims to be reporting history.

John the Baptist’s message (if we can accept it from the gospels) was that God had come in the flesh and acting in real time and space in the lives of real people. It’s a claim of historical reality.

Peter in his Pentecost sermon (if we can believe that Peter actually said this stuff) makes a claim of historical accuracy. He preaches God acting in the lives of real people in real time and space.

Paul in 1 Cor 15 makes the same claim. Paul preached historical accuracy, that God really did come down to people and do things in the lives of real people.

The First Commandment is a claim of historical accuracy, a claim that God actually acted in the lives of people: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. …”

Repeatedly throughout the OT there is a claim of history, a claim that God had acted in the lives of real people in real time and space. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is one frequent statement. “I brought you through the wilderness” is another. Reminders of history are frequent in the OT.

Markers were put up in the OT many times. Abraham built a marker where he almost sacrificed Isaac. Jacob built a marker where he dreamt of a ladder. When the Israelites crossed the Jordan River they put up markers. The reason for these was to remind successive generations that God had come down into their lives in real time and space, into their real lives, and done something. It was history. It was true history.

The entire Passover holiday is a reminder of and an assertion, and claim, of the historical reality that God acted in the lives of real people.

And blah blah blah, there’s more, but this is enough to show that our entire religion rests upon an historical foundation. Our claim to the world is that our God actually involved himself in the lives of people in the past, and it was through that involvement that he proved his existence to us and his superiority over all other deities. The First Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me,” makes sense only when this God proves himself to be real, and he does that only by acting in human history.

**Remove history and you necessarily remove the reality of God. Unless our God actually acted in human history we have no claim of truth over any other religion. The only way that we can tell the followers of any other religion that their faith is wrong, is if our faith is founded upon the actual involvement of God in human history. **

**That is why the historical stories of the Bible matter. **

Seriously dude, we should be Moslems if we’re going to say that after (xyz) years with Yahweh the OT writers had no true events to report that would get their points across, and thus, had to invent legends. And we should be Moslems if we’re going to say that after 3 years with Jesus the NT writers had no true events to report that would get their points across, and thus had to invent legends. The claim of legends is an admission that God did not do anything worth reporting.

And present activity does not matter. Whatever you think God is doing right now could easily be credited to another deity – Allah, some Hindu deity, whatever. Their worshippers are completely convinced that their favored deity is doing things right now in the lives of actual human beings.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’ve read statements like this before and I sometimes find it odd that some people here are so adamant that they follow the magesterium completely in all things and yet they chose to belittle a formal statement by a member of that magesterium when it applies to something they disagree with.

I never said it is because I disagree, but because previous Magisterial teachings on the subject disagree, and because the number of old teachings far outweigh the number of new teachings on the subject. So therefore I regard the old teachings as correct, considering they came first and there is more of them.

 

[zerocrossing]

Those who say they were imaginary are called “liberals”.

The Traditional Catholic approach is that those stories are for the most part entirely historically true, and each of those people were actual people who lived in Old Testament times.

The Church Fathers were known to treat stories in the OT allegorically. I’ve never heard anybody accuse St. Augustine of being a “liberal” or a “modernist.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Assumption of St. Mary doesn’t have to do with your salvation or your faith either, but would you reject that too?

No.

These things are changes in Church practices, these things can change over time. What you were talking about in your OP are changes in Church Dogma, which are unchanging, as are as the subjects of women priests, conctraception, etc.

I am not the OP here. I’ve never said the church has changed Dogma. It has changed many things.

The world is materialistic and evil. If the world rejects you for belief in the unerring Word of God, then so be it.

nicely avoided

What does science make clear? Evolution? Hardly. Narrowmindedness is nothing more than knowing that their are absolute truths, and that you adhere to them. What if someone in the Church argued that Jesus was not divine, would you allow that, in the name of progress?

yeah evolution is quite clear. and the answer to the last is No.

Your statements have very little logical relationship to the discussion. You are a month into becoming a Catholic? hehe…okay.

Actually it has.

It sure doesnt now…so would that be a dogmatic change or not?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve read statements like this before and I sometimes find it odd that some people here are so adamant that they follow the magesterium completely in all things and yet they chose to belittle a formal statement by a member of that magesterium when it applies to something they disagree with. I do the same thing, but then I’ve never said I follow the magesterium in all things. I’m just speaking in general here, not criticizing you.

I know that really surprised me too. Somebody is arguing the USCCB is heretical on another thread. It appears to me that the truth of the matter is that some Catholics are even more ultra conservative than the Church herself. So they have no trouble accusing the Church of being in the wrong by not being conservative enough. We’ve been down that road right after Vatican II. They have fallen, it seems to me into fundamentalism, something which the church teaches against.

**Remove history and you necessarily remove the reality of God. Unless our God actually acted in human history we have no claim of truth over any other religion. The only way that we can tell the followers of any other religion that their faith is wrong, is if our faith is founded upon the actual involvement of God in human history. **

**That is why the historical stories of the Bible matter. **

You continually make this claim on many threads. However, first your syllogistically incorrect. You have not proved the initial premise, and two…WE have no problem believing in God and Jesus and his resurrection and so forth without having to believe that the earth is flat and Genesis is history, so empirically you are wrong again.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Spiritmeadow, first of all, I might be only a month into becoming Catholic, but I am very well studied in Church Dogma, and theology. I find it quite dismissive of you to assume that I know little based on my only being in RCIA for one month. For someone who is as liberal as you are, I assume that you would be less assuming of my abilities to reiterate the Truth of Catholic Teaching, but then again most liberals aren’t really that tolerate anyway, even though they largely claim to be. Read some of my other posts and you will see that I have been studying Catholicism for quite a while, and I am well versed in what the Church actually teaches. I would also like to know how I “nicely avoided” the question you posed to me.

As far as evolution is concerned, it hasn’t been proven, and I can throw just as many tracks refuting evolution, as you can trying to “prove” it. You can be dismissive of me all you want, but you still haven’t refuted any statement that I have made. Maybe I should be dismissive of you since you have obviously not been catechized by anyone who is remotely orthodox (translated- “correct teaching”, but I’m sure you already know that) in their beliefs.

 

[adrift]

The Church loses its Moral authority when we are regarded (which we clearly are not now)as too narrowminded to accept what science makes clear. Why do you think the Church finally retracted its statements about Galileo? Because people joked about it. It made the Church appear rediculous. The Church is not rediculous. It has NEVER said scripture was unerring, but to matters of faith and salvation.

The Church can never loose its moral authority since that is granted to her by God. I do not believe you understand what happened with Galileo. Many only know what the secular world has spouted.

Science Who said the world was flat

The Galileo Controversy
The scientific theory that the sun is the center of the universe was first formally proposed by the Polish Catholic, Nicholas Copernicus, who died 21 years before Galileo was born. Copernicus published a book about his theory and dedicated it to Pope Paul III. There was no objection from the Catholic Church to his book nor his theory of a sun-centered universe. The scientist went on to become a well respected clergyman.

Many years later, Galileo promoted the same theory of a sun-centered universe, but he did so in a much different way than Copernicus. Galileo insisted that his theory was the only way to look at the heavens and that it represented a contradiction of Scripture. Church authorities took issue with the impertinent scientist because he claimed that the theory of Copernicus was at odds with what the Church held to be true. The Church, however, did not deny the possible truth of the theory; she merely denied that the theory, as stated by Galileo, was a contradiction of Scripture. Some people today think that the Church at that time believed the world was flat and that she objected to Galileo’s claim that the earth is actually round. This is false. Both Galileo

and the Church knew that the world was round.

 

[adrift]

sorry, I didn’t realize that I had not entered the entire citation. It was to the “Interpretation of the Bible”. I should not have said just Pontifical Biblical Commission. I was not out of context…I was in a different statement completely. sorry.

Where you trying to be sarcastic?
Your statement came from
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
Under F. Fundamentalist Interpretation
Your were out of context because there was more to the definition than you stated and to long to quote extensively that is why I invited others to see the whole of it. No one here has advocated a fundamentalist interpretation. But you imply they do. Reading the entire article shows that no one here is a fundamentalist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow, first of all, I might be only a month into becoming Catholic, but I am very well studied in Church Dogma, and theology. I find it quite dismissive of you to assume that I know little based on my only being in RCIA for one month. For someone who is as liberal as you are, I assume that you would be less assuming of my abilities to reiterate the Truth of Catholic Teaching, but then again most liberals aren’t really that tolerate anyway, even though they largely claim to be. Read some of my other posts and you will see that I have been studying Catholicism for quite a while, and I am well versed in what the Church actually teaches. I would also like to know how I “nicely avoided” the question you posed to me.

As far as evolution is concerned, it hasn’t been proven, and I can throw just as many tracks refuting evolution, as you can trying to “prove” it. You can be dismissive of me all you want, but you still haven’t refuted any statement that I have made. Maybe I should be dismissive of you since you have obviously not been catechized by anyone who is remotely orthodox (translated- “correct teaching”, but I’m sure you already know that) in their beliefs.

You sound good until the last paragraph and then…your arrogance just is so huge. I’m afraid I give little credibility to those who deny evolution as the working model of tens of thousands of scientists in multiple disciplines over now centuries. I can cite to the NAS, the Smithsonian, the Museum of Natural History, the American Geological Society for my facts. Once you claim genesis as history your credibility is alas ruined.

I was catechized as you put it by Dominicans and Sisters of St. Joseph, as well as 2 priests in 2 different parishes. How dare you acuse them of being heretical.

The Church can never loose its moral authority since that is granted to her by God. I do not believe you understand what happened with Galileo. Many only know what the secular world has spouted.

Well try to dig a bit deeper. What is meant is the the Church loses its moral authority vis a vis the rest of the world. It has no more power to persuade.

As to Galileo, perhaps I have missed something. Didn;t the church recently do something in regard to him? I must have got that wrong.

Your bit about the fundamentalist quote I still don’t understand but you feel I’m being disengenuous apparently.

 

[adrift]

Well try to dig a bit deeper. What is meant is the the Church loses its moral authority vis a vis the rest of the world. It has no more power to persuade.

As to Galileo, perhaps I have missed something. Didn;t the church recently do something in regard to him? I must have got that wrong.

Your bit about the fundamentalist quote I still don’t understand but you feel I’m being disengenuous apparently.

The world has always had a low opinion of Jesus so I really don’t care about their opinion.
Your not wrong but not quite right either.
Dr. William Carroll an historian had this to say about Galileo

The Church ordered Galileo not to preach the heliocentric theory as proven truth (as it was not in his time) but only as a theory, but he persisted in teaching it as certain truth, when it was not yet certain. You are certainly right that the Church has no authority to decide on scientific theories, which is why Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church’s treatment of Galileo. My latest book, THE CLEAVING OF CHRISTENDOM, has a full documented account of the entire Galileo case.

I did not believe you were disingenuous. I believed there was more to it. I guess I was clear as mud but I felt you were saying that those here were being fundamentalist by using that quote. I felt that the entire section proved otherwise.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You sound good until the last paragraph and then…your arrogance just is so huge. I’m afraid I give little credibility to those who deny evolution as the working model of tens of thousands of scientists in multiple disciplines over now centuries. I can cite to the NAS, the Smithsonian, the Museum of Natural History, the American Geological Society for my facts. Once you claim genesis as history your credibility is alas ruined.

I was catechized as you put it by Dominicans and Sisters of St. Joseph, as well as 2 priests in 2 different parishes. How dare you acuse them of being heretical.

Well try to dig a bit deeper. What is meant is the the Church loses its moral authority vis a vis the rest of the world. It has no more power to persuade.

As to Galileo, perhaps I have missed something. Didn;t the church recently do something in regard to him? I must have got that wrong.

Your bit about the fundamentalist quote I still don’t understand but you feel I’m being disengenuous apparently.

First of all I never said I disagreed with evolution, you ASSUMED that. I just said that it is far from being proven (which it is), and that there is much out there that can refute it. To believe someone is ignorant because they don’t believe in evolution, is very arrogant and narcissistic. It is one thing to speak about something that is truth, or proven fact, it is something completely different when you speak about something like it is fact when actually it is only a THEORY. I know several very smart people out there who don’t believe in evolution and you can’t just discount them off the bat.

In terms of whoever catechized you, there are only two outcomes possible. Either they tried to catechize you correctly, and you didn’t at all listen, in which case I apologize to them, or they didn’t catechize you correctly by teaching you unorthodox ideas, in which case I was right.

 

[boppaid]

I am really surprised, I must say. Up until this moment, I never realized that some Christians did NOT believe that Abraham, Noah, etc., really existed and that their stories are true. Why would they believe the NT then? I just don’t understand why they would even consider that the OT was not literal, yet the NT was?? I can’t wrap my mind around it.

Why believe in something that has no effect upon my faith? Just to believe? When such belief causes the world to reject me as silly. The Church loses its Moral authority when we are regarded (which we clearly are not now)as too narrowminded to accept what science makes clear.

Why? Because it has a PROFOUND affect on your faith. It teaches y ou who God is, why He came, why He sent a Savior, and why we needed one!!! It also tells us where our ancestors came from. Have you read Exodus? Dueteronomy? Numbers? Leveticus? That is PIVOTAL in our faith. THe tabernacle. Oh my gosh! The blood sacrifices offered explain’s Christ’s blood sacrifice for us and why we NEEDED him! What difference does it make if others laugh at you? Christ tells us we WILL be persecuted for Him!!

 

[SemperFidelis]

I am really surprised, I must say. Up until this moment, I never realized that some Christians did NOT believe that Abraham, Noah, etc., really existed and that their stories are true. Why would they believe the NT then? I just don’t understand why they would even consider that the OT was not literal, yet the NT was?? I can’t wrap my mind around it.

Why? Because it has a PROFOUND affect on your faith. It teaches y ou who God is, why He came, why He sent a Savior, and why we needed one!!! It also tells us where our ancestors came from. Have you read Exodus? Dueteronomy? Numbers? Leveticus? That is PIVOTAL in our faith. THe tabernacle. Oh my gosh! The blood sacrifices offered explain’s Christ’s blood sacrifice for us and why we NEEDED him! What difference does it make if others laugh at you? Christ tells us we WILL be persecuted for Him!!

Very good points. It’s like some people consider themselves too “intellectual” to believe “that stuff,” because it seems too “out there” for them to believe. Sigh.

 

[rwoehmke]

After reading through some of the posts on this thread, I felt like I was reading blasts exchanged between a bunch of Baptists and Catholics. Guess I must be one those “liberals.”

If I would say that Captain Ahab had an obsession with a white whale and that lots of people have similar obsessions, does that make Captain Ahab a real person?

In this day when there is archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts some historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures. It seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken with a large grain of salt. So what is to be made of the science or history contained in narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

Aquinas says:

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.[unquote}

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm

He must have been a liberal.

 

[turtle18]

In this day when there is archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts some historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures. It seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken with a large grain of salt. So what is to be made of the science or history contained in narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

It doesn’t have anything to do with being “Baptist” or Catholic. I am not an idiot. Because I believe the Bible over the scientific and archaelogical facts I am presented, instead of trying to play God and figure it all out, somehow that makes me ignorant? I am well aware of what the scientific and archaelogical evidence and facts are; if I believe what is in the OT, knowing full well that I don’t how some of these things could have happened with the scientific and archaelogical evidence that is presented to me now, that makes me an idiot or dumb or intellectually inferior?

Is it too hard to make your mind like that of a child and accept the word of God rather than trying to question how God did everything even if it seems to be refuted by modern day science?

Well, I for one would rather be considered stupid by humans that to be faithless by God.

 

[adrift]

He must have been a liberal.

You shouldn’t read just some of the post to form a valid opinion you need to read all of them.

On another post I asked about being liberal, conservative or middle of the road the best answer was this

cmudd I would say that I am neither liberal nor conservative… neither orthodox nor heterodox… I am simply Catholic. No more, no less. I accept what the Church teaches in its fullness. If I have questions, I let the Church answer them and in the mean time, I don’t deny said teaching and I don’t stray from said teaching. I accept that the Church is the final authority and if I have questions, I will wait till they are answered, trusting in God’s promise to his people not to let anyone lead us astrtay.
Reply With Quote

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2856055&postcount=4

 

[SemperFidelis]

If I would say that Captain Ahab had an obsession with a white whale and that lots of people have similar obsessions, does that make Captain Ahab a real person?

Equating Noah, David or Solomon to Captain Ahab is one of the most ridiculous, if not sacrilegious claims that I have ever heard. Wow, is really the only word I can think to use here.

In this day when there is archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts some historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures. It seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken with a large grain of salt. So what is to be made of the science or history contained in narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

Can you provide evidence where archaelogy and/or scientific evidence has ever disproven a story in the Bible? Arguing that the Earth is old does not discount the stories of Noah, David, Solomon, Moses, etc. I’m going to need more proof than that since it is “so obvious.”

 

[Queen_Bee]

I apologize if this is to off topic but am new to this site.Can anyone out there tell where in the bible is the story of the war in heaven between God and lucifer in which the devil was cast out and God created hell???

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The world has always had a low opinion of Jesus so I really don’t care about their opinion.

Guess I’m still not being clear…When I say the Church looses its Moral authority, what I mean to say is that the world at large fails to pay attention to the Church when she speaks out on something that is occuring in the world. I assume you want the church to be a powerful voice in the world? I certainly do…that was the point I was making…when people at large believe that most Catholics and the church teaches that evolution didnt occur nor the big bang, people just tend to laugh and then ignore what the Church does have to say. I don’t feel the Church has these positions and I do feel they are fundamentalist in nature since I find no one holding them who doesnt insist on literal inerrentness of the entire bible.

Hopefully this is a bit clearer.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

First of all I never said I disagreed with evolution, you ASSUMED that. I just said that it is far from being proven (which it is), and that there is much out there that can refute it. To believe someone is ignorant because they don’t believe in evolution, is very arrogant and narcissistic. It is one thing to speak about something that is truth, or proven fact, it is something completely different when you speak about something like it is fact when actually it is only a THEORY. I know several very smart people out there who don’t believe in evolution and you can’t just discount them off the bat.

**Nothing in science is ever much “proven” as you say. But in science a theory is a good deal more than what the word denotes in common english. It’s sufficiently proven that most people would feel pretty confident on beating the house on it. It is as all science is filled with questions and unanswered problems, but its still a perfectly good model of how life evolved. **

In terms of whoever catechized you, there are only two outcomes possible. Either they tried to catechize you correctly, and you didn’t at all listen, in which case I apologize to them, or they didn’t catechize you correctly by teaching you unorthodox ideas, in which case I was right.

No there is a third, that perhaps you might not be qualified to judge what is orthodox and unorthodox at this time.