The Problem and the solution!

[twinc]

Have a good look and observe from the numerous questions and queries on this forum and others that the Bible presents major problems to Catholics.The fact that the Church has declared that it is totally inerrant in all its parts is unacceptable to Catholics who still seem to suspect that it is a protestant bombshell.That the literal and obvious sense must be accepted appears to be unacceptable.That it is full of errors,lies,contradictions,exaggerations,myths and fairytales is being accepted but unreliable and/or unacceptable as truly historical and scientific.So here [Lk.16:8] we have the problem that the children and adults of this world are wiser than the children and adults of light,who have not been prepared "to be prepared to give an answer"as suggested by our first Pope at 1Peter 3:15 - twinc

 

[John7]

what’s the solution

 

[twinc]

what’s the solution

exactly - thank you - it seems not many have realised,that 97% of Catholic school leavers give up the faith.They have been convinced by those at Lk.16:8 and sadly and alas also by their fellow Catholics that they have been taught and accepted errors,lies and fairy tales etc,Sadly also a reliable Christian research/survey revealed that those with the most and best Christian (name removed by moderator)ut fell away in the greatest numbers - twinc

 

[ckliff]

You can pray for faith & enlightenment…

otherwise, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

 

[twinc]

You can pray for faith & enlightenment…

otherwise, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

these are the sort of solutions suggested,so the problem is clearly seen - btw an even better and easier solution would be to do nothing and not bother ones head and if nothing happens just say an Our Father,a Hail Mary and a Glory Be and everything will be alright - Twinc

 

[zach_dunn]

Have a good look and observe from the numerous questions and queries on this forum and others that the Bible presents major problems to Catholics.The fact that the Church has declared that it is totally inerrant in all its parts is unacceptable to Catholics who still seem to suspect that it is a protestant bombshell.That the literal and obvious sense must be accepted appears to be unacceptable.That it is full of errors,lies,contradictions,exaggerations,myths and fairytales is being accepted but unreliable and/or unacceptable as truly historical and scientific.So here [Lk.16:8] we have the problem that the children and adults of this world are wiser than the children and adults of light,who have not been prepared "to be prepared to give an answer"as suggested by our first Pope at 1Peter 3:15 - twinc

I really don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you saying the Church is in error because it declared that the Bible is inerrant?

 

[twinc]

I really don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you saying the Church is in error because it declared that the Bible is inerrant?

it amazes me how you could possibly come to that conclusion - twinc

 

[zach_dunn]

it amazes me how you could possibly come to that conclusion - twinc

This is where I got it:

. . . The fact that the Church has declared that it is totally inerrant in all its parts is unacceptable to Catholics who still seem to suspect that it is a protestant bombshell. . . .

I’ve seen your threads before and to be honest, it’s not all that easy reading your posts . . . so don’t blame me for not understanding your hard to understand posts.

 

[Oreoracle]

Zach,

I think he means the problem is that people expect symbolic answers from the Bible when in fact the “literal and obvious sense” is true. In other words, he’s supporting fundamentalism.

 

[ccolley]

Have a good look and observe from the numerous questions and queries on this forum and others that the Bible presents major problems to Catholics.**The fact that the Church has declared that it is totally inerrant in all its parts is unacceptable to Catholics who still seem to suspect that it is a protestant bombshell.**That the literal and obvious sense must be accepted appears to be unacceptable.That it is full of errors,lies,contradictions,exaggerations,myths and fairytales is being accepted but unreliable and/or unacceptable as truly historical and scientific.So here [Lk.16:8] we have the problem that the children and adults of this world are wiser than the children and adults of light,who have not been prepared "to be prepared to give an answer"as suggested by our first Pope at 1Peter 3:15 - twinc

What is your point?
You may want to consider rephrasing the sentence that I have boldened because you seem to have tried to put two separate ideas into one sentence making the meaning unclear. As a matter of fact, if I were you, I would rephrase the entire post to clarify what you mean.
BTW, 1Peter 3:15 says " always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within you…" Not always be ready to give an answer. I may not always be ready to give an answer, but I can always give a reason…
CC

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,

I think he means the problem is that people expect symbolic answers from the Bible when in fact the “literal and obvious sense” is true. In other words, he’s supporting fundamentalism.

Oh, thank you for the clarification Oreoracle! If that is what twinc is trying to say, I have this to say:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

There is more to Scripture than simply the literal sense, twinc.

 

[Petergee]

Since centuries before protestantism was invented, the Church has declared that the Bible is totally inerrant in all its parts. So how could this doctrine be " a protestant bombshell"?

Far from the Bible being a problem to Catholics, Catholic popes and bishops selected the books of the Bible. In the case of the New Testament they also wrote them. The Bible is one of the Pillars of the Catholic Church.

 

[twinc]

Oh, thank you for the clarification Oreoracle! If that is what twinc is trying to say, I have this to say:

There is more to Scripture than simply the literal sense, twinc.

I am quite aware of all this,but why are all sorts of excuses and subterfuges being used to get round or ignore the literal and obvious as if of no real consequence or concern espoecially since the literal must take precedence.All sorts of wacky,weird, way out,ideas,explanations and interpretations instead of the original and obvious - twinc

 

[John7]

exactly - thank you - it seems not many have realised,that 97% of Catholic school leavers give up the faith.They have been convinced by those at Lk.16:8 and sadly and alas also by their fellow Catholics that they have been taught and accepted errors,lies and fairy tales etc,Sadly also a reliable Christian research/survey revealed that those with the most and best Christian (name removed by moderator)ut fell away in the greatest numbers - twinc

so ah…what’s the solution

 

[zach_dunn]

I am quite aware of all this,but why are all sorts of excuses and subterfuges being used to get round or ignore the literal and obvious as if of no real consequence or concern espoecially since the literal must take precedence.All sorts of wacky,weird, way out,ideas,explanations and interpretations instead of the original and obvious - twinc

So you think the Church is making excuses and subterfuges? You think that they talk about the senses of Scripture to “hide” something from you? You can’t even pick out the literal sense if you do not have an understanding of the spiritual sense, this is proven by all of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who claim to be uses the literal words, yet come up with stuff like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I’m not sorry to tell you that you are wrong twinc, the Church has been studying Sacred Scripture for 2 thousand years, much longer than you have.

 

[twb1621]

I am quite aware of all this,but why are all sorts of excuses and subterfuges being used to get round or ignore the literal and obvious as if of no real consequence or concern espoecially since the literal must take precedence.All sorts of wacky,weird, way out,ideas,explanations and interpretations instead of the original and obvious - twinc

We would do well to keep one thing in mind referring to your statement above. What was literal to those who lived during the times of the scriptural writings is not necessarily correct when taken in today’s literal contexts.

If someone writes a letter in which they say “John hooked up with sue and they went to the theater together. The show was cool and John’s date Sue was hot!

What do you think someone reading that 2000 years or so from now will understand it as?

What is literal should be taken literal but it is recommendable to review notations and interpretations to see what references may be made. That is always the best approach, IMO.

The biggest problem I find with Catholics who question the validity of their faith is they do not know their faith as they should and a large precentage have never really gotten involved in scripture.

 

[thistle]

So you think the Church is making excuses and subterfuges? You think that they talk about the senses of Scripture to “hide” something from you? You can’t even pick out the literal sense if you do not have an understanding of the spiritual sense, this is proven by all of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who claim to be uses the literal words, yet come up with stuff like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I’m not sorry to tell you that you are wrong twinc, the Church has been studying Sacred Scripture for 2 thousand years, much longer than you have.

You will notice that the general theme in all twinc’s threads seems to be that Church teaching is just made up by men and that we should only look at the Bible for teachings and that we must take everything litterally.
However, when you ask him a direct question about this he will not answer but starts babbling.

 

[zach_dunn]

You will notice that the general theme in all twinc’s threads seems to be that Church teaching is just made up by men and that we should only look at the Bible for teachings and that we must take everything litterally.
However, when you ask him a direct question about this he will not answer but starts babbling.

I know what you mean, I wonder how a Catholic ends up in such a mindset . . .

 

[twinc]

Since centuries before protestantism was invented, the Church has declared that the Bible is totally inerrant in all its parts. So how could this doctrine be " a protestant bombshell"?

Far from the Bible being a problem to Catholics, Catholic popes and bishops selected the books of the Bible. In the case of the New Testament they also wrote them. The Bible is one of the Pillars of the Catholic Church.

no doubt,but that is not in dispute,but the bible and the average Catholic - one has only to take this forum as an example - twinc

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi twinc,

Let me try to reword your original post:

It is clear that on this forum the Bible presents major problems to Catholics. In fact, some Catholics seem to resist the Church’s teaching that the Bible is totally, and in all its parts, inerrant—a doctrine which, to them, smacks of Protestantism. This resistance in turn leads to a rejection of the literal and obvious sense of Scripture; instead of believing that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, these Catholics think it is full of errors, lies, contradictions, exaggerations, myths and fairy-tales.

If this rewording is accurate, I have a couple observations to make. First, it’s not clear to what extent an ancient Semitic document can have an obvious meaning. There are all sorts of things about Abraham, for example, that should strike us as odd. Why was he prepared to sacrifice his son? Why would he put his hand under another man’s thigh when he was making a promise?

Second, you seem to be in the grips of a false dilemma. “Either the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, or it is a pack of errors and lies.” But there is actually broad scope for recognizing the scientific errors of the Bible while moving beyond them to discover the truth that God wanted to express. For example, whether or no there was a real Flood, the story of Noah has a clear, christological significance; i.e., it tells us the truth about Jesus and the divine life He gives us.

That, at any rate, is what I make of the problem you mention. Perhaps a few concrete examples would clarify the exact point that’s bothering you.