I am not denigrating Scripture - God inspired the Sacred Authors to write what He wished no more, no less. Scripture is God breathed, yes?I keep hearing this from all together too many people, “inspired?” this places the word of God not into the context of his word, as clearly stated from John 1:1, but makes it where some writer decided to create a story, having God as his ispiration, or muse and is allowed to create what ever fiction they desire with it trying to tell a story in the process.
I can say when I help someone, that God has inspired me to write or say words towards them, is this scripture? No, not at all. Yet, it’s inspired non-the-less, I think in my mind and feel in my heart what he desires, for he has clearly stated these things in his word as well as conveyed it in my heart to show compassion. Do I go around telling people, this is inspired by God, so it must be scripture.
The bible, the “word” is not to be taken so lightly, it should not be scrutinized, it should not be second guessed, nor are any of us qualified to place it in and out of context to the point were we have deemed it only kinda the truth, or only something some guy wrote while he was thinking of God. He put these words down before pen was committed to parchment, the fact we have easy access to it in book form is his gift to us, and it is an awsome wonder to be able to take a peek into his mind on these matters, where he literally sais, this is what happened, this is what I was thinking, these are the lessons taught and these are the conclusions that we all should learn from. To go beyond this, we are speculating, and this is where I say, use extreem caution and catch yourself if you delve outside of these areas, we as man are quite obviously easily deceived, yet we have his word to keep us grounded, we must remain steadfast with it and recognize it as the ultimate authority reference wise in our lives and understandings.
What we get as a bonus as Catholics, we have the church and it’s leadership to help us further understand things, Peter being the rock, we should keep that within it’s context, since Peter no longer lives in the flesh, we have the church to rely upon, we have that rock which forms the foundation to it all to this day.
Will you show me the differences between the Baltimore catechism and the CCC? The CCC does not invalidate the BC in any place. Show me I am wrong.I’d tell you what you can do with the Baltimore Catechism but I don’t want to get banned from the forums…
I think quotes like you gave from the BC are untenable regardless of where they are from…but that’s a different subject.Will you show me the differences between the Baltimore catechism and the CCC? The CCC does not invalidate the BC in any place. Show me I am wrong.
Don’t want to put word in your mouth but, are you stating that the BC is untenable?I think quotes like you gave from the BC are untenable regardless of where they are from…but that’s a different subject.
The temptation was not irresistable. Adam’s sin was that he didn’t call on God for help when he saw the dragon harassing his wife.I don’t claim to know the mind of God but I do know that if I took my child, put them in the presence of an almost irresistible temptation knowing that they would succumb to it and then punished them and all their descendants for all eternity I wouldn’t exactly be nominated for father of the year.
In dissagreement, but know I cannot convince him to thik otherwise.So to the OP - given what patg posted, what do you now think of his first post?
Lurkers - yes that means you - what do you think of patg’s postings?In dissagreement, but know I cannot convince him to thik otherwise.
I would be interested in knowing if you think inspiration can only create literalistic writings or does your definition forbid God and God’s authors from teaching the word using myth, legend, poems, symbolic stories, infancy narratives, etc? Do you deny God the ability or the right to do this? And then do you deny us the ability or right to recognize these forms? Is God denied the right to teach truth using fiction?I am not denigrating Scripture - God inspired the Sacred Authors to write what He wished no more, no less. Scripture is God breathed, yes?
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
No. God can do it anyway He wants. The question is the way He did do it. And the Church for thousands of years understood it and taught it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.I would be interested in knowing if you think inspiration can only create literalistic writings or does your definition forbid God and God’s authors from teaching the word using myth, legend, poems, symbolic stories, infancy narratives, etc? Do you deny God the ability or the right to do this? And then do you deny us the ability or right to recognize these forms? Is God denied the right to teach truth using fiction?
Well, why would you try to? The Church does not disagree with me and does not require either my belief or Buffalo’s to be believed as dogma. It is fine to disagree but my words come directly from the books used by numerous Catholic diocesean adult bible education offices. This isn’t radical thinking, it is the norm.In dissagreement, but know I cannot convince him to thik otherwise.
With all of the debate between you and him, has there been a single point, a single thing where he has a second thought on the matter, where he has changed his mind of it all, where he has been educated in the process? I can’t find one, can you? I’ve already been down this road with others, where they insist upon things being a certain way and they refuse to listen. I admit it when I’m wrong, or when I have erred in my perspective and judgement, I actually learn from others, but I also take what’s said when it’s clearly against what I know with a grain of salt. It’s funny, on these boards we have so many “experts” of the Catholic faith saying literals and absolutes, they place themselves as being the final authority, even when they are clearly wrong and have perverted the truth, twisting it to suite their needs. Should I reference a thread I used to participate upon in regards to the validity of evolution, where the church sais that it “may” be true, which in turn is twisted by those that are pro evolition to mean that it “is” true and for me to deny it means I go against the Catholic church.Lurkers - yes that means you - what do you think of patg’s postings?
Can we all agree with the CCC on these teachings?…yet here wer are debating over matters we should be in agreement with.
Actually, you (unless you recant) have inferred the Baltimore Catechism has been reversed by Catholic Scholars of late. Our opinions cannot be equal. The absolute truth exists. The Church has known in and taught it for a long long time. The Catholic Church faithfully hands down what Christ taught.Well, why would you try to? The Church does not disagree with me and does not require either my belief or Buffalo’s to be believed as dogma. It is fine to disagree but my words come directly from the books used by numerous Catholic diocesean adult bible education offices. This isn’t radical thinking, it is the norm.
And I’m not concerned with you or Buffalo changing your thinking, I am only interested in making sure people who haven’t put as many years into this stuff as we have getting balanced opinions and answers to complex questions.
I don’t think so. Obstinate denial is part and parcel. It’s like suddenly finding out that you never needed to stop at a red light. It’s a huge paradigm shift. He is heavily invested in his learning and commitment to this. There is some syncretism involved, because of our faith in science. The byproduct of unfettered historical criticism is a loss of faith for Jesus becomes just a man, miracles disappear, the supernatural is distasteful.With all of the debate between you and him, has there been a single point, a single thing where he has a second thought on the matter, where he has changed his mind of it all, where he has been educated in the process? I can’t find one, can you? I.
Well, as stated by others, it’s there to be the purpose of choice for us, that without it, there would be no possible way for our free will to get us into trouble. It’s hard to understand why this thing is there simply and entirely as a stumbling block of sorts, then again, why was the serpent even allowed in paradise, he didn’t deserve to be there, he deserved punishment for what he did of his own free will. It’s kind of like sending your children off to school knowing full well the class bully is going to be there to intimidate them and wants to cause them harm.Can we all agree with the CCC on these teachings?
**375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and
Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
**
Brian, I’m still wondering, since you asked the question and you’re concerned about the way scripture is interpreted, as we all should be, what are your thoughts as to why the tree was placed in the garden?
I’d have to agree with this. True love would require that their be a choice as to whether or not to love God. Therefore, God provided them with the choice of loving Him by obeying His commands or not loving Him by disobeying His commands.Here’s my thoughts…
Our purpose in this life (and the next) is to love God. True love requires that their be a choice not to love. Without the capability of that choice, we’d be robots with no ability to love. And without any temptation to not love there would be no choice not to love.
Genesis 2:15 says that God told Adam to till it (the Garden) and keep it. This means working it, protecting it, and making it bear fruit. If Adam is supposed to protect it, that means that there was something that would be a threat. No, God didn’t tell them the details of the serpent or the lie in advance.
They had one commandment - don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told them that they would die if they disobeyed him. They ate, and death entered the world.
We are all confronted with new situations and temptations to disobey God that we might not have been advised of in advance. We need to call on God for help (unlike Adam).
You can talk directly to me, its ok. We’ve disagreed with each other for looooong time.With all of the debate between you and him,
Why would you ask this unless you disagree with the Church - I haven’t presented anything that does.has there been a single point, a single thing where he has a second thought on the matter, where he has changed his mind of it all, where he has been educated in the process?
I hope not, I can’t find one where he “has changed his mind of it all, where he has been educated in the process” either, can you?I can’t find one, can you?
I have to - there are many here who refuse to acknowledge what the Church says about scripture when it contradicts what they want to believe.I’ve already been down this road with others, where they insist upon things being a certain way and they refuse to listen.
I would if I were wrong too. I’m not going to admit here because that would be going against the Church.I admit it when I’m wrong, or when I have erred in my perspective and judgement,
I hope everyone here does. The issue here is that what some “know” allows them to condemn others for something that is perfectly in line with Church teaching.I actually learn from others, but I also take what’s said when it’s clearly against what I know with a grain of salt.
You must be speaking of Buffalo since I have never stated anything on this subject that is original with me as an expert - everything I speak of is based directly on Church documents or teaching.It’s funny, on these boards we have so many “experts” of the Catholic faith saying literals and absolutes, they place themselves as being the final authority
I assume you aren’t talking about me here.… even when they are clearly wrong and have perverted the truth, twisting it to suite their needs
But the Church does not require belief in any of the positions presented here. Why pick on me when Buffalo is clearly the one not recognizing this?Should I reference a thread I used to participate upon in regards to the validity of evolution, where the church sais that it “may” be true, which in turn is twisted by those that are pro evolition to mean that it “is” true and for me to deny it means I go against the Catholic church.
Yes, that is how I feel about discussing scripture interpretation with Buffalo.I have also argued with athiests about the existance of God, Muslems with the fact that Christ was more then just a mere prophet, with the Jews that Christ is the messiah. In all of these cases, always to no avail, I wasted my time trying to convince them and at best, I would make a point they could not counter and instead of saying, perhaps I am right, they simply disregard what was said and move onto the next point of contention. Nothing is taught in these cases for the ears do not want to hear and the eyes do not want to see.
You need to understand that the Church only requires dogmatic belief in the interpretation of a small handful of scriptural passages - we must only assent to the official interpretaion of very few. The story we are discussing is not one that we must understand literally. We must accept the truth being taught - that we suffer when we offend God, but nothing else. It is Ok for Buffalo to be a literalist in this example but it is NOT ok to condemn or ridicule those who are not. I would like to suggest that you not trust me but that you read the book used in many Catholic scripture studies: And God Said What? An introduction to biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Ralph. Don’t listen to me, don’t listen to Buffalo, and don’t think you know everything…get some up to date education.I find so many things that I come up with which are perfectly in line with the Catholic church, what I find, what I feel, and what is inspired me finds too many parellels to the Churches teachings yet I have not absorbed many of these things through traditional routes at all, in fact, my understanding of the Church along a formal education is rather limited, this is one of the reasons I’m active on these boards, so I may be wrong about things, but I’m finding I’m not in too many cases so for some reason, this system seems to be working just fine for me. I am here to learn, bottom line, and reading the debates and dialog, I am learning even more, yet take note when we have opposing sides to the same story, yet both are supposed to be of the same faith. I can take this further when I speak of the word of God with protestants and they bring up the Catholic faith with distain. I’m going, you guys want to learn, well, I have something to share, just as I learn from you as well regardless of the fact, they are protestants, and it should be regardless of the fact I am Catholic, yet here wer are debating over matters we should be in agreement with.