Catholics says "Bible is the Truth of God....Sometimes

[welsh]

Sometimes not.

Ah this is bound to cause some confusion.

But those of you who think the Catholics are just completely crazy believers of creation- think again.

Europe

The Times October 05, 2005

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

Not totally accurate? God uses metaphors?

What do you mean, the Bible as comedy?

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

Human language? But as penned by the hand of God? Wasn't God working through the copy editor?

What the fuck?

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

Thems is fightin' words!
Catholics vs. Fundies!

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

Whoops no Apocalypse? Someone better tell the Bush family as this will ruin their plans.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

Ancient and New- kind of like the Constitution? Whoops, that's a different argument.

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

ANd on an off topic, does anyone know where I could find the South Park short where Jesus and Santa Clause fight it out?

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

Ok, so what's what?

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Fuck! I liked that one. I've been using that on my wife for years!

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Which might explain why divorce is so prevalent?

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Historical determinism there?

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

Hey, it could happen?

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

But what they didn't say was just after "I am who I am" the God also added, "Yo!"

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”


Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

JOIN THE DEBATE
www.timesonline.co.uk/debate

That's a lot of change.

Your thoughts?

 

[Mikey]

Hell, the Church of England was there years ago.

I like the way the Fundies skip around the fact that the Bible contradicts itself in so many places.

 

[Loxley]

I thought fundementalists loved the way the bible contradicts itself, because then they can enterpret it any way they want.

 

[welsh]

Ah but remember, every religion has its fundies. I think there are some fundamentalist catholics that are not going to dig this. Next thing you know, they won't be doing exorcisms anymore.

That said, I think the Southern Baptists had a recent discussion among the heirarchy that the word of God was not subject to individual interpretation but should be understood from church leaders.

Good luck with that one.

 

[John Uskglass]

Welsh, three diffirent topics on religion in two days is extreme by my standards. I'd be IP banned if I started 3 topics a day on how cool Jesus is.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I thought fundementalists loved the way the bible contradicts itself, because then they can enterpret it any way they want.

God bless you today Loxley you just saved me from writing a long post.

The fact is if you take the Bible literally thats understandable. If its the word of God then it must be perfect. Hence all of it is perfect...

...then how do you react to the occasional contradiction or foggy concept? Either you must stop completely or ignore one part and wallow in another. Ideally you could try to meditate on it and try to find some middle ground, but for fundamentalists there is no such thing as "middle".

Hence this gives them the right to ignore what they find displeasing and take what they find helpful.

Perhaps completely oblivious of the fact that "A man keeps his oath, even when it hurts." Anyone who would dare temporarily ignore one fact just, because it doesnt suit there current situation has no concept of honor.

Sorry if that makes anyone mad.

Sincerely Exacerbated,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Ashmo]

Hate to tell ya, but Catholics aren't neccessarily Bible humping.

Roman Catholicism is actually rather liberal when it comes to that. Lutherans for example are much stricter in that sense.

There are a lot of Catholic nutcases around, especially in deeply religious parts of the world (Bavarian "faithful" Catholics tend to be insane -- not like normal Bavarians wouldn't already be bad enough).

 

[Fas Ist]

The Vatican is a political power.Catolicism is not the real christianity, it's just politically powerful and many people around the world are manipulated by the Catholic church.I know some catholics and sometimes wonder - What does the Pope use to wash their brains so precisely

I expect everything from the Catholic church.It can't shock any more, even if the popes start raping each other.The Afro-American divine service in Sunday is an adequate example of the today's Catholic doctrine.They shout and sing unrespectively in the churches as it is a theater, God damned.

Nothing can surprise me any more!

 

[Ashmo]

You're giving me a headache.

Considering all the Christian cults and pseudo-religions that have popped up in the US throughout the past twohundred years, Roman Catholicism is rather harmless.

The problem with Roman Catholicism isn't the church itself, but the fundie subreligions.

Oh, and don't believe anything the Chick Tracts tell you about the Catholic church -- most of that stuff is factually wrong or only true for some communities.

As with everything, there are more conservative and more liberal groups among Catholics. I wouldn't expect to find the latter in places like South America, Bavaria or Vatican City, tho.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Hate to tell ya, but Catholics aren't neccessarily Bible humping.

Roman Catholicism is actually rather liberal when it comes to that. Lutherans for example are much stricter in that sense.

There are a lot of Catholic nutcases around, especially in deeply religious parts of the world (Bavarian "faithful" Catholics tend to be insane -- not like normal Bavarians wouldn't already be bad enough).

Thing about Catholicism is that it is found in vastly different nations, cultures, and political bodies. Really the only unifying thing about the religion IS religion...thats why it makes me happy to practice it. I'm not coercively bound to any other doctrine politically, culturally, etc. other than worshipping God. I just cant stand how some religions equate a political stance with a form of worship.

I'm sure that doesnt make God happy to be put in the same boat with politicians.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[John Uskglass]

Considering all the Christian cults and pseudo-religions that have popped up in the US throughout the past twohundred years, Roman Catholicism is rather harmless.
.

The entire city of Magdeburg circa 1631 would disagree with you there.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

The entire city of Magdeburg circa 1631 would disagree with you there.

It's opinion, like your's, is irrelevant.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

The bible is a historical book, there is no doubt about that, but it not the word of god. It's the preferred teachings of one jew sect, that was more acceptable by the leaders of past times, which then became the standard, even when the people didn't know what the bible sayid. Now that everyone(in the west) can read it, the missionaries try to expand it to every where else, and they are trying to explain all the inaccuracies by saying that some might be wrong, because the writers were wrong or couldn't handel the truth. The truth is that we are all doomed, but it doesn't matter cause we can't handel that, can we.

Hate to tell ya, but Catholics aren't neccessarily Bible humping.
Roman Catholicism is actually rather liberal when it comes to that. Lutherans for example are much stricter in that sense.

That's because the lutheran religion is newer than Catholicism, and there aren't that many contradictions between the well being of the people and the so called rules that are used from the bible.

 

[Ashmo]

Actually if you look at its history, the modern Bible is the compromise between many different translations of translations of translations of a subset of scriptures from different time periods that somehow relate to the original Christianism and its roots.

When I was talking about Roman Catholicism as harmless, I was talking about Roman Catholicism in its present form.

Throughout the Middle Ages the institutionalised Catholic Church in Rome had a strict control over the politics of most of Europe because of the strong faith people put in it at those times.
That political power was the reason for the Christian crusades and the witch burnings and all that.

After the Enlightenment, the political power of religions, and the Catholic Church in particular, declined.

There are few deeply religious political leaders who strictly follow the will of the Catholic Church.
A good example is, sadly, our beloved George W, who requested an audience with the now-deceased Pope John Paul and decided against his wish to lead and continue the wars in the Middle East.

George W claims to have met Jesus Christ in his dream and holds strong faith in a (sic) Christian God, although he is definitely not Catholic. Even though he apparently hoped for support by the Catholic Church, he did not let their disapproval influence his decision.

There are fundies who take the word of the Catholic Church as law and violently oppose attempts to liberalise issues like Safer Sex among Roman Catholics -- even these don't follow the Bible, tho, since the Safer Sex issue is one raised by Christian churches, not by the Bible itself (despite misquotations).

Same goes for the cults focussing on Mary and the Virgin Birth -- which is de facto a mere translation error and thus not in the actual Bible.

Cults and subreligions claiming to have the root of their dogma written in the Bible are always quite suspicious. Nearly all of them rely on ambiguous similes or wordings that are likely caused by one of the translations rather than the original "Word of God".
With the Catholic Church you at least know the majority of the system is not based on the Bible itself, and IIRC, the Church even aknowledges that.

 

[welsh]

@ John- It was a slow week for apocalyptic stories and not much new in politics and science. So it was either guns or religion. Besides religion has been in the news.

I agree with much of what Ashmo says above. The Catholic Church has gone pretty liberal and does, generally, accept the evolutionalist claims to the origin of life and has, at least recently, taken science more seriously.

Why? Perhaps its experience. You can't help Nazi's escape, launch crusades, burn witches or deny the world is round for too long before you start to realize that your religion is really just a matter of faith.

Which is one of the things I like about being Catholic. A lot of the first universities were established by Catholics and there remains a strong dedication within Catholicism to education. And education means power.

So yes, it's not the same church that it was in the middle ages. Furthermore, I think the church has had to deal with apologies for a long time now, and therefore appreciates both it's notions of responsibility to the community, as well as guilt for some nastiness in the past.

So you have catholics protesting abortion, but you also have catholics against the death penalty- at least they are more consistent than both liberals and conservatives.

At the same time, the church is different depending on where you go. For example in some places it still is a very conservative influence- historically this was true in the Philippines, but then the church played a critical role in the removal of Marcos and the beginnings of that country's democratic movement. The church was at the forefront of the protests at East Timor against Indonesia. It has been both supportive of strongmen against communists, but then has been critical of societies for the way they treat the power. John Paul II was very conservative, but when he went to Brazil he spoke in one of the country's biggest slum areas, and made a very generous gift. Likewise in Singapore, the chruch has been outspoken about the country's willingness to ignore many of its social problems.

And while people may criticize the church for its money, these same folks should be critical of the Jimmy Swaggart's who own diamond mines in corrupt African countries or open up golf courses for the faithful on top of Florida swampland.

Chick is an asshole.

Oh and most African-Americans are not Catholics but, I think, are Southern Baptists with a healthy dose of Seventh Day Adventist and other sects thrown in.