Jump to content
Itoero

Religion as evolutionary trait

Recommended Posts

On ‎14‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:33 AM, mistermack said:

 

So whatever suits your story is literal, and what doesn't is symbolic, or describing a vision?????

The author of Genesis (and countless readers after him) may well have believed that the "six days" of creation were literal, but science has confirmed that the "six days" in Genesis 1 are in fact, symbolic - just as the talking snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are probably symbolic.  Science has confirmed also that the verse that got Galileo into trouble was symbolic.   I believe the Genesis accounts of creation are a mixture of literal and symbolic - just as the book of Revelation is (which is the account of a vision).  

 

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 7:52 AM, Francis said:

Are you familiar with the concept of figurative/symbolic language?  How do you know that the author was not describing a vision?  And you're cherry-picking - do you really think a talking snake and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil were literal too?  Have a gander at the last book of the New Testament - Revelation - and try and tell me that the author was being completely literal!

Agreed. They don't sound literal at all. And neither do virgin birth, rising from the dead, the Holy Trinity, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or heaven and hell. Do you also agree those were not completely literal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

It's a shame your church doesn't go that extra step and say " we accept the theories produced by science and so must you".

 

Brilliant idea!  When an "accepted" science theory is replaced by a better one, then what?  The Church will have to say, "Yeah, well,  er ... about that ... we got that wrong ... but this new theory is a beauty!"   Thankfully, the Church is not that stupid.  

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Francis said:

 

That'd be just great!  When an "accepted" science theory is replaced by a better one, then what?  The Church will have to say, "Yeah, well ... about that ... we got that wrong ... but this new theory is a beauty!"   Thankfully, the Church is not that stupid.  

They would be stupid for... admitting to a mistake? And you wonder why people think religion is indeed stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Agreed. They don't sound literal at all. And neither do virgin birth, rising from the dead, the Holy Trinity, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or heaven and hell. Do you also agree those were not completely literal?

No

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They would be stupid for... admitting to a mistake? And you wonder why people think religion is indeed stupid.

The Church's role is not to be a judge of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Francis said:

No

So what is your criteria for deciding what is literal and what is not? Saying something took six days is meant to be figurative, but saying a virgin birth is meant to be literal? Sounds like you are cherry picking to meet your needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:19 AM, Strange said:

That is not a scientific fact.

I will rephrase my comment:  Catholics are obliged to believe that the universe had a beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zapatos said:

 Sounds like you are cherry picking to meet your needs.

 

Who doesn't cherry pick in this argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Francis said:

 

The Church's role is not to be a judge of science.

So then we still to believe that the sun orbits the earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So what is your criteria for deciding what is literal and what is not? Saying something took six days is meant to be figurative, but saying a virgin birth is meant to be literal? Sounds like you are cherry picking to meet your needs.

My criterion is the Church.  It decides how Scripture is interpreted, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Who doesn't cherry pick in this argument?

If one is cherry picking themselves, they shouldn't refer to 'cherry picking' by others as the use of an illogical argument. At least not if they want to be taken seriously.

Just now, Francis said:

My criterion is the Church.  It decides how Scripture is interpreted, not me.

You realize the church is made up of people just like you, right? They are not the word of God. Their interpretation is no more valid than yours.

Can you provide a citation that shows where the church actually interprets a talking snake and 6 day creation as figurative? I've seen members of the church argue both ways. Who is the authority I should believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So then we still to believe that the sun orbits the earth?

As far as the Church's mission is concerned, such things are irrelevant.  Catholics can believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat, if they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If one is cherry picking themselves, they shouldn't refer to 'cherry picking' by others as the use of an illogical argument. At least not if they want to be taken seriously.

 

Indeed, to which side are you referring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You realize the church is made up of people just like you, right? They are not the word of God. Their interpretation is no more valid than yours

I don't believe you.  The Catholic Church is, in effect, the word of God.  It exists before the NT did.

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Can you provide a citation that shows where the church actually interprets a talking snake and 6 day creation as figurative? I've seen members of the church argue both ways. Who is the authority I should believe.

The Church probably doesn't have a definite interpretation of the talking snake, because whether it's interpreted literally or not, I guess it doesn't matter.

As for the "six days", the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states they are "figurative" (if memory serves).  I can provide the exact wording,  but it might some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Francis said:

don't believe you.  The Catholic Church is, in effect, the word of God.  It exists before the NT did

A church, is a building used for Christian religious activities, particularly for worship services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Francis said:

The Catholic Church is, in effect, the word of God.  It exists before the NT did.

It literally didn't... And the word of God was written by people; you're not helping...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, to which side are you referring?

Francis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Can you provide a citation that shows where the church actually interprets ... 6 day creation as figurative? I've seen members of the church argue both ways.

 

 From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:- 

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Francis.

1 minute ago, Francis said:

 

 From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:- 

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."

 hard to argue.:rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Francis said:

I don't believe you.  The Catholic Church is, in effect, the word of God. 

Any good Catholic knows that only when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra is his word infallible. Anything else is an opinion. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

Quote

It exists before the NT did.

The Catholic Church existed prior to Christ? Hate to bother you but a citation would really help me out with that claim.

Quote

The Church probably doesn't have a definite interpretation of the talking snake, because whether it's interpreted literally or not, I guess it doesn't matter.

 


So if the Church doesn't have a definite interpretation of the talking snake, then why did you say it shouldn't be taken literally?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It literally didn't... And the word of God was written by people; you're not helping...

The NT wasn't officially compiled until about 300 years after Christ.  The Church, on the other hand, came into existence 50 days after Christ.  The early Christians only had access to the OT (if they were lucky) and the gospel and the teachings of the Church (as formalised by the apostles) were made known by word of mouth.  But I'm not going to get all that here.  Suffice to say that I was once a Protestant - been there, done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Francis said:

The NT wasn't officially compiled until about 300 years after Christ.  

Sorry, I misread that as being before Christ. My mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Francis said:

The early Christians only had access to the OT

Bollox, you don 't have to read to be taught.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Itoero said:

A church, is a building used for Christian religious activities, particularly for worship services.

So Christ died out of love for a building?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her "(Ephesian 5:25).

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Francis said:

So Christ died out of love for a building?

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her "(Ephesian 5:25).

Well god has been called The Great Architect of the Universe. (Although that was a prod so maybe you don't count it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.