Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: TheDayTheDollarDies on September 24, 2014, 06:17:21 PM
-
-
lol
-
lol
You watched it Veri? It was pretty funny watching all the "smart" people.
-
I normally say all disciplines rely on faith.
The only difference between religion and science. One is ready to change in response to new information. The other one digs in.
-
Kadude, I am in a common computer lab and have no ear phones, so i cant hear what the video is saying, only watch. From the few images, it seems quite clear to me that these are atheists. I am sure you know that I am not. I therefore take serious exception to the cavalier manner in which you attribute atheism to me. I will forgive the offence this time, but next time, watch out. Hayo tu.
-
I normally say all disciplines rely on faith.
The only difference between religion and science. One is ready to change in response to new information. The other one digs in.
How come "scientists" have never been willing to change despite the fact that their own theories can never stand their own tests? What about the Chemistry majors and so on..how much evidence did they have in the first place?
-
Kadude, I am in a common computer lab and have no ear phones, so i cant hear what the video is saying, only watch. From the few images, it seems quite clear to me that these are atheists. I am sure you know that I am not. I therefore take serious exception to the cavalier manner in which you attribute atheism to me. I will forgive the offence this time, but next time, watch out. Hayo tu.
Hahaha...no sweet kadame. These are NOT atheists. They are just believers in evolution. NONE of them has said he's an atheist. Even that question has not been asked.
-
I have to agree with Dollar here. I have a science degree and I must say most of those scientists are quacks like religious quacks. They follow protocols without question. A few scientists think beyond their paycheck and practice science with integrity, same goes for religious quacks. Minority groups within science and religion converge on the same page. It seems that page involves a higher being out there somewhere. It's the only way it can explain being "enlightened"
-
Kadude, I am in a common computer lab and have no ear phones, so i cant hear what the video is saying, only watch. From the few images, it seems quite clear to me that these are atheists. I am sure you know that I am not. I therefore take serious exception to the cavalier manner in which you attribute atheism to me. I will forgive the offence this time, but next time, watch out. Hayo tu.
Hahaha...no sweet kadame. These are NOT atheists. They are just believers in evolution. NONE of them has said he's an atheist. Even that question has not been asked.
Kadude, but who told you I "believe" in evolution? I am just unwilling to dismiss it, unlike you. :D I believe it the same way I "believe" other scientific theories. It's not a matter of faith for me. What is a matter of faith for me is that the scriptures were not written to describe to me the mechanical workings of the universe. :) To me, nature and revelation are two books by the same author but treating on completely different subjects/using different language/needing me to employ different reading methods. Because I believe they have the same author, I do not admit any true contradiction can exist between the two "books".
If there appears to be a contradiction, I follow the advice of the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides who was such a big influence on St. Thomas Aquinas. The Jewish thinker said, there can be no contradiction between the Torah and science. If such a contradiction be found, two things are the cause: Either the science is misunderstood or the Torah is misinterpreted. :D Hence, the only two "true" things are the Torah and nature. Science and interpretation are methods of understanding, but nature and Torah themselves are concrete.
The way I see your position and mine: I am willing to admit that it is possible that my understanding of the Bible may be off, but you are not so willing. I'm willing to distinguish my own understanding from the scripture itself, you are unwilling to admit that there can be a difference between your own understanding and what the scripture says.
I am willing to admit this because I do not believe it possible that the revelation could contain error. I also do not believe in a God that is contrary to reason, in fact I am taught to disbelieve in such a God. I believe in a God that transcends human reason--infinitely so--but not contradict it. God gave as reason so that we could know him, and knowing him, we might love him, for we cannot chose what we don't first know. We know God above all first from the natural world and employing our reason to understand it, aided by grace of course, long before we get the gift of faith. That same God cannot then require us to deny what appears plain to our reason.
This does not mean that I will discard my faith if science "proves" something contrary. I am willing to have the mind-set I have because I have absolutely no doubt that science will never "prove" such a thing. It is an impossibility, as far as I am concerned. To the contrary, should that "appear" to happen, my position will be that the reality is not as it appears, hence, the scientists are not wrong, yet they are still mistaken. :D We Catholics believe that it is REALLY the body and blood of Christ that we take in communion. Science tells us it is just bread and wine. We do not deny the science. We simply acknowledge that the science describes appearances but not the actual reality because the reality in this case is beyond any scientific methodology. :D
-
:c029:
I love you Kadame. Marry me.
-
Lol! Thanks Veri for that compliment. :D Hugs!
-
Thank YOU!
:respect:
-
:D We Catholics believe that it is REALLY the body and blood of Christ that we take in communion. Science tells us it is just bread and wine. We do not deny the science. We simply acknowledge that the science describes appearances but not the actual reality because the reality in this case is beyond any scientific methodology. :D
KD
So let me ask you, you believe that the bread turns into the body of Christ literally (transubstantiation,) despite the fact that we use "the body of Christ") very figuratively. If a sicentist comes and tells you that this is not the body of Christ, will you give him the opportunity to argue his case?
Nope!
Why because you know that you know that you know that THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.
But here he comes and tells you, mmmhhh the world was made billions of years ago. And you say, mhhhh...could be...and yet, the BIBLE says that the earth was formed within one day, and animals made within one day.
So the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible, but you'd rather "tamper with your understanding," just to accommodate the possibility of the scientists being right, but you'd not tamper with your understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation, to accommodate the fact that the scientist could be right. Just may be.
How do you reconcile this?
KD-2
-
:c029:
I love you Kadame. Marry me.
Veri - BTW, do you ever plan on getting married?
-
:D We Catholics believe that it is REALLY the body and blood of Christ that we take in communion. Science tells us it is just bread and wine. We do not deny the science. We simply acknowledge that the science describes appearances but not the actual reality because the reality in this case is beyond any scientific methodology. :D
KD
So let me ask you, you believe that the bread turns into the body of Christ literally (transubstantiation,) despite the fact that we use "the body of Christ") very figuratively. If a sicentist comes and tells you that this is not the body of Christ, will you give him the opportunity to argue his case?
Nope!
Why because you know that you know that you know that THIS IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.
But here he comes and tells you, mmmhhh the world was made billions of years ago. And you say, mhhhh...could be...and yet, the BIBLE says that the earth was formed within one day, and animals made within one day.
So the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible, but you'd rather "tamper with your understanding," just to accommodate the possibility of the scientists being right, but you'd not tamper with your understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation, to accommodate the fact that the scientist could be right. Just may be.
How do you reconcile this?
KD-2
KD, I will not say nope! to the scientist. I know his test-tubes tell him its bread and wine, just like my eyes, nose and tongue tell me the exact same thing! In fact, we dont need his test-tube at all! I just distinguish "accidents" from "substance" as St. Thomas called them. I don't need to insist that the scientist has it wrong when he describes findings of bread properties or wine properties. (PS_ We Catholics have NEVER used "body of Christ" figuratively)
Now you, if you were to be consistent, should not believe that it was the earth that stood still at that battle with Joshua. Why? Because the Bible "says" it was the sun. You should deny that there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed. Why? Because the Bible "said" the mustard seed was the smallest. etc etc.
You say the Bible says it was one day. Yet the Bible also says there was no sky, sun, earth. So how on earth can I assume that that day was my earthly 24 hour day, should I decide to take it literally? Who is assuming things when we decide it was like Monday and Tuesday...me or you? On some planets, a day can be three hours only...or much longer. We know that it is just the length of time it takes to complete a rotation on the axis. This tells me very clearly that the Bible is not talking about the things I assume in my every-day life when I talk of day, morning, evening. etc
Moreover, there is too much figurative language in the story of the fall for me to ignore. :D When the Bible says God "breathed" into Adam, I am sure you don't then assume that God has lungs and nostrils, do you? You understand it must be metaphorical. Besides, the animals breathe just fine, dont they? They never had Divinity breathe into them. When it tells us God walked in the garden in the evening, you don't assume God is a physical being, do you? When it tells us God punished the snake, do you assume God confused a snake with Satan?
The creation accounts were also written from two oral traditions of the Hebrews. It cannot be denied that they may very well have been a poem/song describing the creation. The arrangement certainly fits the style.
Because of these and many other reasons, these first two chapters have not been unanimously interpreted as speaking literally right from the early church, and even amongst Jews. Plus the church has tolerated both readings, literal and symbolic, these 2,000 years. Is that a coincidence? Me dont think so. I pursue the symbolic interpretation because it does not contradict both science and my own reason as I read the text. If I have an option between two understandings, why should I opt for the absurd?
-
KD, I will not say nope! to the scientist. I know his test-tubes tell him its bread and wine, just like my eyes, nose and tongue tell me the exact same thing! In fact, we don’t need his test-tube at all! I just distinguish "accidents" from "substance" as St. Thomas called them. I don't need to insist that the scientist has it wrong when he describes findings of bread properties or wine properties. (PS_ We Catholics have NEVER used "body of Christ" figuratively)
So how can two people agree on WHAT is, when they disagree on WHAT is?
So Catholics believe that the church is the LITERAL body of Christ?
Now you, if you were to be consistent, should not believe that it was the earth that stood still at that battle with Joshua. Why? Because the Bible "says" it was the sun. You should deny that there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed. Why? Because the Bible "said" the mustard seed was the smallest. etc etc.
Have I said that the Bible is ALWAYS a literal book? Certainly Not. Be it as it may, where do you get the Idea that the Earth stood still?
Has it ever occurred to you there are certain regions in this world which have got over 20 hours of sunshine during summer?
What If God in his majesty chose to accelerate the seasons and made summer to appear before its time during the days of Joshua?
What if he chose to tilt the earth so that Israel were directly at the North pole?
What causes one part to be dark and another light? Is it not the opaqueness of the earth?
What if God chose to make the crust of the earth transparent so that the light of the sun kept shining through the earth?
What if God decided to lower the sun a little bit or made it much bigger so that it shone over a greater surface area? This way, the day would still have 24 hours and not 48 hours?
What if, 100 years from now, we discover that it is actually the sun that revolves around the earth and that modern scientists were making calculations without taking into account Serioptrey – a force that is 20 times as powerful as the force of gravity and which will be discovered by a Somalian scientist in 2086?
Whatever the answer is, the sun stood still – simple meaning – the sun kept shining for an extra 24 hours. How God did this, we don’t know – if he would have told us, we would have known. I will not try to use science to understand the Bible. Just because I will teach my kids that the concept that the earth rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun is a scientific fact, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
Just because I used to sing Madam Veronica Every Morning Just Sits Under National Parade in trying to memorize the “scientifically proven 9” planets, never meant that Pluto would never be declared a non-planet a few years later.
But as I have said, the Bible is a figurative book too. That’s not what I disagree, what I want, is you to tell me where you get the authority to claim that Genesis 1 is figurative – and so we move to the next paragraph.
You say the Bible says it was one day. Yet the Bible also says there was no sky, sun, earth. So how on earth can I assume that that day was my earthly 24 hour day, should I decide to take it literally? Who is assuming things when we decide it was like Monday and Tuesday...me or you? On some planets, a day can be three hours only...or much longer. We know that it is just the length of time it takes to complete a rotation on the axis. This tells me very clearly that the Bible is not talking about the things I assume in my every-day life when I talk of day, morning, evening. etc
I don’t know Hebrew and I’m not sure whether you do. So I’ll stick to my KJV.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
As you can see, the literal concept of day and night are seen from Evening and Morning. So as in your everyday life of morning and evening, you've been answered.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Which seasons do you think God is talking about here? Which years? Figurative or literal?
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Which seventh day did God sanctify? Was it a figurative Seventh day or a literal seventh day?
Moreover, there is too much figurative language in the story of the fall for me to ignore.
You are jumping into conclusions already about some figurative language.
When the Bible says God "breathed" into Adam, I am sure you don't then assume that God has lungs and nostrils, do you? You understand it must be metaphorical.
Again, you’re trying to understand what is not your portion. What if God in his majesty took the form of a human body/or that of an Angel and breathed into Adam?
The Bible says, GOD breathed into Adam. If God had done something else, we would have been told. But the Bible says, GOD BREATHED INTO ADAM.
Besides, the animals breathe just fine, dont they? They never had Divinity breathe into them.
What if God chose to breathe into Adam for Adam to live, but chose to command animals to live without having to breathe into them? What is that to you? Shall you tell God how to make life?
When it tells us God walked in the garden in the evening, you don't assume God is a physical being, do you?
What if God choice to take up a physical being in order to talk with Adam just as he chose to take a physical body in order to save the descendants of Adam, what is it to you?
When it tells us God punished the snake, do you assume God confused a snake with Satan?
Why would God confuse the snake with Satan? What if God punished the snake for allowing the devil to possess it and use its body in order to be able to speak to Adam?
The creation accounts were also written from two oral traditions of the Hebrews. It cannot be denied that they may very well have been a poem/song describing the creation. The arrangement certainly fits the style.
Do you read Hebrew or is this an opinion that you have gathered from a scholar?
Could you please tell me what these oral traditions are?
Are these “oral traditions” the word of God or are they not?
Because of these and many other reasons, these first two chapters have not been unanimously interpreted as speaking literally right from the early church, and even among Jews.
How relevant is the opinion of the “Jews” and the “early church” are they the Holy Spirit? Did not the Jews themselves differ on whether there is resurrection or not? Why would you base your interpretation on the opinion of people who never had the benefit of the Holy Spirit?
Plus the church has tolerated both readings, literal and symbolic, these 2,000 years. Is that a coincidence? Me don’t think so.
The Church has tolerated a lot of nonsense ever since its existence – even from the days of Paul: was it a coincidence? Was the tolerating of the selling of indulgences right?
I pursue the symbolic interpretation because it does not contradict both science and my own reason as I read the text. If I have an option between two understandings, why should I opt for the absurd?
Absurd according to who? Science? Your reasoning? The philosphies and the wisdom of this world? The wisdom of Darwin? Or What the Bible says?
So now you are auditing the Bible based on scientific evidence? Do you not know that this is a sure path to unbelief? (http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=425.msg3515#msg3515)
The worst of all (if there is anything most troubling tonight,) is your assertion that you follow an interpretation that does not contradict Science. Does the doctrine of transubstantiation contradict science? Are you not the one that has said that you cannot subject it to scientific methodology? A doctrine that has not been expressly stated in the Bible? But now you are willing to subject a clearly stated passage to scientific methodology?
Does this make sense to you?
As I told you somewhere else with love of course,) that the Bible is a simple book that will need you to get someone to help you misunderstand it. Please. Read the Bible and let it speak to you. Do not follow after “scholars” and “philosophers.”
Do you know why whenever Jesus was teaching people were amazed by his TEACHING WITH AUTHORITY? Because he wasn't quoting this Rabbi and that Rabbi like the scribes did. Only time he did quote anything, he quoted the scriptures. That is what you should stick to. Not St. Thomas and St. Augustine or a Jewish Philosopher.
Lastly, you are confusing two things: WHAT God did and HOW he did it. Just becausse you do not understand how God did what he did, doesn't mean that you should go ahead to question whether God really did what the Bible says he did.
With Love
KD
-
So how can two people agree on WHAT is, when they disagree on WHAT is?
For me, its quite simple. Whatver doesnt contradict the faith is permissible. If something contradicts the faith, the church has historically condemned it in one form or another, in a Ecumenical Council. For you as a protestant, what gives you the right to say one interpretation is truer than another? For example, why do you decide the book of St. John when speaking of the body of christ is not literal, but Genesis is literal? What gives you the authority to decide which is which?
So Catholics believe that the church is the LITERAL body of Christ?
Yep! We believe we truly and really become part of Christ's body when we get baptized. We believe it is truly one body, encompassing all the saints, even those who are in heaven. :D The "how" of it, is of course, miraculous. We don't bother understanding that part, that's God's portion. We do however BELIEVE it. And we believe it is Christ's literal body that we take every time we go to mass. :)
Have I said that the Bible is ALWAYS a literal book? Certainly Not. Be it as it may, where do you get the Idea that the Earth stood still?
Has it ever occurred to you there are certain regions in this world which have got over 20 hours of sunshine during summer?
What If God in his majesty chose to accelerate the seasons and made summer to appear before its time during the days of Joshua?
What if he chose to tilt the earth so that Israel were directly at the North pole?
What causes one part to be dark and another light? Is it not the opaqueness of the earth?
What if God chose to make the crust of the earth transparent so that the light of the sun kept shining through the earth?
What if God decided to lower the sun a little bit or made it much bigger so that it shone over a greater surface area? This way, the day would still have 24 hours and not 48 hours?
What if, 100 years from now, we discover that it is actually the sun that revolves around the earth and that modern scientists were making calculations without taking into account Serioptrey – a force that is 20 times as powerful as the force of gravity and which will be discovered by a Somalian scientist in 2086?
Whatever the answer is, the sun stood still – simple meaning – the sun kept shining for an extra 24 hours.
Exactly! It could have been any number of things. That's exactly my point! The point is that YOU dont take the words "the sun stood still" literally!. You take them to mean what was intended: TIME stood still, that is the truth being communicated there, that God caused a miracle to happen so that night did not fall as usual. but if someone mindlessly tried to insist on reading science into that statement, they's dtart trying to fight scientists today trying to get them to say that the sun physically moves across the earth's sky so that it could "stand still".
How God did this, we don’t know – if he would have told us, we would have known. I will not try to use science to understand the Bible. Just because I will teach my kids that the concept that the earth rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun is a scientific fact, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
Just because I used to sing Madam Veronica Every Morning Just Sits Under National Parade in trying to memorize the “scientifically proven 9” planets, never meant that Pluto would never be declared a non-planet a few years later.
But as I have said, the Bible is a figurative book too. That’s not what I disagree, what I want, is you to tell me where you get the authority to claim that Genesis 1 is figurative – and so we move to the next paragraph.
My ultimate authority is the church- the pillar and foundation of truth! :D That's where my safety net is, and my fence.
You on the other hand, have to tell me where you decide that St. john is being figurative while Genesis is being literal. Is it your pastor? Is it you? Is it the the Holy Spirit? How do you know that he is telling YOU the truth but not me? :D
The rest in the next post.
-
I don’t know Hebrew and I’m not sure whether you do. So I’ll stick to my KJV.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
As you can see, the literal concept of day and night are seen from Evening and Morning. So as in your everyday life of morning and evening, you've been answered.
Sorry, but the idea this is "literal" is just your assumption. My everyday "day" has evening and morning, but this does not mean every where on earth, this would be the same thing. There are places that know 24 hours sunlight. Would you say these people are experiencing the same "day" after those 24 hours? My point, the day of Genesis has little to do with my own day, because my ow day starts with the sun and ends with the moon. Mrning is not just a mindless word. I know "morning" when I see the sun come up in my sky. I know evening when I see it go down. You want to tell me to pretend that my morning and evening can make sense without the sun and moon and rotating earth, and then just pretend that God was speaking of the same thing when he spoke of a completely different morning and evening than mine, ones without any sky, sun, moon, stars. 8) The funny thing is that in all this, you have actually convinced yourself that yours is the more realist interpretation (literal, for lack of a better word) than mine! In truth, yours is more of a projection than a literal reading.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Which seasons do you think God is talking about here? Which years? Figurative or literal?
All it says is that God made stars. He made them with the foreknowledge and providence that they would be useful to humans. Why should I doubt that God made stars and that he made them for the good of mankind?? I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this....
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Which seventh day did God sanctify? Was it a figurative Seventh day or a literal seventh day?
The days are not literal. I have no doubt about that, because my days consist in the earth's rotation on its axis with a face towards and away from the sun. Genesis' days clearly are not the same things I call days when I speak of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I see you conveniently, disregarded the part that describes these days as days that have nothing to do with the things that make our days when we humans speak of them.
Neither is the "order" of one day, the after 2nd day, then after third day etc etc. literal. There is a church father for whom those were simply different realms of existence in God's creation that are described. Just a poetic device of describing the truth that God fashioned all things deliberately and orderly, no more. :D
When the Bible says God "breathed" into Adam, I am sure you don't then assume that God has lungs and nostrils, do you? You understand it must be metaphorical.
Again, you’re trying to understand what is not your portion. What if God in his majesty took the form of a human body/or that of an Angel and breathed into Adam?
How would an angel breathe into Adam? Angels are spirits. I don't need to speculate "what if God took on the form of a human body". How would a human body breathe life into another? I also know that the "breathe of life" breathed into Adam was more than oxygen, which is what your literalist interpretation wants to insist on. This "breathe" in Adam was something else, it made Adam a "living soul", something God never said of any other creature.
The Bible says, GOD breathed into Adam. If God had done something else, we would have been told. But the Bible says, GOD BREATHED INTO ADAM.
That is just silly, sorry KD. God is not a an animal and God does not "breathe". If you accept that the Bible is not 100% literal, why on earth decide on such a ridiculous reading. So if Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest, IT WAS THE SMALLEST! If you are consistent, you should similarly type so. You basically deny even the concept of language itself, and the fact that it is in itself inherently symbolic.
Besides, the animals breathe just fine, dont they? They never had Divinity breathe into them.
What if God chose to breathe into Adam for Adam to live, but chose to command animals to live without having to breathe into them? What is that to you? Shall you tell God how to make life?
The fact is that if it was mere breathe God gave Adam, it would be identical to that we share with animals (and plants!). The point is, the fact that the scriptures make a point of telling us that GOD breathed life into Adam is SIGNIFICANT. What is that significance? Your literalist reading avoids all this and basically refuses to ponder on anything beyond the immediate words. That is a completely wrong way to read because you basically read as if you assume the Bible was written by a modern English-speaker from your own village, hence no need to understand any context or figures of speech at all.
When it tells us God walked in the garden in the evening, you don't assume God is a physical being, do you?
What if God choice to take up a physical being in order to talk with Adam just as he chose to take a physical body in order to save the descendants of Adam, what is it to you?
The fact is that God becoming incarnate happened ONCE. It was so special the Jews couldn't conceive of it. This is the ridiculousness of a literal reading, you are basically willing to conjure up a whole dogma of a previous Divine incarnation just to maintain your current interpretation, just so you can keep your current understanding of it, and then you think yours is the more faithful approach...huh? :o
When it tells us God punished the snake, do you assume God confused a snake with Satan?
Why would God confuse the snake with Satan? What if God punished the snake for allowing the devil to possess it and use its body in order to be able to speak to Adam?
I am going to assume you are joking :D You believe in a God who punishes creatures that have no free will for ''allowing"--never mind that they could not POSSIBLY do that seeing as they have NO CHOICE in the matter--never mind that at all, He is punishing them for allowing their bodies to be possessed by vastly superior intellectual beings!?!? Like I said, the absurdity of a literalist viewing is that it allows you to conjure up the most ridiculous dogmas in order to maintain your interpretation. Already in this discussion, we have had, Adam was not the first man--or that there was a previous Divine incarnation that walked in Eden, now we have animals having free will, so that we can have them punished for "allowing" their bodies to be possessed. :D Still counting. (We don't even know there was a possession at all, but never mind. You get to infer as many other dogmas and facts as you like to keep a literalist interpretation :D) Lets keep reading and see how many more we create in order to maintain that Genesis was totally literal. :D
The creation accounts were also written from two oral traditions of the Hebrews. It cannot be denied that they may very well have been a poem/song describing the creation. The arrangement certainly fits the style.
Do you read Hebrew or is this an opinion that you have gathered from a scholar?
Could you please tell me what these oral traditions are?
Are these “oral traditions” the word of God or are they not?
Of course I rely on scholars. So do you, of course. The problem is that you believe in a fiction that tells you that when you read your Bible, it's just you and the Bible (and God). Tell me, seeing as you you dont read Hebrew, how did you verify that the copy you have was properly translated by the SCHOLAR who did that translation? :o
-
Because of these and many other reasons, these first two chapters have not been unanimously interpreted as speaking literally right from the early church, and even among Jews.
How relevant is the opinion of the “Jews” and the “early church” are they the Holy Spirit? Did not the Jews themselves differ on whether there is resurrection or not? Why would you base your interpretation on the opinion of people who never had the benefit of the Holy Spirit?
It's not just Jews, its early Christians too. Why are you saying Jews never had the benefit of the Holy Spirit? You think the scriptures they wrote were man-made fiction?
Plus the church has tolerated both readings, literal and symbolic, these 2,000 years. Is that a coincidence? Me don’t think so.
The Church has tolerated a lot of nonsense ever since its existence – even from the days of Paul: was it a coincidence? Was the tolerating of the selling of indulgences right?
The indulgences were abuses, and they were practices, just like Christians divorcing and remarrying today. The difference is that the interpretations we are talking about were TAUGHT as proper Christian teachings and there were debates about it, with majority supporting a literalist view and a minority supporting an allegorical view. The church never condemned the Allegorists as heretics and she has refused to do so even today. The indulgence-selling were abuses, and they were not tolerated for 2 millennia! That may seem a small difference to you but to me it is very significant.
I pursue the symbolic interpretation because it does not contradict both science and my own reason as I read the text. If I have an option between two understandings, why should I opt for the absurd?
Absurd according to who? Science? Your reasoning? The philosphies and the wisdom of this world? The wisdom of Darwin? Or What the Bible says?
The Bible does not interpret itself. It is a BOOK! Sacred and true, yes. A book (bookS, actually), nonetheless. If you are claiming here that you do not employ your reason when you read the Bible, then please tell me how you ever decided that certain parts of the Bible were figurative as you alluded to earlier?
So now you are auditing the Bible based on scientific evidence? Do you not know that this is a sure path to unbelief? (http://www.nipate.org/index.php?topic=425.msg3515#msg3515)
The worst of all (if there is anything most troubling tonight,) is your assertion that you follow an interpretation that does not contradict Science. Does the doctrine of transubstantiation contradict science? Are you not the one that has said that you cannot subject it to scientific methodology? A doctrine that has not been expressly stated in the Bible? But now you are willing to subject a clearly stated passage to scientific methodology?
Does this make sense to you?
Transubstantiation does not contradict science, any more than the incarnation of God in Jesus contradicts science. If you put Jesus under an X-ray, it would tell you that he was just a human being and no more. That's because God the Word is beyond the X-ray. In communion, we believe that what is present is a person who is beyond this world. Please understand the difference between transcend and contradict. One means to be beyond something, the other means to be opposed to it. If the latter is true, one of the opposed things must be false, they cannot both be true. So, NO! There's nothing in communion that "contradicts" science.
As I told you somewhere else with love of course,) that the Bible is a simple book that will need you to get someone to help you misunderstand it. Please. Read the Bible and let it speak to you. Do not follow after “scholars” and “philosophers.”
That is ridiculous. Tell me, Did the Bible fall from the sky onto your lap? Did you receive it from someone? How do you know they gave you the correct book? Also, the Bible itself repudiates your advice. St. peter warned Christians who insisted on private interpretation as you are presuming. He certainly knew more about the path to unbelief than you, I assume. I think his advise is best here, not yours. Besides, if what you said was true, if it was SOOOO simple to always to understand what the Bible means, why are there so many different interpretations and sects? How exactly do you know your own reading is the clearest and anything else opposed is the wrong one?
Do you know why whenever Jesus was teaching people were amazed by his TEACHING WITH AUTHORITY? Because he wasn't quoting this Rabbi and that Rabbi like the scribes did. Only time he did quote anything, he quoted the scriptures. That is what you should stick to. Not St. Thomas and St. Augustine or a Jewish Philosopher.
That is false. Both Jesus and the Apostles quoted the JEWISH ORAL TRADITION in the New Testament.
And that Jesus spoke with authority had nothing to do with quoting scriptures. 8) Where do you get such a thing? Anyone with half a mind can quote the scriptures and the pharisees were quite adept at it. That phrase is with reference to Jesus' own personal impact on his audience as he spoke. Jesus does NOT derive his authority from NO scriptures. You have the cart before the Horse. It is the scriptures that can derive authority from Christ, not the other way around. Please get that straight. Jesus' authority is from his OWN person...He is GOD. This is what those people were noticing as he taught. He did not teach like others who teach from what a higher authority says, Jesus was teaching them with his own authority, and their spirits sensed that.
Lastly, you are confusing two things: WHAT God did and HOW he did it. Just becausse you do not understand how God did what he did, doesn't mean that you should go ahead to question whether God really did what the Bible says he did.
You will NEVER catch me making that error, try as you may. :D No. I am denying what you claim God DID, not "HOW" he did it. I am denying it, because it is senseless (to me) and because there is a better understanding to it that is in accord with the rest of the scriptures.
With Love
KD
Right back atcha!
KD. :D
-
:respect:
-
I was drawn by the mention of the length of day. This has been getting longer with the passage of time. In tandem with the increasing distance between the earth and the moon. I can look up figures if anyone is interested.
-
I was drawn by the mention of the length of day. This has been getting longer with the passage of time. In tandem with the increasing distance between the earth and the moon. I can look up figures if anyone is interested.
Please do
-
Another thing, KD, Do you believe that snakes talk? Actually have conversations with women about fruit, trees, wisdom and death? There was nothing in Genesis about God taking away this lofty gift, so maybe the snakes we have today are just pretending when humans are around and when we are not there they yap like no one's business? :zen: In the story of the fall, Eve was not at all surprised that the snake was having a conversation with her. :o In fact, that story if you read it literally, is actually NOT talking about the devil AT ALL. It is talking about the animal we call a snake, hence there's nothing at all like "it was possessed", or even "it was Satan in disguise". Genesis says it was the craftiest of all the wild animals, and in God's curse, he curses the animal "above all livestock and wild animals" and not Satan anywhere.
Hence, we have God physically walking, so that the "sound" of his steps are heard by human ears; we have God engaging in physical mechanisms like breathing; We have a snake that is quite crafty, intelligent, complete with free will. I mean, this snake is positively a spiritual creature by any and all accounts :D; So much cleverer is it than human beings, it actually convinces them into a rebellion; God punishes the snake by making it crawl and eating "dust" (Which snake "eats" dust?) etc etc etc. Anyone who insists that reading this literally as opposed to symbolically is the best way to understand it, and then tries to "condemn" me for a wrong interpretation...I just don't get. Hayo tu! :D
-
I was drawn by the mention of the length of day. This has been getting longer with the passage of time. In tandem with the increasing distance between the earth and the moon. I can look up figures if anyone is interested.
Please do
Every century the length of earth's rotation increases by 2.3 milliseconds. Yesterday was shorter than today.
Currently the secular change in the rotation rate increases the length of day by some 2.3 milliseconds per day per century.
http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html
-
That's because the universe is expanding. Think of a dough baking in an oven.
-
http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent
Prominent in NT and not Torah.
-
http://creation.com/who-was-the-serpent
Prominent in NT and not Torah.
Their reading still has problems. WHY did God punish the snake and not Satan? It also implies that Eve was a bit of a dunder-head...shouldn't she have been a tad surprised when the snake started behaving (and sounding) like something other than a snake? Plus Genesis itself says that the serpent was the craftiest of all the animals that God had made. It clearly is not talking about an "agent" in another's hand.
-
The serpent is the accuser aka satan.
-
KD, this time, I'll be brief because after reading your response, I've concluded that our premises are TOTALLY different, and our aim for debating here may be totally different.
First, if you can "twist" my "What if" questions so that you can conclude that I'm setting up a dogma, then it's impossible that you would understand me on ANYTHING ELSE.
Secondly, you say that God could only take a human form once? What about the the "Fire form" How many times should he take that ? Now that it seems you are bent on telling God HOW he should do what he wants to do? How many times should he appear in thunder form? How many times should he appear in a burning bush? What about a still small voice? Do the scholars have an opinion on that?
Lastly, I think your conclusion and acceptance that you rely on scholars to do what the Holy Spirit should do sums it all up. It is not a wonder then you are willing to accept the doctrine of bread turning into body, even if a scientist would tell you in a council that THAT IS NOT BLOOD AND MEAT and even if your own mouth did, simply because Catholicism states it IS SO.
But where Catholicism doesn't have a firm position, you will go ahead and audit the word of God based on Science and even throw a hint by saying the Genesis 1 and 2 were "Oral Jewish Traditions" (which seems to be a holier version pundits "Jewish Myths".) All along, I thought it is established that It is the Infallible word of God. It is telling that you didn't bother to answer whether these "Oral Jewish Traditions" "With different styles" are God's word.
All in all, peace. But wisdom is Justified of all her children - Luke 7:35
-
Lastly, I think your conclusion and acceptance that you rely on scholars to do what the Holy Spirit should do sums it all up. It is not a wonder then you are willing to accept the doctrine of bread turning into body, even if a scientist would tell you in a council that THAT IS NOT BLOOD AND MEAT and even if your own mouth did, simply because Catholicism states it IS SO.
I thought you wanted me to believe in God/the Bible and not science. You are telling me to believe in "THIS IS NOT BLOOD AND MEAT" when Jesus said "THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD"...Why are you now asking me to believe in the scientists and not Jesus? :D
All in all, peace. But wisdom is Justified of all her children - Luke 7:35
Peace to you too, KaDude.
-
Kadame, are you Christian or Jewish? I'm getting a hint of both...
-
Kadame, are you Christian or Jewish? I'm getting a hint of both...
My dear, I am very much a Catholic. :D I wanted to be Jewish back in High-School (Muslim too, at some point) but ultimately for me, Christ's divinity is the clincher. When you read the History and discussion of early Christianity and Christian scriptures (A good deal of which are Jewish), you cannot help but discuss the Jews. There's no Christianity without the Hebrews. Remember, for a number of years after Christ's death, the early church was entirely Jewish until st Peter was told by God to let the Gentiles into the church. It's impossible in a discussion on Genesis and even on Jesus' own sayings, to disregard old Judaism, because old Judaism was the context of these sayings and writings.
-
Muslim? Wow, you've pondered a lot about your faith.
I get the impression you know christianity intelligently. I'm not so sure whether experience spiritually... tends to be the case in catholicism. When I involve in exorcisms, I do things priests can not. Why? My heart is with the Lord, I see the spirit world. You won't believe my stories. What I have seen, what I have done. I'd say more than 70% of my life has been in the spirit realm. Doesn't matter from the Vatican to secret societies. This is something I don't think can be learnt.
From my understanding, St Peter gave rise to Orthodox traditions, he only welcomed the Jews. His Jewish puritan views today sit well with Jewish Kabbalah. Paul was not one of the disciples. Saul killed christians then became Paul. He preached to the Romans, to anyone, hence Catholicism.
-
bb