Museum for Creationists

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Oct 20 2005, 12:20 PM
Right. They do accept parts of evolution, but god forbid (haha) they'd sanction the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

The Catholic Church is good at morphing to accept the lay of the land, thus retaining their power base. I think there was even some thought of accepting the likelihood of life on other worlds fairly recently.

A long way from beating up Gallileo.

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Cheese@Oct 20 2005, 01:34 PM
Polybius writes:

"Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions."

that's nice.

Hello I'm Cheese. Feel free to call me out on something, such as making false statmentes (that I presumably through my Catholic upbringing know to be false). Because as soon as you point out that I'm making stuff up I'll just throw out a quote of someone who agrees with me. Because if someone else agrees with my general point, it doesn't matter that I made things up to support it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank@Oct 20 2005, 01:18 PM
Thats pretty rude. Like his beliefs or not, Cheese is one of the most intelligent people on this board. You don't have to belittle him with snide comments like that.

It's not his beleifs I don't like, I really don't care. Truth be told I'm not very religions at all. It was him saying that the Pope supports a literal interpretation of the bible that I took issue with. Anyone who was raised Catholic should know that that isn't the case.

So making a comment like that means one of two things:
A)you were not raised Catholic and haven't studied it and are therefore ignorant of that particular topic and therefore shouldn't be making comments like that
B)you were raised Catholic (as apparently was Cheese) or you did study it and you know this point to be false and are therefore trying to decieve people to make your point (something that Cheese is somewhat critical of the Church for doing).

So I stand by what I said.
Intelligent or not, on this subject he either doesn't know what he is talking about, or he is flat out making statements that he knows to be false.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 20 2005, 03:29 PM
I'll never argue with you that some of what the church says is a little out of wack with reality (birth control vs AIDS for one), but that is a moral matter, this is a scientific debate, and in that context you implied that the Catholic Churc (the Pope in particluar) supports the idea of a literal interpretation of the entire bible, including the creation story, and that is just plain FALSE.

Argue the morality of condemming birthcontrol as a means of disesase prevention all you want, chances are I'll be on your side for most of that one, but don't go making completly FALSE statements to support your own dislike for the Catholic Church and religion in general.

This directly from the Catholic Update...(AmericanCatholic.org)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible communicates without error that truth which God intended for the sake of our salvation. Affirming biblical inerrancy (freedom from error) in that sense, it also resists modern attempts to make the Bible answer problems that the biblical authors never thought of. It resists attempts to take biblical texts that envisioned other situations and apply them without qualification to situations of our times. Some of the conflicts between Roman Catholic practices and "literal" interpretations of the Bible rest precisely on this point.

Sounds fairly literal to me? Is that enough directly from the horses mouth?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Man it even says right there that there are conflicts between the Roman Catholic practices and "Literal" interpretaions of the Bible.


"the Bible communicates without error that truth which God intended for the sake of our salvation"

You know exactly what that statement means, that the morality, lessons, and teachings are without error. As in they can't change it to "thou shalt not kill...unless you're wife is sleeping with another dude".

No where in that update that you posted does it say that everthing in the Bible is word for word historical fact, and you know that.

Seriously dude, you still haven't addressed how you completely made up your own interpretation of what the Pope thinks, and then you bring up this out of context to make your point, knowing full well what it actually means.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 20 2005, 03:55 PM
Man it even says right there that there are conflicts between the Roman Catholic practices and "Literal" interpretaions of the Bible.


"the Bible communicates without error that truth which God intended for the sake of our salvation"

You know exactly what that statement means, that the morality, lessons, and teachings are without error. As in they can't change it to "thou shalt not kill...unless you're wife is sleeping with another dude".

No where in that update that you posted does it say that everthing in the Bible is word for word historical fact, and you know that.

Seriously dude, you still haven't addressed how you completely made up your own interpretation of what the Pope thinks, and then you bring up this out of context to make your point, knowing full well what it actually means.

I apologize for the slowness of my responses...work gets in the way.

ok...your point...

"and in that context you implied that the Catholic Church (the Pope in particluar) supports the idea of a literal interpretation of the entire bible,

Now my earlier comment..

" Im just speaking as the Pope would.....he likes to keep things in the dark ages."

Now you can interpret my thoughts anyway you like, however I didnt suggest that the Pope supports EVERYTHING the bible says literally. I was trying to be facetious in a quick response to Rouge but forgot the .

In the post you are responding to..comments such as...
the Bible communicates without error
and
it also "resists" modern attempts to make the Bible answer problems

sounds pretty literal to me? The fact that there is conflict is good, I applaud any conflict within religion, because I am an unabashed free thinker. But wouldnt that suggest that there are those that fight the "literal interpretation" of the bible within the church?

Sorry being quick on response meaning I dont have much "freethinking" time.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

"the Bible communicates without error"

you're taking that completely out of context. If the ending was "The historical facts of how the world was created and where Adam and Eve came from then you'd be correct" but the ending is

"that truth which God intended for the sake of our salvation"
meaning the teachings, the morals, and the lessons.

As for resisting modern attempts to make the bible answer today's problems is the Churches admission that there is wiggle room. How could the Bible's authors have made provisions for cloning, or the internet, or any number of things. We have to interperate right and wrong for answers to modern questions based on the part of the Bible that is without error, and that is the moral code which it lays down. NOT THE STORIES.

Oh, and that is a good excuse. I love it when people say, I didn't mean it that way, I forgot the smiley.
Come on. You call all Christians ,except those that take the Bible literally, hypocrites and when someone disagrees you say you were just trying to speak as the Pope would, but you forgot the smiley???? Well then why the attempt to justify it with out of context quotes?