Originally posted by KellyJay🙄🙄
He doesn't have a clue. He refused to talk about it, he simply
repeated his point over and over. I even offered to discuss the
scripture as he reads it, and what did he do...simply gave me
an insult, and ended the conversation. He had no desire to
understand anything only insult those that do not agree with
his/her stance, just as s/he does any time s/he disagrees with
someone.
Kelly
Originally posted by frogstomphttp://www.drbo.org/popeleo.htm
this might be worth a read
http://www.drbo.org/popeleo.htm
skimming through it i pick up these tidbits:
15........not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires
[41] -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be ...[text shortened]... cquire a marvelous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, ......
"The solicitude of the Apostolic office naturally urges, and even compels us, not only to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ, but also not to suffer any attempt to defile or corrupt it, either on the part of those who impiously and openly assail the Scriptures, or of those who are led astray into fallacious and imprudent novelties."
http://www.drbo.org/popeleo.htm
"St. Augustine, however, warns us that "vainly does the preacher utter the Word of God exteriorly unless he listens to it interiorly;''[21] and St. Gregory instructs sacred orators "first to find in Holy Scripture the knowledge of themselves, and then to carry it to others, lest in reproving others they forget themselves."[22] Admonitions such as these had, indeed, been uttered long before by the Apostolic voice which had learnt its lesson from Christ Himself, Who "began to do and teach." It was not to Timothy alone, but to the whole order of the clergy, that the command was addressed: "Take heed to thyself and to doctrine; be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee."[23] For the saving and for the perfection of ourselves and of others there is at hand the very best of help in the Holy Scriptures, as the Book of Psalms, among others, so constantly insists; but those only will find it who bring to this divine reading not only docility and attention, but also piety and an innocent life. For the Sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the "coming"[24] of the same Holy Spirit; that is to say, His light and His grace; and these, as the Royal Psalmist so frequently insists, are to be sought by humble prayer and guarded by holiness of life."
Originally posted by no1marauder"How to read the account of the fall
No, but as you know I went to a RCC-run elementary school and was taught what I believe is the official Church doctrine i.e. original sin and the rest. If you went to give a cite to an official RCC teaching on the Adam and Eve parable, I'll certainly look it over.
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. 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." (CCC 390)
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think I prefer the concept that Jeremiah, I think voiced, that "the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge." To me this makes the concept of "handed down crap" a little more "in the present."
"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. 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." (CCC 390)
Originally posted by frogstompIt would be even better if you quoted in context:
this might be worth a read
http://www.drbo.org/popeleo.htm
skimming through it i pick up these tidbits:
15........not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires
[41] -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt out side of the Church, and cannot be ...[text shortened]... cquire a marvelous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, ......
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate... But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics - and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labour. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind-as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages(41) - that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.
23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.
25. ...Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love.
Originally posted by lucifershammerwhy i've seen the consequences of that asinine Pauline doctrine.
It would be even better if you quoted in context:
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully o ...[text shortened]... rive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love.
That a lot of gall to say that only "We" know how to decipher the word of the Kingdom. Not only do you take it to the extremes and put Paul writings on the level of Christ word by saying only "We" can tell you what Paul meant.
Blah
the context of a windbag is still a lot of hot air.
if any thing I excerpted wasnt in keeping with Leo writing, let me know , I quoted him and gave a link to entire document.
btw I noticed Leo didn't give entire paragraph when he quoted Augustine.
Originally posted by frogstompThe first half of your post is just the usual rant. If you really want to discuss something about Pauline Christology or soteriology, I invite you (again) to start a thread on it.
why i've seen the consequences of that asinine Pauline doctrine.
That a lot of gall to say that only "We" know how to decipher the word of the Kingdom. Not only do you take it to the extremes and put Paul writings ...[text shortened]... Leo didn't give entire paragraph when he quoted Augustine.
Were your excerpts in keeping with Pope Leo's writing? I've quoted the context around each of your fragmentary excerpts, and I'll leave it to the reader to judge the answer.
Finally, as to Augustine, when Augustine says "literal" he is not using the modern usage of the word "literal". For Augustine, light could literally mean both "physical light" and "spiritual light" (C.f. Augustine's "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" ). Pope Leo knew this, the theologians of the Church knew this and, most importantly, the Bishops of the Church knew this. There was no need for him to make it explicit to his audience. He was still quoting in context - only his context was implicit because his audience was knowledgeable.
Originally posted by lucifershammerStill , however sad the progaganda is:
The first half of your post is just the usual rant. If you really want to discuss something about Pauline Christology or soteriology, I invite you (again) to start a thread on it.
Were your excerpts in keeping with Pope Leo's wri ...[text shortened]... ontext was implicit because his audience was knowledgeable.
"that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith. "
Is the core of that.
and if they had any "knowlege' or the correct view of scripture in the first place there would be no need for this:
" and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed"
And the passage 25 is just an anti-science diatribe and as such is unworthy of anybody save for people that think Paul is equal to God.
Originally posted by frogstompLOL. The way you seem to hate Paul makes it look like he killed your mother or something.
Still , however sad the progaganda is:
"that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith. "
Is the core of that.
and if they had any "knowlege' or ...[text shortened]... ibe and as such is unworthy of anybody save for people that think Paul is equal to God.
(Then again, given your attachment to Gnosticism, maybe he did when he was still Saul.)
The main point behind the Scriptures is morals. Which is what he's referring to in the first quote. In the second, he's referring to secondary "facts" or events in the Scriptures. No contradiction there.
The third is not just good common sense, it is also good science. No scientist will deny the limitations of his science. Only pseudo-scientists do.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut if my kids engage in deadly activities, despite my wise advice, and perfect parenting (TIC) then they will...die. And there's nothing my great love and compassion can do about it!
Good parenting normally doesn't include killing your kids for being disobedient, Chingking.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhoa Dude!
I guess you didn't bother to read the thread at all; your replacement parable is full of crap.
A) A & E were not "mature and intelligent" as they lacked the knowledge of right and wrong something any mature and intelligent adult surely has:
B) God doesn't merely warn A & E; he promises and carries out draconian punishment ...[text shortened]... a small Elect); my vision and that of most rational people doesn't include such self-loathing.
You said:
A) A & E were not "mature and intelligent" as they lacked the knowledge of right and wrong something any mature and intelligent adult surely has:
Are you really using the fact that they did wrong as evidence that they were not mature and intelligent? All people do wrong! So you must say that noone is mature or intelligent! And that, among a bunch of chess players!
No sir, mature and intelligent people choose to disobey good counsel every day, even to the point of great risk to their futures.
Also, Adam's maturity and intelligence were demonstrated in his ordering of the animal world.
And then you said:
B) God doesn't merely warn A & E; he promises and carries out draconian punishments for their disobedience (you wouldn't expect "obedience" from a fully grown adult child would you?). God passes a sentence of death and thus kills them, not the Tree ("Drano" in your BS parable"😉.
How was it that God killed A&E, by the way? I guess I missed that part. I thought it said that Adam lived some 900 years. Yes, after that long life, He did, surely, die just as God had warned him would happen.
I don't necessarily like my Drano concept either, but I think you should agree that it comes much closer to the original than a plate of cookies! After all, A & E lived in a world of goodies, all freely available every day; one more plate of cookies wouldn't be much of a draw. And the idea that they would be poisoned is all wet.
I chose Drano because it simply IS poison. The death that follows is contained therein, like the death that God did warn would follow eating from that one tree.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess you didn't bother to read the thread at all; your replacement parable is full of crap.
A) A & E were not "mature and intelligent" as they lacked the knowledge of right and wrong something any mature and intelligent adult surely has:
B) God doesn't merely warn A & E; he promises and carries out draconian punishment ...[text shortened]... a small Elect); my vision and that of most rational people doesn't include such self-loathing.
No1marauder said
You guys sure despise the human race don't you? The A & E story is nothing more than a "do as you told" one to enforce obedience on the weak. Your vision of humanity might be that it deserves nothing better than being slaves on and off this Earth (or mass destruction except for a small Elect); my vision and that of most rational people doesn't include such self-loathing.
No sir; speaking for the bulk of Christians if I may, we actually love the human race! That's why I'm here Bud!
(By the way, if that story was made up to 'enforce obedience', it sure hasn't worked very well! )
But then you go on to equate obeying God with being a slave, when actually the reverse is true. A & E chose to lead us into slavery to sin (look around, this is how we live every day), but Christ came to lead us into freedom from that slavery!
'While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!'
Were you a slave if you obeyed your parents growing up? Were they monsters to warn you of trouble? When you grow up will you throw off everything they told you as if they were trying to enslave you?
It's really all good news bud! And it's full of love of humanity, on the one at a time level! To receive His love is not self-loathing.
No.1 Marauder: The first possibility makes God an outright liar, doesn't it? He tells Eve that if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge she shall surely die. Since she doesn't immediately, it can only mean Death will come later. But if she was mortal anyway, then God's original warning was a non sequitur if all it meant was she would EVENTUALLY die, since she was going to anyway.
Been thinking about this. Let’s suppose:
1) Adam and Eve were mortal before eating of the tree of the knowledge of tov and ra; that is, they had not stumbled upon the tree of life.
2) Since tov and ra cover “good and bad” generally, and not just in the moral sense (e.g., mazel tov! means “good luck!”—sort of the Jewish “Cheers!” ), suppose the story is talking about discriminating knowledge generally.
3) This discriminating knowledge leads human beings to think they are separated/alienated from their ground of being. Thus, the eating of the tree is a metaphorical story for the advent of that kind of dualistic thinking that ushers into human consciousness what Hinduism and Buddhism call “maya”—illusion, illusory thinking.
Now just about every wisdom tradition, whether theistic or not, teaches that in order to re-experience our one-ness with, or the fullness of our connection with, the ground of our being (whether God or Brahman or the Tao), we need to let go of that dualistic, “discriminating mind” at least insofar as it relates to our illusion of separateness. The discriminating mind is not bad in itself; it is part of human development. But there is something lost as well.
This “something lost” is our awareness of our proper relationship with our ground of being. This is “the fall.” (This could also be considered a “spiritual death,” if you want to spin it that way; I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it would fit.) In this state, immortality would be disastrous—it would be an immortality of illusion and alienation (think of the cycles of reincarnation in Hinduism; one cannot enter into nirvana until one has become free of illusion).
But—and this may be key to my “midrash”—that something lost can be regained; however, had Adam and Eve not eaten of the tree, they could have preserved their sheltered paradisial state with God only at the cost of never growing up, never leaving home, never struggling in the world, never truly existing as full human persons—with all the errors and wrong-turnings that entails. But, once having “left home,” the journey holds the possibility (the promise?) of return, t’shuvah, which, as I noted, is the Hebrew word sometimes translated as repentance.
Is the risk worth the candle? Depends on whether your life experiences make you wish you’d never grown up or left home, I suppose. Did God lie? Maybe (visualize a proper "rabbinical" shrug here); but I don’t think so—at least within the parameters of the “midrash.”
*********************************
A personal parable: When I was a child, my parents taught me that there was a Santa Claus. I believed them. Being a bit naive, I think I probably believed them after most of my friends had given it up. It was a bit of a blow to realize that there was no Santa Claus, and that my parents had lied to me for some years (even at that young age, I understood that a deception had been perpetrated). I never really forgot it. But you know what? In the end, it was a gift. Because it was fairly early that I stopped naively accepting what someone says just because they are in a position of authority. It may have been rather brave of my parents to allow their trustworthiness to be “tarnished” in order to give me that gift. Had they done otherwise, it might have been even harder for me to relinquish that naiveté. I don’t know if they thought of it that way. I like to.
Originally posted by vistesdYea, I dislike the stanta lie for the reasons you gave, my dad and
[b]No.1 Marauder: The first possibility makes God an outright liar, doesn't it? He tells Eve that if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge she shall surely die. Since she doesn't immediately, it can only mean Death will come later. But if she was mortal anyway, then God's original warning was a non sequitur if all it meant was she would EVENTUALLY die, sin ...[text shortened]... me to relinquish that naiveté. I don’t know if they thought of it that way. I like to.
mom lied to me.
Kelly