Fact and Fiction in Scripture

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:51 PM']

The section as a whole did not say that we are bound to accept that the literal words "THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL  UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT" are scientifically precise descriptions of specific events. It says that we cannot dismiss the literal meaning as an impossibility. [/quote]

Response:

It says exactly what we are bound to accept and what we may not call into doubt.

Use the plain meaning of words. And Pius X says Catholics are bound in conscience to accept all PBC decisions.

Again, " In particular MAY THE LITERAL HISTORICAL SENSE BE CALLED IN DOUBT in the case of facts narrated... THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT.
Answer: IN THE NEGATIVE.

Literal = adhering to fact or to the ordinary or usual meaning (as of a word).
Historical = a chronological record of actual events.

Unless someone wants to engage in a little "lets pretend," that simply is what is said.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:15 PM']Response:

Are you serious? Scary if you really believe that. But you would not be alone. I think we are presently engaged in a war with some groups that hold that same view.

Of course, the Church once did too. That's why we had the Crusades.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You mean people who are actually devotees of their religion. And w are hardly at war, more of a "low intensity conflict" still Yes Islam also teaches that it is THE TRUTH, and those who wich to bring he world to that truth are willing to fight for it, that doesn't make them monsters it makes them Men. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to die, is not fit to live. He is only a sniviling coward. Osama ben Lauden is my enemy, of thatthere is no Doubt but he is an enemy I can respect, he has given up a very cushy life in Saudi Arabia for what he believes, That is not a trait to be dismissed but to be admired. He is an enemy I could sit and have a cup of coffee with( I'd say a beer but aas a faithful Muslim he would not drink one).

Of course the Church still does, everything that is not True should fall away, and oneday it will. You see we already know the end of the Story--in the End Christ Wins.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:47 PM']

Btw, the Catholic Church teaches we have to believe in our parents as the first two people on earth. We cannot believe in a group of 'humanoids' that wandered around and God struck souls into two of them. Now if They called each other Adam (first man) and Eve (first woman) or if "Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" refering to his wife is a moot point.
[right][snapback]613456[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

This teaching is not really being insisted upon these days with good reason. Mainly, because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

And should it be disproven scientifically and the multiregional evolution of man proven, the whole story of original sin, the Immaculate Conception, etc. falls.

And we don't "have to believe" something that is proven to be untrue.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:58 PM']Response,

That's the rationalization used to justify the Crusades, but how much of it is really true? 

Perhaps you would like to start a separate thread on the cursades which we pursue this one on fact and fiction in scripture.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613541[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We have had MANY MANY threads on the Crusades why don't you go up to search read them ALL and then pick one you'd like to respond to that would save all of us a lot of time going back and fourth over and over them.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:16 PM']Beg to differ. No one claims the world would be peaceful without religion. But we know that it would be safer without religious zealots out to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their God. What we do know is the world isn't any better with bible toting Christians.
[right][snapback]613413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I said the destruction of untruth is the Will of God, I would prefer not to kill people who don't believe in the Truth, but if they are particularly hostile about it, persecute Christians or repeatedly attempt to bring the Fathful to ruin I see no Moral objection to it. In all of history the Church has never Killedanyone for whatthey believed, nor have they ever handed over anyone to the Civil Authorities for punishment for what they believed, they have only punished or handed over for punishment people for what they DID, ussually because they would not stop teaching untruths even after multiple chances to Shut UP!

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:06 PM']I said the destruction of untruth is the Will of God, I would prefer not to kill people who don't believe in the Truth, but if they are particularly hostile about it, persecute Christians  or repeatedly attempt  to bring the Fathful to ruin I see no Moral objection to it.  In all of history the Church has never Killedanyone for whatthey believed, nor have they ever handed over anyone to the Civil Authorities for punishment for what they believed, they have only punished or handed over for punishment people for what they DID, ussually because they would not stop teaching untruths even after multiple chances to Shut UP!
[right][snapback]613660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The problem with your assertion is that your so called truth is one derived only from faith which in term is not founded on facts. In the end to believe in your religious beliefs requires one to have faith in the church fathers, inspiation by the holy spirit , and infallibility. These are things that only faith could resolve. They are far from facts. Yet, if people chose to expose this, or to express there own views to counter that, Yes the church had was integral to their deaths. It is not Gods will that I see being done, but that of people who are adamant about destroying any contrary view. If God really wanted all these untrue beliefs, he could easily remove this element. Why does God need an ant to do his work? The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do. If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:56 PM']Response:

This teaching is not really being insisted upon these days with good reason. Mainly, because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

And should it be disproven scientifically and the multiregional evolution of man proven, the whole story of original sin, the Immaculate Conception, etc. falls.

And we don't "have to believe" something that is proven to be untrue.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613655[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Actually there is a great deal of evedence to support it. Look into the DNA studies "looking for an Eve" there is a good deal of evidince for this. She Lived 150,000 years ago.

There is Also evedence that ALL men had the same ancestrial Father 60,000 years ago--- This actually fits very well with Genisis Noah would e the common male ancester but the wives of Noahs sons where not of his blood and there for would have had unbroken DNA from Eve where as All men would have recieved their Y chromosome from Noah not Adam and therefore would have a much more recent common ancestor.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:54 PM']You mean people who are actually devotees of their religion. And w are hardly at war, more of a "low intensity conflict" still Yes Islam also teaches that it is THE TRUTH, and those who wich to bring he world to that truth are willing to fight for it, that doesn't make them monsters it makes them Men.  A man who has nothing for which he is willing to die, is not fit to live. He is only a sniviling coward.  Osama ben Lauden is my enemy, of thatthere is no Doubt but he is an enemy I can respect, he has given up a very cushy life in Saudi Arabia for what he believes,  That is not a trait to be dismissed but to be admired. He is an enemy I could sit and have a cup of coffee with( I'd say a beer but aas a faithful Muslim he would not drink one).

Of course the Church still does, everything that is not True should fall away, and oneday it will. You see we already know the end of the Story--in the End Christ Wins.
[right][snapback]613650[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You have given credence to the 911 hijackers. They were men you could respect because they fought for what they believed. They were not cowards as you say, but men, because they died for what they believed. Now you can sit and tell me that it was justified to do these things. That the world is better for this. I disagree. They were monsters who killed innocent people. You are absolutely no different than they in principle. The result speaks for itself. But people like you never learn, it takes those with higher level of morality and respect to rebuild the chaos those like you have waged on this earth.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:17 PM']The problem with your assertion is that your so called truth is one derived only from faith which in term is not founded on facts. In the end to believe in your religious beliefs requires one to have faith in the church fathers, inspiation by the holy spirit , and infallibility. These are things that only faith could resolve. They are far from facts. Yet, if people chose to expose this, or to express there own views to counter that, Yes the church had was integral to their deaths. It is not Gods will that I see being done, but that of people who are adamant about destroying any contrary view. If God really wanted all these untrue beliefs, he could easily remove this element. Why does God need an ant to do his work? The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do.  If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first.
[right][snapback]613670[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote]The fact is I have the right to speak what I consider truth just as much as you do.[/quote]

That after your whole statment about fact an Faith you would choose to say this is laughable. The [i]Fact [/i]is you have no rights that you cannot defend yourself. In a state of Nature I can kill you for your women or for your food or because I don't like what you say and you have absolutly no "RIGHTS" at all. Science does not give us rights and you certianly cannot defend the Idea of rights through any use of it. Rights only Exist if there is a Creator which demands them. Nature gives you only three rights

1 submit to the will of the Strong
2 run from the strong
3 fight the Strong

[quote]If they want to shut me up, than they have to be able to dodge bullets first.[/quote]

You se unlike most of the people here I completly believe that it is your right to fight, even when you are wrong, it is one of the things that makes us human, the ability to choose to fight even when flight is a much better option.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:26 PM']That after your whole statment about fact an Faith you would choose to say this is laughable.  The [i]Fact [/i]is you have no rights  that you cannot defend yourself. In a state of Nature I can kill you for your women or for your food or because I don't like what you say and you have absolutly no "RIGHTS" at all. Science does not give us rights and you certianly cannot defend the Idea of rights through any use of it. Rights only Exist if there is a Creator which demands them.  Nature gives you only three rights

1 submit to the will of the Strong
2 run from the strong
3 fight the Strong
You se unlike most of the people here I completly believe that it is your right to fight, even when you are wrong, it is one of the things that makes us human, the ability to choose to fight even when flight is a much better option.
[right][snapback]613681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't need a sky daddy to tell me whats right or wrong. Your doctrine of infalliblity only allows you to be a mindless robot and do as you are told. You basicly dont have to ever ponder issues of morality and right/wrong. You just do what you infallable church tells you to do. The truth is that the mind is capable of abstracting issues like this. The very reason you dont plunge a dagger into your leg because it causes harm to you, is the same reason we can understand the concepts of right and wrong. Absolute morality, is arbritrary at best.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:24 PM']You have given credence to the 911 hijackers. They were men you could respect because they fought for what they believed.  They were not cowards as you say, but men, because they died for what they believed. Now you can sit and tell me that it was justified to do these things. That the world is better for this. I disagree. They were monsters who killed innocent people. You are absolutely no different than they in principle. The result speaks for itself.  But people like you never learn, it takes those with higher level of morality and respect to rebuild the chaos those like you have waged on this earth.
[right][snapback]613678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How do you wage Chaos, don't you bring Chaos... anyway what "higher morality", the Idea that "everyone is equally right" that isn't Higher that is the morality of beast. They did what they believed was right, they rode a plane into a building to do it, no that is not the act of a coward. would you sacrific your self for your beliefs, would you die rather than kneel before some thing you think an Idol. I doubt it. Is the world better for it, well yes, it has finally shown to many that Islam is not some happy fluffy religion but our enemy.



P.S. I guess you could unleash Chaos or free Chaos if Chaos was an actual thing. But Chaos is an Idea so even that is sort a misnomer.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:31 PM']I don't need a sky daddy to tell me whats right or wrong. Your doctrine of infalliblity only allows you to be a mindless robot and do as you are told. You basicly dont have to ever ponder issues of morality and right/wrong. You just do what you infallable church tells you to do. The truth is that the mind is capable of abstracting issues like this.  The very reason you dont plunge a dagger into your leg because it causes harm to you, is the same reason we can understand the concepts of right and wrong.  Absolute morality, is arbritrary at best.
[right][snapback]613687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


really please explain how anything is moral or immoral in a state of Nature, where there is no God.

[Socrates]

Melchisedec, you claim you have rights.

Where do these rights come from?

Edited June 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:19 PM']Actually there is a great deal of evedence to support it.  Look into the DNA studies "looking for an Eve" there is a good deal of evidince for this.    She Lived 150,000 years ago.

There is Also evedence that ALL men had  the same ancestrial Father 60,000 years ago--- This actually fits very well with Genisis Noah would e the common male ancester but the wives of Noahs sons where not of his blood and there for would have had unbroken  DNA from Eve where as All men would have recieved their Y chromosome from Noah not Adam and therefore would have a much more recent common ancestor.
[right][snapback]613672[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

I believe that if you read some more current material in the field of genetics and anthropology, you will find that the Eve Hypothesis has been called into serious question - even admitted by its author - because of a computer programing error which did not allow for the correct number of permutations of mDNA.

And if you look at the Noah story in which he and his family are suppose to be the only survivors of the great flood, you will see that there are still giants around from a different genetic stock. We may cover this later in reference to the historicity of the Bible. But in the meantime, if you look up the Flood, you will find that it was not a worldwide event.

LittleLes

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:59 PM']Response:

I believe that if you read some more current material in the field of genetics and anthropology, you will find that the Eve Hypothesis has been called into serious question - even admitted by its author - because of a computer programing error which did not allow for the correct number of permutations of mDNA.

And if you look at the Noah story in which he and his family are suppose to be the only survivors of the great flood, you will see that there are still giants around from a different genetic stock. We may cover this later in reference to the historicity of the Bible. But in the meantime, if you look up the Flood, you will find that it was not a worldwide event.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I don't recall sayingthat there weren't giants of another stock? Did I say there weren't Giants? I didn't say there weren't elves or fey or dragons or hobbits either, none of that has any bearing on whether or not humans decend from the same mother. And I am not talking aboutthe 1987 studies I am talking about more recent research( although it was a few months ago I was reading it, I'd have to find it agian. the Y chromosome is completly differant and also of fairly recent research. Of course there is some new positions that mitochondrial DNA may nto all come from the Mother but that is a very controversial idea with little support, that doesn't mean it's wrong but it does make it not really worthy of making judgments on. The Y chromosome is not in debate at all, it is largly excepted to be correct dating-- if you have a contrary source please site it, I am not being condecending here, I would really like to see it.

I don't have any problem with theistic evolution ( although there are HUGE gaping holes in current evolutionary theory) as a matter of fact I teach all about the other races of Man in science class, the homo sapians that where not homo sapians sapians-- the ones we exterminated, one way or another. So there may have been giants. there is certianly evidence for a giant member of the Genus Homo in Southeast Asia or perhaps it is a folk memory of the Neaderthal ( not really a giant but stronger than Homo sapians sapians. or perhaps the other man like creatures of legend are memories of the other members of our species or genus. I don't have a problem with that at all. What does that have to do with the origins of Homo Sapians Sapians?