Catholic Church admits parts of the Bible are false

[ QUOTE ]
You don't hear any group calling for the death penalty for working on Sunday do you?

[ QUOTE ]

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath-day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a direct quote of God to Moses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I have the nagging suspicious that intelligent people involved in these religions dont actually believe it is true.

If you did then silly situations like that would occur.

Surely at the top level they realise its not real but still value its use in control and manipulation of a population?

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
Only those christians who insist on limiting the manner in which God might choose to communicate truth or carry out His will via specific means, and can't distinguish between the real doctrinal import of various scripture passages and they way they are presented, would have a problem with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have hit on exactly the point I was trying to make. How does one decide the 'real doctrinal import[ance] of various scripture passages' when the veracity of the passages themselves have been called into question? Put another way: if any part of the Bible is false then how do you know the parts that are true?

[ QUOTE ]
The important point is that God created the universe regardless of how He did it. The bible does not purport to lay out the scientifc mechanisms or historical timeline of same.

[/ QUOTE ]
The important point is that the Bible claims God created the universe. The Christian mantra "I believe the Bible is the word of God, because God says so in the Bible" is circular logic and a fallacy. You believe that God created the universe because that's what the Bible says. I'm saying that none of the Bible can be trusted when it contains even one fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Question for OP: are you really a noob poster or is this a gimmick account for a well-known regular here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am a 'noob poster'.

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
First, the Catholic Church has never changed its teaching about the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that this Biblical study guide is not from the Catholic Church, or that the Church has always held the view that parts of the Bible are not true?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they did not condemn Galileo for heresy

[/ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia article about the Galileo/Church controversy
"Galileo was sentenced to prison, but because of his advanced age (and/or Church politics) the sentence was commuted to house arrest at his villas in Arcetri and Florence 2. Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission to consult physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, which warned that further such requests would lead to imprisonment."

[ QUOTE ]
and everything Pope St. Pius the X says about modernism stands forever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again I'm afraid that I'm not following you. Are you saying the article summary is correct but that you agree with Pope Pius' condemnation of Modernists?

[ QUOTE ]
This is an extraordinarily stupid article[...]The writer is just too stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure ad hominem attacks against the author of the article makes you feel better about yourself, unfortunately it does little to progress the discussion and nothing to boost my opinion of you.

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
You have used "beg the question" incorrectly in the above sentence (Do you see why?).

[/ QUOTE ]
You are of course correct. I used it in the old sense of the phrase, 'prompting the question', not in reference to the logical fallacy of the same name. In a 'Science, Math, Philosophy' forum I should have chosen a better turn of phrase, my apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
All groups are picking and choosing what they want to consider the important parts of the bible already.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, but I think there is a big difference between 'picking [...] the important parts' and the realization the Bible contains fallacies.

okay, so, are any of you catholic? Im now an atheist, but I step up to bat for my former churcb because of the bashing it seems to attract to itself.

first... the catholic church has said for a long long time that the bible isn't literal, but that its point is easily discernable(sp?).

second, the idea that one fallacy makes the entire book false is a ridiculous idea... that would be like saying that if the constitution had a flaw in it, its entirety becomes false. Maybe if the Catholic Church stated that Jesus didn't literally die on the cross, or somesuch, I could see your point.

Next, someone mentioned that no one sees christians clamoring for the death penalty for working on sundays.... this was precisely dealt with in the new testament, when pharisees tried to condemn Jesus for working a miracle on a Sabbath day. He said to live by the spirit of the law, not the letter. However, as far as the Catholic Church goes, they recognize that the bible was written a long time ago, and inherently some things just aren't "doable" today (however, the Latter Day Saints do nothing but rest on sundays).

For anyone who knows ANYTHING about the Catholic Church, this article is nothing but old news... and to the OP, Im really sick of seeing both sides of this damn argument searching for scraps to deny the truth of the other.

Atheists: Just let the damn christians be. If you think you're so much smarter than they, why do you descend to such petty crap when it comes to discussing christianity.

Christians: Maybe I had an old version of the Bible, but mine said "Judge not, lest ye be judged first." I guess all of the fire-and-brimstoner's out there must have the new addition, with that passage removed.

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
second, the idea that one fallacy makes the entire book false is a ridiculous idea... that would be like saying that if the constitution had a flaw in it, its entirety becomes false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have slightly misunderstood my point. You are right that one fallacy does not make the Bible entirely false. However, it does mean that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. Once you have dropped the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, you are left with an erred work of man, one that has no more claim to truth than any other religious document ever written.

[ QUOTE ]
For anyone who knows ANYTHING about the Catholic Church, this article is nothing but old news... and to the OP, Im really sick of seeing both sides of this damn argument searching for scraps to deny the truth of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m sorry that you find this subject ‘old news’, but it’s obvious from the other responses that not everyone else on this forum feels the same way.

hmm, okay I came off as much more belligerent than i really am, sorry OP.

As a catholic student I was taught that the holy spirit inspired men to write the bible. However, ispiration isn't possession; human nature will inevitably lead to f-ups. Therefore, the overall message will get through, but with human errors.

I believe that it is incredibly closeminded to take the bible literally. Lets look at this: First, you have multiple translations... are all of them true? all but one false? How do you decide?

Then, you have the bible in and of itself, which was constructed by a council who took only the books they believed. For you to believe that every single decision made by every single human who touched what we now hold as the bible was divinely infallible is just ignorant. The Catholic Church has long held that the very fact the bible was written by humans makes taking it literally almost impossible.


Again, Im sorry for the belligerence in my above post... it was a mix of frustration and bad word choice.

However, the fact that hardly anyone here knew this was "old news" only furthers my point that it is unfair for them to comment on the Catholic Church... as their position itself denotes a lack of research.

`Eric

[Jernau]

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, okay I came off as much more belligerent than i really am, sorry OP.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem, I know how easy that is.

[ QUOTE ]
As a catholic student I was taught that the holy spirit inspired men to write the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does the idea that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the Bible comes from? (Hint: check out my circular logic post above.)

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that it is incredibly closeminded to take the bible literally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too. I just think that it is more defensible than the non-literal view point, for the reasons I outlined above.

[ QUOTE ]
Then, you have the bible in and of itself, which was constructed by a council who took only the books they believed. For you to believe that every single decision made by every single human who touched what we now hold as the bible was divinely infallible is just ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God; that is impossible considering the myriad errors it contains.

It isnt circular reasoning... its faith

whoops, they are the same thing

do you see why???

[RJT]

Of course the newspaper article is a sensationalized version of what the Church actually came out with. As any newspaper article the headlines are always written to attract attention (and controversy too if possible - sells more papers with follow up article). Anyone who is seriously interested in what the Catholic Bishops in England have written should read the actual text and not rely on one writer’s slanted versions of the actual teaching document. ( I am not positive, but it sounds like the document is the work of scholars in England, as opposed to being “published“ at the Vatican. I am sure it does not disagree with the Vatican. The headline certainly is misleading at any rate. I haven’t yet read the actual text, yet. It should only confirm what I already know. I‘ll post later if I find anything noteworthy.)

For some of us this is probably old news , but apparently the Bishops in England have put together an interesting and pragmatic document it seems, in my opinion. The publication, also, should shed some light to those who know little of the Catholic Church.

For those of us more familiar with the Catholic and Protestant Churches a bigger story I hope is not to follow. Catholics and Protestants have relatively, recently (since Vatican II in the early ’60s maybe, not really sure when discussions started) been trying to “reconcile” their differences. That is, not to merge into one Church per se, but to have more ecumenical dialogues and workings together. Hopefully, this document will not open further the “wounds” between our Churches. Had it not originated in England (instead of the Vatican, if that is the case), I would not have an iota skepticism. But, the fact remains that the Church of England and its “sister” Church here in the U.S., the Episcopal Churches, are probably the closest to each other in terms of liturgy than Catholics are to other denominations. Generally speaking, in terms of theology, The Lutheran Church is relatively close to the Catholic Church, too, it is my understanding. But, I digress. I don’t know enough about the Anglicans (Church of England) to know it this documents creates any problems for them. I trust there is no inter-Church subtext to this document. And hopefully it is just my cautious nature to worry about such things.

Bluff, NotReady, bigdaddy, et al any thoughts in this regard?

Chez and mack in England keep us posted.