Catholic Church admits Bible is BS

[Dude111]

http://web.archive.org/web/20100511...co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. [more]

This is quite confusing!!



Of anyone to say this,YOU WOULDNT THINK A CHURCH WOULD!!

A. This happened in 2005 so not news.
B. It was not the Catholic Church that said anything, it was the Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland.
C. Nobody said the Bible is BS.
admin allisolm

 

[Smoblikat]

http://web.archive.org/web/20100511...co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

This is quite confusing!!



Of anyone to say this,YOU WOULDNT THINK A CHURCH WOULD!!

Im glad they did, this has given them some serious respect from me. The fact that they are now trying to preach the truth, and not just spew the lies in the bible is really encouraging.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It would be less confusing if you realized that a great many Christians don't believe in a literal Genesis creation.

You are also misrepresenting what was said. Try for less BS

 

[Atreus21]

Bit late to the game, are we?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bit late to the game, are we?

He missed the 20th century.

 

[Atreus21]

He missed the 20th century.

Well, I meant the age of the article.

 

[Juddog]

http://web.archive.org/web/20100511...co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

This is quite confusing!!



Of anyone to say this,YOU WOULDNT THINK A CHURCH WOULD!!

Wait - do you mean to say that you cannot live within the stomach of a whale for 3 days? Say it ain't so!

 

[thraashman]

Well, I meant the age of the article.

Are you trying to say an 8 year old article doesn't qualify as "news"? At least it was only one pope ago and not more!

 

[glenn1]

He missed the 20th century.

More like the Council of Trent or even Tertullian from the 3rd Century. Bibical inerrancy is much more of an evangelical Protestant thing than Catholic. I'm not even Catholic and I know this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, I meant the age of the article.

I see. I was referring to the red herring evolution vs religion thing, which is rarely framed properly but almost always a great troll. Creationism vs Evolution is a separate issue and more relevant by definition.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Church of Rome inherently cannot take the Bible literally and I'm not Christian.

More like the Council of Trent or even Tertullian from the 3rd Century. Bibical inerrancy is much more of an evangelical Protestant thing than Catholic. I'm not even Catholic and I know this.

Agreed.

 

[Vaux]

This is interesting. So the bible, yeah, it's bullshit, but the whole god part? No, that part is not bullshit I guess. Ok.

Just another example of people deciding to pick and choose what they feel like believing in. Religion is such a farce.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is interesting. So the bible, yeah, it's bullshit, but the whole god part? No, that part is not bullshit I guess. Ok.

Just another example of people deciding to pick and choose what they feel like believing in. Religion is such a farce.

Isn't vacuity great?

 

[woolfe9998]

More like the Council of Trent or even Tertullian from the 3rd Century. Bibical inerrancy is much more of an evangelical Protestant thing than Catholic. I'm not even Catholic and I know this.

Honestly I don't know much about this. I read the wikis on those two references and couldn't find anything referring to biblical inerrancy. I did find this article which discusses in some length the idea of biblical inerrancy in relation to Catholicism:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441

In a nutshell, the author goes back to St. Augustine to argue that biblical inerrancy was Catholic doctrine historically. He argues that Vatican II did not ultimately depart from this, in spite of several prominent Catholics arguing contrary to it.

 

[dank69]

Bit late to the game, are we?

Here is a much more current bombshell for you:

We Invented Jesus Christ

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Honestly I don't know much about this. I read the wikis on those two references and couldn't find anything referring to biblical inerrancy. I did find this article which discusses in some length the idea of biblical inerrancy in relation to Catholicism:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441

In a nutshell, the author goes back to St. Augustine to argue that biblical inerrancy was Catholic doctrine historically. He argues that Vatican II did not ultimately depart from this, in spite of several prominent Catholics arguing contrary to it.

Both the article and the OP are displaying crass ignorance of the subject and therefore discussing the merits of the article as if it were in any way accurate would be akin to a serious discussion about the looming carnivorous orchid threat.

Let's skip Augustine since he didn't make it for Darwin and cut to the chase of evolution.

Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man. The Pope declared:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. (He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations.) Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity. It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.” (ROA, 81)

A revolutionary change in thinking in 2005? Hardly. While there were always those who objected to evolution from the start it was and is not a universally held concept. The root of today's issue has more to do with political ideology than religion and started with the rise of the Red Menace and what I call "Godandamericanism", the blend of religion, patriotism, mom and apple pie vs. "Thegodlessruskies".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here is a much more current bombshell for you:

We Invented Jesus Christ

Do we get to see the ancient aliens show as a double feature?

This will be as enlightening a thing as the Da Vinci code.

 

[woolfe9998]

Both the article and the OP are displaying crass ignorance of the subject and therefore discussing the merits of the article as if it were in any way accurate would be akin to a serious discussion about the looming carnivorous orchid threat.

Let's skip Augustine since he didn't make it for Darwin and cut to the chase of evolution.

Can you explain why the article is displaying "crass ignorance?" In mean, in a nutshell. I'm not any sort of authority on Catholicism, so that article seemed about as authoritative as any other.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here is a much more current bombshell for you:

We Invented Jesus Christ

Please don't tell me you view this as legitimate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Can you explain why the article is displaying "crass ignorance?" In mean, in a nutshell. I'm not any sort of authority on Catholicism, so that article seemed about as authoritative as any other.

Do you find this authoritative because you believe it comes from a highly credible source? Or is it "authoritative" because it is something you want to believe?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can you explain why the article is displaying "crass ignorance?" In mean, in a nutshell. I'm not any sort of authority on Catholicism, so that article seemed about as authoritative as any other.

I posted a direct statement from the Pope in 1950 saying that there is no objection to evolution from the Church. I don't see the article being as authoritative.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This thread is worthy of a Godzilla facepalm.