Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shrug, apparently not at the Catholic school I attended. We heard about Mendel and evolution as well, and there were obviously a few teachers/priests who also took an interest in Bible as Literature.Wow - you are bringing in a scientific explanation/reasoning in regards to Religious teachings. That's extremely contradictory.
Hogwash. The Catholic Church teaches each individual can take every word of the Bible literally if they wish or follow other, less literal, interpretations.Nowhere in the Bible is that stated - trying to rewrite or to add personal interpretations towards the holy book is heresy - and you will go to hell for it.
I take it you have not recently read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Religion is not up for debate amongst non-theologians (Theologians sanctioned exclusively by the Holy Roman Church) Protestant or any other Christian religious side-groups are going to hell - the first and therefore only true Christian religion is that of Rome (Paul) aka Holy Roman Church.
You are confusing - modernized and updated heretic teachings - with the original teachings - and therefore altering the very substance that your belief is based upon.I take it you have not recently read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I testify to His existence. Absolutely, you and anyone else is free to ignore my testimony and the testimony of others. Not believing testimony does not eliminate God--it merely dismisses the testimony.
Good God, this is about the weakest most fallacious argument I've ever read here!
Well, I don't feel like delving into this worn out subject yet again, so all I will say here is that your OP begins with a fallacy for a premise, so, that leaves no way to logically argue to a valid conclusion. Basically, the premise of your OP is structured to DENY the existence of God, so, isn't really worth pursuing any farther. since its very nature is biased at the start.
synapsida.blogspot.com
There is more to the Galileo story and the dispute between him and the Church. Most of the Church hierarchy did not mind Galileo's theories or his expression of them. At the time of Galileo there were very few books and for this reason the Bible was prominent. Galileo insisted the Bible be changed to reflect his theories--for example, any account of the sun moving. The Church was just as insistent that to change the Bible would be heresy. The issue was not over what Galileo was writing, it was that he wanted the Bible to reflect his writing.Example Galileo - his teachings were only acknowledged by the Church in 1757, 220 years after his condemnation of being a Heretic.
In 1992 he was "officially" rehabilitated by the Church - it just took them 450 years to acknowledge scientific facts. And now people like you propagate that the Church - Christianity has evolved.
That conclusion is over-simplified and probably over emphasizes the effect of science at the expense of translations and evolving language and cultures. Religion is a philosophy relating to behavior while science is the study of our physical world. The Church, in fact, encouraged science, Mendel a primary example of this.As such the teachings of e.g. Christianity are all one big lie - based onto self written works such as the Old and New testimony.
Actually, it is not 'modernization' but a return to the basics--the bare bones--that is useful. Had your priest been well-versed in the original Hebrew, or had knowledge of how the definitions of certain words had changed, I doubt that he would have had trouble with your question. Note, the priests and nuns that taught me had no issue with the same type of question or others.A religion that needs to modernize/update it's teachings, only proofs that it propagated rubbish for millennia. (That is why this particular priest - reacted in the way I had described).
Then the scientific community needs to be aware of a couple of things. First, it is only a minority of Christians who take literally every word in the Bible. Most do not. Second, the scientific community should already be aware there is a vast difference between philosophy and science.So far Christianity has only evolved upon being faced with unavoidable ridicule by the scientific community and those people being aware of it.
Meanwhile, here in America in the early 1930s, by Catholic grandmother married an atheist. I did the same in the 1980s. No, such marriages are not encouraged and for good reason.Until 1960 it was even impossible in Europe for a Catholic to marry a Protestant and receive the blessings - afraid of loosing their flock - they again "updated" their teachings aka beliefs.
All throughout history, in every land, time, and culture, people have had experiences of God. These were no more ignored or dismissed than other knowledge. It was not fiction created by mankind, but a reality observed by mankind. Observations...something both religion and science have in common.As such the teachings of e.g. Christianity are all one big lie - based onto self written works such as the Old and New testimony.
If one want's to believe into a superior being aka God - independent of institutional propagated beliefs, well that is a personal choice, whilst evading religious dogmas of those who came up with this God issue in the first place.
But there are and always will be people who can't help themselves, find explanations or take care of their own issues/problems - and this is were religion or religious beliefs kick in. As simple as that.
Ask Galileo how much the church encouraged his scientific studiesThat conclusion is over-simplified and probably over emphasizes the effect of science at the expense of translations and evolving language and cultures. Religion is a philosophy relating to behavior while science is the study of our physical world. The Church, in fact, encouraged science, Mendel a primary example of this.
The Protestant Reformation resulted in a split in the Church, with Reformers arguing that everyone could, in their own language, read, understand, and interpret the Bible for themselves. What was missing was the knowledge that the King James English was nothing like the original Hebrew. Some began to take literally which was not the intent of the original author or his original audience. Next, over the decades, the meaning and use of many words change, some dramatically.
It is misunderstanding--not lies--that cause most of the confusion and the arguments.
It is certainly not a misunderstanding - the original texts of e.g. the new testimony are stated clear as crystal water can be.That conclusion is over-simplified and probably over emphasizes the effect of science at the expense of translations and evolving language and cultures. Religion is a philosophy relating to behavior while science is the study of our physical world. The Church, in fact, encouraged science, Mendel a primary example of this.
The Protestant Reformation resulted in a split in the Church, with Reformers arguing that everyone could, in their own language, read, understand, and interpret the Bible for themselves. What was missing was the knowledge that the King James English was nothing like the original Hebrew. Some began to take literally which was not the intent of the original author or his original audience. Next, over the decades, the meaning and use of many words change, some dramatically.
It is misunderstanding--not lies--that cause most of the confusion and the arguments.
They did encourage his studies. They were against adding his studies to the Bible, which at the time Galileo said was a theory.Ask Galileo how much the church encouraged his scientific studies
Return to the original language which used a word that covered the specifics we break it down into today. 'Brethren' siblings, step-siblings, cousins (including second-third cousins)--all those included in a household arrangement. Why do you think it matters that they be full brother/sisters as we define them today?It is certainly not a misunderstanding - the original texts of e.g. the new testimony are stated clear as crystal water can be.
Prime example - Jesus asked his brothers and sisters..... (it's clear as can be)
Apostolic tradition (in other words before the New Testament was formed) was that Mary had Jesus and then remained celibate. Kind of an odd thing to do at the time and therefore worthy of mention. Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other. So I note, the king James English suggests Jesus had half-brothers and sisters. The original word was that Jesus grew up among kindred--which at the time included widely extended family members. It is also noted that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he entrusted his mother to John. This simply would not have been done in that society if Mary had birthed other children. She would have naturally been cared for by her second born son.What? the blessed Mary had other kids too? if so from whom? such questions endanger the position of the church ultimately - next step (revising/personal interpretations of the original statement) oh no, it's brothers and sisters as in being followers of the same belief.
If so - the original statement would have been - and Jesus asked his followers....
