Catholic Church says Bible is untrue.
Offline http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
The Times October 05, 2005
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
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.
?We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,? they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin?s theory of evolution in schools, believing ?intelligent design? to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country?s Catholic bishops insist cannot be ?historical?. At most, they say, they may contain ?historical traces?.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is ?God?s word expressed in human language? and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways ?appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries?.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: ?We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.?
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its ?intransigent intolerance? and to warn of ?significant dangers? involved in a fundamentalist approach.
?Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.?
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, ?His blood be on us and on our children?, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had ?tragic consequences? in encouraging hatred and persecution. ?The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.?
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: ?Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.?
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O?Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O?Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew?s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. ?We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.?
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised ?200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It?s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: ?There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.?
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: ?I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.?
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: ?His blood be on us and on our children.?
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.?
TRUE
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: ?I am who I am.?
Leviticus xxvi,12
?I will be your God, and you shall be my people.?
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
JOIN THE DEBATE
www.timesonline.co.uk/debate
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Holy fuck I agree with Catholics on something! :shock:
Of course, I'd say the entire Bible is untrue!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Notice how as we learn more about how we evolved, they are forced to admit the bibles inadequacies. Hopefully someday we'll figure it all out and they'll be forced to admit not only are portions made up... it's all made up.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
We can hope. I doubt it will be in our lifetime, though.
Imagine how much better the world would be if nobody believed in religion......
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You know though, I haven't decided yet if this is a good thing for rationality or a bad thing. I mean, we can look at it as "yes, let the fuckers keep chipping away at their credibility," but we'd be missing the bigger implications. Most churchgoers now were brought up on the notion that the bible was truth, plain and simple. Sure, they'd give a little and say some of it was symbolic, but the message was there. That gave us something to discredit (which is obviously what happened here. The general secular society is obviously seen as a legitimate threat to the church now). We had a physical document to present to say "look you morons, this is what you believe, read it sometime." But now we're going to have a new generation of churchgoers that thrive on ignorance and ignorance alone, with no tool as strong as the bible to use against them. And I haven't decided if the rationality that lies in every mind will prevail now that there literally isn't anything tangible to grasp hold of, or if they'll allow the twisted logic that the church presents now to bury them further in ignorance. At least before when you asked them why they believe something, they had a legitimate thought process of saying "well i believe it because it says so right here." Not a good argument, but at least they had some willingness to find tangible evidence, even if that evidence was flawed. But now, what is the argument but blind ignorance. So, I'd like to see the reaction to this view, because some of my family are devout catholics and during a debate with one of them recently this notion that the bible isn't really all true came up and I didn't know where that idea came from or how to approach it anymore because philisophical arguments and basic arguments for the logic of belief in god in general are way over their heads.
"It's not so much staying alive. It's staying human that's important." - 1984
www.myspace.com/applesforadam
applesforadam.blogspot.com
We just need to use other strategies than biblical errancy, that's all. I mean, if everything is interpretation, and there are so many interpretations, why do catholics choose the one they do? WE know that it's usually inculcated from before they could tie their shoes, but it's a good question whether they come to that conclusion or not.
I just think that it's a step in the right direction for society period. In order for the catholics to admit that perhpas the origins of life are not exactly as teh bible said and are willing to accept evolution, and science....then that is definitely a step in the right direction. There are other aspects, of course, that are flawed within catholic dogma, but at least now we can focus on those. I think the real threat does indeed fall within the evangelical fundamentalists.. the biblical literalists that are taking over this country. That is why I've always focused on the church/state aspect as the primary battle followed by discrediting god/theism. It's a multi-faceted approach. But we cannot let these people have political leverage.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Do they still say it's the word of God? If so, doesn't that mean God was wrong? How could that be? Blaming it on the (physical) writers doesn't exactly work either, because wouldn't an actual god correct them? Or just write the damn thing himself!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I can't believe people buy into this propaganda...
The TRUE teaching (or position) of the Catholic Church on the truth of the Bible is stated in their Catechism, which is an official exposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church:
"107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Their position has not changed... This woman just wants people to "bite".
I just thought of something - what if the pope suddenly realized that religion was bullshit and publicly stated so (as quite a few fundie preachers have done?) Would the doctrine of Papal Infallibility require every Catholic to become an atheist? After all, the "official" position of the Catholic church is that the pope is absolutely, unquestioningly correct in any religious matter. Well, we can dream!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one.....
-John Lennon
Reason based on evidences unite in a way that is fair. Beliefs based on blind hope divides -which is not fair at all. If we must find fault in persons or in ideas we should try to be fair. Religion is blind and so in cases is not fair at all...there is only one reality, past and present. How did our universe come to be? How did we get here? What is the human condition? Where should we go from here? Religion can not answer these fairly because it can only blindly hope in yesterdays blind answers to these important questions.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a weekly podcast ( http://www.ffrf.org/radio/podcast/ )
They open and close every show with that song.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
My bookmarks are growing! There are a lot of atheists I never talked to, but I sure did learn a lot from reading their posts. I will share what I get from here with people offline. People can be curious . I enjoy online radio programs. I do not know of many that are Free Thought related. Or Philosophy related.
Thanks MattShizzle.
I love John Lennon
If you have itunes, you can get this one there, the infidel guy, and one of Robert Ingersoll speeches. The Freethought Radio one is the best I listened to. It's worth it to listen to all so far. The last one came out yesterday, but it's usually the end of the week (sometimes as late as the next week) before it's available to download.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Thank you kindly MattShizzle. I am not sure what all I want to get out of college, but the Free Thought community has given me ideas of interesting classes that I might take. I will tune in to Free Thought Radio as well as RRS. I really like it here.
Here's a bigger shock:
Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, formerly a physicist, a professor of theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in New York states that it is now official Roman Catholic doctrine that an atheist can go to heaven, provided the atheist he honestly believes in his atheism.
In other words, what is more important, is being true to yourself.
Watch him say it, right here, in an interview with Robert Wright:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=albacete&topic=death
Some of the interview posted here:
Wright: So you believe that a Buddhist can be saved, can have salvation, the afterlife that a Christian has...
Lorenzo Albacete: Probably faster than I would.
Wright: And what about an atheist?
Lorenzo Albacete: Oh yes, faster than I would in all probability...
Wright: What would an atheist have to do to get into Heaven?
Lorenzo Albacete: Even St. Thomas Aquinas would say "Follow his or her conscience." Be honest to your heart.
Wright: But clear moral...
Lorenzo Albacete: Yes but it's not the morality that gains you heaven. It's not because an atheist does good things. It is the heart that gets you there. This is very important. Even for the Christian, a Christian can fulfill every damn moral law there is And end up in hell. This is a doctrine of the church. It's not what you do, it is your stand in respect to otherness. It is your conscience....
further down in the interview:
Wright: As a matter of fact, you've just expressed a very liberal salvation doctrine... inclusive And modern...
Lorenzo Albacete: I think you could look it up And read in Pope John Paul II, the redeemer of man, Second Vatican Council ... I can give you many references... the cataclysm of the church...
Wright: Is that the Catholic position that a Buddhist or an atheist can go to Heaven?
Lorenzo Albacete: Yes. Sure.
Wright: There are a lot of Protestant denominations that aren't saying that...
Lorenzo Albacete: That's right.. I respect that. We do not say that. In the mass in the fourth Eucharistic prayer of the mass, we pray for those who seek you -- we are praying to God -- for those who seek you with a sincere heart. We are praying as much for them as we are for the Pope, the bishop, the church, etc.
Wright: So ultimately yours is ...
Lorenzo Albacete: I don't think I'm being a liberal Catholic. That is the doctrine of the church.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I don't think that's what the official Catholic CHurch would actually say, but that would be a good religion - really do what you think is right just because you feel it's right - ie not because of the religion. By that standard I bet atheists would be much more likely to get to heaven than christians!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
WOW
!
But is that really biblic.....oh...the church said the bible is not entirely true....
Then what all is true in the bible? If they are not clear on this then does that not make us dependant on the clergy? The Pope? If that is so what if our current or next Pope stinks? Tells us how to vote on certain issues based on superstitious fears or convictions? Is belief in an infallible man who speaks for a God a good thing? Does the church still give mixed messages on following your heart?
I am glad the Church is trying to improve when it comes to differences.
God did correct them by sending down the Quran and protecting it from corruption, we all know that the bible has been edited many times and there are hundreds of different versions, but they still cannot find the 'origional version'
The bible was a mix of random liars (like Paul/Saul) who mixed lies with the real revelation of the Injeel (Gospels) sent down to Jesus (pbuh).
Christianity itself is not complete anyways, read John 16:12, Jesus specifically says "I have much more to say to you, but you cannot bear them now".
Shows how flawed christianity's doctrine is.
The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:
Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio
We would agree with you 100% on Christianity. Of course, we would say Islam is also incorrect.
Ba-dum-tsh!
(a bit cheeky but I couldn't resist!
)
LOL
Now let's demonstrate how inconsistent you are.
The Qu'ran has been updated and corrected. That's right, humans have copyrighted "god" yet again.
Here's the evidence....
In the 1970s, parts of very old copies of the Qu'ran were found in a burial plot in Yemen. Some of the parchment pages of the Qur'an found in the famous "Yemeni hoard" are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God. The Yemeni hoard is an Islamic burial ground for old copies of the Qu'ran from the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Islamic calender. These parchment pages not only contain suras that are different from the suras appearing in a modern copy of the Qu'ran, they contain suras that contradict modern passages. For more on this, see this page:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
What the Yemeni copies of the Qur'an clearly suggest is that the Qur'an was an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the first century of the Islamic calendar.
Finally, just as with the bible, there is no evidence that the Qur'an was written any where near the time of the events is purports to real to us. The earliest account of the compilation of the Qur’an is that of Ibn Sa‘ad [844 CE], followed by Bukhari [870 CE] and Muslim [874 CE]. 4 (Remember, Mohammed is supposed to have died in 632 CE.)
These points are devasting for the veracity of the Qur'an as the word of god - for unlike christianity, Islam is steadfast, since the 10th century, that the Qu'ran is the word of god. If it is, why would Mohammed insert things for his own needs? Why would Muslim clerics EDIT it? It seems that many of the people intricately involved with the Qu'ran are tacitly conceding that the Qur'an is man made.
Now let's watch you as you flail away at reality once again, in your pathetic attempt to deny away reality.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
WRONG
It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad’s death.
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/oldest_quran_in_the_world.htm
Next time try to do some research...
The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:
Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio
I don't know which part is the article and which is your commentary. However, two points are to be considered.: first, the bishops of England, ect. are not infallible (however reliable and orthodox they may be, they are the not the complete Magisterium), and, second, this does not change Catholic teaching at all.
The Catholic Church has always taught (read Augustine, for instance) that Sacred Scripture is inspired and inerrant. However, as opposed to a purely superficial literalistic reading, the Scriptures are given in many senses (allegory, moral analogy, literal reading, ect.). The Church exists to lead people to salvation in Christ, and to teach the faith in every age - a subset of which is to safeguard interpretation of Scripture. The Church does not give a particular reading to those passages of Scripture quoted, except that (by faith we know) they cannot be in contradiction with other Scripture or with articles of faith or with what we know by reason. If reason shows, for example, evolution to be a truth, then the Scripture does not contradict this truth, but ought to be interpreted as applying in a different manner.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
"To prevent disputes about which verses should be considered divinely inspired, Othman had this definitive version compiled. It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad’s death. "
So, it's considered definitive because Othman defined it to be so. This is very similar to those who only use the KJV because it's the "Authorized" version.
Of course, "authorized" in this sense means "bankrolled" and I stongly suspect Othman did the same thing.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
you see, you strongly suspect, but you have no certain knowledge.
If you did some research on the history of the Quran you would find that they all had the same recitation of the quran but different tribes had different ways of writing it on paper, to prevent misunderstanding and disputes, they wrote it in the arabic Quraishi language. Which was the language the prophet (pbuh) spoke in.
The Future of the World and the United States can be summed up in one verse:
Quran 61:9
{ He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religio
So...who're you going to believe? An article in the New York Times which was writtened to attract subscribers (a stab toward its credibility), or the Church who they claim to represent?
Because the Catholic Church says that every word of Scripture is true.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
An even better one is this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
And here's the official Catholic response to the article you posted:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512bt.asp
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Interesting article on infallible v. inerrant.
So, the pope has error as humans do but when he speaks ex cathedra God magically takes his human judgment away and substitutes his own judgment, rendering his comments infallible?
Just want to get it straight.
Broken link for the other article, btw.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Not exactly, but you get the basic idea.
There are obvious things that you can say that are just common-sense-ly true. For example, "The sky is blue." That's an infallible statement (unless I'm wrong...EGAD!!!), and infallible because it has presence in objective reality. Color is not subjective, so it is true. When the Pope makes an infallible statement, he is saying something of faith/morals has presence in objective reality, and is not subjective. After that, it's a common-sense thing again, and infallible by nature. God grants the Pope the knowledge of what is and is not subjective by nature, and the Pope from there makes the statement of infallibility, through God's name.
At least I think that's how it goes...I haven't studied this, but that's the first "rational" solution that I picked up, and so that's what I'm here to declare.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!