Zone1 The biggest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[Donald H]

You act like something that was resolved a hundred years ago happened yesterday.

It was put off to lunacy until the 50's. If it really was mentioned 100 years ago then it would have had no effect on the flock.
The evidence for that is all the arguments that are currently taking place.

You're taking the position that the stories in question are not literally true, but you get mostly 'no comment' on your belief.

Only a few have had the courage to claim the stories as being the true story. I'm still not convinced that the students are all with you.

Do your own survey.

I'll have a look for something that refers to the big break by the church in the 50's.

 

[Donald H]

I don't recall saying that the story of Jonah isn't literally true. It is not necessarily literally true, it works both ways whether he was in an actual fish or whether the big fish is a metaphor. Using a metaphor does not falsify any story.

Alright my friend. You're saying that the story is true regardless of whether Jonah was in a big fish or not.

And that's not an issue for me because I accept it, on conditions that you have demanded of me. I don't know if it can work with others but I would try it on Ding first.

This discussion between us is now all on your terms. I hesitate to even say that the metaphor in this case does indeed falsify the story.

However, it doesn't have to be a disagreement that we can't work with!

I have the patience of Job to make this work between us. I find that we're getting damn close to it.

If your husband and your religious beliefs are the same then he's a lucky man to have such a wife with a beautiful and patient character.

If they are not the same beliefs, then be prepared .....................................

 

[Donald H]

Enlightenment is a good thing. I'm glad you like it. Wait until you find Jesus!

I went to a CC one time and I found him and I ate him.

 

[ding]

I went to a CC one time and I found him and I ate him.

Not if you didn't believe you did.

 

[ding]

I'll have a look for something that refers to the big break by the church in the 50's.

You should probably go back a little farther in time. Say like the time of Augustine who did not interpret the creation account literally. You act like this is something new and important but it's not. Subversives are gonna subvert, I guess.

 

[Meriweather]

Alright my friend. You're saying that the story is true regardless of whether Jonah was in a big fish or not.

And that's not an issue for me because I accept it, on conditions that you have demanded of me. I don't know if it can work with others but I would try it on Ding first.

This discussion between us is now all on your terms. I hesitate to even say that the metaphor in this case does indeed falsify the story.

However, it doesn't have to be a disagreement that we can't work with!

I have the patience of Job to make this work between us. I find that we're getting damn close to it.

If your husband and your religious beliefs are the same then he's a lucky man to have such a wife with a beautiful and patient character.

If they are not the same beliefs, then be prepared .....................................

Donald--I have not and will not make any demands of you. I married an agnostic/atheist so our religious beliefs, over the forty years we have known each other, are nowhere close. My Catholic grandmother married my atheist grandfather, so it is not as if I entered my own marriage blindfolded and clueless.

I've never been tied up wondering which parts of Bible accounts are literal and which parts are not. What does interest me is what every account by the original author is trying to teach/convey to his original audience. This has meant studying etymology and original Biblical languages. It is accepting scientific knowledge of today is far beyond what it was in Biblical times. Modern cultures are different from Biblical cultures.

I study theology to learn about God, not to learn about science. I am more interest in studying what I can ascertain of the spiritual realm, than I am in studying the physical realm.

You and I don't agree, aren't even close to agreeing, and I accept this.

 

[ding]

I'll have a look for something that refers to the big break by the church in the 50's.

You really are a putz.

Misunderstanding the Book of Genesis - JSTOR Daily

A short history of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis reveals it's largely a modern dogma.

daily.jstor.org

 

[The Irish Ram]

I went to a CC one time and I found him and I ate him.

I hope someday you will find Him for real. All you have to do is open the door and let Him in.

 

[Donald H]

I hope someday you will find Him for real. All you have to do is open the door and let Him in.

I told you I opened my mouth and let him in.

 

[Donald H]

The position that ultimately prevailed within the Catholic Church was that the evolution of human beings at the physical level is consistent with the Catholic faith as long as the spiritual soul is understood to have been conferred by God directly (i.e. not by physical causes alone) upon the first human beings, as upon all subsequent human beings. This position was given official toleration in Pope Pius XII’s 1950 “encyclical letter ” Humani generis,6 the first pronouncement ever made about evolution by the “universal magisterium” of the Catholic Church. (The word “magisterium” refers to the popes and the bishops collectively in their role as authoritative teachers of Catholic doctrine.)

 

[Donald H]

Donald--I have not and will not make any demands of you. I married an agnostic/atheist so our religious beliefs, over the forty years we have known each other, are nowhere close. My Catholic grandmother married my atheist grandfather, so it is not as if I entered my own marriage blindfolded and clueless.

I expected to hear something similar to that on your relationship with your husband. I should have never asked.

I've never been tied up wondering which parts of Bible accounts are literal and which parts are not. What does interest me is what every account by the original author is trying to teach/convey to his original audience. This has meant studying etymology and original Biblical languages. It is accepting scientific knowledge of today is far beyond what it was in Biblical times. Modern cultures are different from Biblical cultures.

I study theology to learn about God, not to learn about science. I am more interest in studying what I can ascertain of the spiritual realm, than I am in studying the physical realm.

You and I don't agree, aren't even close to agreeing, and I accept this.

We agree on the ark story and the Jonah story and there's no reason to fear that. They're simply not literally true stories.

They don't have to be true stories to have meaning. On that we agree too!

And fwiw, I am in agreement with the CC on officially accepting evolution in the 50's. I hope you too can accept that now.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I told you I opened my mouth and let him in.

It's your heart that matters, not your mouth...

 

[The Irish Ram]

Only practicing Catholics know the biggest difference btwn Catholic and Protestant

Protestants do not have Transubstantiation, therefore, they do not have the Tangible Presence of Christ in their "hosts" (bread) or "church"

Only Jesus, working through an ordained Catholic priest can confect the host so that it actually becomes Christ...

See Eucharistic Miracles.

I don't recall one thing that Jesus did that He needed an ordained Catholic priest to work through.
I would think that the pedophilia that plagues the Catholic Church would prevent the tangible presence of Christ.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't recall one thing that Jesus did that He needed an ordained Catholic priest to work through.
I would think that the pedophilia that plagues the Catholic Church would prevent the tangible presence of Christ.

Jesus worked through his chosen Apostles as a special priesthood, who then, in their turn chose others to become part of this special priesthood, handed down to our time, trained in scripture and Apostolic tradition.

You are think Christ can be defeated by this or any sin? Catholics see Christ as the one who takes away the sin of the world, not the one who is defeated by sin. Interesting, too, you only see the sin but are blind to work Catholics have done and are doing to extinguish this sin, not only in the Church, but in society. Ever see how Catholic children are being reimbursed when abused by a priest while most of the rest of society's children never receive a dime from those who abused them?

 

[Donald H]

It's your heart that matters, not your mouth...

Go play.

 

[Donald H]

You should probably go back a little farther in time. Say like the time of Augustine who did not interpret the creation account literally. You act like this is something new and important but it's not. Subversives are gonna subvert, I guess.

If you're now suggesting that the creation account was not literally true then we have definitely reached a milestone.

But I wonder if any other Christians will accept your view?

I accept it! But that's without any further explanation that could change my mind.

 

[ding]

If you're now suggesting that the creation account was not literally true then we have definitely reached a milestone.

But I wonder if any other Christians will accept your view?

I accept it! But that's without any further explanation that could change my mind.

I'm suggesting you have made a big deal out of nothing. Overdramatize much?

Misunderstanding the Book of Genesis - JSTOR Daily

A short history of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis reveals it's largely a modern dogma.

daily.jstor.org

 

[Donald H]

I'm suggesting you have made a big deal out of nothing. Overdramatize much?

Misunderstanding the Book of Genesis - JSTOR Daily

A short history of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis reveals it's largely a modern dogma.

daily.jstor.org

Genesis has been proven to be the 'nothing' but I don't think we can speak for other Christians on that. They've all done a lot of reading but they're still cautious on stepping up.

They're the majority that have been coerced into being silent. (with a couple of exceptions)

 

[ding]

Genesis has been proven to be the 'nothing' but I don't think we can speak for other Christians on that. They've all done a lot of reading but they're still cautious on stepping up.

They're the majority that have been coerced into being silent. (with a couple of exceptions)

Did you read the link? Your strawman is a modern dogma of creationists as in recent. Keep beating that dead horse, it's not going to change the fact that you are an idiot to pretend that creationists existed for thousands of years when they didn't.

 

[Donald H]

It's your heart that matters, not your mouth...

He dissolved in my mouth into practically nothing to swallow.

It turned out that I carry a better lunch in my nose.