Yeah, OK
You are an idiot
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Yeah, OK
17. :banana:. . . only if you believe such nonsense . . . but you've always been a couple of french fries short of a happy meal . . . :sigh::rotfl:Genesis 1 follows no lesson plan, therefore, it "teaches" nothing.
Because you say so? :idunno:
Most of Genesis is historical descriptions of Abraham's life. Nobody seems to have a problem with what happened to him.
Probably.
Definitely.
Gee, if I did my job the way you think people should speak to one another, we would get sued to kingdom come and I would get fired.
It also teaches that the sun was made after the Earth. :idunno:
All because you say so, right?
Popes are morons.
:chuckle:
It would be a much nicer place if he were.
18. :banana:
:chuckle:
Who?
And 19. :banana:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He didn't need to say anymore after that...though thanks for providing a link. Here's his post in full for the thread itself:
"Even holding complete, incontrovertible proof that our solar system DID in fact require millions of years to form into its current, and that life on this planet DID in fact require millions of years to develop and grow into what we have today.....some people just refuse to come down from the trees.
It is impossible to study literature and still believe the Genesis creation stories (there's more than one there!) are literal, barring one's own stubborn adherence to ignorance.
The first chapters of Genesis (1-11:27) read like Native American/Ancient Greek/Ancient Japanese/Ancient Sumerian "this is why the way things are they way they are" stories.
- Obviously the Earth exists, so we'll tell you a story of how God got it there.
- Obviously people exist, so we'll tell you a story of how we got here.
- Obviously people are screwed up, so we'll tell you a story of how that all started.
- Obviously there are rainbows...
- Obviously people speak different languages....
Especially since all of these stories were passed down ORALLY.
Orally = changed over time = NOT STRAIGHT FROM GOD.
For most people that's a DUH, but apparently not everyone, judging by this thread.
Genesis 1 is a POEM.
You wouldn't try to convince someone that The Raven (Poe) or Auspex (James Lowell) are literal accounts of events."
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Stay around and you'll likely find yourself torn apart by the same pack. You never seem to factor that into the equation although I'm sure you'd have an uzi or something on standby just in case...
Why some of you lot have such a big hang up over the age of the earth and evolution is just baffling...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, maybe this thread is an excuse for Stripe to count to a hundred in under four and a half months...
:freak:
:freak:
No. It teaches that the sun ignited or began to shine after the earth coalesced. Science actually agrees with that sequence of events.
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader
Much of Genesis is a literary style that uses allegory and imagery to convey the truth.
No, because it is. Only a Fundie extremist takes the creation account word for word in a literalistic way.
An excellent guidline for proper interpretation of Scripture:
III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
Source: LINK
References:
75 Cf. Dei Verbum 12 # 1.
76 Dei Verbum 12 # 2.
77 Dei Verbum 12 # 3.
78 Cf. Dei Verbum 12 # 4.
79 Cf. ⇒ Lk 24:25-27, ⇒ 44-46
80 St. Thomas Aquinas, Expos. in ⇒ Ps. 21, ⇒ 11; cf. ⇒ Ps 22:14.
81 Origen, Hom. in ⇒ Lev. 5, 5: PG 12, 454D.
82 Cf. ⇒ Rom 12:6.
83 St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. I Cor 10:2.
85 I Cor 10:11; cf. ⇒ Heb 3:1 - ⇒ 4:11.
86 Cf. ⇒ Rev 21:1 - ⇒ 22:5.
87 Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
88 Dei Verbum 12 # 3.
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.
Last edited by a moderator:
noguru
Well-known member
Well at least you realize that in 1600 or 1700 years people won't be reading your garbage as part of a history lesson on theology. All they have to do to learn about your absurd ideas is read about the head injuries sustained by Ellen G. White and how Henry Morris picked up her ball and ran with it.
22! :banana:
It says they were made on day 4. You seem to be making up the part that they were made earlier.
Extremist - belief in and support for ideas that are very far from what is considered correct or reasonable.
Evolutionists love non-sequiturs. :chuckle:
23! :banana:
Genesis 1:14-19
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
It says they were made on day 4. You seem to be making up the part that they were made earlier.
Your insistence is not good enough. Tell us why "Six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
Fundamental - relating to the most important part of something.
Extremist - belief in and support for ideas that are very far from what is considered correct or reasonable.
Evolutionists love non-sequiturs. :chuckle:
Genesis is historical narrative. Nobody reads anything in a purely literal fashion.
23! :banana:
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, the "fundie" part is because morons like you claim to get back to the fundamentals. So it is used in a facetious way by others. The extremist part is right on. You are a moron because you believe scientific inaccuracy is fundamental to something you find important. And you are extreme about it in order to compensate for your own stupidity.
Straw Man argument. I never said they did. I said:
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
Anyone who doesn't understand this will always come up with false & erroneous scripture interpretations. You do realize, don't you, that Genesis was written by Moses (or someone during Moses' time). Was Moses there in the Garden? Was Moses there with Noah? Were there any witness to The Garden, the Flood, etc., who contributed to the writing of Gensis? You have no clue how inspration really works in regards to the sacred authors.
Oh man, you do not understand fundy---god was the eyewitness. And if he said 6 days, it is 6 days.
Only people with more cognitive dissonance going on than Catholics are the fundamentalists.
noguru
Well-known member
Oh my, you can count. I am impressed. Would you like a medal?
Another Scripturally challenged TOL'er has spoken.
God is not a heavenly manager who dictates facts as if to a sternographer. Inspiration does not work like that.
I repeat:
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
Much of Genesis is a literary style that uses allegory and imagery to convey the truth. But was there really a talking snake and a tree bearing fruits with mystical powers? Not likely.
Genisis is true, but the truth it is meant to convey is not in a literary style we are use to. In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way.
The fact is, Genisis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only: That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.
Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.
noguru
Well-known member
The sheer stupidity of "fundy excremist" thinking is that if God was communicating to himself, then why put humans in the equation. On the other hand the fact that the Bible is written for humans means he was communicating to humans in terms they could understand at the time. These modern day YECs who just can't get their heads around this concept of historical context are both sad and humorous.
Well said. :up: