Catholic Church in the news

[abide]

http://click.infospace.com/ClickHan...4&mid=9&hash=52CCD52DEEFF9D4870F237D9DAD6EFA3



This church has been in the news for many years, pedophilia and now one of its cardinals is denying the biblical story of Adam and Eve. When we read things like this no wonder people continue to doubt the word of God...

This church continues to deceive the vast majority of people. If one part of the scripture cannot be believed all others are doubtful it would seem.

They are other priests from other churches that continue to deny the veracity of the word of God. It would be good if they can take up a different profession, because to me it does not make sense. Some have said that the Virgin Birth is a myth too...AND YET PEOPLE CONTINUE TO CONFIDE IN THESE MEN..CONFESSING THEIR SINS TO THEM...SMH... Only the naive and deceived will continue to believe in this stupidity. No wonder the molestation of young boys continue to be a problem for this church..When you doubt the word of God where then will you find your moral compass?
As the end draws near we will see more and more of these scoffers coming on the scene and of course this was predicted centuries ago.

 

[Grazer]

Nothing controversial about that. Many people hold similar views re: genesis and evolution including many on here. I don't see it as abandoning the word, more an effort to understand it better

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Savedbygrace3927]

Jesus was a descendant of Adam, so if Adam was mythical, what does that make Jesus? The Genesis account is the foundation of the Bible. If you undermine Genesis, you undermine the whole Bible.

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Evolution cannot fit in the Bible. God created man in his image, the same cant be said for animals. So there is no way man evolved from an ape.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[Grazer]

SBG - I don't see how taking Genesis to be mythical (in the strictest sense of the word) undermines the bible at all. It undermines any theology that's built on a strict literalistic interpretation but that's very different.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mike]

SBG - I don't see how taking Genesis to be mythical (in the strictest sense of the word) undermines the bible at all. It undermines any theology that's built on a strict literalistic interpretation but that's very different.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Grazer, I'm uncomfortable with your word to describe anything in scripture. Did you really mean to say parts are "mythical". Regardless of how you qualify it as in the strictest sense, it still has a negative connotation. I could see "allegorical", because I'd agree that some stories in it are written with that vehicle. I don't believe the story of Creation is an allegory, but it's certainly not a myth.

I realize we're off topic here, but we do have rules against RCC discussions. This rule is intended to focus on RCC doctrine, but this could end up there.

 

[Grazer]

Grazer, I'm uncomfortable with your word to describe anything in scripture. Did you really mean to say parts are "mythical". Regardless of how you qualify it as in the strictest sense, it still has a negative connotation. I could see "allegorical", because I'd agree that some stories in it are written with that vehicle. I don't believe the story of Creation is an allegory, but it's certainly not a myth.

I realize we're off topic here, but we do have rules against RCC discussions. This rule is intended to focus on RCC doctrine, but this could end up there.

It may have negative connotations but the I've used the word accurately;

a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory

The fact it has negative connotations is part of the problem in my view. It doesn't need to have negative connotations if you understand the meaning of the word not what people think it means

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[abide]

Jesus was a descendant of Adam, so if Adam was mythical, what does that make Jesus? The Genesis account is the foundation of the Bible. If you undermine Genesis, you undermine the whole Bible.

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Evolution cannot fit in the Bible. God created man in his image, the same cant be said for animals. So there is no way man evolved from an ape.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You are correct and the scriptures you posted are correct. Thank you.
It is time that Christians stand for the word of God and don't allow those who are being influenced by the modern day philosophies to contaminate their minds.
We either stand by every word of God or we don't. What a person believes..d

 

[Grazer]

An extract from one Augustines books has come to mind reading Abides response;

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation"


Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You are correct and the scriptures you posted are correct. Thank you.
It is time that Christians stand for the word of God and don't allow those who are being influenced by the modern day philosophies to contaminate their minds.
We either stand by every word of God or we don't. What a person believes..d

abide, you are so right, amen!