| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Mark Johnson" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2003 06:02:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution is the observation |
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
I can see where the idea comes from. We find marine fossils at very high
elevations. People have been remarking on those for more than 2500
years. It was natural to think, at first blush, that they got there from
a "great flood." Put that together with the oral histories of many
nations that include some tales of flooding and you soon have a "global"
flood. The writers of scripture obviously felt it incumbent to include
this bit of "scientific wisdom" from their own time.
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and others
have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . . well -
maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
But the hypothesis
has simply turned out to be wrong. And attempts to save it have reached
the proportions of major sin in many quarters, simply and only because
the story found its way into the Bible. This is not worship of God.
Rather, it's worship of a book about God and of the men who misinterpret
it or misrepresent it. In short, it's idolatry.
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and forerunners
wrong.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 02:31:45 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
I can see where the idea comes from. We find marine fossils at very
high elevations. People have been remarking on those for more than
2500 years. It was natural to think, at first blush, that they got
there from a "great flood." Put that together with the oral histories
of many nations that include some tales of flooding and you soon have
a "global" flood. The writers of scripture obviously felt it
incumbent to include this bit of "scientific wisdom" from their own
time.
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and others
have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . . well -
maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day interpreters?
THAT flood never happened. There have been many regional floods, several
of which might be candidates for the Noah story. I'm not totally
convinced that the Black Sea inundation isn't the one, though it would be
nice to have some archaeological evidence of human villages and towns
down along the shore of the original lake...
But the hypothesis
has simply turned out to be wrong. And attempts to save it have
reached the proportions of major sin in many quarters, simply and only
because the story found its way into the Bible. This is not worship
of God. Rather, it's worship of a book about God and of the men who
misinterpret it or misrepresent it. In short, it's idolatry.
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and forerunners
wrong.
The difficulties that arise from trying to use the Bible as some kind of
science authority are obvious. Science requires reproducibility and
testability for its claims and when one (mis)interprets the Bible so as
to utter testable scientific claims, then one must be prepared to see
those claims tested and to possibly fail the test. It's really that
simple. And it harks back to the simple problem that raising ANY text,
no matter how sacred above the actual physical creation (God's direct
handiwork) is a form of idolatry.
It's also instructive to note that REAL idolaters are very reluctant to
give up their idolatry, equating it at all times with the divine that it
is supplanting (and protecting them from having to deal with directly).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 06:19:11 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and others
have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . . well -
maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day interpreters?
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people are
talking about, here?
of which might be candidates for the Noah story. I'm not totally
convinced that the Black Sea inundation isn't the one, though it would be
nice to have some archaeological evidence of human villages and towns
down along the shore of the original lake...
That's the Bob Ballard/Nat Geo claim, correct? They saw the villages
underwater. But they can't convince themselves or anyone that it shows
historical traces and proof of the Genesis Flood?
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and forerunners
wrong.
The difficulties that arise from trying to use the Bible as some kind of
science authority are obvious.
But no one would use Scriptures as a "science authority". Science is
too flaky. Scriptures isn't science, because you can't count on
science. It's wrong. It's designed to be. It's trial and error. It's
learning by mistake. It's not Revelation.
It's also instructive to note that REAL idolaters are very reluctant to
give up their idolatry, equating it at all times with the divine that it
is supplanting (and protecting them from having to deal with directly).
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 08:09:03 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <501jfv4vp2esvhr1g6ip47sk1l4no8b0gs@4ax.com>:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and others
have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . . well -
maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day interpreters?
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people are
talking about, here?
That's what he is talking about, but he's talking about the
pseudo-literalism of Henry Morris and his acolytes.
of which might be candidates for the Noah story. I'm not totally
convinced that the Black Sea inundation isn't the one, though it would be
nice to have some archaeological evidence of human villages and towns
down along the shore of the original lake...
That's the Bob Ballard/Nat Geo claim, correct? They saw the villages
underwater. But they can't convince themselves or anyone that it shows
historical traces and proof of the Genesis Flood?
It may have been an inspiration for that story, it may not have been.
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and forerunners
wrong.
The difficulties that arise from trying to use the Bible as some kind of
science authority are obvious.
But no one would use Scriptures as a "science authority". Science is
too flaky. Scriptures isn't science, because you can't count on
science. It's wrong. It's designed to be. It's trial and error. It's
learning by mistake. It's not Revelation.
You also do not use scriptures for science when they are clearly in
error if used as science. In the case of the Global Flood, the evidence
shows that no such flood could have happened during the time of humans
on this planet.
It's also instructive to note that REAL idolaters are very reluctant to
give up their idolatry, equating it at all times with the divine that it
is supplanting (and protecting them from having to deal with directly).
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
Sometime before the storyteller invented it. It existed only in the mind
of the storyteller.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
26 Jun 2003 01:20:25 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <501jfv4vp2esvhr1g6ip47sk1l4no8b0gs@4ax.com>:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day interpreters?
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people are
talking about, here?
That's what he is talking about
He's talking about the Flood of Noah - or better be, because that's
the threadlet, here.
That's the Bob Ballard/Nat Geo claim, correct? They saw the villages
underwater. But they can't convince themselves or anyone that it shows
historical traces and proof of the Genesis Flood?
It may have been an inspiration for that story, it may not have been.
We don't know, then.
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and forerunners
wrong.
The difficulties that arise from trying to use the Bible as some kind of
science authority are obvious.
But no one would use Scriptures as a "science authority". Science is
too flaky. Scriptures isn't science, because you can't count on
science. It's wrong. It's designed to be. It's trial and error. It's
learning by mistake. It's not Revelation.
You also do not use scriptures for science when they are clearly in
error if used as science. In the case of the Global Flood, the evidence
shows that no such flood could have happened
So when . . . was . . . the Flood? You're telling me you know, because
you say it didn't happen then. Either that . . or?
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
Sometime before the storyteller invented it. It existed only in the mind
of the storyteller.
Or else you're wrong. Again, the Flood is something, that if
historical, would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So
the question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b.
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
26 Jun 2003 08:31:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <804lfvcnvgfsih1rn084voi05a380cis1b@4ax.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote
in <501jfv4vp2esvhr1g6ip47sk1l4no8b0gs@4ax.com>:
....
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people are
talking about, here?
That's what he is talking about
He's talking about the Flood of Noah - or better be, because that's
the threadlet, here.
So.
That's the Bob Ballard/Nat Geo claim, correct? They saw the villages
underwater. But they can't convince themselves or anyone that it shows
historical traces and proof of the Genesis Flood?
It may have been an inspiration for that story, it may not have been.
We don't know, then.
We don't know about the _story_. You seem to be confusing a real story
with an imagined event.
....
You also do not use scriptures for science when they are clearly in
error if used as science. In the case of the Global Flood, the evidence
shows that no such flood could have happened
So when . . . was . . . the Flood? You're telling me you know, because
you say it didn't happen then. Either that . . or?
The Flood happened in the minds of the storytellers.
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
Sometime before the storyteller invented it. It existed only in the mind
of the storyteller.
Or else you're wrong. Again, the Flood is something, that if
historical, would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So
the question remains - when was The Flood?
Whenever it was invented by the storyteller.
and secondly, where was The Flood?
In the mind of the storyteller.
If the Flood had been real, a certain set of evidence would have been
discovered. None of that evidence has been discovered. There is also a
set of evidence that would show that such a flood has and could not have
happened. Many pieces of evidence from that set of disproofs have been
discovered.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
25 Jun 2003 10:01:54 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:501jfv4vp2esvhr1g6ip47sk1l4no8b0gs@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and others
have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . . well -
maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day
interpreters?
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people are
talking about, here?
Well, IF there was a "Flood of Noah" as described in Genesis, then it
wasn't global and did not put a genetic bottleneck in the genetic history
of any known species.
of which might be candidates for the Noah story. I'm not totally
convinced that the Black Sea inundation isn't the one, though it would
be nice to have some archaeological evidence of human villages and
towns down along the shore of the original lake...
That's the Bob Ballard/Nat Geo claim, correct? They saw the villages
underwater. But they can't convince themselves or anyone that it shows
historical traces and proof of the Genesis Flood?
Well, the fundies won't have any of it because it's not global. The
atheists complain that there's not enough archaeological evidence.
The thing that bothers me about these Usenet discussions is that
science is used, so often, as a term, and yet science is not
presented, but rather dogmatic assertion, about an entire area of
endeavor which is designed to historically prove peers and
forerunners wrong.
The difficulties that arise from trying to use the Bible as some kind
of science authority are obvious.
But no one would use Scriptures as a "science authority". Science is
too flaky. Scriptures isn't science, because you can't count on
science. It's wrong. It's designed to be. It's trial and error. It's
learning by mistake. It's not Revelation.
Actually, science has it's own "authority." That authority is physical
evidence and logical inference drawn from it. Science may be wrong, but
it is less wrong with each new theory. When religion is wrong, it tends
to just stay that way and even to get MORE wrong with each generation of
heretics!
It's also instructive to note that REAL idolaters are very reluctant
to give up their idolatry, equating it at all times with the divine
that it is supplanting (and protecting them from having to deal with
directly).
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
No, I think a primary question for science should be "Was there a flood
that actually correlates with this story?"
I mean the story could be based on a real but local or regional
inundation. It could be based on a conflation of stories about real (but
local) inundations, or it could be, like a lot of stories, just a
fictional morality play.
The problem with the Bible is that we don't have the original authors'
comments on the collection, just the comments of various interpreters.
And those agree on nearly nothing. The Church has never accepted sola
scriptura for these very reasons. There is no such doctrine IN scripture
in the first place!
To the Church, scripture is a guide. God is present on her altars and in
her sacraments. But to those who rebel against her authority, there is a
need to trot out some other "authority" and the only tradition of the
Church they can claim to possess is scripture, so instead of being a
guide, it has become a god. Actually a footstool for the many gods of
interpretation that have arisen among the rebels.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is the observation |
26 Jun 2003 08:10:30 AM |
|
|
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:d54lfvkvjf4j07lctimfdo233tsa68lslo@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:501jfv4vp2esvhr1g6ip47sk1l4no8b0gs@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:t3mhfvooomm2geku9p9i3ofno5c8csolmd@4ax.com:
Dave Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in
news:l6l7fvk8fi4odmgtvng1nebfnl05mbja2d@4ax.com:
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
In article <Xns939B9AFAF92Bdoldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
It's one thing to accuse Aquinas, say, of science. And I and
others have. But to say it's the reason for Scriptural errors . .
well - maybe there's a lesson in that, for scientists.
So - when exactly . . was the Flood?
The global flood of the Morrisites and certain latter-day
interpreters?
The Flood of Genesis. The Flood of Noah. What do you think people
are talking about, here?
Well, IF there was a "Flood of Noah" as described in Genesis, then it
wasn't global and did not put a genetic bottleneck in the genetic
history of any known species.
But that's not the question. It would still have been a REMARKABLE
event. Massive flooding, from above and below. And the land was dry,
about a year later. That's amazing.
Plus - Noah . . . was 600 . . . . years . . . . old. People break
down, now, for extended care plans around 70-80. This guy . . was 600
years old.
Maybe it was a 'Biblical way of speaking'?
Or maybe the Biblical story is somewhat conflated from more than one
event and exaggerated.
But no one would use Scriptures as a "science authority". Science is
too flaky. Scriptures isn't science, because you can't count on
science. It's wrong. It's designed to be. It's trial and error. It's
learning by mistake. It's not Revelation.
Actually, science has it's own "authority." That authority is
physical evidence and logical inference drawn from it.
Yeah, by who? That's how you get competing schools.
Ultimately the physical evidence is the physical evidence. And logical
inference cannot be wrong and logical at the same time unless one or more
of its premises are wrong, meaning the physical evidence. THEORIES can
compete, but they must compete while being consistent with the physical
evidence. You can't just think up anything at all and call it a
scientific theory or hypothesis.
Science may be wrong
Bank on it.
it is less wrong with each new theory.
So said the scientists of the 19th century. Just a little more - and
all the answers would be known.
We'll never know all the answers. In fact some of the answers we've been
finding tend to indicate that we CANNOT know all the answers.
When religion is wrong, it tends
to just stay that way and even to get MORE wrong with each generation
of heretics!
Umm . . . unless the heretic confesses The Church, and ceases his
heresies. Conversions are not uncommon in the history of The Church.
True.
Gotta give people credit, here, particularly those sufficiently
intelligent to see the errors of, Anglicanism, just for example.
Anglicanism has had fewer than many others, up until recently.
Thus evolutionism. But the Flood is something, that if historical,
would surely have left traces we could discover, today. So the
question remains - when was The Flood? and secondly, where was The
Flood?
No, I think a primary question for science should be "Was there a
flood that actually correlates with this story?"
Alright.
I mean the story could be based on a real but local or regional
inundation.
Umm . . . no. Mountaintops. The 'world'. Drained in a year. 600 years
old. And so on.
Well, the Black Sea inundation no doubt covered many "mountaintops" in
the depression. The 600 years is, I think, part of the fudging between
the Adam genealogy and the one that starts with Abraham.
It could be based on a conflation of stories about real (but
local) inundations, or it could be, like a lot of stories, just a
fictional morality play.
It is a 'morality play'. So is all of Genesis. But that doesn't mean
it didn't also happen. Stories we tell each other, to make a point,
may very well be true stories, after which we got the point,
ourselves.
The problem with the Bible is that we don't have the original authors'
comments on the collection, just the comments of various interpreters.
And those agree on nearly nothing. The Church has never accepted
sola scriptura for these very reasons. There is no such doctrine IN
scripture in the first place!
Yes there is. There most certainly is. Scriptures are the Word of God.
Sorry, but that's NOT what scripture teaches. Nor is it what the Church
actually teaches. Scripture does, of course, relate some words that were
actually spoken by God. And scripture REVEALS the Word of God, who is
the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
On that Catholics and Prots, particularly 'born-agains', agree.
Catholics agree on a lot, with a lot of 'faith communities'. If is
wasn't for 'ecumenism' making it appear that The Church is embarrassed
by the Faith, progress could actually have been made - honestly. That
whole approach, that whole line, the whole 'new mass', has to be
dropped or everyone will just keep banging their heads on a steel
bulkhead, which isn't going to melt away.
My problem with the "new mass" is that it's rubric is wrong. I don't
mind most of it being in the vernacular, but turning the altar around is
the wrong move. Instead of facing God's presence on the high altar, the
priest is now turned around, facing the opposite way to the congregation.
Maybe there is something symbolic in this, no?!
But there is something greater than The Bible - namely, Revelation,
Tradition. The Bible is part . . of that. It's not the entirety. This
is where Prots fall away. And this is not like the commentaries of the
Jews. The closest you'd get to that would be ex cathedra rulings,
which are very few, and are based precisely on Revelation, and not
exclusively Scriptural - but never contradicting Holy Scriptures.
But scripture interpreted in the light of tradition and experience, not
scripture elevated to the status of an infallible oracle.
To the Church, scripture is a guide. God is present on her altars and
in her sacraments.
In The Church, if not the institutional church. It's one of the great
debates and problems with 'reform'.
But to those who rebel against her authority, there is a
need to trot out some other "authority" and the only tradition of the
Church they can claim to possess is scripture, so instead of being a
guide, it has become a god.
But it never even gets that far. The Prots, historically, made up The
'Bible-only' Bible as they went along. These were bogus versions,
created to support what they already confessed, by their own opinions.
They added and deleted, modified, as suited their whims. If the
Well, Luther certainly took scissors to the canon before declaring sola
scriptura on the rest. And HIS authority was the Pharisaic synod of
Jamnia (or Javneh) in 94AD, though how that could be binding on
Christians, I have no idea!
Vulgate, say, didn't agree - then the Vulgate was wrong. It got to the
point where you had Prots beating each other up over their own various
translations. It was nuts.
The Vulgate is really beautiful. My Latin is very halting (I speak
French and English), but even so, I can see that Jerome did an elegant
and prayerful job translating it. And he did it so the common people of
the western Empire would have a Bible they could read. Something that
seems to have escaped Protestants who rely on the King James Version
(which owes a great deal to Jerome).
Peace.
-----------------------------------
God and the Blessed Virgin and the Saints help a
poor ignorant soul trying to do his duty.
And may His spirit be with you.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
