Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Audie]

I would agree with the mathematics, but not the idea that Christians are divided if they are all part of the one Church and all have God's Spirit.
It isn't knowledge of details of doctrine that make for being a Christian.

Ok, now the math you denied is actually good.

We notice the big IF there.

Which is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times have i heard one Christian condemning another Christian to hell becaue they don't follow the same bible interpretation, or they don't pray in the same way?

Even on these hallowed pages i see conflict between true christian and not true christian, whatever that is.

But those don't count!! The Pope is the Anti Christ only when non-Christians are not around

 

[ChristineM]

But those don't count!! The Pope is the Anti Christ only when non-Christians are not around

Yup, its all part of the spectator sport between different denominations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, I think it is in that case pseudoscience.

You'd be wrong.

That is little difficult, because in some cases it seems people could claim a white racist is different species than a black person, because they can't reproduce.

Um no. What?

They reproduce all the time.

 

[Brian2]

Your earlier snarky retort was clearly intended to be
misleading.
The number is in fact multiplying
So we doubt you are just crusading for Truth.

Care to try figuring out your real reason?

Snarky?
I guess we read emotions that aren't there into posts. I know I do at times.

 

[Brian2]

How many times have i heard one Christian condemning another Christian to hell becaue they don't follow the same bible interpretation, or they don't pray in the same way?

Even on these hallowed pages i see conflict between true christian and not true christian, whatever that is.

When you say "........... between true christian and not true christian, whatever that is." it is clear that false ideas have spread so much that people have no idea what the true gospel is.
And I suppose it would be the same if us "Christians" did not debate each other but just put out conflicting interpretations.

 

[Audie]

Snarky?
I guess we read emotions that aren't there into posts. I know I do at times.

Snark isn't an emotion

 

[Audie]

When you say "........... between true christian and not true christian, whatever that is." it is clear that false ideas have spread so much that people have no idea what the true gospel is.
And I suppose it would be the same if us "Christians" did not debate each other but just put out conflicting interpretations.

If Christians debate doctrine the way
they do with evolution, that for sure will
be the No-ideas v the Clueless

 

[Subduction Zone]

Snark isn't an emotion

Dang! That means that I have been doing it all wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

I was raised in the Roman Church, and in my youth, I lived in Costa Rica when Vatican II was released. It was at this time I began to study Christianity and the other religions more sincerely

I believe the paradox remains between Genesis and how the authors of the New Testament consider Genesis, and Adam and Eve. They consider Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history, which is the reason many Protestants to this day still consider it literal, or near literal with some pragmatic exceptions. The context of the New Testament is yes Genesis may also have allegorical meaning.

I do believe the extreme pragmatism today of the interpretation of not only Genesis but the
The Pentateuch is severely problematic when yes the purpose of Jesus Christ is defined in terms of a literal Genesis.

I have since become a Baha'i, and my foundation philosophy is Universalism (not UU), I will go into more detail about this philosophy as it is relevant to my religious views from a universal perspective and how I view the Roman Church in this context.

I will comment more later because it is getting late.

 

[ChristineM]

When you say "........... between true christian and not true christian, whatever that is." it is clear that false ideas have spread so much that people have no idea what the true gospel is.
And I suppose it would be the same if us "Christians" did not debate each other but just put out conflicting interpretations.

Nope, it is true the some Christians interpret the version of the bible they choose to be correct differently to other Christians choise to interpret the version of the bible they prefer.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, it is true the some Christians interpret the version of the bible they choose to be correct differently to other Christians choise to interpret the version of the bible they prefer.

And I suppose all interpretations are equal to you. OK that's fine.

 

[ChristineM]

And I suppose all interpretations are equal to you. OK that's fine.

Obviously the interpretations are not equal to you because only yours is the correct interpretation... Right?


I've read 3 bibles*, they are all different and people will interpret them how they are taught/indoctrinated how they should be interpreted. And each will consider their interpretation to be the correct one. History has shown this to be fact and even today Christian will threaten Christian with hell and damnation because they interpret the bible differently. Even on rhese hallowed RF pages i see it.

* there are almost 3000 different versions of the bible.

 

[Audie]

Dang! That means that I have been doing it all wrong.

Doing what wrong?
Still confusing cause with effect?

 

[Kenny]

I was raised in the Roman Church, and in my youth, I lived in Costa Rica when Vatican II was released. It was at this time I began to study Christianity and the other religions more sincerely

I believe the paradox remains between Genesis and how the authors of the New Testament consider Genesis, and Adam and Eve. They consider Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history, which is the reason many Protestants to this day still consider it literal, or near literal with some pragmatic exceptions. The context of the New Testament is yes Genesis may also have allegorical meaning.

I do believe the extreme pragmatism today of the interpretation of not only Genesis but the
The Pentateuch is severely problematic when yes the purpose of Jesus Christ is defined in terms of a literal Genesis.

I have since become a Baha'i, and my foundation philosophy is Universalism (not UU), I will go into more detail about this philosophy as it is relevant to my religious views from a universal perspective and how I view the Roman Church in this context.

I will comment more later because it is getting late.

I personally believe that it can be both... both literal as well as allegorical. Like the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham... both literal as well as allegorical or prophetical.

 

[Audie]

I personally believe that it can be both... both literal as well as allegorical. Like the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham... both literal as well as allegorical or prophetical.

How do you pick n choose what to believe?

 

[Brian2]

Snark isn't an emotion

Yep "snark" isn't an emotion, but snarky is associated with emotions.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

snark1

1. an imaginary animal (used typically with reference to a task or goal that is elusive or impossible to achieve).
   "pinning down the middle classes is like the hunting of the snark"
   

   snarky​

   [ snahr-kee ]SHOW IPA
   
   
   
   
   See synonyms for snarky on Thesaurus.com
   

   ---

   adjective,snark·i·er, snark·i·est.
   1. testy or irritable; short.
   2. having a rudely critical tone or manner:snarky humor.
   
   

 

[shunyadragon]

I personally believe that it can be both... both literal as well as allegorical. Like the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham... both literal as well as allegorical or prophetical.

I already acknowledged that, but I believe the intent of the NT authors was that it was literal first with allegorical interpretations..

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you pick n choose what to believe?

Severe pragmatism like the Roman Church to justify an ancient tribal scripture, and make it fit the contemporary world knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

. . . because the sciences of evolution are based on objectively verifiable evidence and science like what makes airplanes fly and computers work.

Genesis is based on ancient tribal scripture without science. Airplanes and computers made of stone and wood do not work.