Posted on 11/06/2008 6:36:40 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Your own personal interpretation of Scripture, however, is just that.
As well, your false characterisation of Catholic belief remains just that: false.
Now: you can, I suppose, keep uttering falsehoods about other people. The rules of this forum seem to permit it. Doing so, however, reflects very badly on you and those who share your beliefs.
Your own personal interpretation of Scripture, however, is just that.
Yes, I can see how there is a definite tendency to read "And Adam lived 930 years" and then think "Hmm; this Adam guy must have lived 930 years." Wow. I wonder what "And Adam lived 930 years" really means???
Good thing Catholics have the magisterium to teach them authoritatively that we don't really know anything about Adam, since the bible must never, ever be interpreted literally (except for "this is my body, this is my blood"). Yep, that magisterium sure does clear things up!
There you go again. You have, once again, made a false statement of Catholic belief. Are you deliberately trying to trash your own credibility?
“I understand the disappointment of seeing your church do so poorly in fighting infanticide...”
Two can play at painting with a broad brush. How ‘bout we discuss our new pro-partial birth abortion PROTESTANT president as an example of how PROTESTANTS do poorly in fighting infanticide? How ‘bout I ping you and bash ALL protestants every time that Protestant president promotes morally reprehensible acts like abortion and homosexuality over the the next four years? Sound fair to you?
I’m not a religious bigot, so I will not stoop to judging a whole group by the actions of a few who, while they may consider themselves part of that group, prove by their actions that they are not. I take the teaching of my Lord in His encounter with the Samaritan woman seriously, when He taught me to judge others on their individual merits, not on their membership in a group.
So I will not judge you by the actions of your fellow co-religionist Barack Obama, since I’m sure you and I both agree that his actions should not reflect poorly on you nor on protestant religious doctrine, if you will agree that the votes of catholics in name only should not reflect poorly on me nor my religious doctrine.
Otherwise, expect a lot of pings over the next four years.
“First off, marriage isn’t a Sacrament for Protties.”
Yes, which is why you will find priests very reluctant to deny it to people who otherwise meet the requirements.
I feel your pain. I’m a Jew. My people are notorious for voting against the interests of Israel.
I’m not a religious bigot, so I will not stoop to judging a whole group by the actions of a few.... So I will not judge you by the actions of your fellow co-religionist Barack Obama
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this the part where we hear "I’m not a religious bigot, but I play one on the Internet"?
Yeah and I have a lot of friends that are...
FWIW, I have appreciated the postings on the breakdown of the votes. I took it you were just passing along the available information.
since the bible must never, ever be interpreted literally (except for "this is my body, this is my blood").
There you go again. You have, once again, made a false statement of Catholic belief. Are you deliberately trying to trash your own credibility?
How about "nothing in the first eleven chapters of Genesis must ever be interpreted literally?" Is that better?
You know, as much as I disagree with Sister Flaky, I can at least understand her. Catholics who claim to believe in the "Biblical Adam," yet who insist none of the details about him recorded in the Bible can be assumed without "imposing one's private interpretation on the text," on the other hand, would probably strike Sister Flaky as inconsistent (as they do to me).
At least Sister Flaky and I are logical.
No. Even that is false. As I have told you several times in the past, If Joe Catholic reads Genesis 1-11 (or any other part of the Bible) in the strictly literal sense that you prefer, he is perfectly welcome to do so. His reading of Scripture is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church. If Father Flake or Sister Silly tell him otherwise, so much the worse for FF and SS: they are mired in heresy. Deal with it.
Analyzing the “Catholic” vote would be like analyzing the “protestant” vote. It can’t really be done because both groups are large and encompass widely varying political views.
What we do consistently see election after election is that faithful, committed church-going Catholics and “Bible-believing” Evangelicals vote pro-life. Less than committed Catholics and protestants do not consider their faith when voting and simply vote for what they believe are their self interests.
Personally I have no use for any of those in the latter category.
And yet very, very, very, very few do. Why? They can't all be scientists.
I can only conclude that anti-literalism has become an important part of Catholic identity.
Non-literalism is the only interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which is at all reconciliable with the fundamentals of archaeology and geology.
It’s not that most Catholics are scientists, but most of them did attend at elementary schools with conventional science classes.
we call it “CINO” -Catholic in Name Only...a species in the same phylum as “RINO” ....both of which, are less politely characterized as those that can’t or won’t “walk the talk”...
and in failing to do so, IMHO, dishonor their fellowman at the very least.
Way to purposely misunderstand my post. I clearly said I would NOT judge protestants by Obama’s acts, since that would be unChristian and unfair. Would that some on this thread afford Catholics the same courtesy.
I was clearly making a point by using the SAME standard used by Catholic bashers on this thread. Voters who told exit pollsters they were Catholic, whether they’d been to church in decades or not, have been labeled “Catholic voters” and their actions used to bash the church in general.
By that very same standard, I could use Barack Obama (or Hillary or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore or a whole host of others) to bash all protestants, because they CALL themselves Protestant Christians, even though you and I both know they are anything but.
Using the actions of some nominal members of a religion who have shown by their actions that they are NOT adherants to that religion’s teaching in order to smear that religion is neither Christian nor conservative.
Ahem--that's if you assume uniformitarianism, that from the very first instant of existence all natural laws and all physical realities have operated exactly as they do now (the gestation period has always been nine months, no one has ever lived nine hundred years, etc.). Then in the name of scientific uniformitarianism I demand that you admit that dead people can't come back to life, water doesn't change into wine, and transubstantiation simply cannot take place. You have absolutely no excuse other than the most bald-faced hypocrisy (or else a knee-jerk prejudice against "those Bible-thumpers") in order to maintain this inconsistency.
It’s not that most Catholics are scientists, but most of them did attend at elementary schools with conventional science classes.
So? Fundamentalist Protestants attended the same classes but simply don't assume uniformitarianism. Do you actually not realize this?
You mean like Wednesday bingo nights or Friday fish frys at the K of C?
I think it's odd that you talk about "literalism," but you splatter hyperbole all over the place when talking about Catholic teaching (e.g., "nothing in Genesis 1-11 is ever to be taken literally")
Hyperbole is a literary device, remember? Not to be taken literally. Evidently anti-literalism is an important part of your identity, too.
Nope, I meant it--non-literalism is now part of the Catholic identity. And Catholics know it's true, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.