I like the pink one. His brains are in the right place

(July 12, 2015 at 8:28 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 1:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, we do not believe that the bible is infallible.

Yes, it is the inspired word of God written through the filter of man, not written by the hand of God Himself.

Us Catholics believe that the Church is the main pillar of Truth, not the bible. Unlike other Christians, we are not Sola Scriptura. The Church existed before the bible did anyhow.

If your god is all-powerful and infallible, his word should be like him. If you really think it's only "god-inspired," then there is no way to tell which parts are inspired and which are not. This invites cherry-picking like nothing I've ever seen. Under this belief, figuring out which parts are "inspired" amounts to sorting it out with either your personal opinion or someone else's; this means that while the words come from fallible men, SO DOES THE DECISION ON WHICH WORDS ARE INSPIRED. If god can tell you which parts of his word are "correct" (why he would tell you or a priest instead of the writers themselves is beyond me), he should also be able to just tell it to you directly and skip the stupid book.


At any rate, if revelation is a bunch of crap, how would you have ANY idea what's supposed to happen when Jesus comes back? For all you know, it could be WORSE than revelation.


Oh that's right I forgot...the Catechism. Another book written by men. How is that more or less fallible than the bible? It presents the exact same logical problems.

Because we believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is revealed Truth and protected from human error by the Holy Spirit.

Also, I never said Revelations was a bunch of crap.   Please read carefully as not to misrepresent my beliefs.

INTERVENTION

Some confusion and misunderstanding are evident in these posts because terms have not been defined properly.

Infallible
Infallible means "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong." A fallible person or group of persons can make mistakes because they can change. To be infallible means that the person or group is incapable of making mistakes.

Inerrant
Inerrant means "free from error." A math textbook can be free from error on a number of levels (no typos, every problem is solved correctly, and the principles of mathematics are articulated accurately).

Inspired
Inspired means that "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." (CCC 106)

Catholics believe that the Pope, Ecumenical Councils ratified by the Pope and the college of Bishops acting in union with the pope are infallible. They cannot make mistakes when teaching formally on matters of faith and morals. This is a very precise and limited scope of meaning.

Catholics believe that the Bible is both inspired and inerrant. All 73 books - from Genesis to Maps.

Hope this helps.

(July 10, 2015 at 7:47 pm)dyresand Wrote: So for some odd reason or another god gives you a small black box with a single red button on it. He tells you have two options
to either push the button and damning humanity to the second coming of jesus or not to push the button preventing the second coming
allowing humanity to grow advance.

I'd have pushed the button before He gave me the second option.

Remember sport the second coming is not a bad thing for US. We are even taught to pray for it in the Lord's Prayer.

I would count it as a great honor to be asked to play a small part in the second comming

(July 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: INTERVENTION

Some confusion and misunderstanding are evident in these posts because terms have not been defined properly.

Infallible
Infallible means "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong." A fallible person or group of persons can make mistakes because they can change. To be infallible means that the person or group is incapable of making mistakes.

Inerrant
Inerrant means "free from error." A math textbook can be free from error on a number of levels (no typos, every problem is solved correctly, and the principles of mathematics are articulated accurately).

Inspired
Inspired means that "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." (CCC 106)

Catholics believe that the Pope, Ecumenical Councils ratified by the Pope and the college of Bishops acting in union with the pope are infallible. They cannot make mistakes when teaching formally on matters of faith and morals. This is a very precise and limited scope of meaning.

Catholics believe that the Bible is both inspired and inerrant. All 73 books - from Genesis to Maps.

Hope this helps.

^Yes!

(July 12, 2015 at 10:21 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is revealed Truth and protected from human error by the Holy Spirit.

Also, I never said Revelations was a bunch of crap.   Please read carefully as not to misrepresent my beliefs.

Ummm...you do realize that many people believe that EXACT thing about the bible, right? If god protects the church's proclamations, why wouldn't he also protect the bible? If he doesn't protect the bible and only inspires it, what makes you think he offers that protection for your doctrines?


Also, stay consistent please. One moment you're distancing yourself from revelation, the next you're back-pedaling toward it. If you only believe that some small part is valid, that still concedes that the rest is basically junk.


By the way, have you noticed that the more we learn about science, the more scripture is viewed as metaphor? It's almost as if every time we learn something new it shits on the bible. Why would this happen?


Also, how can Catholics believe the bible is inerrant when it contains so many scientific and historical errors?

(July 12, 2015 at 8:36 am)Nope Wrote: You are confusing some very loud Protestant sects with Catholics.

They're all the same to me.

No offense, @Catholic_Lady.

(July 12, 2015 at 10:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 10:21 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is revealed Truth and protected from human error by the Holy Spirit.

Also, I never said Revelations was a bunch of crap.   Please read carefully as not to misrepresent my beliefs.

Ummm...you do realize that many people believe that EXACT thing about the bible, right? If god protects the church's proclamations, why wouldn't he also protect the bible? If he doesn't protect the bible and only inspires it, what makes you think he offers that protection for your doctrines?


Also, stay consistent please. One moment you're distancing yourself from revelation, the next you're back-pedaling toward it. If you only believe that some small part is valid, that still concedes that the rest is basically junk.


By the way, have you noticed that the more we learn about science, the more scripture is viewed as metaphor? It's almost as if every time we learn something new it shits on the bible. Why would this happen?


Also, how can Catholics believe the bible is inerrant when it contains so many scientific and historical errors?

Redbeard, this is what I said in regards to the bible when we were talking about Revelations:

"No, we do not believe that the bible is infallible.

Yes, it is the inspired word of God written through the filter of man, not written by the hand of God Himself.

Us Catholics believe that the Church is the main pillar of Truth, not the bible. Unlike other Christians, we are not Sola Scriptura. The Church existed before the bible did anyhow."

As you can see, I am not contradicting myself or back pedaling by saying "I never said Revelations is crap."

---

(July 12, 2015 at 8:36 am)Nope Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 1:55 am)Atheist_BG Wrote: I doubt CL even drinks anything harder than a Coke. Mostly because she's religious and as far as I know in religion drinking alcohol is a sin, just like masturbation is.

Besides, I don't belive such a beautiful girl would abuse alcohol.

Catholics can drink alcohol in moderation. You are confusing some very loud Protestant sects with Catholics.

Yes, thank you for clearing that up for our boy ABG.

---

As a way to prove that these really are Catholic beliefs and not just stuff I'm making up on my own, Randy sent me some good information.

This is what is written in the intro to the Ignatious Study Bible, a Catholic source:

"The guarantee of inerrancy does not mean, however, that the Bible is an all-purpose encyclopedia of information covering every field of study. The Bible is not, for example, a textbook in the empirical sciences, and it should not be treated as one. When biblical authors relate facts of the natural order, we can be sure they are speaking in a purely descriptive and "phenomenological" way, according to the way things appeared to their senses."

I think this too would help answer your question, Red, about the bible not being scientific.

(July 12, 2015 at 10:49 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 10:21 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is revealed Truth and protected from human error by the Holy Spirit.

Also, I never said Revelations was a bunch of crap.   Please read carefully as not to misrepresent my beliefs.

Ummm...you do realize that many people believe that EXACT thing about the bible, right? If god protects the church's proclamations, why wouldn't he also protect the bible? If he doesn't protect the bible and only inspires it, what makes you think he offers that protection for your doctrines?[/color]

The Bible was and is protected by God. After all, He had Catholic monks copying it carefully and passing it along for nearly 1400 years before the invention of the printing press. So, the Bible was penned, preached, preserved, protected promoted and promulgated by Catholics.

You're welcome.

Quote:Also, stay consistent please. One moment you're distancing yourself from revelation, the next you're back-pedaling toward it. If you only believe that some small part is valid, that still concedes that the rest is basically junk.

The entire Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. From Genesis to Revelation. All of it is valid.

Quote:By the way, have you noticed that the more we learn about science, the more scripture is viewed as metaphor? It's almost as if every time we learn something new it shits on the bible. Why would this happen?

No, I have not noticed this. Have you noticed that the more we discover from archaeology, the more the Bible is vindicated as a reliable source of information?

Quote:Also, how can Catholics believe the bible is inerrant when it contains so many scientific and historical errors?

Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.

As Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch explain in the introduction to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

"The guarantee of inerrancy does not mean, however, that the Bible is an all-purpose encyclopedia of information covering every field of study. The Bible is not, for example, a textbook in the empirical sciences, and it should not be treated as one. When biblical authors relate facts of the natural order, we can be sure they are speaking in a purely descriptive and "phenomenological" way, according to the way things appeared to their senses."

You say the bible is not infallible, yet you agree with Randy saying it is inerrant.


This kind of definition mongering is splitting hairs at best and self-contradictory at worst. Either the bible contains errors, or it doesn't; either the writers recorded god's word perfectly, or imperfectly. You are either arbitrarily cherry picking verses, or you aren't. You cannot have this both ways.


In the case of revelation, all you need is the last few sentences to shoot your "inerrant but not infallible" argument in both dicks. At the end of revelation, John writes (paraphrased), "Any who adds to the words of this book, good will add as much to his punishments in hell; any who takes away from the words of this book, god will take away as much from his rewards in heaven."


Some people take this warning to apply strictly to revelation, and others take it to apply to the whole bible. In any case, the text explicitly states that an incomplete reading or teaching of this text will be punished by god directly. Was that part "inspired," or not?


Randy, you do seem to believe the inerrancy of scripture. Catholic lady seems pretty wishy-washy on it, and she's not the first Catholic I've met who does that.