Religous Question

[Sho Nuff 720]

Catholics don't understand the metaphorical language in the Bible, and take most of it to be literal instead of meatphorical.

 

Christ is not litrallly married to the Church, but he uses a man's deep loving relationship with his wif, as a example of how deeply he loves his Church. It's a relationship description, not a literal wedding with the church and it's people.

 

And the wine and the wafer is to be done to remember Christ and what his sacrifice on the cross meant for our sins, not a literal eating of flesh and blood. People who claim to be Christian need to start reading the Bible for all it's worth, and stop listening to what some crazy priest or preacher tells them it means and says.

 

First...I find it funny that some like to only take the bible literally when they feel like it, but its only metaphore when trying to debate with Catholics. Not saying you do, but it appears some of the more ardent Christians will take what is in there literally if going against say...science. But its only metaphor when trying to argue against another Christian.

 

And the bold part I found really funny...given just about everyone has listened to what someone else thought the Bible meant. You probably have been to a few Sunday School classes and read interpretations as well. And contrary to that freakin old belief. I have read the Bible on my own, I have made my own interpretations without just listening to a priest. I have been encouraged to do so by every Priest I have ever known.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Nope. I've studied in detail every cult on the planet, and I know all about the Roman Catholic church and it's practices in idolatry, mother Marry, and patron saint worship.

I don't worship saints.

And I have great reverence for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Shouldn't we all?

[peenie 1,915]

I have never been discouraged by anyone (Priest or otherwise) from reading my Bible or discussing it with our Catechists.

i really had no idea that people were as dumb as you.

you really have no ability to understand what i have been trying to explain.

did i ever say that priests or nuns or the pope said don't read your bible.

 

i wrote that there is a reverence for the bible in the catholic church that is different from the protestant church, that the bible scriptures are printed in a mass book which means that you can come to church without your bible and since the meaning of the bible comes from the authorities of the church, catholics view the bible differently. they don't spend a lot of time laboring over what a text of the bible means-listen, why don't you go to a baptist church and then come back here and try to claim that the catholics treat the bible with such a hands on approach.

 

here is my take:

catholic church

stand up, sit down, hail mary, the lord is with you, kneel, amen sign of the cross, silent prayer, give money, liturgy, communion, kneel, stand up, sit down, holy holy holy, go home in 30 minutes one hour tops.

 

non-catholic church

gospel singing, scripture, scripture, scripture, give money, gospel singing, give your soul to jesus, give money, gospel singing, go home 2 hours minimum.

[jets24 6]

^^reread my quote. i specifically explained what i meant in the next sentence.

 

maybe you are not familiar with the protestant church so you don't understand that protestants take their bible to church and they open it and read it together. they spend a lot of time (depending on the branch as some are closer to the catholic church than others) sifting through the bible, where in the catholic church the service tends to be the same each week and any scripture is provided in the mass book. you do not need to bring the bible or open it although it may be provided there for you. the catholic service is very traditional. note how the priest has a very special ornate bible. that does not exist in the protestant church. everyone has the same simple bible.

 

in my day, reading the bible as a catholic was almost seen as a sin, as the bible was to be interpreted through the authorities of the church. remember, it was martin luther who translated the bible to make it accessible to the masses. the bible was in latin for goodness sakes! the church never wanted it so that the common person would be able to read it. hence the protestant church!

 

don't argue just to be an a$$hole. why would you even write that i thought you read from right to left? i'm almost positive that i've spent more time in and around the catholic church than you so it's an insult that you would even imply such a thing. i was replying in a serious manner you should be respectful enough not to be insulting especially on this topic.

 

 

What focking Catholic Church did you go to?

 

Holy crap what a load. For you to think it was ever a sin as a Catholic to read the Bible is ludicrous. Of course the Church needs to help interpret. But, do you understand that we DO read the bible TOGETHER in MASS and out loud? On three separate occasions? We don't just get to flip the pages like we are waiting for the dentist for crying out loud. So, by interpreting...do you mean that they tell us that Noah wasn't really 454 years old? What are you talking about?

[jets24 6]

The Rock is Christ, not Peter. HTH

 

 

This is true. But Wiff would have to really know his stuff to know that. Common mistake. He day for Peter to build the church upon the rock. But he never called Peter the rock.

[peenie 1,915]

For you to think it was ever a sin as a Catholic to read the Bible is ludicrous.

 

But, do you understand that we DO read the bible TOGETHER in MASS and out loud?

no where did i say that catholics don't read the bible, no where did i say that the bible isn't read in church.

i wrote that the scripture is printed in the mass book and you can come to church without the bible where in the protestant church if you want to the know what the pastor is discussing you need to have your bible with you.

it is not my opinion as i am not catholic, i am speaking about a generation of people who are perhaps much older than you. i am saying there is a different approach to the bible, one is more cloaked in tradition.

i am not going to discuss this topic anymore. i've said what i had to say. if there was some respect in the tone in your post and the other person's post, there might be more i'd have to write about. i can't imagine what type of people you are in real life, low lives that can't debate without attacking.

 

talk amongst yourselves, i'm out.

 

pearls to swine

[Voltaire 5,297]

The central role of the Catholic priest interpretting scripture for their congregation is a relic from the time when the only person who could read the Bible was the priest and everybody else was illiterate. Plus the book was in Latin to give it a more mystical feel. The church has adapted over the years to serve a literate population and the Bible and scriptures are written in the local language. The priest still has a central role in stuff like confession, where you have to admit your sins to receive forgivness.

 

Catholic priests have to be really dedicated. They take a vow of poverty, they can't get married. It's a really austere life they lead and -frankly- I respect them for it greatly. Far more than the megamillionaire televangelists who fleece their followers to live jetsetting lives.

Also Catholics found hospitals, schools, and do innummerable charity work both locally and overseas. They have a diverse opinion on things. In the US, both the Kennedy clan and Nancy Pelosi can go to church next to Pat Buchanon or Antonin Scalia. The leaders of governments in Latin America as well as the liberation theologians that use to try to overthrow them were Catholics. Mother Theresa. Lots going on with them.

 

The Catholic church is really steep in dogma, ritual, symbolism, history, and tradition. It's a top down church, a chaste male heirarchy and old, old, old, way old church that modernizes extremely slowly. And it's services are boring.

 

BUt it's learned a lesson from the excesses of it's history. You won't find any fights against science anymore, it's almost fully compatible. They got burnt with Copernicus and the Inquisition. It accepts 95% of evolution but with it's own God's guiding hand interpretation.

[peenie 1,915]

i went to an elementary catholic school, an all girls catholic boarding school in high school and for my first two years in college i went to an all girls catholic college, i don't need anyone to teach me anything about the catholic church.

[randandy 0]

the greatest miracle jesus ever performed was, for two thousand years turning crackers and grape juice into flesh and blood.

 

but, lets not lose sight of the story.

 

jesus wasnt catholic, he isnt catholic, he never will be catholic...period.

[peenie 1,915]

btw, i'm atheist.

[VikesFan 1]

I come at this from a slightly different perspective. My parents were both raised Catholic, and their extended family still practices. They are now protestant, as am I. I can further add to this in noting that I have attended seminary and am very familiar with the Bible. I find most of these questions rather stupid, in large part b/c it displays a total ignorance of the Bible and what it says.

 

First and formeost, this debate over literal and metaphorical is rather absurd. It isn't as if the Bible is one or the other. There are several different major genres in the books of the Bible, some of which are far more metaphorical than others. Part of the problem in interpreting the scriptures is trying to figure out what is metaphor and what is not, as some passages can be very tricky. The reality is that for the most part these debates can be solved by some simple research and a very good understanding of the general context of the said passage. But even with that, there will always be passages that could go either way. Sadly, no one in this forum even seems to understand such a simple concept, even though I'd bet most of you apply this to your other studies with out so much as a thought.

 

As for the Catholics here. I commend any of you that choose to read your Bibles on a regular basis. However, it has been my own observance (at least from what I've seen in my own extended family) that this is typically not the case for most Roman Catholics... and sadly it is unfortunate. The priest in my grandfather's town actually attempted to take his Bible from him because he chose to read it. While I think the argument has some merit, I feel that the over all gist of the argument provided by the Catholic church (e.g. that only qualified interpreters can interpret scripture) has led to more harm within the church than good. It has shut a huge majority of the church out of the sacred Word of God, and for the most part, enforces the stereotype found in this thread. I won't argue with you that there is a tension here that needs to be resolved. Most of the protestant church isn't much more Biblically literate than their Catholic counterparts, even though they think that they are. This too is sad, and it gets further complicated when people who have no business teaching the Bible end up leading Sunday School classes or discipleship training. The solution, however, is not to hoard the scriptures, but to do a better job training those who are interested in learning... and sadly the church (both Protestant and Catholic) has utterly failed in this endeavor.

[randandy 0]

I come at this from a slightly different perspective. My parents were both raised Catholic, and their extended family still practices. They are now protestant, as am I. I can further add to this in noting that I have attended seminary and am very familiar with the Bible. I find most of these questions rather stupid, in large part b/c it displays a total ignorance of the Bible and what it says.

 

First and formeost, this debate over literal and metaphorical is rather absurd. It isn't as if the Bible is one or the other. There are several different major genres in the books of the Bible, some of which are far more metaphorical than others. Part of the problem in interpreting the scriptures is trying to figure out what is metaphor and what is not, as some passages can be very tricky. The reality is that for the most part these debates can be solved by some simple research and a very good understanding of the general context of the said passage. But even with that, there will always be passages that could go either way. Sadly, no one in this forum even seems to understand such a simple concept, even though I'd bet most of you apply this to your other studies with out so much as a thought.

 

As for the Catholics here. I commend any of you that choose to read your Bibles on a regular basis. However, it has been my own observance (at least from what I've seen in my own extended family) that this is typically not the case for most Roman Catholics... and sadly it is unfortunate. The priest in my grandfather's town actually attempted to take his Bible from him because he chose to read it. While I think the argument has some merit, I feel that the over all gist of the argument provided by the Catholic church (e.g. that only qualified interpreters can interpret scripture) has led to more harm within the church than good. It has shut a huge majority of the church out of the sacred Word of God, and for the most part, enforces the stereotype found in this thread. I won't argue with you that there is a tension here that needs to be resolved. Most of the protestant church isn't much more Biblically literate than their Catholic counterparts, even though they think that they are. This too is sad, and it gets further complicated when people who have no business teaching the Bible end up leading Sunday School classes or discipleship training. The solution, however, is not to hoard the scriptures, but to do a better job training those who are interested in learning... and sadly the church (both Protestant and Catholic) has utterly failed in this endeavor.

 

 

ive read halfway through your second paragragh and conclude you are a complete, arrogant a$$hat.

 

hopefully in seminary, the previous is either lost or well hidden.

 

the congregation, my friend, is a group of people like ourselves, minus the one who knows it all, YOU.

 

christ stays the same, and always will, no matter what you or i say, or think, he is the subject, through him is the concept.

[VikesFan 1]

I never once implied that I know it all. My statement is that the idea that the Bible is all metaphorical or all literal is utterly absurd, and unfortunately, that idea seems rather prevalent in this thread.

 

 

I'm assuming you stopped reading right around my startement regarding context, which in all honesty, I do not understand given that I was addressing one of the major themes in this thread. Your response is completely off base from what I said, as you are arguing a point that I am not attempting to make. I apologize if I offended you, as that was not the intent, but if stating an opinion equates to arrogance, then there isn't a person on this planet who can some how claim the humility to exist in the congregation that you so passionately describe. I was simply engaging in two separate themes that have been in this thread, the big one being the idea that the Bible is either all literal or all metaphorical. It's neither, and sometimes it can be very difficult to figure out which one it is.

 

There is nothing in the Bible indicating that to be a member of this congregation that you so dearly love, you must toss out your sense of reason at the door. Following after the teachings and traditions of Christ and the Apostles implies a solid attempt on understanding exactly what it is that they taught. Otherwise, we fall into one of two traps: 1) ignorance of the teachings of Christ 2) using the Bible to further our own agenda without any regards to what it says. No one can totally escape either of these two traps, but if we claim to be followers of Christ, then we need to be honest with ourselves and make every reasonable attempt at understanding what it is that Jesus Christ taught. This is the basis behind figuring out what is literal and what is metaphorical.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your last statement. I'm in complete agreement with you up to the point of "through him is the concept" as I'm not sure what you are attempting to say.

[peenie 1,915]

since a normal human has decided to post i just wanted to add that the catholic schools i attended did a thorough job of teaching me the bible. in no time have i had the opportunity to learn the contents of the bible in such detail.

however, i learned about the bible from my catholic school books, not the bible directly.

i was not criticizing the catholic church i was just pointing out a difference.

i actually resented my mother for many years for not allowing me to take first communion...anyway, luckily for me i reject all religion.

[VikesFan 1]

since a normal human has decided to post i just wanted to add that the catholic schools i attended did a thorough job of teaching me the bible. in no time have i had the opportunity to learn the contents of the bible in such detail.

however, i learned about the bible from my catholic school books, not the bible directly.

i was not criticizing the catholic church i was just pointing out a difference.

i actually resented my mother for many years for not allowing me to take first communion...anyway, luckily for me i reject all religion.

 

 

I'm not sure that's luck. So let me ask you this... You've admitted that you have learned about the Bible, but you seem to also admit that you do not know the Bible directly. How then can you reject all religion, without knowing what it is you are rejecting?

[randandy 0]

I'm not sure that's luck. So let me ask you this... You've admitted that you have learned about the Bible, but you seem to also admit that you do not know the Bible directly. How then can you reject all religion, without knowing what it is you are rejecting?

 

quit weirding her out. let me talk to her.

[Voltaire 5,297]

I'm not sure that's luck. So let me ask you this... You've admitted that you have learned about the Bible, but you seem to also admit that you do not know the Bible directly. How then can you reject all religion, without knowing what it is you are rejecting?

 

I think after many many years of Christian indoctrination you know it well enough. Then you see that there's a lot of great advice in there, lots of great stories, but also a bunch of made up guesswork, contradictions and outright falsities in it as well.

 

In the end you see it for what it is... a good way to live your life and treat other but clearly too faulty to be divinely inspired. Looks more like the best guesses of ancient wise men trying to explain the world, our role in it, and the meaning of our lives.

[randandy 0]

I think after many many years of Christian indoctrination you know it well enough. Then you see that there's a lot of great advice in there, lots of great stories, but also a bunch of made up guesswork, contradictions and outright falsities in it as well.

 

In the end you see it for what it is... a good way to live your life and treat other but clearly too faulty to be divinely inspired. Looks more like the best guesses of ancient wise men trying to explain the world, our role in it, and the meaning of our lives.

 

the book or the ones that teach it?