Catholic church admits parts of the bible aren't true

[noj]

Wow, just wow: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

and later on...

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

I feel like asking someone to pinch me incase i'm dreaming.

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Like for example, a major world leader being told 'by god' to invade other countries.

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

I literally cannot describe how happy this makes me feel. Every time I mention my religion I feel like an asshole because of what (it sometimes seems) the rest of the world's Christians are doing in the name of the religion. But this... Its be like Bush turning round and admitting he screwed up and that he was going to drop taxes for low income workers. Its like getting a call from your principal apologising for the behaviour of that asshole techer who wouldn't cut you a break, and raising your grades. In short, it's the most god-damn brollic news i've had since hearing my brother won an xbox 360, and there is not a guitar in the world big enough for the solo I now want to bust out.

What do you guys think?

[trencacloscas]

For centuries, there just wasn't any other information available.

Sure, but... Whose fault is this? Christianity let the science legacy of Pagans spoil.

When faced with a choice between alternative explanations, where one is really complicated (evolution) and one is really easy (god did it), AND one has the benefit of promising everlasting life...well, gosh, which one would you choose?

For me, at least, the explanation of god is illogical, complicated and just doesn't fit. Evolution sounded natural from the first time I heard it.

We could hope, probably futilely, that the church's admission will help more people see that biblical literalism is not such a good idea.

Biblical metaphore doesn't seem a good idea to me either.

[koriani]

It seems to me that most of the problem here is the inability (or unwillingness) of some to accept new findings into their belief system.

When people are closed to even the slightest possibility of error and hang on stubbornly to beliefs that might be misguided at best and dangerous at worst, there can be no moving forward or understanding.

[Cathar1950]

Heartshorne in Beyond Humanism wrote:

The more the rational elements of culture, that is science and critical meatphysics, advance, the less need or excuse there will be, it seems to me, for authoritative revelation as a rival or supplement to knowledge. We need inspiration as well as proof; but infallible inspiration seems a meaningless idea. Even if God dictated the Bible, it would be of no help until he taught us how to traslate it into modern language and thought and life, and if we were taught to do this infallibly, we should aquire a degree of insight clearly incompatable with human limitations.
Popular Fundamentalism is either a negative evil, a callowness of culture which should be kindly assisted to cure itself; or a positive evil, an unloving and therefore unchristian dogmatism which is to be greeted, like every other form of arrogant power, with indignation and ridicule. An infallible dogma or book or church is a boast or a bludgeon, not a call to comradship in human strength or human modesty and repentance.

This would be true for all bible believers or those who claim scripture alone or faith alone. Any one who says that others are not true Christians because of others dogma that differs from their own is arrogant. My personal feeling is that what became of Christianity is a mystery religion invented by Paul with Gospels that followed. But this does not exclude it from the possibility of spiritual growth which all humans have in common. By spiritual growth I mean the integration of human potential and ideals. It is a struggle for our growth and it seems that Paul turned it into a magic trick.

[Jose]

For centuries, there just wasn't any other information available.

Sure, but... Whose fault is this? Christianity let the science legacy of Pagans spoil.

I am reluctant to assess blame, and would prefer to let history speak for itself. In the face of profound questions, but absence of any information, humans fill in the blanks. We tell stories. For a tribal story of Our History, passed on over many generations, the true orgins become lost as the Story is presented more and more strongly as fact. In time, the story becomes accepted religious belief and accumulates rituals and groupthink psychological devices that ensure that the faithful remain so. In the end, rigidity of thinking becomes an impediment to adaptation.

At this point, we find several alternatives. These include coercion (the Inquisition), fragmentation (formation of "reformed" splinter sects), fundamentalism (insistence on a strict set of rules), and extinction (e.g. the Greenland Norse who held their religious beliefs so strongly they failed to learn from the Inuit, and died out). I suspect that the route or routes followed by different groups depends strongly on the individuals involved and the presence or absence of charismatic leaders.

But, at least the choices seem uncomplicated to those who are involved.

For me, at least, the explanation of god is illogical, complicated and just doesn't fit. Evolution sounded natural from the first time I heard it.

Like me, you are one of the weird ones. For those who have grown up in an atmosphere of invariant teaching that This Is How It Is, and in which the mere act of considering evolution is factually presented as eliminating Salvation for yourself and possibly everyone, evolution doesn't come across quite so logically. It is also possible to teach it poorly, so that people acquire misconceptions about how it works. These misconceptions are behind a lot of the anti-evolutionism, and are reinforced by the fear that we'd lose Salvation if evolution were true.

It can be very difficult to come to grips with evolution, and manage to reconcile scientfic conclusions with religious dogma. That pretty much requires backing off on the dogma--for which a very important aid is the recognition that parts of the bible may not be historically accurate. If there are people who can accept evolution and at the same time retain their faith, then maybe Salvation isn't at stake, and it's OK to study evolution with an open mind.

[lifeisboring]

More like some atheist's argument was supported by the Bible and the Catholic just released this statement as an escape route.

[trencacloscas]

It can be very difficult to come to grips with evolution, and manage to reconcile scientfic conclusions with religious dogma.

Do we need to?

[Jose]

It can be very difficult to come to grips with evolution, and manage to reconcile scientfic conclusions with religious dogma.

Do we need to?

Most people have. However, it seems to be difficult for fundamentalists, or people who have been influenced by fundamentalists. There is a very strong fundamentalist promulgation of the idea that there is an either/or choice: religion OR evolution. This turns out to be a fake dichotomy, since most people have no problem with it, and are both religious and accepting of evolution. It's often a real eye-opener for students to hear that, in fact, evolution does not preclude god, and that many deeply religious people accept evolution quite happily.

But then there are the fundamentalists, whose particular religious dogma seems to include the idea that a lot of science is untrue, based on their particular interpretation of the vague and often incompatible passages in the bible. Their dogma sets aside the incompatibilities, presents a single interpretation, and allows no dissent. Needless to say, if you've been raised in this worldview, and then have to face evolution, you've got yourself a dilemma. Many people simply shut down and deny the science, for fear that even thinking about dissenting ideas will damn them forever.

Others recognize that evolution simply makes too much sense, and they abandon their faith. I see this as the danger in presenting religious dogma so rigidly. When people discover that it really is at odds with the data, they may feel lied-to, and leave the church forever. By being less dogmatic, and accepting the fact of the bible's inconsistencies, it is possible to maintain one's religious views and accept the scientific findings.

[Cathar1950]

You pointed out some interesting problems facing those with dogmatic views. It seems if you want to see evolution on a cultural level just look at the histories of religions. The Bible it's self is a product of cultural influences and clashes. Losing one's faith due to knowledge seems to be such a waste. Religious concepts are best when they are like people they grow and develope. Some don't allow the possibility.
Here is a little something I Picked up from ap:religion.

Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_ ... an_science

[micatala]

Others recognize that evolution simply makes too much sense, and they abandon their faith. I see this as the danger in presenting religious dogma so rigidly. When people discover that it really is at odds with the data, they may feel lied-to, and leave the church forever. By being less dogmatic, and accepting the fact of the bible's inconsistencies, it is possible to maintain one's religious views and accept the scientific findings.

Very well put, and thanks also to Cathar for his link.

THis is one of my major concerns with the dynamics of creationism. Although many creationists feel they are 'defending the faith' and 'furthering the kingdom,' I think their actions often have the opposite effect of turning people off to Christianity or even faith in general.

It is not a new story. Galileo had much the same concerns in his day. Although he certainly had his faults, I think Galileo was sincerely trying to save his church from an embarassing loss of reputation and a blow to its scientific enterprise. He hoped to convince the heirarchy of at least the plausibility of Copernicanism. Unfortunately, he miscalculated the reaction and arguably made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. His worst fears and more came to pass after his trial and the effects lasted for many generations.

[trencacloscas]

Unfortunately, the article is nothing more than weary Vatican propaganda.

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link"

The cardinal should explain first why he thinks religion has any relation with ethics before putting both things so lightly (and cunningly) at the same level.