Bill O'Reilly

[kalm]

Just like with the majority of peacful muslims, he's simply waiting for the silent majority of sane christians to speak out against the crazies.

There are about 2 billion self-identified Christians in the world. Of this number, 1.3 billion are Catholic, and the vast majority of those Catholic (nearly a billion) are Roman Catholic. Another 300,000 are Eastern Orthodox. So probably over 80% of the Christians in the world do not read Genesis literally.

If I'm not mistaken, the last losing VP candidate of the U.S. does as well as the last POTUS.

[Chizzang]

St. Augustine believed in a earth less than 6,000 years old.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

Now what shall we argue about, since this one is over....

[D1B]

St. Augustine believed in a earth less than 6,000 years old.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

[JoltinJoe]

St. Augustine believed in a earth less than 6,000 years old.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

Well, as usual, you miss the point. Geez, when I teach law, there is always some kid in the class, unprepared and a little slow, who nonetheless always has to derail the discussion with some off-point observation.

St. Augustine was writing in the 5th century. If he had the benefit of modern science, he would obviously not hold to that view today. Suffice to say Augustine was much smarter than you. When discussing Genesis, Augustine's point was that the text was not to be literally understood whenever it conflicted with our reason and scientific knowledge. Here is what Augustine wrote in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in which he advocates that our emerging understanding of science must govern over literal interpretations of Scripture. Keep in mind that these thoughts are from a "Doctor of the Catholic Church" writing in the early 400s:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The point was that in the 5th century, St. Augustine was already writing that the Genesis creation story was not to be understood literally. This point was made in response to a post that claimed that the Catholic Church only recently started to say that Genesis was not to be read literally. Needless to say (well, I guess for you, it is not needless) it is clear that Augustine would not hold to the belief of a young earth today, given scientific knowledge to the contrary, and this is obvious from the quotation above.

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. You have never read Augustine. It is obvious (as with most things you discuss).

Do you understand now? Despite your little google-search inspired, off-point interruption, the point holds that the Catholic Church has nearly a 1,700-year history of understanding the Genesis creation story as an allegory.

[JoltinJoe]

St. Augustine believed in a earth less than 6,000 years old.

Now what shall we argue about, since this one is over....

You are easily impressed ...

So Augustine advocated reading Genesis literally?

Sad.

[Chizzang]

Now what shall we argue about, since this one is over....

You are easily impressed ...

So Augustine advocated reading Genesis literally?

Sad.

Joe,
I don't care - this whole thing (as usual) is just an exercise
Here are a few things I won't be doing in my remaining years here on earth:

1) Reading the Bible - literally figuratively or Allegorically
2) Worrying about what Augustine thought
3) Spending even a moments time pondering Genesis

[D1B]

St. Augustine believed in a earth less than 6,000 years old.

Well, as usual, you miss the point. Geez, when I teach law, there is always some kid in the class, unprepared and a little slow, who nonetheless always has to derail the discussion with some off-point observation.

St. Augustine was writing in the 5th century. If he had the benefit of modern science, he would obviously not hold to that view today. Suffice to say Augustine was much smarter than you. When discussing Genesis, Augustine's point was that the text was not to be literally understood whenever it conflicted with our reason and scientific knowledge. Here is what Augustine wrote in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in which he advocates that our emerging understanding of science must govern over literal interpretations of Scripture. Keep in mind that these thoughts are from a "Doctor of the Catholic Church" writing in the early 400s:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The point was that in the 5th century, St. Augustine was already writing that the Genesis creation story was not to be understood literally. This point was made in response to a post that claimed that the Catholic Church only recently started to say that Genesis was not to be read literally. Needless to say (well, I guess for you, it is not needless) it is clear that Augustine would not hold to the belief of a young earth today, given scientific knowledge to the contrary, and this is obvious from the quotation above.

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. You have never read Augustine. It is obvious (as with most things you discuss).

Do you understand now? Despite your little google-search inspired, off-point interruption, the point holds that the Catholic Church has nearly a 1,700-year history of understanding the Genesis creation story as an allegory.

[Skjellyfetti]

by JoltinJoe » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:09 am

Last edited by JoltinJoe on Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:27 am, edited 6 times in total.

[JoltinJoe]

by JoltinJoe » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:09 am

Last edited by JoltinJoe on Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:27 am, edited 6 times in total.

So what? I edited it to correct some typos. I have a problem with my IE and this website.

You're the board idiot. No amount of editing is going to change that.

[Skjellyfetti]

It was more the fact that you were up at the crack of dawn... editing and proofreading your post for an hour and half. Pathetic.

[JoltinJoe]

It was more the fact that you were up at the crack of dawn... editing and proofreading your post for an hour and half. Pathetic.

I get up early. I do a workout, and then have a coffee while looking at the web; I then do work (because I'm employed) until the kids get up.

I came back to it about 1 1/2 hours later when I was at a different computer in the house, without the IE problem, to correct the typos.

[D1B]

It was more the fact that you were up at the crack of dawn... editing and proofreading your post for an hour and half. Pathetic.

I get up early. I do a workout, and then have a coffee while looking at the web; I then do work (because I'm employed) until the kids get up.

I came back to it about 1 1/2 hours later when I was at a different computer in the house, without the IE problem, to correct the typos.

Whatever

[D1B]

It was more the fact that you were up at the crack of dawn... editing and proofreading your post for an hour and half. Pathetic.

And he's still grossly exaggerating the catholic church's dismissal of Genesis.

The catholics couldn't even agree on the divinity of jesus for several hundred years after he was alleged to exist.

Joe, what other books of the bible do the catholics disregard?

[JoltinJoe]

It was more the fact that you were up at the crack of dawn... editing and proofreading your post for an hour and half. Pathetic.

And he's still grossly exaggerating the catholic church's dismissal of Genesis.

The catholics couldn't even agree on the divinity of jesus for several hundred years after he was alleged to exist.

Joe, what other books of the bible do the catholics disregard?

Are you aware of any Catholic writer, after Augustine, who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis? Remember that Augustine was enrolled as a "doctor of the church," which demonstrates the amount of weight given to his work.

Catholics have agreed on the divinity of Christ since the first century. This was was recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, but the council was merely stating existing thought and clarifying what it meant.

Catholics don't disregard any book of the Bible, although they understand that some books (Genesis, Revelation, among others) are allegorical and rely on symbolism. Catholics are criticized for this by many reactionary protestant groups -- you know them. Although you despise those groups, you often lift "research" from their websites and bring it here when you are bad-mouthing Catholicism. Ironic, don't you think?

[JoltinJoe]

I get up early. I do a workout, and then have a coffee while looking at the web; I then do work (because I'm employed) until the kids get up.

I came back to it about 1 1/2 hours later when I was at a different computer in the house, without the IE problem, to correct the typos.

Whatever

What's sad is that when I'm up early, doing work, a portion of my earnings go to support the lazy and unemployed who think it is "pathetic" that a hard worker gets up early.

[Chizzang]

Whatever

What's sad is that when I'm up early, doing work, a portion of my earnings go to support the lazy and unemployed who think it is "pathetic" that a hard worker gets up early.

Now Joe,
I think I speak for everyone when I say - we all appreciate what you do

[D1B]

And he's still grossly exaggerating the catholic church's dismissal of Genesis.

The catholics couldn't even agree on the divinity of jesus for several hundred years after he was alleged to exist.

Joe, what other books of the bible do the catholics disregard?

Are you aware of any Catholic writer, after Augustine, who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis? Remember that Augustine was enrolled as a "doctor of the church," which demonstrates the amount of weight given to his work.

Catholics have agreed on the divinity of Christ since the first century. This was was recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, but the council was merely stating existing thought and clarifying what it meant.

Catholics don't disregard any book of the Bible, although they understand that some books (Genesis, Revelation, among others) are allegorical and rely on symbolism. Catholics are criticized for this by many reactionary protestant groups -- you know them. Although you despise those groups, you often lift "research" from their websites and bring it here when you are bad-mouthing Catholicism. Ironic, don't you think?

When I was in catholic gradeschool, Genesis was taught as fact. Fairy tales - it's how you hook children.

You're wrong or lying about the first century.

They did not "understand" the books were fiction either. They were forced to backpeddle by freethinkers, protestants, martyrs who sought to translate the bible into the toungue of the people and were hunted down and killed by the catholic church, atheists, scientists, merchants, archaeologists, linquists and others who exposed it as a work of fiction.

Funny how genesis is a crock of shit, yet the crap about zombie Jesus, virgin birth, bullshit resurrection is fact.

Can't pick and choose Joe.

Again, the secularization of your church continues. Ironic, the catholic church is better today because of atheists.

[Grizalltheway]

What's sad is that when I'm up early, doing work, a portion of my earnings go to support the lazy and unemployed who think it is "pathetic" that a hard worker gets up early.

Now Joe,
I think I speak for everyone when I say - we all appreciate what you do

Now cleets, you've made it pretty clear that you think lawyers are the scum of the earth...

[JoltinJoe]

Are you aware of any Catholic writer, after Augustine, who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis? Remember that Augustine was enrolled as a "doctor of the church," which demonstrates the amount of weight given to his work.

Catholics have agreed on the divinity of Christ since the first century. This was was recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, but the council was merely stating existing thought and clarifying what it meant.

Catholics don't disregard any book of the Bible, although they understand that some books (Genesis, Revelation, among others) are allegorical and rely on symbolism. Catholics are criticized for this by many reactionary protestant groups -- you know them. Although you despise those groups, you often lift "research" from their websites and bring it here when you are bad-mouthing Catholicism. Ironic, don't you think?

When I was in catholic gradeschool, Genesis was taught as fact. Fairy tales - it's how you hook children.

You're wrong or lying about the first century.

They did not "understand" the books were fiction either. They were forced to backpeddle by freethinkers, protestants, martyrs who sought to translate the bible into the toungue of the people and were hunted down and killed by the catholic church, atheists, scientists, merchants, archaeologists, linquists and others who exposed it as a work of fiction.

Funny how genesis is a crock of ****, yet the crap about zombie Jesus, virgin birth, bullshit resurrection is fact.

Can't pick and choose Joe.

Again, the secularization of your church continues. Ironic, the catholic church is better today because of atheists.

Genesis was taught as fact in your school? We were taught evolution in my Catholic grammar school. A chart similar to this one hung in all our science classrooms, with the chart identifying the name of all the predecessors of homo sapiens and how long ago they lived (all of them lived longer than 6,000 years ago, according to the chart .)

http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvo ... ctures.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In religion classes, we didn't start with the Old Testament until the fourth grade, but we were plainly told that Genesis was a story with a moral, not a scientific account. This study was accompanied with an introduction to evolution in our science classes.

Also, there is little doubt that first century Christians considered Jesus divine. Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 650.

This is evident from a review of the Gospel of John, in which Jesus is consistently accorded titles which imply his divinity. Even when he is approached for his arrest, the officers ask him if he is Jesus of Nazareth. He replies: "I AM" and the officers are said to retreat in fear. (John 18:5-6). This is because when he had been asked to identify himself, Jesus had referred to himself, in Aramaic, as "Yahweh." This name was so sacred that Jews of that era never said this word.

This reference to Jesus as "Yahweh" gets obscured in translation, but John was plainly calling Jesus divine in this account.

[Chizzang]

Now Joe,
I think I speak for everyone when I say - we all appreciate what you do

Now cleets, you've made it pretty clear that you think lawyers are the scum of the earth...

Quite obviously they are...
But that's no reason to gang up on Joe - he's a victim in many ways
Trapped in an endless cycle of Hell doing Satan's handy work, all the while preaching the Gospel and saving souls – It's a dichotomous world we live in GrizAll

[Grizalltheway]

Now cleets, you've made it pretty clear that you think lawyers are the scum of the earth...

Quite obviously they are...
But that's no reason to gang up on Joe - he's a victim in many ways
Trapped in an endless cycle of Hell doing Satan's handy work, all the while preaching the Gospel and saving souls – It's a dichotomous world we live in GrizAll

No doubt about that.

[JoltinJoe]

Now cleets, you've made it pretty clear that you think lawyers are the scum of the earth...

Quite obviously they are...
But that's no reason to gang up on Joe - he's a victim in many ways
Trapped in an endless cycle of Hell doing Satan's handy work, all the while preaching the Gospel and saving souls – It's a dichotomous world we live in GrizAll

I have no desire to preach the gospels or save souls here. But when I make simple and correct observations, for example, that Augustine advocated an allegorical reading of Genesis or that Catholics teach and believe in evolution, and then I get challenged by some know-nothing, I then have to take the time to unmask their ignorance.

None of this is necessary. If the peanut gallery here would just making stupid statements, I could concentrate on my day job of doing Satan's handy work.

[Chizzang]

Quite obviously they are...
But that's no reason to gang up on Joe - he's a victim in many ways
Trapped in an endless cycle of Hell doing Satan's handy work, all the while preaching the Gospel and saving souls – It's a dichotomous world we live in GrizAll

I have no desire to preach the gospels or save souls here. But when I make simple and correct observations, for example, that Augustine advocated an allegorical reading of Genesis or that Catholics teach and believe in evolution, and then I get challenged by some know-nothing, I then have to take the time to unmask their ignorance.

None of this is necessary. If the peanut gallery here would just making stupid statements, I could concentrate on my day job of doing Satan's handy work.

Joe that is an A+ quality post



Thank you and... nice timing on the punch-line

[houndawg]

And he's still grossly exaggerating the catholic church's dismissal of Genesis.

The catholics couldn't even agree on the divinity of jesus for several hundred years after he was alleged to exist.

Joe, what other books of the bible do the catholics disregard?

Are you aware of any Catholic writer, after Augustine, who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis? Remember that Augustine was enrolled as a "doctor of the church," which demonstrates the amount of weight given to his work.

Catholics have agreed on the divinity of Christ since the first century. This was was recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, but the council was merely stating existing thought and clarifying what it meant.

Catholics don't disregard any book of the Bible, although they understand that some books (Genesis, Revelation, among others) are allegorical and rely on symbolism. Catholics are criticized for this by many reactionary protestant groups -- you know them. Although you despise those groups, you often lift "research" from their websites and bring it here when you are bad-mouthing Catholicism. Ironic, don't you think?

You mean they don't disregard any book of the Bible that wasn't officially approved at the Council of Nicea?

[D1B]

Are you aware of any Catholic writer, after Augustine, who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis? Remember that Augustine was enrolled as a "doctor of the church," which demonstrates the amount of weight given to his work.

Catholics have agreed on the divinity of Christ since the first century. This was was recognized by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, but the council was merely stating existing thought and clarifying what it meant.

Catholics don't disregard any book of the Bible, although they understand that some books (Genesis, Revelation, among others) are allegorical and rely on symbolism. Catholics are criticized for this by many reactionary protestant groups -- you know them. Although you despise those groups, you often lift "research" from their websites and bring it here when you are bad-mouthing Catholicism. Ironic, don't you think?

You mean they don't disregard any book of the Bible that wasn't officially approved at the Council of Nicea?

The counclil convened 300 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. 300 years, and they were still editing and writing/creating MAJOR portions of the bible.

*Too bad Galelio and the the countless other scientists, philosophers, freethinkers,Protestants etc. who challenged the church and got murdererd, tortured or ostracized didn't get the memo that the bible is all symbollicky and stuff, and the catholics were reasonable people for 18 centuries.