religious leaders of all of the major traditions of Christianity see the predictions made in the Bible as allegorical rather than factual.
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
It makes me wonder just how malleable our minds can be.
Revelations isn't even part of the Catholic Bible, just saying.
The only exceptions I can think of are the Preterists, who think it already happened.
Blasdelb: "religious leaders of all of the major traditions of Christianity see the predictions made in the Bible as allegorical rather than factual
Chekhovian: This is afterall the last gap left them, what with all those centuries of disproof of any real world predictions."
adamdschneider: " I don't know any astronomers, but I have a hard time imagining them as, practically speaking, viewing geocentricity as anything other than simply wrong."
No Chekhovian, my point is that all knowledge based disciplines have over the centuries adapted their preachings so as to avoid easily falsifiable predictions.
Flunkie: " No Chekhovian, my point is that all knowledge based disciplines have over the centuries adapted their preachings so as to avoid easily falsifiable predictions.
Making falsifiable predictions, easy or not, is the very heart of science."
Chekhovian: " Isn't religion the one field of knowledge that's supposed to have an "inside track" on truth? I'm obviously not religious, but if I had those inclinations, I would want a religion that promised that it had the fundamental truth. Otherwise, why bother? "
Christ actually covered the subject of his return quite well, stating no one would know the time nor place and hinted it would be a great surprise for most people.
Decani: "I assume those heterodox outliers include that tiny, fringe group of Christians who make absurd predictions about oh, say, stuff like life after death and so on?"
This is not the first time that passage has been misinterpreted.
It is similar to Camping in that the Christians who interpreted that sentence the way you do were a minority who didn't understand it
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, power and love, whose mercy is over all His works, and whose will is ever directed to His children's good.
I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of man, the Gift of the Father's unfailing grace, the ground of our hope, and the promise of our deliverance from sin and death.
I believe in the Holy Spirit and the divine presence in our lives, whereby we are kept in perpetual remembrance of the truth of Christ, and find strength and help in time of need.
I believe that this faith should manifest itself in the service of love as set forth in the example of our blessed Lord, to the end that the Kingdom of God may come upon the Earth. Amen.
The attitude that I advocate is that the omnicompetence
of science, and in particular the simplicity its reductionist
insight reveals, should be accepted as a working hypothesis
until, if ever, it is proved inadequate. I began by wondering
whether science and religion could he reconciled and if they
were complementary explorations of the cosmos. I have to
conclude that they cannot be reconciled. A scientists'
explanation is in terms of a purposeless, knowable, and
understandable fully reduced simplicity. Religion, on the
other hand, seeks to explain in terms of a purposeful,
unknowable, and incomprehensible irreducible complexity.
Science and religion cannot be reconciled, and humanity
should begin to appreciate the power of its child, and to
beat off all attempts at compromise. Religion has failed,
and its failures should stand exposed. Science, with its
currently successful pursuit of universal competence through
the identification of the minimal, the supreme delight of
the intellect, should be acknowledged king.
-- P.W. Atkins, "The Limitless Power of Science"
« Older "It sounds like a great idea...." | Christine Lagarde "I think of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments