• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

That article presents a very unsophisticated interpretation of the Pope's statements that fails to take account of much liberal theology since, oh, I don't know, 1850 or so (maybe sooner; I'm a little rusty). I haven't seen the full context of the Pope's statements, but I would assume the ones quoted in the article are juxtaposing (1) both (a) a philosophical conception of god (god as hypostatized "divine being," "unmoved mover," the "good") and (b) a rote interpretation of the Bible from a literalist standpoint with (2) the God of Christianity as understood by much modern theology (at least since Kierkegaard), which tries to divorce Christianity from philosophical (and particularly, Greek) thought and which recognizes that the creation myth was never meant to be taken literally and is thus fully compatible with whichever direction science says the wind is blowing today.

I'm not a Pope watcher; maybe this is a bombshell coming from him, but statements like these aren't new or unique to Christianity by a long shot.
 
So The Bible can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean? I am aware of liberal theology that gets away from a literal interpretation, but at that point what is the basis for believing any part of the Bible? Seems like alot of mental gymnastics to me.

Basically concluding that the Bible isn't consistent with modern understanding so we are going to rationalize away major foundations of it to me is remarkable.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
That article presents a very unsophisticated interpretation of the Pope's statements that fails to take account of much liberal theology since, oh, I don't know, 1850 or so (maybe sooner; I'm a little rusty). I haven't seen the full context of the Pope's statements, but I would assume the ones quoted in the article are juxtaposing (1) both (a) a philosophical conception of god (god as hypostatized "divine being," "unmoved mover," the "good") and (b) a rote interpretation of the Bible from a literalist standpoint with (2) the God of Christianity as understood by much modern theology (at least since Kierkegaard), which tries to divorce Christianity from philosophical (and particularly, Greek) thought and which recognizes that the creation myth was never meant to be taken literally and is thus fully compatible with whichever direction science says the wind is blowing today.

I'm not a Pope watcher; maybe this is a bombshell coming from him, but statements like these aren't new or unique to Christianity by a long shot.
Click to expand...

Stopped reading
 
In regards to evolution, The Pope said that God wasn't a magician that could wave his magic wand. Are we talking about the same omniscient omnipresent entity in The Bible that created the Universe and performed all sorts of miracles on command?
 
“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said to the few remaining heads left. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/p...ust-admitted-may-not-god/#I5Z0LBlY3WGRSokQ.99

I think Francis simply said God created the heavens and the earth and science helps us understand how and the ongoing processes through which God's creation continues to exist. That statement is definitely a critique of a naive understanding of God as a magician with no acknowledge of the crucial role science plays in understanding and taking care of creation.

I imagine there is additional context to the statement on God's divinity. The Pope doesn't pray to test tubes.
 
I haven't that's why I'm not assuming what he said or the context.
 
ChrisL68 said:
So The Bible can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean? I am aware of liberal theology that gets away from a literal interpretation, but at that point what is the basis for believing any part of the Bible? Seems like alot of mental gymnastics to me.

Basically concluding that the Bible isn't consistent with modern understanding so we are going to rationalize away major foundations of it to me is remarkable.
Click to expand...

The bible never claims to be a science textbook. The import of the creation story isn't in the mechanism of creation but in the fact that it is--and, more importantly, we are--a creation. That's neither rationalization nor is it making it up; it's interpretation.

I find it interesting that someone who is, by all appearances anyway, a liberal thinker politically would be so tied to a conservative view of the bible that only exists outside of the academy anymore.
 
ChrisL68 said:
So The Bible can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean? I am aware of liberal theology that gets away from a literal interpretation, but at that point what is the basis for believing any part of the Bible? Seems like alot of mental gymnastics to me.

Basically concluding that the Bible isn't consistent with modern understanding so we are going to rationalize away major foundations of it to me is remarkable.
Click to expand...

I tend to view it as a living, breathing document.
 
ChrisL68 said:
In regards to evolution, The Pope said that God wasn't a magician that could wave his magic wand. Are we talking about the same omniscient omnipresent entity in The Bible that created the Universe and performed all sorts of miracles on command?
Click to expand...

I must've missed the book where the creation story says God didn't create by way of evolution. Is that 1 Opinions 3:16?
 
ONW said:
I haven't that's why I'm not assuming what he said or the context.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's important enough for you to criticize me about it, then maybe it would behoove you to find the full context and try to prove me wrong.

Then again, I guess snark is easier. And the world series is on, after all. Carry on.
 
The insistence of a literal 7 day creation wasn't really a thing before Darby popularized dispensational theology - which really took off in the 1830s, right before Voyage of the Beagle was published. The timing of the rise of dispensationalism, which insists of 7 "ages" or expressions of God's relation to humanity corresponding to a strict, literal 7 days of creation, and Darwin's work made the discussion between science and faith more contentious that it had been or needs to be.

edited for clarity: There were those who did hold a view of a 7 day creation, but before Darby, it was never considered a cornerstone or essential belief.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
The bible never claims to be a science textbook. The import of the creation story isn't in the mechanism of creation but in the fact that it is--and, more importantly, we are--a creation. That's neither rationalization nor is it making it up; it's interpretation.

I find it interesting that someone who is, by all appearances anyway, a liberal thinker politically would be so tied to a conservative view of the bible that only exists outside of the academy anymore.
Click to expand...

I am not tied to a conservative view of the Bible because I am an agnostic. I just don't understand believing in it as the basis of the meaning of life and then saying it is largely metaphorical. Just seems unbelievably inconsistent to me.

And I find the view that the God who parted The Red Sea isn't a magician who can wave his magic wand a remarkable statement.
 
Last edited:
I've never understood why people can't accept that maybe evolution was part of God's plan, but they readily preach the parable of the row boat and the helicopter coming to the aid of the flood victims.
 
A lot of it has to do with reading it though a modernistic-Western lens that concerns itself with "how things work" rather than a Hebrew mindset. The point of the creation narrative is "who" not "how." We impose questions on the text it didn't presume to answer, and it answers in language that is accessible to those to whom it was written. I would stop short of saying the Genesis account is metaphorical, but it is poetry in the original text - concerned with order being brought to chaos, of created things filling the pre-existent void. Again, the question being answered in the creation is who (one God or many gods) and how is going to work (order v. chaos - fruitful reproduction - a good created order, etc.) rather than the mechanics of it all.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I've never understood why people can't accept that maybe evolution was part of God's plan, but they readily preach the parable of the row boat and the helicopter coming to the aid of the flood victims.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. You'll get the stink eye trying to convince some of those people a vaccine is the helicopter.
 
ChrisL68 said:
So The Bible can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean? I am aware of liberal theology that gets away from a literal interpretation, but at that point what is the basis for believing any part of the Bible? Seems like alot of mental gymnastics to me.

Basically concluding that the Bible isn't consistent with modern understanding so we are going to rationalize away major foundations of it to me is remarkable.
Click to expand...

Many Roman Catholics and many Jews believe The Bible is an allegory. At the time of the OT, pagan gods did amazing things. Many opine that the new one God also had to have magical powers or it would be difficult to build a base of believers.

Many non-fundamentalists believe that evolution can be used to prove the existence of a supreme being. Science is only taboo to extremist religious adherents. The Vatican has an astronomer who told Bill Maher (before the ascension of Pope Francis) that the church thought life would be found elsewhere in the universe. He went on to say that wouldn't disprove the existence of God.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I am not tied to a conservative view of the Bible because I am an agnostic. I just don't understand believing in it as the basis of the meaning of life and then saying it is largely metaphorical. Just seems unbelievably inconsistent to me.

And I find the view that the God who parted The Red Sea isn't' a magician who can wave his magic wand a remarkable statement.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for the Pope, but, based on the comments I read, I'd be surprised if he viewed the parting of the Red Sea as a literal event.

Again, the bible doesn't purport to demand that we believe it literally. In fact, I doubt that the dichotomy between literalism and metaphor is something that people in 1500 BC fully appreciated. Related, it strikes me that your demand that the bible be read literally or not at all is a product of the post scientific revolution age in which you live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top