[falcolas]

> I think it's important to see the Bible as a collection of books from different times and places, each with their own rhetorical goals.

And yet that's not how the bible is taught at a vast majority of churches. "The bible is the word of God. Jesus changed his relationship with us, which is why his behavior is different between the old and new Testament. End of discussion."

I still recall the lecture I got when I once questioned whether Genesis was an allegory for the creation of the universe over billions of years. "No, it was 7 days, exactly as the bible says."

[cbfrench]

I mean, that’s how it’s taught in a majority of evangelical churches, which is what I gather you mean. St. Augustine was pretty clear that it wasn’t a literal seven days, and Pope Pius XII in Humani generis accepted that human evolution was a thing. So, granting the numerical superiority of the Catholic tradition, not a majority of churches.

[falcolas]

Ironically (or not) I was lectured by a Catholic. So, regardless of how the Saints and Popes tell it, if it goes against the local priest's beliefs, it's not going to be reflected in the church.

The evidence is plentiful too: look at how the individual churches have taken Pope Benedict's tolerance of previously taboo individuals (homosexuals, for example). Something else I get to hear about at holiday parties.

[cbfrench]

Yeah, that’s about right, unfortunately. Your average local priest may not wish to (or does not wish to) know about the broader sweep of tradition. So, whatever he believes becomes the version of the tradition you encounter. I say all of this as an Anglican priest, so I’m seriously sorry that’s been your experience. Generally one hopes the Catholics (at least their clergy) are at least a bit more familiar with their own teachings than the evangelical fundamentalists.