Genesis

[Sarah_JC]

I'd like to appoligise to BroAdam for calling Genesis allegorical, but it seems the thread got sidetracked... I was wrong about Genesis, I looked it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
















The language is figurtive, I'm so sorry.

[quote]390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses [b]figurative language[/b], but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.[/quote]

And I'd like to point out this one, just for fun. Because it's beautiful.

[quote]289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. [b]The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation[/b] - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.[/quote]

Nothing I said differs from the beloved Church. Boy, BA... you really had me going for a second. I don't take heresy lightly. I'm happy to have another discussion, since this is the purpose of the board. But I warn you, I have a Catechism with an Index and I'm not afraid to use it!

[Semperviva]

Figurative, yes....But does that mean it can't also be literal? I mean...it affirms the figurative, but does that inherently mean it can't also have literal meaning? Just wondrin'

[Brother Adam]

I'm not openly 'debating' this topic at the moment because we are actively creating www.catholicsforcreation.com and I am now in touch with many of the top Catholics (philosophers, scientists, theologians) who have an interest in this area. I've debated it for years, and know what I'm talking about. I don't take heresy lightly either, but the question of the age of the earth and if Genesis 1-3 is historical is not a matter of heresy as it is not doctrinal in nature. I'm glad you have a catechism. I've read it cover to cover almost 3 times now.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 12:24 PM']Figurative, yes....But does that mean it can't also be literal?  I mean...it affirms the figurative, but does that inherently mean it can't also have literal meaning? Just wondrin'
[right][snapback]619074[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is indeed literal (that is it records historic events as they actually happened), and if you hold this view I encourage you to join us as we build up Catholics For Creation.com

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:24 AM']Figurative, yes....But does that mean it can't also be literal?  I mean...it affirms the figurative, but does that inherently mean it can't also have literal meaning? Just wondrin'
[right][snapback]619074[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The "literal" sense of Scripture is not to be confused with a fundamentalist "literalism". The "literal" sense is that which the author intended to convey, not the absolute literal meaning of words. For example, as Pope Leo XIII tells us in "Providentissimus Deus", the Sacred Authors never intended to teach us about science (or, as St. Augustine says, they intended to teach us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go). So when the authors speak in an imprecise scientific manner, they aren't intending to teach science, and so the "literal" understanding is not to draw absurd scientific conclusions, but to accept the intent of the passage. (Eg., if they speak of the sun "rising" and "setting", we don't conclude the sun actually rises and sets. They are speaking phenomenologically, ie., as things appear).

[Brother Adam]

Then too miracles also much only be made to teach truths because they cannot be explained scientifically. There is not a scientific answer for all things but with God all things are possible.

And it is insulting to think that the Fundamentalists came up with the idea of a historical reading of Genesis. They did not. The great Fathers of the Catholic Church did.

[Guest JeffCR07]

A Catholic, though he or she very well may, does not [i]need[/i] to hold that the book of Genesis gives a literal, historical account of the creation of the earth.

All catholics must, however, maintain that there were two individuals, one male and one female, who constitute our "first parents" and that these two sinned such that they fell from their state of Original Justice, or Original Uprightness into a state of lacking that uprightness, and that it is on account of this that all human beings born thereafter are born into that same state of lacking justice.

[Sarah_JC]

You said it was heresy in the previous genesis-related thread. You implied in front of many people I was a heretic (by saying what I had posted was heresy) while offering no evidence. It was not charitable.

I'm leaving this the topic of Genesis 1-3 to rest, now that you've admitted it wasn't heresy. That's all I wanted.

Sincerely, a bottom Catholic

[Brother Adam]

Could you point it out please? Perhaps you misunderstood.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:35 AM']Then too miracles also much only be made to teach truths because they cannot be explained scientifically. There is not a scientific answer for all things but with God all things are possible.

And it is insulting to think that the Fundamentalists came up with the idea of a historical reading of Genesis. They did not. The great Fathers of the Catholic Church did.
[right][snapback]619086[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A "historical" reading of something does not mean it is read literally. The Church acknowledges the fundamental historical character of genesis. What she does not presume to judge is the way in which the Sacred Authors conveyed fundamental truths of salvation history.

The Church does not require us to believe God planted Dinosaur fossils to test our faith. The Scriptures are not a scientific textbook. Period. Faith and reason complement eachother, as do science and the Scriptures.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:35 AM']And it is insulting to think that the Fundamentalists came up with the idea of a historical reading of Genesis. They did not. The great Fathers of the Catholic Church did.
[right][snapback]619086[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not all of the Fathers of the Church agreed concerning the book of Genesis, many argue that it literally took 7 days, but many others argue that it took 7,000 (tying the Genesis "days" to what is said of the length of "days" in II Peter), and still others argued that it was figurative and not intended on being scientific at all.

[Sarah_JC]

BA... I think you're right, you did say the word heresy, but it seems it was in regards to the dictated- inspired - written spectrum.
I said dictation by God was heresy,
You said written by man was heresy.

We agreed, we were just looking at it from different perspectives. Co-authoured all the way.

Sorry. Really. I'm not sure how I got the idea that you called ME a heretic... must have had something upsetting happen before I read it.

Guh... I need to utilize PM more, so I stop making a donkey of myself in public.

[Semperviva]

Bro Adam- lol!! i think its funny that yer names Adam and yer all into the creationism stuff-haha-ok-anywaaays, -have you read [i]THE SCIENCE OF GOD: THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL WISDOM[/i], BY GERALD SCHROEDER?!?! He's an orthodox Jew who also has his Ph. D in Physics-his book's very intriguing! He also has a book called GENESIS (Pub. 1990)...So yeah, we don't [i]have[/i] to believe its literal-but its cool to think it could well be...

[Aloysius]

just believe Adam and Eve existed in a state of perfect human nature, then fell from that nature, and from those two people we all descended. Then you're good.

and it can't be reconciled to Catholic Teaching call Adam and Eve monkeys, so if you have some sort of wacko God-guided MACRO-evolution idea... figure out how only two humans came out of this macro-evolution.

Adam and Eve could have been less micro-evolved, but not less macro-evolved (because they were human)

that's about all I have to say about the guidelines the Church has layed up for what you can believe about all this

[Brother Adam]

Hardi-Har Semper, never heard that one before

Sarah, its okay, I make a donkey out of myself much, much more.

Al, I think its less about what we have to believe and more an argument about 6 days to 6 billion years and did God actually love us enough to take tender personal care in our creation, or leave it up to the 'force' of the cosmos to take its course.

People call me crazy because I a donkey talked to Balaam and a snake talked to Adam...


Course I believe in miracles. I'm actually nuts enough to believe Jesus defied the laws of science and rose from the dead. Call me crazy? Yeah, go ahead.