Adam or Eve? Who to ultimately blame for the fall?

[SteveG]

patg:

This is pretty minor compared to the other areas where I’m at odds with Church teaching.

This statement makes It fairly apparent that we are coming at this from a totally differnt foundational philosophy. Fair enough.

patg:

I appreciate all the concerns about my heresies but believing that Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel, Jonah in the whale, the story of Job, etc. are history is an insult to the authors who went to a lot of trouble to teach real truths about our relationship with God.

Please enlighten us. I suppose all of us troglodites who are unable to walk and chew gum need your instruction.

To dismiss these as pure myth on the grounds that they don’t stand up to historical scrutiny is to misunderstand the mind of the semitic peoples writing them. The authors were not writing chronological history as you suggest (and as modern westeran man concieves of history), but certainly all elements need not be dismissed as purely symbolic on that basis.

Let us take Noah for example. Need one belive that the entire planet was flooded and that EVERY species of animal was herded on the ark for 40 days and nights. Certainly not! But, is it also possible that a large catastrophic flood in the area of the semitic people whose ‘history’ we read may have occurred? And that a man built a large boat and put all the animal species known to him on that boat? And might we incorporate into that understanding, a further undestanding that in semitic writing 40 days and nights is not always literal, but rather symbolic of a long period? Such a reading might allow for a ‘historically’ true account as far as the writer and his original audience goes without dismissing it as pure allegory.

While I’d agree the literal reading you criticize can’t stand up to scrutiny, this doesn’t present a problem for me as I can read the bible with a bit of knowledge of both historical and cultural context. You read it SO literally (almost as a fundamentalist does), that you force yourself to either a) accept it as a fundamentalist would, or b) reject its historicity altogether and ready it as merely symbolic. There is a 3rd way in which to read such episodes that forces one to do neither.

patg:

Anyway, I’m pretty sure the people of the Paulist Press have not been excommunicated for publishing the books from which I have learned things like this. “And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” by Dr. Margaret Ralph is a really good starting point (She is also the director of adult religious education for our diocese).

hmmm, since the Church doesn’t use excommunication too often anymore, I’d be surprised if anyone at Paulist Press was so cut off from the church. In any event, the book you refer to seems to be (from the editorial comment) only about biblical literary genres, a concept I am well aware of. I highly doubt that you can show me anywhere in it that Dr. Ralph teaches polygenism. If I am wrong, I would be willing to bet that if Paulist Press was aware of it, they’d dump her in a second.

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

It seems to me that it’s a nonsense to discuss which of Adam and Eve were more responsible for the Fall, (in terms that are exceedingly insulting to women), when Adam and Eve did not literally exist.

OK, let’s just for the sake of argument suppose that the creation account is purely a story (not my position by the way). Then why is it nonsense to discuss the meaning of the story? You take it as fact that Adam and Eve did not exist (which you surely can not know for certain). Even if you are correct, the characters in the story exist, and the plot and the story itself still exist. Why can we not discuss the meaning of that story, what it means to us, and what we might learn from it? Explain why that’s nonsense?

Further, I am curious about your comment that this has been in terms that are exceedingly insulting to women. In what way? I saw nothing in the thread that I could see as even moderately demaining to women. Could you explain this comment?

hecd2:

  If you think there is evidence to the contrary, let's have it.

I am no fool. It’s clear from your web site that this is something you take a keen interest in and have studied in detail (I daresay you seem to have almost made a religion of it). Since I haven’t had either a reason, or a desire to study the issue of the size of the gene pool as applied to monogenism and polygenism, it would be like me trying to play basketball with Wilt Chamberlin. I know enough to know when not to let someone pick a fight with me.

The best I could do is offer some of the articles I’ve read taking the oppossing view and listen to you trounce them as hacks and psuedo-scholars. But that also would seem pointless, as I have found that folks belligerently supportive of positions (scientific or otherwise) usually dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as ill-informed, dishonest, or worse. This seems to be the norm on both sides of the aisle and it appears usually to boil down to which scholars one accepts as valid. For instance I see several works by Dawkins listed in your ‘resources’. I’ve read articles very criticle of his work, including accusations that he often times crosses the line from science to philosophy/religion. Which is right? I am afraid I am unqualified to judge that. In any event, maybe I’ll study up on this and we’ll discuss it more in a few years.
Now, If you want to hook up for a game of racquetball, I could probably hold my own in that court.:yup:

 

[nordskoven]

The New Testament calls Original Sin the “Sin of Adam.” Case closed. Adam had ultimate power and authority from God as steward of life, and in disobeying, Adam alone bears unique, special, separate or “several” guilt for bringing sin and death into the world.

Adam and the Woman both had personal responsibility, as all individuals having free will do. Adam and the Woman suffered the individual consequences, not curses: she to have pain in childbirth; he to have miseries in toiling the accursed earth. The only person cursed was Lucifer–be careful.

Like David’s sin of performing a census, Adam’s corporate agency brought special systemic consequences to the whole population, relieved only by this leader’s repentance. Adam did repent in responding to God’s call, and his male heirs offered priestly sacrifice.

Woman is not legally, forensically to blame for the Sin of Adam, and this is why priestly atonement can only be made by males. That also means the Woman not in any way a co-redeemer, part of the “Final Dogma” from the most condemned Marian apparition in Church history, “The Lady of All Nations Who Once Was Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix & Advocate.” Encyclicals reference the Blessed Virgin as cooperating with salvation, not in confecting it like a priestess offering up her divine child. If the Woman is to blame, priestesses would be the consequence as being able to offer grisly atonement. A priestess is a legal fiction.

The literal Creation account is confirmed in modern medical protocols with: Adam being made sinless from the stuff of the earth; tissue being taken from him under anesthesia; the tissue being cloned; and, as indicated by the literal language, this tissue being genetically modified, enhanced, refined by the Lord as the sinless Woman, her pre-Fall title.

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil might have been a literal mutagen which may not have had the same effect on Woman as Adam because of the modifications indicated in the text. XX females do have more genetic material than XY males. Further, mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA gene permutation studies showing we all came from one mother, nicknamed “Eve” by scientists.

The Creator gave the Woman her own separate ultimate power and authority with His cursing of Lucifer and his seed with the Woman and her Seed. The derivative power and authority flows through the Woman to her Seed, “seed” being a collective term meaning Jesus Christ, and the Body of Christ united in Him. Christ acted under both the authority of the Adamic male as steward of life giving His own life; and under the derivative power and authority received through the Woman to crush Lucifer and his minions.

Christ spoke of a literal Adam. And Messiah exclusively referred to His mother with the pre-Sin of Adam title, “woman.” The Blessed Virgin and Jesus fulfill the Genesis 3:15 Woman & Seed mandate of power and authority over Lucifer and his seed, culminating in John’s Apocalypse 12 as the Woman clothed with the Sun, whose Son is taken to Heaven, and whose other seed–me and you, God willing–are blessed with persecution in His name. May we be granted the perserverance of the saints.

O Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

 

[patg]

SteveG:

I highly doubt that you can show me anywhere in it that Dr. Ralph teaches polygenism. If I am wrong, I would be willing to bet that if Paulist Press was aware of it, they’d dump her in a second.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on that - she doesn’t teach polygenism. She teaches separating history from teaching in the same way we separate news stories, editorials, and the comics when reading a newspaper. Yes, there can be truth in each of them but you absolutely have to know which you are reading in order to understand and you shouldn’t base your history on the contents of the funnies.

Sure, you can always come up with some possible historical event that can be said to influence any story anyone writes (like the flood), but focusing on the history instead of the message is very misdirected. And polls like this, unless they are just for fun, glaringly point out where some people’s focus lies.

I’m not trying to sound condescending; just treat me as if I didn’t know anything Catholic and am searching for the truth.

Pat

 

[SteveG]

patg:

I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on that - she doesn’t teach polygenism. She teaches separating history from teaching in the same way we separate news stories, editorials, and the comics when reading a newspaper. Yes, there can be truth in each of them but you absolutely have to know which you are reading in order to understand and you shouldn’t base your history on the contents of the funnies.

I absolutely agree. Yet the business of doing this separatation in biblical terms is often very subtle and genres can even cross over in some parts. It’s simply not the case that it’s as easy as distinguishing the funnies from the news in a newspaper.

What one also needs to understand aside from genres is the cultural context in which these things were written. The genres we may establish in modern times were not as hard and fast for a pre BC semitic writer.

patg:

Sure, you can always come up with some possible historical event that can be said to influence any story anyone writes (like the flood), but focusing on the history instead of the message is very misdirected.

I am not trying to focus on the history ‘instead’ of the message. Ultimately, the message is paramount. What I am taking issue with is the use of the concept of message to dismiss any historicity of such accounts. The study of BOTH areas has it’s place and is neither nonsense, nor invalid, however misdirected you may deen it.

patg:

And polls like this, unless they are just for fun, glaringly point out where some people’s focus lies.

You couldn’t be more wrong here. For folks who take the ‘story’ seriously, and try to understand what light it can shed on our own lives, what it’s deeper meaning might be, what it might say about husband/wife relationships, etc. make this far more than a ‘fun’ excercise. I’ll again refer you to JPII’s Theology of the Body in order to shed some light on what I mean here.

Rather it was you who posted yesterday boldly claiming your certainty that it is a fictional story…
*
patg
Since this fictional story is an ancient attempt to explain how there came to be suffering in the world (i.e., what happens when God is disobeyed), I sincerely hope this is just a fun little exercise.*

…and casting aspersion on the discussion in general which to that point had not even addressed the historical issues. You just assumed that anyone talking about the topic needed to be enlightened as to what it really means (according to you anyway), even if this is contradictory to Church teaching.

patg:

I’m not trying to sound condescending; just treat me as if I didn’t know anything Catholic and am searching for the truth.

I am a bit confused by what you are trying to get across here?

 

[patg]

SteveG:

IThe study of BOTH areas has it’s place and is neither nonsense, nor invalid, however misdirected you may deen it.

I guess the main reason I had for initiating this discussion is that I felt someone at least ought to bring up a concern as to whether the poll question was valid given the nature of the story (and I am not saying it is or isn’t valid, just questioning). People were answering like we’re talking about who’s responsible for the collapse of Enron and that’s ok. But as you and I have proceeded through this, we’ve shown that there’s a lot more to consider and I hope people are aware of that.

Once I was listening to EWTN (which is nearly impossible where I live) and the caller had some question about the Gospel story of Barabbas. The host answered the question completely but I was really upset that they never mentioned that this story segment is entirely symbolic, that there is no historical record of any such customary practice of releasing a prisoner on a Jewish feast day. This doesn’t take away from the story or the answer but it would have really gone a long way towards telling the whole story and providing a little broader education.

It bothers me when the whole story isn’t considered - it feels like the apologist thinks the masses are too dumb or that their faith is too weak to handle such revelations (so just humor them and pretend it is exact history).

Thanks for your contributions, I do appreciate having someone to debate a little with instead of just being told what the church teaches. And I’m sorry for being so far off subject - I’m really not trying for the record.

Pat

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

OK, let’s just for the sake of argument suppose that the creation account is purely a story (not my position by the way). Then why is it nonsense to discuss the meaning of the story? You take it as fact that Adam and Eve did not exist (which you surely can not know for certain).

I cannot know it 100% for certain but I can know it with as high degree of certainty as any scientific theory. Genetic monogeny is disallowed by the degree of polymorphism at the ARB-1 locus of the Human Leucocyte Antigen Complex where there are 58 alleles that do not coalesce before the time that humans developed full human cognition. That puts a mathematical lower limit on the population of human ancestiors of 29, and absolutely disallows genetic monogeny. (In effect when the population genetics is fully taken into acount, the evidence is that the minimum genetic human population is 10,000 individuals).

Even if you are correct, the characters in the story exist, and the plot and the story itself still exist. Why can we not discuss the meaning of that story, what it means to us, and what we might learn from it? Explain why that’s nonsense?

Great challenge. I hadn’t thought of it that way. You are right. Thank you. So let’s say that discussing which of Adam and Eve were most to blame for the Fall is nonsense if we take Adam and Eve as literal figures ( as Adam and Eve as literal figures don’t exist), but discussing the same topic to unravel the deep meaning of a symbolic story that carries significance for us all - I can see that. OK - let’s agree on that.

Further, I am curious about your comment that this has been in terms that are exceedingly insulting to women. In what way? I saw nothing in the thread that I could see as even moderately demaining to women. Could you explain this comment?

Yes - I find opinions about Adam being the ‘head’ of Eve, about the man being the ‘corporate’ head of the family and responsible for its moral well-being (in a different kind from the responsibility of the mother), for man as a protector of physically and, worse, morally helpless Eve as being insulting to women.

I am no fool. It’s clear from your web site that this is something you take a keen interest in and have studied in detail (I daresay you seem to have almost made a religion of it).

No, not a religion. It is my profession, and I am also keenly interested in protecting the Enlightenment from the dark forces of fundamentalism, New-Ageism, Postmodernism, and Cultural Constructivism.

Since I haven’t had either a reason, or a desire to study the issue of the size of the gene pool as applied to monogenism and polygenism, it would be like me trying to play basketball with Wilt Chamberlin. I know enough to know when not to let someone pick a fight with me.

The best I could do is offer some of the articles I’ve read taking the oppossing view and listen to you trounce them as hacks and psuedo-scholars. But that also would seem pointless, as I have found that folks belligerently supportive of positions (scientific or otherwise) usually dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as ill-informed, dishonest, or worse. This seems to be the norm on both sides of the aisle and it appears usually to boil down to which scholars one accepts as valid.

It’s not like that. You present the case as ultimately relativistic. Within the real world of science there is not an equal balance between opposing views on matters like this. There really is such a thing as a scientific consensus. However, I respect your judgement not to get drawn into a discussion where you can be outgunned - I respect that hugely. I see so many people who are entirely ignorant of the science who insist on pontificating on it anyway.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

continued from previous post

For instance I see several works by Dawkins listed in your ‘resources’. I’ve read articles very criticle of his work, including accusations that he often times crosses the line from science to philosophy/religion. Which is right? I am afraid I am unqualified to judge that. In any event, maybe I’ll study up on this and we’ll discuss it more in a few years.

Dawkins has done some great science. He is also a proselytising atheist who uses his science to that end. To that extent, the articles you read are correct. I include him in my resources becuse he has great insight into the science.

Now, If you want to hook up for a game of racquetball, I could probably hold my own in that court.:yup:

I’m sure you’d demolish me, but if you want to play badminton or go cycle racing perhaps it would be a closer challenge

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

I am not trying to focus on the history ‘instead’ of the message. Ultimately, the message is paramount. What I am taking issue with is the use of the concept of message to dismiss any historicity of such accounts. The study of BOTH areas has it’s place and is neither nonsense, nor invalid, however misdirected you may deen it.

I’m with Steve here. There is huge merit in deriving universal truth from relatively local but nevertheless devastating historical human experience.

That truth gets extra weight from the true, experienced human condition. For example, I am deeply interested in WWI as a history, a multitude of cultural experiences, a lesson for all humanity in all time and a paean of individual loss and growth. The messages that we should take from the devastation of a local but widespread flood are far more telling than any purely theoretical or rational philosophical and abstract symbolic tale. The 20th century was tragically rich in such lessons, which included Verdun, Passchendaele and the Somme, the Holocaust of the Nazis, the siege of Stalingrad, the Stalinist purges and pseudo-science that led to devastating famine, the terror of Pol Pot, the appalling hateful Cutural Revolution of Mao, genocide in the Balkans and so so tragically in Rwanda…

Our greatest failure is a failure to understand that each of the 6 billion that inhabit the earth has the same desires and loves and rights to live as we, privileged, do. Vera Brittain wrote a fundamentally holy book in ‘Testament of Youth’ in that she brought to us a full sense of the loss of the deeply loved - not just loss but devastation and the destruction of great promise.

The most acute challenge in the world today is in double standards. We, in the West treat our fellow humans as sub-human. We insist that every Western death is challenged with every intellectual, moral, scientific, medical and literary tool at our command. It is true that for us with economic power every life is holy. And for the rest? Let them die! In Ethiopia, the Palestine, Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, the Golan Heights, for they are less than human - they do not believe as we do in the salvation of Christ and they do not attend Sunday Mass

What would Jesus say about these, his children?

Alec

 

[Ghosty]

patg: There is a huge difference between using figurative language (such as “40 days and 40 nights”) and a story being a complete fantasy. In the Church it is outright heresy to believe that Adam and Eve, as two parents of humans, were merely fantasy figures. This is stated in the Catechism and in various Papal encyclicals. You have no theological leg to stand on when suggesting otherwise, at least not in the Catholic sphere.

hecd2: You’ve consistantly rejected the perfectly sound idea that Adam and Eve don’t represent the first humans in a purely biological sense, so your argument here is rather fruitless. One can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans in the full sense (body and soul) without believing that they were the first genetic representatives of the homo sapien species. Adam and Eve were real, not figurative, and we all trace our lineage back to them. We could also trace our biological forms to older representatives of the species who lacked the “image of God”.

 

[SwordofLight]

EVE

Adam loved her so much he took the fall for her. Guys do stupid things.

 

[Praise_Singer]

Isn’t it in Romans where St. Paul states that since by one man (Adam) death came to all, then by one Man, the second Adam (Jesus) we all become alive?

While Eve is certainly responsible for her choices (her sin), since she came “from Adam” and Adam did not make the responsible choice either, and/or also turned against God, Adam is responsible for the sin of the entire human race.

The blood of the Lamb covers the sins of one race of people: the human race, just as the blood of each Passover lamb covered the sins of the household it was sacrificed. If the human race were started from many different people/places, then by the Law each “race” would need the atonement, not just one Atonement by one Savior.

The parallels between the first Passover in Egypt and the Passover meal of Jesus are fascinating. What a coincidence! (or as my friend says a “God-incidence”.

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

.hecd2: You’ve consistantly rejected the perfectly sound idea that Adam and Eve don’t represent the first humans in a purely biological sense, so your argument here is rather fruitless. One can believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans in the full sense (body and soul) without believing that they were the first genetic representatives of the homo sapien species. Adam and Eve were real, not figurative, and we all trace our lineage back to them. We could also trace our biological forms to older representatives of the species who lacked the “image of God”.

I have no fundamental problem with the idea that Adam and Eve represent a genetic polygeny and a spiritual monogeny. As you know, I have practical reservations about the idea that God selected two of a population of 10,000 and breathed humanity into them, and in particular have reservtions about their subsequent miscageny with non-human family members. But what you have said about this matter, separating humanity (determined to be such by their desire for knowing God) from humanoids with fully human cognition does seem sensible to me. My quibble is not with that but with doctrine of genetic monogeny which is insupportable. PiusXII words, reinforced by JP2 are:
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

This is clearly directed aginst genetic polygenism. To the extent that you accept genetic polygenism and cleave to spiritual monogenism, I agree with you, at least about the possibilities. But PiusXII is claiming that genetic monogenism is literally true (For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all) and I deny that, because the evidence rejects it utterly.

This a question of descent (we are not genetically descended only from two individuals, at least in the last 50 million years, long before the divergenece of human and chimp lineages) not a question of ancestry.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ghosty]

hecd2: Ahhh, in that case may I suggest that you might be reading too much into the meaning of the Pope’s writings, or perhaps not enough. The key term would seem to be true men, not simply biological humans. The stance that has been taken by many is that there were true humans, body and soul, before Adam and Eve. What Pius is saying is that all true humans claim descent from Adam and Eve (though not necessarily from only them, at least as far as I can gather), and that Adam and Eve were indeed actual individuals and not representative names of a larger population. The notion that there was a wide initial genetic pool that was not true human due to a lack of the soul does not seem to conflict with what the Pope is saying. These “half-humans”, to use a detestable term, could easily have interbred with the line of Adam and Eve, leaving a modern population that draws from a narrow spiritual line, but a wide genetic mix (genes being the only measurable factor for modern science).

I can definately understand your apprehension if you take Pius’ wording to mean that, genetically speaking, modern humans derive ONLY from Adam and Eve. That would definately be a preposterous stance!

EDIT: Incidently, it wasn’t simply science that led to this kind of “clarification” by the Church. There was a time when it was becoming popular to suggest that there were “half-human” races still existing today, and those who made this argument would fall back on the theological suggestion I’m making to back up their argument. The Church took the stance it did to combat that “eugenic” heresy, as well as to reinforce the idea of common descent and transmission of Original Sin. That’s likely the reason that you don’t here the stance I’m taking pushed too often anymore; the eugenics craze made it distasteful for those who wanted to distance themselves from the idea of “half-people”, and with good reason.

 

[Michelene]

It seems to me we are all to blame. Didn’t Christ die for all? Human nature fell didn’t it? Are we to say who was to blame? Ultimately, we are all to blame.

 

[patg]

Ghosty:

patg: There is a huge difference between using figurative language (such as “40 days and 40 nights”) and a story being a complete fantasy. In the Church it is outright heresy to believe that Adam and Eve, as two parents of humans, were merely fantasy figures. This is stated in the Catechism and in various Papal encyclicals. You have no theological leg to stand on when suggesting otherwise, at least not in the Catholic sphere.

I understand the church’s official position very well as I’m sure Gallileo and Copernicus did. I also recognize the clues given by the author to indicate what type of literary form they are using. I am also well aware that the church would have a hard time restructuring its stance on this since it is the origin of the whole “original sin which must be redeemed” concept.

You use the term “merely fanatasy” as if that is a terribly negative thing and that it would somehow trivialize the story if it were not “true”. That is pure nonsense as many of the greatest writers in history have used fictional stories to teach great truths - and that is what I firmly believe we are presented with in this story. I don’t need a theological leg - I can read. And if someone, somewhere thinks that makes me less of a Catholic, I’ll gladly take my chances with what I know is right.

Pat

 

[Ghosty]

patg: I’m afraid that you’re not merely less of a Catholic, but you’re actively promoting heresy. It’s not a matter of differences in Church theology; you are advocating a view that lies outside the Church. I have no problem with stories being merely fantasy, nor even parts of Scripture being fantasy. In this particular case, however, that is not an option. To claim that the story is fantasy in the same breath that you claim to be a Catholic shows that you have a very weak grasp on Catholicism.

Furthermore, you don’t know your position is right. It is a supposition that goes against Church dogma AND the text as written. There is no hard bbasis for your belief. That isn’t to say it’s certainly wrong (disregarding dogma), just to say that you aren’t standing on any firmer ground than the rest of us, and less firm if you claim to be a Catholic. There is figurative language in Genesis, and this is backed up by the Church and by scholarship, but to suggest that there is any hard basis for saying that the story is fantasy is very misleading.

I would also like to point out that Galileo and Copernicus were dealing with provable theories. You are dealing with opinion and faith. The Church can never be “proven” wrong on this matter, and that leaves you in a decidedly weaker position than either of them (though I’d like to remind you that Copernicus was not persecuted, but rather praised for his work, which was dedicated to the Pope).

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

I’m with Steve here. There is huge merit in deriving universal truth from relatively local but nevertheless devastating historical human experience.

That truth gets extra weight from the true, experienced human condition. For example, I am deeply interested in WWI as a history, a multitude of cultural experiences, a lesson for all humanity in all time and a paean of individual loss and growth. The messages that we should take from the devastation of a local but widespread flood are far more telling than any purely theoretical or rational philosophical and abstract symbolic tale. The 20th century was tragically rich in such lessons, which included Verdun, Passchendaele and the Somme, the Holocaust of the Nazis, the siege of Stalingrad, the Stalinist purges and pseudo-science that led to devastating famine, the terror of Pol Pot, the appalling hateful Cutural Revolution of Mao, genocide in the Balkans and so so tragically in Rwanda…

Our greatest failure is a failure to understand that each of the 6 billion that inhabit the earth has the same desires and loves and rights to live as we, privileged, do. Vera Brittain wrote a fundamentally holy book in ‘Testament of Youth’ in that she brought to us a full sense of the loss of the deeply loved - not just loss but devastation and the destruction of great promise.

The most acute challenge in the world today is in double standards. We, in the West treat our fellow humans as sub-human. We insist that every Western death is challenged with every intellectual, moral, scientific, medical and literary tool at our command. It is true that for us with economic power every life is holy. And for the rest? Let them die! In Ethiopia, the Palestine, Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, the Golan Heights, for they are less than human - they do not believe as we do in the salvation of Christ and they do not attend Sunday Mass

What would Jesus say about these, his children?

Alec

The above moves the discussion from the scientific into the moral, and raises some very interesting issues. I have created a new thread so that this one can get back to what the original poster intended. I’d like to ask some question based on the above. Here is the new thread…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=103968#post103968
…Please join me if you are interested.

 

[SteveG]

patg:

I also recognize the clues given by the author to indicate what type of literary form they are using.

You seem to have latched on to this idea of literary genres as the means by which you dismiss this story as pure fantasy. literary genres are not the ONLY thing one must consider in such a case, but rather one of many factors. Your judgement, and maybe the judgement of some authors you may have read deems this as pure myth or fiction, but that is generally a secular interpretation, and at odds with church teaching. There are many bible scholars far more acquanted with genres, cultures, language, etc., than you are, who use the most modern tools and information available, and still come to a different conclusion than you. Yours is but one interpretation. And that opinion appears to be based on a very limited reading of current biblical scholarship.

patg:

You use the term “merely fanatasy” as if that is a terribly negative thing and that it would somehow trivialize the story if it were not “true”. That is pure nonsense as many of the greatest writers in history have used fictional stories to teach great truths - and that is what I firmly believe we are presented with in this story. I don’t need a theological leg - I can read. And if someone, somewhere thinks that makes me less of a Catholic, I’ll gladly take my chances with what I know is right.

You cannot claim to ‘know’ this is right. This is merely your opinion. And if you are going to set your own judgement above the Church and interpret things as you see fit, then by definition you have accepted the Protestant notion of authority in these issues. That certainly is your right as a free human being, but to pretend to be Catholic and not accept the most fundamental premise of Catholicism (the Pope and Magesterium as the authority on faith and morals), is intellectually inconsisten and dishonest.

 

[AmandaPS]

patg: It seems that you are holding your own private interpretations of the text above the teaching Magesterium. I pray you reconsider.