Agnostic versus Atheist

[Michael_Mayo]

I have studied the teachings of the Catholic Church on this. For example, this website disagrees with your reading of Genesis as poetry. catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Here is a particularly interesting quote:

Yet the scientific evidence points to polygenism. Either the Catholic Church is wrong or science is wrong. There is no alternative.

Always has been a bit of a stumbling block for me.

CCC
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no official requirement on how to interpret Genesis. You are allowed to read it verbatim, along with talking snakes, rib-women etc., or you are allowed to consider it a fairy tale…

It is pretty strong and possibly offensive to say that the Bible, or parts of it, are fairy tales. It seems unreasonable that in American courts they require people to take an oath to tell the whole truth on a book containing fairy tales?

 

[Solmyr]

It is pretty strong and possibly offensive to say that the Bible, or parts of it, are fairy tales. It seems unreasonable that in American courts they require people to take an oath to tell the whole truth on a book containing fairy tales?

Actually, it is NOT required. You can simply say: “I solemnly affirm… yada, yada”. You are not required to add: “so help me God”.

But I did not mean it as an offensive slur. Let it be “unsubstantiated stories”…

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually, it is NOT required. You can simply say: “I solemnly affirm… yada, yada”. You are not required to add: “so help me God”

Whether required or not, it happens. And also at the inauguration of the US President.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Whether required or not, it happens. And also at the inauguration of the US President.

It’s an option. John Adams swore on his book of law. Theodore Rooseve didn’t use any book his first time. The president must only affirm to defend the Constitution and express dedication to the office of the president. One can use the bible or not use the bible.

A more general question that may touch on what you are getting at is “Why do people sometimes swear on a bible?” God was thought to have been an active participant of an oath or a vow. It had also been thought that God would suffer an injury of type for someone that made an ill oath by his name. Someone that believes that his oath might injure God if not fulfilled or made in vain was thought to be less likely to do something to bring injury or pain to God. There were times and places in which refusal to swear by God could result in imprisonment or even execution. Now days I think some people may do it out of tradition without thought or reference to the origins of the practice.

While not a book whose title I can share here (and do not look it up if you are easily offended) but there’s a chapter in Melisa Mohr’s book about the history of oaths, swearing, and the use of references to God within affirmations.