As a Catholic...

[SeanTom]

Cont’d from last page

The Second creation story also portrays God as working patiently over the body of the first man, much as a potter works patiently over a vase. This is important as it underscores the close relationship that exists between God and the first man.

Also the second story of creations teaches about the intimacy of marriage. God instructed the couple to be “one body” They are to have an intimacy toward one another similar to the one God has toward them. Thus God indicates that the purpose of marriage involves more than having children. It also involves an intimate relationship of love and support between husband and wife.

In summary, the second creation story complements the first one in two special ways. The second story underscores:

(1) The intimacy between God and humans, and
(2) The intimacy and equality between the sexes.

Some additional information about Genesis:

At a general audience on April 16, 1986, Pope John Paul II said that the theory of evolution is “only a probability, not a scientific certainty.” He went on to say that “the doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that a human’s spiritual soul is directly created by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. But the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter because it is of a spiritual nature.”

In other words, God could have fashioned the universe through an evolutionary process. But whether He did it that way or by direct creation, He still must be acknowledged as its Maker. With this basic premise established, the Church encourages scientists and scholars to continue their investigation so that someday we may know with certainty the method God used to bring human beings and the universe to their present state of development. The ultimate answer will involve no conflict between scientific and religious truth, for God is the Author of both.

However, the Genesis account of creation is not to be shunned. Nor is it to be regarded as a scientific and anthropological account of the origins of the universe and the human race. Rather, the beautiful and inspiring passages in Genesis are to be read as religious history in which the author used figurative language and popular descriptions to teach fundamental religious truths about salvation. Some of those truths are that God in His goodness created the universe out of nothing; that everything He created was good; that He created the first humans in His image and likeness; that those first humans lost their state of perfect happiness through the sins of pride and disobedience; that the whole human race suffers from the consequences of their sins; and that one day there will be a Redeemer for fallen humanity.

And finally, here is a quote from St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio): He once said to a man who claimed such and such event happened by chance: “And who, do you suppose, arranged those chances?” You know, we can all keep asking the same question: “And who caused that to happen?” to all statements as to what came from where. Eventually, the answer will be either “I don’t know” or “God”. It has to be one or the other.

 

[jcrichton]

I am no expert but if genesis is to be understood literaly then God commands insest and then later condemns practicers of insest(keepers of his commandments) to death.

Where did Adam and Eve’s kids find wives without practicing incest. The law of moses forbids incest. The Law on my heart forbids incest. But tell a 6 day creationist this and they will find all kinds of justification but the story is the story and if it must be taken literally then I abondon the book. I can believe we evolved from monkeys before I can believe in a god that says have children with your sister then says Him who sleepes with his sister is to be put to death. I absolutely refuse to contradict myself for the purposes of a dead book.

You will know them by there fruit… Literal creationists I find to be the evilest men I have ever met. I even new this SDA guy that thought God would condemn people for going to church on the wrong day. I call this the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

***Hi, agent grey!

…your delimma: chicken or egg!

Though your reasoning seems sound you forget two things:
a) Man was Created in the image and likeness of Yahweh God
b) All other Creation not created in God’s image and likenss

These same monkeys (from watching PBS and Animal Planet) which you ascribe as our direct progenitors engage in all sorts of sexual behavior (including prostitution) and when an alpha male is removed from leadership the new alpha male kills off the young offsprings in order to get as many females back in rut.

Even if we put aside the sexual behavior of these animals, did the evolution took place with multiple females and multiple males emerging all at once from various non-related groups? Were these new monkeys rejected or valued by thier various clans? (If rejected why were they not killed off; if valued why were they allow to leave their respective clans; if they stayed in their respective clans why didn’t all of the monkeys undergo the same metamorphosis?)…

When Baptizing John came across some Pharisees and Sadducees while chastising them he noticed their tone of superiority and he checked them telling them that Yahweh God could raise up out of the very stones in their immediate surroundings children to Abraham (St. Matthew 3:7-9)… could an Omnipotent Creator not build-in a genetic code into Adam and Eve (and their immediate descendants) that would keep their offspring from mutating due to lack of an expansive gene pool?

Think on this: just recently (modern devolopment) we have discovered that the pig has extreme communality with the human body (skeletal structure and placement/similarity of organs)… are we to think that some humans evolved from pigs?..

…as for the Law of Moses… the first Law was “be fruitful and multiply.” Once there were enough human to populate the planet new Laws were established… but remember that even after Moses the people of Israel still married, for the most part, within their own clans and with multiple wives… Once Jesus came along a new specific Law was enacted (though it existed from the beginning): “…a man will join his wife and the two will become one.” (paraphrasing St. Matthew’s 19:4-9)

Jesus established that we are to maintain a monogamous relationship, with one spouse, where male and female are not interchangeable to please our whim: man and woman (both singular, both counterparts).

There were other changes in the immutable Laws that arose from the fulfillment of the times: the Incarnation of the Word. These changes are not against God’s Will but are within God’s Design!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Preacher_Vern]

My friend, Every thing that you read in the Bible came from the word of God. And if you don’t beleve in his word then you don’t beleve in him and were is that going to get you?
Read the King James Version, and fine a church that teaches the word of God.

 

[juliamajor]

My friend, Every thing that you read in the Bible came from the word of God. And if you don’t beleve in his word then you don’t beleve in him and were is that going to get you?
Read the King James Version, and fine a church that teaches the word of God.

Why the KJV? Why not Rsv? The Word of God is in the Bible not the other way around.As far as the Word of God how you interpret it makes all the matter in the world.

 

[Preacher_Vern]

You might be right, But make sure what you interpret is his WORD.

 

[juliamajor]

You might be right, But make sure what you interpret is his WORD.

Que?

 

[Mike_Patrick]

That’s right.

In response to the OP, no, not all bible stories are meant to be taken literally…and sometimes it doesn’t matter.

For example, does it matter in Genesis whether or not the Almighty created the earth in 6-24 hour periods or over the course of 6 million years through an evolutionary process?

Sure, it’d be interesting to know, but what really matters in the first creation story is that God made all of creation, that he made it orderly and he made it good (along with other lessons we can get from Genesis).

Similarly with the story of Jonah; the point of the story isn’t whether or not Jonah literally spent three days in the belly of a great fish or not.

The bible is like a newspaper in that there’s history (reporting), fiction, drama and even humor, in places. It isn’t meant to all be read literally. That being said, much of it is meant to be taken literally.

Actually - it does matter - the time frame of the earth’s creation. It matters because if we ignore the Scripture when it says and then there was an evening, and a morning - would seem to indicate a 24 hour day. Some have argued that the time period stated could have been a longer span, perhaps many years, but this is unwarranted, because the context of creation centers around the earth, and man, namely Adam. It makes no sense for God to have created the earth, sun, and moon along with man, and describe a day as anthing longer or shorter than the day that Adam would experience, and we experience today.

It matters because if we play with the text and start to imagine that a day, or 6-24 hour days can mean anything other than what they are, we open the door for all kinds of crazy ideas, hence evolutionary theory, and eventually the Catholic Church having no problem with it. This is the danger.

We need to keep in mind that the Bible also states that in the latter days, the delusion would be so strong that if possible, even the elect would be decieved. Be advised that science can’t tell us everything, and there is no need to oppose God’s word, or doubt it, just because science might imply another view.

I think the Bible must be taken literally, but not always in a wooden literal sense. If one chooses to take the truths presented in the Bible as anything other than literal, then the 66 books that comprise the Sciputures aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

 

[jcrichton]

Que?

***Hi, juliamajor!

I think that he is insinuating that Catholics do not interprete the Holy Scriptures correctly…

…you have to understand that there is great freedom in personal interpretation and we miss out on all that fun since we are slaves to Christ, Who Commands that we abide in His Word so that He made Abide in us; that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood in order to Live in Him!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

I think the Bible must be taken literally, but not always in a wooden literal sense. If one chooses to take the truths presented in the Bible as anything other than literal, then the 66 books that comprise the Sciputures aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

***Hi, Mike Patrick!

…I think you meant to say the 73 books that comprise the Holy Scriptures…

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[inthecloud]

My friend, Every thing that you read in the Bible came from the word of God. And if you don’t beleve in his word then you don’t beleve in him and were is that going to get you?
Read the King James Version, and fine a church that teaches the word of God.

Basically our friend is telling that we must turn off our brains down, commit intellectual suicide and join a fundamentalist “Bible believing” hick church insted of the Whore of Babylon.
Were they take the Word of God literally, even the taking snakes and donkeys. But not John 6.

 

[geekborj]

I recommend reading the compilation of homilies of then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):
“In the Beginning…” as translated by B. Ramsey, O.P. (t&t Clark: 1995)

It’s a good and inspiring read about how Catholics view Genesis’ account on Creation (at least).

 

[ROBIN97]

It matters to Fundamentalist - Literalist Only readers. Without the Literalist interpretation of Everything in the Bible. There faith is shaken and easily lost in my opinion".

 

[LilyM]

You might be right, But make sure what you interpret is his WORD.

His WORD is not a something - and certainly not the KJV - but a someONE, that one being Jesus.

Who passed His teachings on ORALLY, to the Apostles whose teachings we follow. Which teaching was NOT all recorded in written scripture, as even John’s Gospel makes incredibly clear.

 

[paulchinnz]

I think the Bible must be taken literally, but not always in a wooden literal sense. If one chooses to take the truths presented in the Bible as anything other than literal, then the 66 books that comprise the Sciputures aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Could you please give some examples of literal vs. wooden literal sense in the Bible?

 

[JKing]

I am no expert but if genesis is to be understood literaly then God commands insest and then later condemns practicers of insest(keepers of his commandments) to death.

Where did Adam and Eve’s kids find wives without practicing incest. The law of moses forbids incest. The Law on my heart forbids incest. But tell a 6 day creationist this and they will find all kinds of justification but the story is the story and if it must be taken literally then I abondon the book. I can believe we evolved from monkeys before I can believe in a god that says have children with your sister then says Him who sleepes with his sister is to be put to death. I absolutely refuse to contradict myself for the purposes of a dead book.

You will know them by there fruit… Literal creationists I find to be the evilest men I have ever met. I even new this SDA guy that thought God would condemn people for going to church on the wrong day. I call this the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Practically speaking it is easy to understand why the first generations after Adam and Eve would be able to marry close relatives; and why later it was dangerous and therefore forbidden.

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA. There were no recessive mutations that could result in birth defects. Down through the generations, mutations start to appear in the gene pool and disabled or still-born children would demand a ban on close relatives marrying.

So why couldn’t the children of Adam and Eve marry siblings? God had not forbidden it to them at this point in history. Besides, look at how long these people lived! I could see a son of Adam marrying a daughter of Adam’s grandson. That would be his nephew’s daughter. Still kind of a yuck factor by today’s standards, but what choice was there?

Later, under Mosaic Law (I don’t know if it was sooner, but definitely under Mosaic Law) incest was forbidden under penalty of death. Remember, Moses was thousands of years later. Probably hundreds of generations later. By this time incest was a dangerous thing to do. A tribe that allowed close marriages was soon wiped out by infertility and birth defects. Tribes that regularly brought in new blood by intermarrying with other tribes thrived.

BTW, the same sorts of difficulties appear for Noah’s grandchildren. They were forced to marry their cousins, right? But I guess the gene pool was still pretty pure at that time.

These are just my speculations, but I hope they help to dispel the difficulties you have believing that God allowed incest when it was safe and had Moses forbid it when it was dangerous.

JKing

 

[inthecloud]

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA. There were no recessive mutations that could result in birth defects. Down through the generations, mutations start to appear in the gene pool and disabled or still-born children would demand a ban on close relatives marrying.

To use the fundie golden rule:

WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE?

I often wonder how fundamentalists, wanting to preserve their literalist reading of Genesis often keep adding more and more things to Scripture. Ice canopy anyone?

 

[JKing]

To use the fundie golden rule:

WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE?

I often wonder how fundamentalists, wanting to preserve their literalist reading of Genesis often keep adding more and more things to Scripture. Ice canopy anyone?

So God created the first humans with defective DNA?

God Bless You

 

[jcrichton]

So God created the first humans with defective DNA?

God Bless You

***Hi, JKing! (Is that as Jesus is King?)

…don’t feel bad… for some it is easier to believe that chaos created order which sprang forth life, manipulated it, witnessed its failure, remanipulated it, discarted what was not wanted, and finally through eons of experimentation erected homosapiens…

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[ROBIN97]

The way I see it is that one needs to really commend oneself to the Holy Spirit before opening and reading any part of the bible. One must ask God to send his Holy Spirit and give guidance.

In regards to the creation and Genesis, I believe that some of the scientific facts that have been discover are probably true, such as the Big Bang theory but before one accuses me of not being a Catholic, let me explain the way I see it. The Big Bang states that millions and million and million (you get the idea) a bunch of gases came together and created a big explosion in the Universe. First of all, where did these gases come from or what caused them to come together. The only answer is God.

Why would we accuse you of not being a Catholic. Catholics invented science - Mendel the monk discovered and formulated Genetics. Pasteur,lGalelio, Capernicus, Di Vinci etc, etc, etc. The Big Bang Theory was though of by a Catholic Priest. A Jesuit I believe. The First Printed Bible was done on a Cathollic Printing Press. He was Catholic by the way (Gutenberg invented it ). Catholics learned their lesson with Galilao. Eventhough Augustine had warned them in 400 about trying to shoehorn scientific truth
into Biblical ideas even when it wasn’t appropriate. The Literalists in the early
1800 didn’t learn from that mistake. Give them another 50 years. It shouldn’t take more than that to bring them up to speed.

God’s Truth and Scientific Truth - cannot contridict each other.

 

[JKing]

Hi, JKing! (Is that as Jesus is King?)

***…don’t feel bad… for some it is easier to believe that chaos created order which sprang forth life, manipulated it, witnessed its failure, remanipulated it, discarted what was not wanted, and finally through eons of experimentation erected homosapiens… ***

Maran atha!

Angel

I hear you, Angel. I’m reminded of the second law of thermodynamics which I learned about a million years ago. The law of entropy. Order progresses to maximum disorder–as long as there is no influence from outside. So a pan of hot water on the stove with no heat under it will cool to room temperature. Water flows downhill unless it is dammed. (not damned) Batteries lose their charge. DNA doesn’t just become more complex–when mutations happen the result is less complexity. So bacteria will never spontaneously mutate into algae. Moss will never spontaneously mutate into a rose. Coco the gorilla will never spontaneously mutate into Brittany Spears (oh, bad example) But you get my point.

A creator created all of these organisms. He is the organizor of creation. He gave everything its order and placed it here on the world stage. Natural processes are constantly pecking away at the orginal order of everything so, as the generations go by, order is slowly being lost. Eventually, without divine intervention, the solar system–the sun, the earth, all life on earth–will just sort of wind down and die. Don’t worry that’s a long time from now. None of us will be here.

So now apply the law of entropy to genetics. The human family tree, that started out perfect will, encounter mutations every so often. Dominant traits are manifested immediately and eliminated from the gene-pool through natural selection. Recessive mutations remain hidded and don’t manifest unless paired with the same mutation in the mate. So recessive mutations are not weeded out of the gene-pool and collect over the generations. Then someone marries his cousin and their genetic makeups are so close that some of those recessives pair up and the mutations are manifested. So incest is outlawed (by God through Moses) to prevent that from happening. By marrying more distant relatives (after all we are all related) the likelyhood of pairing recessive mutations is decreased.

At least that’s the way I see it.

(I know there are a lot of evolutionists doing logical backflips trying to convince themselves that order can be created from disorder as long as more disorder is created somewhere else in the system, but that’s a far cry from concluding there is no creator.)

JKing
(Just my name: Jeff King)