V
Valke2
Guest
That word is too complicated for me. A Catholic cannot view the story of creation as containing truth through allegory without being opposed to church doctrine?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest2
Guest
Certain things are set in stone as being true. It is written: All scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Timothy, 3:16)
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
V
Valke2
Guest
Can’t scripture be inspired by God and still be allegory?
E
edwest2
Guest
No. Certain things actually happened on earth in real time. Other truths are spiritual and contain symbolic elements but their source, God, is real.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
"valke2:
“**390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, 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.”
Now I know you consider yourself the source of true Catholic doctrine, Ed, but how do you explain that passage from the Catechism in light of your denial that allegory cannot inspired?
Peace
Tim
Can’t scripture be inspired by God and still be allegory?
From the Catechism:No. Certain things actually happened on earth in real time. Other truths are spiritual and contain symbolic elements but their source, God, is real.
“**390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, 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.”
Now I know you consider yourself the source of true Catholic doctrine, Ed, but how do you explain that passage from the Catechism in light of your denial that allegory cannot inspired?
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
“affirms a primeval event” affirms
Regards,
Ed
Regards,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
Ignored the bolded part, didn’t you? Let me re-state the question. You have denied that the bolded part is possible. Who is correct, you or the Catechism?“affirms a primeval event” affirms
Regards,
Ed
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
As I wrote earlier, certain things actually happened in real time on earth. That is my point and is backed up by the Catechism. Adam and Eve were real, not symbolic.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
No proof was shown.
- – I’d be interested in seeing your proof that evolution is “factual”.
You were not even aware of what this is.
- — How many professors in those schools have signed the Oath of Fidelity as required by Pope John Paul II?
*— How many of them have met the Canon Law requirements for the mandatum as specified by Ex Corde Ecclesiae? *
As above, you never heard of it.
3a. *-- I would like to see your proofs for your scientific theories…
3b. …as well evidence to support your religious beliefs.*
No evidence or support for either point was given.
No response. I’ll accept that the point stands.
- *-- I posted a peer-reviewed paper that you were not capable of understanding (by your own admission). You couldn’t even read the substantiation I provided. But you claim that “not a shred” was provided to you. *
No answer given.
- – What role did God have in this process?
- LOL! Here is what I said:
That you regard that as ‘no proof’ is a perfect example of the ‘creationist’ mindset!Any biologist in the world will be happy to explain it to you, if you are able to find one who ‘suffers fools gladly’. You might also consult a respected encyclopedia such as the Britannica. There are also hundreds, perhaps thousands of books on the subject, all from respected publishers. ‘Creationist’ drivel, on the other hand, is only published by ad hoc publishers. Why do you think that is?
- Here you are correct, I have never taught at a Catholic school and have no idea whatever of what sort of requirements they might have. I am quite sure that the schools I mentioned all have lots of non-Catholic faculty, and equally sure that ALL of their biology faculty, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, teach orthodox science and not crank nonsense.
3b. No relation to the theme of the thread. I’ll gladly discuss it in a new thread.
- Well, you posted no such thing, or if you did it got lost in the shuffle. I followed your link and found only a brief synopsis and two even briefer reviews. Click on the title and one is taken to a website offering to sell a copy of the book. I’ll pass, thanks, but I would assume that a book with the title, The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins is a religious book rather than a scientific one. I have never suggested that the Church should not teach the creation stories and the other tales in Genesis as religious allegory.
- See 3b. (There’s that durned echo again!) Subject for a different thread, which I will gladly discuss there. You might even find that we agree on some things in that regard!
Until then, you should be trying to convince them, not me and the other intelligent posters and readers here. Be sure to let me know if you have any luck!
O
Orogeny
Guest
So which is it, Ed? Were you wrong or is the Catechism wrong? The part you have ignored twice now is in direct contradiction to your proclamation that inspired scripture cannot be allegory.As I wrote earlier, certain things actually happened in real time on earth. That is my point and is backed up by the Catechism. Adam and Eve were real, not symbolic.
Peace,
Ed
Peace
Tim
A
anthony022071
Guest
The use of figurative language in Genesis does not mean that Adam and Eve,and the original sin,are allegorical. If they are allegorical,then they were not events.From the Catechism:
“**390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, 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.”
You overlooked the significance of the words following following “figurative language”.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The doctrines of creation and original sin are based upon historical events as recorded in scripture. The fact that they actually happened has priority over the mythical way in which they were described.That word is too complicated for me. A Catholic cannot view the story of creation as containing truth through allegory without being opposed to church doctrine?
E
edwest2
Guest
Nice attempt at word twisting. I quoted the passage that states: “All scripture is inspired by God.” The Church teaches that there are events that actually happened on earth in real time. There are passages that contain symbolism but that reveal spiritual truths.So which is it, Ed? Were you wrong or is the Catechism wrong? The part you have ignored twice now is in direct contradiction to your proclamation that inspired scripture cannot be allegory.
Peace
Tim
Scroll down to Adam and Eve: Real People
catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
This is what I was taught in Catholic school. This is what I will always believe.
Peace,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
You conveniently abridge the verse in order to change its meaning to suit your own agenda. That’s sneaky! Here is what it really says:Certain things are set in stone as being true. It is written: All scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Timothy, 3:16)
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching…
…OR…
Every scripture that is inspired by God is also useful for teaching…
According to the Good News Bible and other sources, both versions are equally valid translations from the Greek.
Personally, I am comfortable with either translation, because the message is clear. The anonymous author, writing in Paul’s name, is telling us that in the teaching of theolgy - certainly not science - the Old Testament, the only ‘scripture’ that existed at the time, will never lead us astray.
‘Useful for teaching’ is a long, long way from ‘literally true’ !
E
edwest2
Guest
Please don’t accuse me of anything.
All Catholics pray to the living God. The real, living God. We do not pray to an invisible nothing in the sky. Christ actually lived and died for all men so that sins may be forgiven. These are facts just as scientific facts are facts.
Some people think faith exists outside of reality. It does not. Pope John Paul II told us that to be like Christ is to also be more authentically human. This because Christ was true God and true man.
Let’s look at that passage in 2nd Timothy:
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
God bless,
Ed
All Catholics pray to the living God. The real, living God. We do not pray to an invisible nothing in the sky. Christ actually lived and died for all men so that sins may be forgiven. These are facts just as scientific facts are facts.
Some people think faith exists outside of reality. It does not. Pope John Paul II told us that to be like Christ is to also be more authentically human. This because Christ was true God and true man.
Let’s look at that passage in 2nd Timothy:
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
God bless,
Ed
B
beeliner
Guest
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…
- Please don’t accuse me of anything.
- Let’s look at that passage in 2nd Timothy:
- My, my, is that the pot I hear, calling the kettle black?
- All right, let’s look at it. It says, ‘instruction in righteousness’, not instruction in biology, nor in anthropology, nor in any other branch of science.
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
Why shouldn’t it be possible to stay loving neighbours in God and let questions at which we never get to an end just be questions. There are lots of things we don’t quite understand, never will understand really – until we die. Then, all of a sudden we will see the full truth. So, why not wait in joy for that day an stay in love with our next instead of arguing endlessly.
We all do have faith and accept science at the same time, knowing though, that science in the past very often failed, very often said “in the past we thought, but now we know…” We all have no doubt that God created man and the universe as well as a seed of grass. No science could either. But no mechanism (evolution) could either too.
Now – however all evidence points out ever so overwhelming that we physically evolved from earlier life forms, this not at all must be right.
Why on earth should the creation, because done by God, not bring forth humanlike beings too?
There however is the MISSING LINK remember.
This is the point or the time, when God created the first humans and gave them His odem – the soul. At that point, from then on and not a single day before, they where “the Adam” humans.
I’d be a bit careful in accepting science as genuine truth. To often science abandoned a theory (“formerly it was believed that…, but now we know”. Yes
we can accept the science, when we remember, that the object of science is created by God with our faith. There is no problem with that. There are giants of science like John Eccles and others, who believe in the creation of God. One is not an atheist when he believes in mutation – as long as he doesn’t think manlike creatures on his way of mutation, would have slided automatically into being the human. God in this case would sort of be surprised – “oh, a human has emerged from Lucy the ape – good; let’s provide him with a soul”
Sorry – but suchlike blasphemy we should not let take room in our thoughts.
Oh blimey – it’s midnight now – good night!
We all do have faith and accept science at the same time, knowing though, that science in the past very often failed, very often said “in the past we thought, but now we know…” We all have no doubt that God created man and the universe as well as a seed of grass. No science could either. But no mechanism (evolution) could either too.
Now – however all evidence points out ever so overwhelming that we physically evolved from earlier life forms, this not at all must be right.
Why on earth should the creation, because done by God, not bring forth humanlike beings too?
There however is the MISSING LINK remember.
This is the point or the time, when God created the first humans and gave them His odem – the soul. At that point, from then on and not a single day before, they where “the Adam” humans.
I’d be a bit careful in accepting science as genuine truth. To often science abandoned a theory (“formerly it was believed that…, but now we know”. Yes
we can accept the science, when we remember, that the object of science is created by God with our faith. There is no problem with that. There are giants of science like John Eccles and others, who believe in the creation of God. One is not an atheist when he believes in mutation – as long as he doesn’t think manlike creatures on his way of mutation, would have slided automatically into being the human. God in this case would sort of be surprised – “oh, a human has emerged from Lucy the ape – good; let’s provide him with a soul”
Sorry – but suchlike blasphemy we should not let take room in our thoughts.
Oh blimey – it’s midnight now – good night!
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
Why shouldn’t it be possible to stay loving neighbours in God and let questions at which we never get to an end, just be questions. There are lots of things we don’t quite understand, never will understand really – until we die. Then, all of a sudden we will see the full truth. So, why not wait in joy for that day an stay in love with our next instead of arguing endlessly.
We all do have faith and accept science at the same time, knowing though, that science in the past very often failed, very often said “in the past we thought, but now we know…” We all have no doubt that God created man and the universe as well as a seed of grass. No science could either. But no mechanism (evolution) could either too.
Now – however all evidence points out ever so overwhelming that we physically evolved from earlier life forms, this not at all must be right.
Why on earth should the creation, because done by God, not bring forth humanlike beings too?
There however is the MISSING LINK remember.
This is the point or the time, when God created the first humans and gave them His odem – the soul. At that point, from then on and not a single day before, they where “the Adam” humans.
I’d be a bit careful in accepting science as genuine truth. To often science abandoned a theory (“formerly it was believed that…, but now we know”. Yes
we can accept the science, when we remember, that the object of science is created by God with our faith. There is no problem with that. There are giants of science like John Eccles and others, who believe in the creation of God. One is not an atheist when he believes in mutation – as long as he doesn’t think manlike creatures on his way of mutation, would have slided automatically into being the human. God in this case would sort of be surprised – “oh, a human has emerged from Lucy the ape – good; let’s provide him with a soul”
Sorry – but suchlike blasphemy we should not let take room in our thoughts.
Oh blimey – it’s midnight now – good night!
We all do have faith and accept science at the same time, knowing though, that science in the past very often failed, very often said “in the past we thought, but now we know…” We all have no doubt that God created man and the universe as well as a seed of grass. No science could either. But no mechanism (evolution) could either too.
Now – however all evidence points out ever so overwhelming that we physically evolved from earlier life forms, this not at all must be right.
Why on earth should the creation, because done by God, not bring forth humanlike beings too?
There however is the MISSING LINK remember.
This is the point or the time, when God created the first humans and gave them His odem – the soul. At that point, from then on and not a single day before, they where “the Adam” humans.
I’d be a bit careful in accepting science as genuine truth. To often science abandoned a theory (“formerly it was believed that…, but now we know”. Yes
we can accept the science, when we remember, that the object of science is created by God with our faith. There is no problem with that. There are giants of science like John Eccles and others, who believe in the creation of God. One is not an atheist when he believes in mutation – as long as he doesn’t think manlike creatures on his way of mutation, would have slided automatically into being the human. God in this case would sort of be surprised – “oh, a human has emerged from Lucy the ape – good; let’s provide him with a soul”
Sorry – but suchlike blasphemy we should not let take room in our thoughts.
Oh blimey – it’s midnight now – good night!
A
anthony022071
Guest
The events recorded in Genesis don’t have to be “literally” true in order to have actually happened as they are recorded. Historical reality is not limited to what is called the “literal”.‘Useful for teaching’ is a long, long way from ‘literally true’ !
The stumbling-block of literalism only came about with the protestant reformation and the rise of modern scientific thinking.
But Catholic doctrine affirms that God created two actual people,called Adam and Eve,and that they are our first parents.
Scientists themselves do not stick with what can be shown to be literally true. When they write books about the story of evolution they can’t help but compress what is supposed to be millions of years worth of extremely complicated evolution into a few pages,filling in the wide gaps of evidential knowledge with speculation and fabricated links.
A
anthony022071
Guest
It also says,“profitable for doctrine”. It is a matter of Catholic doctrine that God created two persons,Adam and Eve,who were our first parents.Ed, you have made, and continue to make, all sorts of unwarranted accusations, on this thread and elsewhere, against myself and other posters, simply because some of our opinions differ from your rather esoteric view of Catholicism.
- My, my, is that the pot I hear, calling the kettle black?
- All right, let’s look at it. It says, 'instruction in righteousness’, not instruction in biology, nor in anthropology, nor in any other branch of science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.