Doctrine on Adam and Eve?

[razredge]

Please show which reason link on the resource page is pseudoscience.

What evidence does it explain, that isn’t explained by modern evolutionary synthesis?

What predictions does it make and what research does it do?

 

[buffalo]

What evidence does it explain, that isn’t explained by modern evolutionary synthesis?

What predictions does it make and what research does it do?

Browse the links, read the papers and enjoy a new paradigm.

I asked what specific links were pseudoscience?

 

[Faith1960]

Why do you keep assuming that monogenism is necessary for Original Sin.

Cardinal Ratzinger himself put forward a model of OS that is perfectly compatible with polygenism.

I’d be interested in reading about that. Can you please link us to something?

 

[razredge]

I’d be interested in reading about that. Can you please link us to something?

In his book on Genesis, In the Beginning, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the question: Why does original sin exist among us in spite of all efforts to deny it or eliminate it? Original sin is often pictured as a mark on our souls. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s take was somewhat different: Man is a being who lives among, comes from, and flourishes among others. No one is sufficient to himself. “Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’” Sin has to do with closing ourselves to others. By ourselves, we cannot be whole.

Sin, as we know it, “is a rejection of relationships because it wants to make the human being a god.” This was the original temptation of Adam and Eve – as, in another way, it was for Lucifer. Each sin that any human being commits is but a repetition of this initial sin, the one we call original sin. What Adam and Eve put into the world from the beginning was an action that lacked the good due to it. Each of us is born into the history of this sin and of all that imitated it. “Sin is always an offense that touches others.”

We come into a world in which disordered relationships exist among all those we know. We cannot avoid this. The being we encounter is, of itself, good; but more often than not, it lacks what should be there. We are torn about what is the right way – the way of the commandments and love or the way of the disorder we confront in the relationships we experience with others or put into the world ourselves. As Cardinal Ratzinger puts it, “Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.”

catholicity.com/commentary/schall/07806.html

"In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
“Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without–from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are ‘present.’ Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives–themselves–only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event–sin–touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.”

–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘In the Beginning…’, pp. 71-73

novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm

 

[StrawberryJam]

What evidence does it explain, that isn’t explained by modern evolutionary synthesis?

What predictions does it make and what research does it do?

It makes no predictions, and that is a very weak point that they refuse to adress.

 

[grannymh]

Why do you keep assuming that monogenism is necessary for Original Sin.

Why do people assume that monogensism is unnecessary?

Cardinal Ratzinger himself put forward a model of OS that is perfectly compatible with polygenism.

So?

And anyway, ‘Original Sin’ as we understand it is largely an invention of Paul, further developed by St Augustine & other theologians over the ages. It does not come from a literal reading of Genesis as neither the Jews nor the Muslims ever come to the conclusion that the Fall means we all are born with some kind of inherited sin.

Paul did a very good job of explaining the consequences of Original Sin. If people do not want to accept Paul’s explanation, by calling it an invention, that is their denial.

 

[grannymh]

Correction to post 105

Why do people assume that monogensism is unnecessary?

This should read – Because people assume that monogenism is unnecessary.

It is the answer to this question from post 9 directed to myself. Why do you keep assuming that monogenism is necessary for Original Sin?

However, deep down, I have often wondered why monogenism is unnecessary since it does assure us that we are part of the “all” for whom Christ died.

 

[minkymurph]

For me, monogenism is a new word describing an old concept.

I would agree. It is a new word describing an old concept. I have only heard of mongenism and polygenism recently. Reason being, scientific discovery in relation to these concepts wasn’t around so it wasn’t an issue.

May I ask what you were taught about Original Sin.

Yes. Can you bear with me 'cos I think it’s worthwhile explaining? Aside from that your testing my memory. :hypno:

When someone converts to Catholicism, their faith journey is very different from those who are brought up Catholic. I wasn’t taught at home, in school, or in the context of faith community. I was catechized on a one to one basis by the Parish Priest, and obviously I was an adult. In fact, the Priest who baptized me had been a priest for 20 years and had never baptized an adult. He has to ask the bishop what to do. People in the Parish had never seen adults being accepted into the Catholic Church, so it quite phenomenon when it happened and was a big talking point. It actually got a bit embarrassing, but that’s just because I’m self-conscious. I don’t like being the center of attention and hate being hugged by strangers. It was also a bit emotional, and people were genuinely delighted for me. Thankfully it was all done discretely 'cos I don’t do public displays of emotion.

The point of all this is the handing on of faith was kind of taylored to me as an individual. One of the things that drew me to Catholicism was the Sacrament of Reconciliation. So, if someone believes the need to be reconciled with God, believes the human race is fallen, and professes a desire to receive that Sacrament and a belief in it, there’s really no need to labor the point. In addition, on of the reasons I left the JW’s was because of the way people who ‘seriously sin’ and question their teachings are treated. I was very disturbed by the way people were treated and the priest was very aware of this. So, perhaps he took a more tolerant line regarding sin and questioning certain teachings for my sake, because he didn’t want to say anything that could be construed as hurtful or cruel. I can remember asking him, ‘say I become Catholic and further down the line I say I don’t agree with something the Church teaches? What then?’ Knowing how the JW’s operate, he smiled at me and said, ‘don’t worry, we won’t ex-communicate you.’ He then explained how Baptism is only the beginning of our faith journey - the first step - and how it’s only after Baptism and entry into the Church we can develop a deeper understanding of Church teaching. I had asked me to get a copy of the Catechism and read about the Creed. When I went back to him, I was bemused by the fact I had tried to read it all. He asked me why I thought I had to read it all when he had only asked me to read about the Creed and I told him it was because I thought I had to know it all and believe it or I wouldn’t be able to become a Catholic, which he thought was hilarious. We have a certain humor here that others may not understand. It’s just part of our culture.

My this is turning into a testimony.

I’ll get to the point in my next post.

 

[minkymurph]

For me, monogenism is a new word describing an old concept.

May I ask what you were taught about Original Sin.

I ask this because that is where one learns about Adam whose free choice would affect his descendents. Since I have read so many confused versions of Original Sin, I wonder what young people are taught, if anything.

Being brought up a JW, I new my way around a bible and had a good knowledge of it, all be it according to their interpretation. I had many a discussion with the priest on scripture and was always telling me Catholics read the bible in a different way to get me out of the JW approach to scripture. It took me long time to get what he meant. Some of the answers he gave me weren’t what I would have expected a Catholic priest to say. He really surprised me. For example, I suppose I was challenging him when we were discussing St. Paul, and I said he was sexist. His answer was, 'He was sexist, all the Apostles were. They lived in a society were women were nothing. Look at story of Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman, ‘What’s he doing talking to a woman!’ He then explained how Jesus changed those views.

Coming to the story of Adam and Eve, (at last) he asked me what I thought the ‘Original Sin’ was? I said I didn’t believe it was eating an apple or fig, and he said I would be right. You’ll love the next bit. I said I had been told Catholics believed the first sin was sex, and asked him if this was true. He told me he’s studied theology for something like 5 years and had never heard of it. He further went on to say that no one knows what the ‘Original Sin’ was other than it was an act of disobedience. Now this would have been the opportune moment to say Catholic’s are bound to believe the human race descended from two sole parents. He didn’t. If it’s essential to understanding the transmission of ‘Original Sin’ you would imagine he would have. The issue simply seemed to be acceptance of belief that we are born with ‘Original Sin’ rather than discussing the pros and cons of the mechanism involved.

The big issues when I was being catechized was the Incarnation and the Resurrection because JW’s don’t believe in the Trinity and the Immortal Soul. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you the Incarnation and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus are central to the whole Catholic faith. In my case this was the area of contention, not whether or not the human race descended from two soul parents. That wasn’t important to me. Whether or not Christ was God was important. Therefore, the priest focused on these teachings as opposed to ‘Original Sin.’

The priest who catechized me told me that in order to deepen our understanding of Catholic teaching, it is necessary to enter the Church. To deepen our understanding of the Sacraments, is necessary to participate in the Sacramental life of the Church. We can’t do this from outside the Church, we need to part of the Church to grow in understanding. He said when I was baptized I would be asked (not do you believe the human race descended from two soul parents) but do you believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? If you believe that, you’re answer is, ‘I do.’ You will then be presented with Creed. If you believe that Creed, that is enough to become Catholic, and participate in the Sacramental life of the Church.

 

[minkymurph]

For me, monogenism is a new word describing an old concept.

May I ask what you were taught about Original Sin.

I ask this because that is where one learns about Adam whose free choice would affect his descendents. Since I have read so many confused versions of Original Sin, I wonder what young people are taught, if anything.

I can tell you what young people are taught in my part of the world - I can’t speak for anywhere else.

As I’ve said, when I was baptized, it was only the first step in a process of learning. In order to learn more, I took a Foundation course in Theology run my the Dominican priesthood. This is were I learned about approaches to scripture such as; historical, literary, redaction and source criticism. It appealed to me because I was getting into the concept of ‘reading the bible differently’ it gave me a whole new way of reading scripture I would never have been able to explore in the JW’s. One area of study was the Genesis accounts of Creation.

When I went to college to train as an RE teacher, I also studied scripture modules learned more. One of the modules I studied was faith and morals and this is were the Fall and ‘Original Sin’ was discussed. We were given a power-point presentation of the Fall which was quite funny because the lecturer told us in advance there were naked bodies in the presentation. However, ‘Adam and Eve’ were lego figures and when they sinned, they had little green lego leaves placed on certain parts of their body they didn’t have before. That aside, it was a serious lecture. The lecturer who is a priest and taught science in a school pronounced the name ‘Adam,’ ‘A-dam’ and said he was doing so for a reason; because names in the bible are not just Proper Nouns, they have a symbolic meaning. For example, ‘Abram’ was changed to ‘Abraham,’ Jacob’s name was changed to ‘Israel’ Simon’s name was changed to ‘Peter’ and this was done to denote a change in their identity. ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ have a meaning. He made it very clear the symbolic meaning of names does not mean the person concerned didn’t exist. What he was driving at is The ‘Adam,’ is more than just a Proper noun. It denotes what it is to human. What it means to be human was discussed at great length in following lectures. I asked the lecturer if Catholics had to believe the human race descended from two sole parents. His answer was, ‘I wouldn’t even get into that because that belief is based on a very literal interpretation of Genesis, and Catholics don’t read the bible that way. The Church has never taught Catholics must believe the human race descended from two soul parents.’

In relation to your question on catachesis, I learned about the process of catechesis from an educational perspective at college. Three approaches to catechesis, doctrinal, kerygmatic and experiential were outlined and we were asked to evaluate them. To illustrate, they were taught from a ‘penny catechism’ and the good thing about the ‘penny catechism’ was everyone had one, and parents, teachers and children all knew it. However, while children could recite it like their times tables, it went over their heads. To illustrate, when asked what prayer was they were able to say, ‘Prayer is the raising of one’s heart and mind to God.’ Unfortunately, they didn’t understand what ‘raising one’s heart and mind to God’ meant. In addition, prayer is many things. The kerygmatic approach is a very joyful message. The problem with it is doctrine goes out the window. The experiential approach focuses more on the individual and has greater relevance to children’s everyday experience of life, and how the message of Gospel is lived out as opposed to being a statements of dogma that have little meaning and bear little relation to children’s everyday lives. However, it can become too secular. Therefore, the general consensus of opinion is to try and achieve a balance of all three in the process of catachesis.

What I was taught, is that in order to hand on faith effectively, it is essential to see faith from the other persons perspective, in accordance with their age and ability, and their experience of life and faith. Seeing faith from another’s perspective does not mean you have to agree with them, or accommodate views you (not ‘you’ personally) do not share. It means listening and being tolerant in order to meet their spiritual needs. Faith is handed on most effectively through connecting with people, being approachable, and others feel feel ‘safe’ in that they can ask questions without fear of reprisal. One thing children fear most in a classroom situation is asking a question or giving an answer they will be ridiculed for by their peers, or that will make teacher cross! I know I may be making assumptions, but perhaps you were brought up with the doctrinal method of handing on faith. I say that because doctrine and the Church’s teaching on ‘Original Sin’ is something very important to you, and an essential part of your faith. Through discussion on the forums, I feel I have a better understanding of how other’s see their faith, and why things that are not important to me are to them despite the fact I may not agree with some of their views. I know my posts have turned into a saga, and I would like to thank people who have read it all for their patience. The reason I have gone into so much detail is in the hope others who may not agree with me, and they don’t have to, can understand my perspective.

 

[buffalo]

It makes no predictions, and that is a very weak point that they refuse to adress.

Does ID Make Testable Scientific Predictions?

Predictions In Astronomy/Cosmology

• ID predicts that the Universe had a beginning.
• ID predicts an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics.

Predictions in Biology

• ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
• ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
• ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
• ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
• ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.
• ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
• ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
• ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
• ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
• ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

Predictions in Paleontology

• ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
• ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.

 

[razredge]

Correction to post 105

This should read – Because people assume that monogenism is unnecessary.

It is the answer to this question from post 9 directed to myself. Why do you keep assuming that monogenism is necessary for Original Sin?

.

How is that an answer - in any case Ratzinger has demonstrated that monogenism is not needed to explain original sin.

Paul did a very good job of explaining the consequences of Original Sin. If people do not want to accept Paul’s explanation, by calling it an invention, that is their denial

Paul is explaining the life & death of Christ by linking it to him saving us from the sin of Adam. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily true, since it is just theological speculation on his part.

However, deep down, I have often wondered why monogenism is unnecessary since it does assure us that we are part of the “all” for whom Christ died

It is unnecessary for that too, since we are ‘all’ humans we don’t need some other way of linking us together

 

[grannymh]

How is that an answer - in any case Ratzinger has demonstrated that monogenism is not needed to explain original sin.

So?

Paul is explaining the life & death of Christ by linking it to him saving us from the sin of Adam. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily true, since it is just theological speculation on his part.

You do have a free brain so you are welcome to think or link whatever you want.

It is unnecessary for that too, since we are ‘all’ humans we don’t need some other way of linking us together

To link or not to link, is not that the real question?

Or is the serious question about the reality of human life which flows from the Catholic doctrine(s) of Adam and Eve?

 

[minkymurph]

How is that an answer - in any case Ratzinger has demonstrated that monogenism is not needed to explain original sin.

I don’t think monogenism is essential in order to explain original sin. However, it’s fair to say it should not be assumed it is unnecessary. It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who hold this opinion to present valid theological arguments in addition to scientific one’s that are rational, reasonable and in the case of Catholics, compatible with Church teachings.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that Pope Benedict, or any other Pope for that matter, will ever state that belief in monogenism is ‘unnecessary’ because the Church has leave people free to believe that if they so choose. They can’t dictate Catholics reject monogenism. If Pope Benedict stated publicly or even more covertly Catholics need no longer believe in monogenism, it could be interpreted as tantamount to telling Catholics who believe in monogenism they’re wrong. Consequently, he could likely be accused of overturning a Church teaching, invalidating what previous Pope’s have said on the matter, and generally become very unpopular with supporters of belief in monogenism. It could cause a split in the Church and no Pope wants to be responsible for that, or leave that as his legacy.

It would also have effects outside the Church because whether anyone likes it or not and irrespective of why, when the Pope says something the world takes notice. To explain, I have said on the forums I was brought a JW. If a prominent figure in the JW world stated JW’s need no longer believe in monogenism, no one would notice much or even care. If the Pope says it, they would notice and they would care. I can recall Prince Charles re-scheduling his wedding to Camilla to attend the funeral of JP II. I’ not saying this to suggest Pope’s are superior in some way, but to demonstrate the degree of influence the Pope has as a religious figure both in the Church, and outside of it. Therefore, it’s ok for us to sit on the internet debating the various opinions, it’s a different matter for the Pope. The Pope has a responsibility we don’t irrespective of what their personal opinion may be. When the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, he is doing so to guide the Church and the world in general on spiritual matters. We should consider what they say in that context and be cautious of using what the Pope says to endorse our own thinking. That goes ‘monogenists’ and ‘polygenists’ alike. Certainly I would say the matter is under consideration, but at present it’s still at that stage.

Now I’m lecturing so someone tell me to get off my soap box.

Paul is explaining the life & death of Christ by linking it to him saving us from the sin of Adam. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily true, since it is just theological speculation on his part.

Paul does go into deep theological arguments, and in some of his writings it’s almost like he’s thinking out loud and reasoning on things himself. There are also times he states, 'I write to as to the Lord, and other times he states, ‘I write to you not as to the Lord, but as to my own opinion.’ Therefore, Paul himself makes a distinction when he is offering his own personal opinions in order to guide the Church’s he is writing to. However, I wouldn’t entirely agree with your view Romans 5 is just theological speculation.

In order to understand the intentions of the author of any book of bible, it is important to in the first instance to place it in it’s original setting and context. There are times Paul writes simply to encourage Christians who are undergoing persecution rather than to teach dogma. Sometimes he does write in response to theological misunderstandings, but not always. We know that Paul writes in relation to particular issues and difficulties to the early Christian Church’s. However, it is not always clear from the text itself what those particular issues or difficulties were. What we can say is that in Romans 5, it is it highly Paul is addressing a controversy that has arisen concerning polygenism v monogenism and he is writing in in for the purpose of validating the belief the entire human race has a biological link to Adam, and it is unlikely Christians in the first century would have interpreted it as such. Therefore, using Romans 5 to support monogenism is an interpretation that goes beyond Paul’s original intentions in writing and is something we have to be cautious of when reading scripture. Paul’s intention was to spread the message of the Gospel to the Gentiles. His message in Romans 5 is that all humankind is in need of a Savior because all have fallen, and that that Savior is the person of Jesus, who is not just the Savior of the Jews, but the Savior of Jew and Gentile alike which is his primary concern. Not the entire human race descended from two soul parents. It’s not the issue. However, this is not just theological speculation. This is a definite message and an essential Christian belief.

It is unnecessary for that too, since we are ‘all’ humans we don’t need some other way of linking us together

I would agree that we are linked together because we are all human. We don’t need to be biologically or genetically linked to each other to be human, to share the imaging of God, or to be part of the family of God. It goes beyond genes and biology. Did Jesus not say something to the effect , ‘Who are family? These are my brothers and sisters.?’

 

[minkymurph]

I could be wrong, but I would guess that Pope Benedict, or any other Pope for that matter, will ever state that belief in monogenism is ‘unnecessary’ because the Church has leave people free to believe that if they so choose. They can’t dictate Catholics reject monogenism. If Pope Benedict stated publicly or even more covertly Catholics need no longer believe in monogenism, it could be interpreted as tantamount to telling Catholics who believe in monogenism they’re wrong. Consequently, he could likely be accused of overturning a Church teaching, invalidating what previous Pope’s have said on the matter, and generally become very unpopular with supporters of belief in monogenism. It could cause a split in the Church and no Pope wants to be responsible for that, or leave that as his legacy.

I would like to add to this, that if Pope Benedict declared something very definite in relation to polygenism, you can be rest-assured someone, somewhere at some point in time would come up with another theory completely contrary to it, and may even go out of their way to find scientific evidence to support it.

 

[grannymh]

It is my understanding that Pope Benedict was part of the process for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Some of us accept that particular universal Catechism as the source for Catholic Doctrine, which, as one call tell by the footnotes, has ample support through the centuries.

Some of us also know the difference between Catholic doctrine and out-of-context quotes which are then misinterpreted on CAF.

Most of us know that it is nearly impossible to change the worldview of CAF posters.

With that, I rest my case for the Catholic doctrine of two, real, sole parents of the human species – the same species redeemed by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man – the same Jesus Christ, Who is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t know if this is what you mean, but I wasn’t suggesting the accounts weren’t true. What I was eluding to was the author’s intentions in writing.

To illustrate further, we have four Gospel accounts and we believe each account is true. However, there are differences. The reason being that while the message of the Gospel is universal, in the first instance author’s of the Gospel’s are addressing a specific audience at a particular point in history, and have specific areas of focus concerning the Gospel message. For example, a large number of Matthew’s community were Jewish converts to Christianity. Therefore, one of his areas of focus on the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah to establish Jesus credentials as the Messiah. In addition, a prominent theme of Matthew as opposed to the other Gospels is ‘right living’ in accordance with the Law which would have been important to Jews. Luke’s area of focus is Jesus as healer, which is understandable as he may have been a doctor. As he is addressing a mainly Gentile audience initially, his area of focus is Jesus as the Savior of Gentiles. John’s Gospel is mystical in nature and Mark’s focuses on events of Jesus death and resurrection. While the Gospel writers paint different portraits of Jesus and offer different interpretation in relation to his life, death and ministry, collectively they give us a more complete picture from different perspectives. Therefore, what are termed ‘contradictions’ can be readily explained and all can considered to be true. What cannot be said to true are interpretations of the author’s themselves did not intend.

To illustrate further, if four people witnessed a car accident and they gave identical statements to the police concerning the accident that were exactly the same, I reckon the police would be very suspicious. The same event can be described in a variety of ways and from a variety of perspectives, and depends on the intention behind the description - what it is you want others to know as a consequence.

Thank you for clarifying your point.

 

[fhansen]

I asked the lecturer if Catholics had to believe the human race descended from two sole parents. His answer was, 'I wouldn’t even get into that because that belief is based on a very literal interpretation of Genesis, and Catholics don’t read the bible that way.

Who says that Catholics don’t read the bible that way?

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

The real question revolves around* which* verses are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively, etc.

What I was taught, is that in order to hand on faith effectively, it is essential to see faith from the other persons perspective, in accordance with their age and ability, and their experience of life and faith. Seeing faith from another’s perspective does not mean you have to agree with them, or accommodate views you (not ‘you’ personally) do not share. It means listening and being tolerant in order to meet their spiritual needs. Faith is handed on most effectively through connecting with people, being approachable, and others feel feel ‘safe’ in that they can ask questions without fear of reprisal.

Faith is a supernatural gift that involves truths-knowledge, which simultaneously gives us the ability to believe in those truths. This is why doctrine cannot be separated from faith-otherwise there’d really be no reason for our Church at all. There must be something to believe in-as the truths set forth in the creeds, for example, which I assume you’d agree with. I agree with you, in any case, that the way the faith is taught is critical to passing it on effectively.

 

[minkymurph]

Who says that Catholics don’t read the bible that way?

Short answer. Catholic exegesists and the IBC.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

What I was taught is yes, there is a ‘literal’ reading of scripture. However, ‘literal’ does not mean reading the bible word for word. ‘Literal’ in accordance with a Catholic reading of scripture according to what I was taught, is placing scripture in the original context according to how it was understood by the audience initially being addressed. The reason for this is we know that language changes and the original meaning of the actual text can be lost through translation. Examples used to illustrate that is messianic interpretations of Isaiah. In the original Hebrew, the word translated ‘virgin’ means ‘young girl.’ The meaning changed when translated into Greek. It no longer meant ‘young girl’ but ‘virgin’ as in not having slept with a man. It did not mean this in the original Hebrew which is why some Jews didn’t like the OT being translated into Greek, because it changed the meaning of individual words. Another example is from the Kings James bible. Paul talks about ‘outlandish’ women which is understood in a different context today. In it’s original context it meant foreign women - ‘outlanders.’ There are many words that don’t translate directly into modern English and the translator has to adapt certain words and phrases for the text to make sense. Therefore, it has been recognized that the ‘literal’ sense is not about literal translation of one word or phrase, but rather to place it in context in order to grasp the author’s original intention in writing. However, it is also recognized there is a pluralist meaning to scripture. The bible lends itself to a pluralistic meaning and this is intentional because the bible has a past, (historical) present, (context) and eschatological dimensions. There is a historical gap between the time of writing and today. Therefore, re-interpretation is required to accommodate the historical gap. This does not mean changing the meaning of scripture in essence but placing it in context according to what was known and understood then and now.

The real question revolves around* which* verses are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively, etc.

That’s the six million dollar question.

Faith is a supernatural gift that involves truths-knowledge, which simultaneously gives us the ability to believe in those truths. This is why doctrine cannot be separated from faith-otherwise there’d really be no reason for our Church at all. There must be something to believe in-as the truths set forth in the creeds, for example, which I assume you’d agree with. I agree with you, in any case, that the way the faith is taught is critical to passing it on effectively.

The passing on of faith has a supernatural element because it involves the Holy Spirit. Catholics have many beliefs have their routes in scripture, but are not spelled out in a literal, black and white way in scripture. They were initially handed on orally which is what the Church terms ‘Tradition.’ Therefore, the bible is read and interpreted in this context, according to the ‘Tradition,’ - interpretations that were handed on and understood before the NT was written. In this sense, Catholics do not get their beliefs from literal readings from scripture as such, or formulate doctrine based on one word or phrase in a passage of scripture, but reading scripture in accordance with what the Spirit reveals. This is why we believe they are true and not because they are spelled out in black and white in scripture. If they were, we would not need the Spirit to interpret or guidance in relation to reading scripture because it would be obvious. That does not mean they are not found in scripture at all, it means the divine message of scripture can only be understood under inspiration of the Spirit. This is why we need the Church.

 

[fhansen]

The passing on of faith has a supernatural element because it involves the Holy Spirit. Catholics have many beliefs have their routes in scripture, but are not spelled out in a literal, black and white way in scripture. They were initially handed on orally which is what the Church terms ‘Tradition.’ Therefore, the bible is read and interpreted in this context, according to the ‘Tradition,’ - interpretations that were handed on and understood before the NT was written. In this sense, Catholics do not get their beliefs from literal readings from scripture as such, or formulate doctrine based on one word or phrase in a passage of scripture, but reading scripture in accordance with what the Spirit reveals. This is why we believe they are true and not because they are spelled out in black and white in scripture. If they were, we would not need the Spirit to interpret or guidance in relation to reading scripture because it would be obvious. That does not mean they are not found in scripture at all, it means the divine message of scripture can only be understood under inspiration of the Spirit. This is why we need the Church.

I never mentioned how Catholic doctrine was arrived at-simply that Catholic doctrine exists-it’s very easy to find in the Catechism, for example-and this gives us the content of Catholic faith.