R
Rau
Guest
The trouble with literal bible story interpretations is that they are rejected by the Church.
I think this exemplifies what is meant by the expression “more Catholic that the Pope”.
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.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
The Church has never rejected a literalist reading of the Genesis story. They have implied that one could read certain things allegorically (usually without specifying what, Holy Spirit at work there preventing error) but to say they have rejected the literalist reading is wrong.
I have noticed that tendency in these discussions, for the evolutionists to overstate their case. Allowances for evolution suddenly becomes “The Church teaches evolution” and the existence of allegorical readings suddenly becomes a “rejection of the literal”.
You could live until Kingdom Come and you would never see the Church officially teach that Genesis was NOT literal. They might not condemn an allegorical viewing as heresy, but they wouldn’t outright deny the literal existence of the Flood for example, or of Babel; or teach that Man definitively evolved from apes. In that is an important distinction. One approach simply does not condemn honest error, the other positively affirms error.
I have noticed that tendency in these discussions, for the evolutionists to overstate their case. Allowances for evolution suddenly becomes “The Church teaches evolution” and the existence of allegorical readings suddenly becomes a “rejection of the literal”.
You could live until Kingdom Come and you would never see the Church officially teach that Genesis was NOT literal. They might not condemn an allegorical viewing as heresy, but they wouldn’t outright deny the literal existence of the Flood for example, or of Babel; or teach that Man definitively evolved from apes. In that is an important distinction. One approach simply does not condemn honest error, the other positively affirms error.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Have you ever read Augustine’s On the Literal Meaning of Genesis? You might be surprised to learn that allegorical interpretations of Scripture were around long before Darwin and his theories. Augustine wrote,Indeed. The trouble with evolution is it requires us to bend over backward turning everything into metaphor and allegory
The problem with an entirely literal interpretation of Scripture is that it requires us to bend over backwards turning everything into Scriptural pseudo-science.When [those who try to defame our Holy Scripture] are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I should also mention that my gentle chiding of the Popes was not in any way a dig at their moral authority, which is unimpeachable (especially from a wretched sinner like myself) but more a case of hindsight always being 20/20. They chose to allow certain disagreements, a prudential judgement which seems to have not borne out in the manner they obviously hoped it would.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
So are we to rebuke evolution?
R
Rau
Guest
Quite simply, the truths to be understood do not reside in or rely on the literal. Whether the Church denies the existence of a talking snake or says we’re quite fine with it being regarded as a literary device is a distinction without a difference. The truth does not lie in the existence of a talking snake.The Church has never rejected a literalist reading of the Genesis story. They have implied that one could read certain things allegorically (usually without specifying what, Holy Spirit at work there preventing error) but to say they have rejected the literalist reading is wrong.
M
mVitus
Guest
setarcos, I see now that I did have a misunderstanding then as I had thought you were pushing a must, rather than your view. Apologies for that. The following post is broken loosely structured with the various sections corresponding to the sections of your interesting post.
When it comes to the idea of a directed evolution, I view that as a contradiction to neither. A directed evolution would cease the notion of a god that creates and leaves, hence it’s my thoughts that it’s compatible with the faith that God was still involved with creation. And from the science standpoint, I’ve always viewed evolution not as a why, but a how. And if evolution was the mechanism that God used, it answers the how. Kind of like how God intending the creation of Earth doesn’t mean physics wasn’t the how.
When it comes to evolution of the body, I do personally believe that it would mean there’d be creatures very bodily alike to true humans but with animal souls as opposed to rational souls. I’ll refer to them as proto-humans. And with that it would seem to lend the potential of Adam being born to a proto-human mother.
After that it gets interesting. While I personally would think he’d be raised then by the proto-human family, it’s easily plausible for the Garden of Eden to come into play. The next interesting question becomes where Eve came from. As she was a true human, she’d have to take her lineage through Adam. As I’m uncomfortable with the idea of her being Adam’s daughter from a proto-human, taking the rib would seem to be a very real possibility of what may have actually happened. And as the necessary change of a chromosome (XY to XX) is present in the original account, it’s a non-issue to consider.
If Adam and Eve lived amongst such a proto-human population for the their lives, or at least after being kicked out of the Garden if you take that literally, it could also provide an explanation as to where Cain’s wife came from, but more on that later.
When it comes to the Church taking a stance that’s not fully saying evolution happened while allowing for it, I do see good reason for it. As the Church had some, shall we say bad press, from the Galileo affair, it would be hesitant to take a definitive stance on whether a science matter, being outside of its guided purview, is true or false. Though I wouldn’t say that stance is due to finding it hard to integrate. I believe it was (name removed by moderator) who posted a bit of Pope Francis in regards to evolution.
In addition, it’s scientific fact that the moon is not made of cheese. But you’ll never see a Church statement disallowing believing the moon is made of cheese. (Not to liken that as a good analogy to this situation.)
When it comes to the idea of a directed evolution, I view that as a contradiction to neither. A directed evolution would cease the notion of a god that creates and leaves, hence it’s my thoughts that it’s compatible with the faith that God was still involved with creation. And from the science standpoint, I’ve always viewed evolution not as a why, but a how. And if evolution was the mechanism that God used, it answers the how. Kind of like how God intending the creation of Earth doesn’t mean physics wasn’t the how.
When it comes to evolution of the body, I do personally believe that it would mean there’d be creatures very bodily alike to true humans but with animal souls as opposed to rational souls. I’ll refer to them as proto-humans. And with that it would seem to lend the potential of Adam being born to a proto-human mother.
After that it gets interesting. While I personally would think he’d be raised then by the proto-human family, it’s easily plausible for the Garden of Eden to come into play. The next interesting question becomes where Eve came from. As she was a true human, she’d have to take her lineage through Adam. As I’m uncomfortable with the idea of her being Adam’s daughter from a proto-human, taking the rib would seem to be a very real possibility of what may have actually happened. And as the necessary change of a chromosome (XY to XX) is present in the original account, it’s a non-issue to consider.
If Adam and Eve lived amongst such a proto-human population for the their lives, or at least after being kicked out of the Garden if you take that literally, it could also provide an explanation as to where Cain’s wife came from, but more on that later.
When it comes to the Church taking a stance that’s not fully saying evolution happened while allowing for it, I do see good reason for it. As the Church had some, shall we say bad press, from the Galileo affair, it would be hesitant to take a definitive stance on whether a science matter, being outside of its guided purview, is true or false. Though I wouldn’t say that stance is due to finding it hard to integrate. I believe it was (name removed by moderator) who posted a bit of Pope Francis in regards to evolution.
In addition, it’s scientific fact that the moon is not made of cheese. But you’ll never see a Church statement disallowing believing the moon is made of cheese. (Not to liken that as a good analogy to this situation.)
M
mVitus
Guest
Coming now to that last part about Neanderthals and all, I also come back to Cain’s wife. For me, those bring about the question in me of “What is a true human?” Given that Genesis was written prior to modern taxonomy, it makes me wonder whether or not Adam and Eve could’ve been what we call Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, ect. Though that answer would depend on what constitutes a human body too as we are both body and soul, hence a further complication in that.
As another part, it also calls us to wonder what we’d see at the onset of rational true human souls coming about. If we could expect religion as a result, that would put Neaderthals as true humans and Adam and Eve at before the homo-sapiens and Neaderthal split, though I hesitate with not even knowing where the Church would stance on such an idea.
But then if we say Adam and Eve occurred after the split and therefore all Neaderthals were lacking a rational, true human, soul, that brings the other interesting question about the, to use a bad word, “genetics” of the soul as it begs the question of whether a true human mating with a soulless creature produces rational-souled offspring.
And that brings us to Cain’s wife and a pro-human population. So essentially, that is something that really peaks my interest in regards to where science and theology meet and if anyone does know further things I could look at written by people in line for cert with Church teaching that addresses those questions, I truly am curious to come upon that information.
And that last paragraph seems really disjointed and rambling to me, I’m not fully certain how to clarify it easily, but I do realize I’ll probably have some questions to answer.
@Wesrock, I remember you mentioning a Kemp on this matter before. I didn’t look up anything at that time, but would you be willing to mention what his works were again as I’m curious at being able to look at him.
As another part, it also calls us to wonder what we’d see at the onset of rational true human souls coming about. If we could expect religion as a result, that would put Neaderthals as true humans and Adam and Eve at before the homo-sapiens and Neaderthal split, though I hesitate with not even knowing where the Church would stance on such an idea.
But then if we say Adam and Eve occurred after the split and therefore all Neaderthals were lacking a rational, true human, soul, that brings the other interesting question about the, to use a bad word, “genetics” of the soul as it begs the question of whether a true human mating with a soulless creature produces rational-souled offspring.
And that brings us to Cain’s wife and a pro-human population. So essentially, that is something that really peaks my interest in regards to where science and theology meet and if anyone does know further things I could look at written by people in line for cert with Church teaching that addresses those questions, I truly am curious to come upon that information.
And that last paragraph seems really disjointed and rambling to me, I’m not fully certain how to clarify it easily, but I do realize I’ll probably have some questions to answer.
@Wesrock, I remember you mentioning a Kemp on this matter before. I didn’t look up anything at that time, but would you be willing to mention what his works were again as I’m curious at being able to look at him.
M
mVitus
Guest
An evolved man does not necessitate no Garden and no original sin. You could still conceive of God taking Adam and Eve and setting them in a literal garden. You could also interpret that as a metaphorical garden in regards to their Pre-Fall innocence. And original sin is not thrown out either because, let’s face it, we know original sin happened. That fruit, literal or metaphorical, was bitten whether man evolved or not.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I see this a lot and it bothers me, the seemingly (I wom’t assume tone) flippant references to a talking snake. As if the idea was so ridiculous and absurd that we roll our eyes at it… When in actuality the word is more accurately translated to “serpent” and this is where allegorical reading is appropriate. The “serpent” of Genesis was the devil. This is confirmed twice, once by Christ (he was a murderer from the beginning) and once in Revelations (the ancient serpent is slain).
Now it is possible that the devil was using the form of a snake during this interaction, but that is entering the “how many angels dance” territory. Hence the reason why the Church rightly says there are multiple ways of reading Scripture. Not so that we can turn everything into allegory without thinking critically about the implications, but so that we can recognize what was intended to be read as allegory in the first place.
Moses clearly intended the “talking serpent” to be read allegorically. He clearly did not intend the entire story to be read allegorically.
Now it is possible that the devil was using the form of a snake during this interaction, but that is entering the “how many angels dance” territory. Hence the reason why the Church rightly says there are multiple ways of reading Scripture. Not so that we can turn everything into allegory without thinking critically about the implications, but so that we can recognize what was intended to be read as allegory in the first place.
Moses clearly intended the “talking serpent” to be read allegorically. He clearly did not intend the entire story to be read allegorically.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
It does in a very specific way: Original Sin is understood as a perfect creature (or more accurately, without flaw) choosing evil over God. It is not the same species of sin as any sin we can commit, because we are slaves in bondage, whereas the Original Sin was the sin of a free man who willingly chose bondage. The physical reality of this is our concupicence, our passions and emotions are not under our control. In this, we now resemble the animals more than the original ideal.An evolved man does not necessitate no Garden and no original sin. You could still conceive of God taking Adam and Eve and setting them in a literal garden. You could also interpret that as a metaphorical garden in regards to their Pre-Fall innocence. And original sin is not thrown out either because, let’s face it, we know original sin happened. That fruit, literal or metaphorical, was bitten whether man evolved or not.
The sin of Adam requires a knowing sublimation of the perfectly ordered intellect and will to the corruption of sin, and cannot be the act of an imperfect creature. Adam being born of a proto-human would theoretically possess all the natural qualities of that creature: unruly passions, fear of pain, disordered love of pleasure, a corruptible body, etc. He would have been incapable of the Original Sin.
We know this because the sins of the “modern” father are not imputed to the son. No sin immaginable in the fallen man, no matter how heinous or deliberate, can change the will of another man without his consent. We cannot think of Original Sin as simply " the first instance of sin" but as the origin of sin itself. It permanently altered the state of will in mankind. It could not be committed by a man of our nature, because our nature is already changed. Therefore, Adam must have originally had a nature different from ours.
Whether the Fruit is exclusively allegorical or exclusively literal (I tend to think of it as both) is irrelevant. The true nature of the sin was not in eating forbidden fruit, but in the sublimation of the will toward a thing that was not God. That requires an unbound will.
So with evolution we have many problems. First we have to reject the dignity of man (he was not made from dust but born in a bloody, painful mess from a screaming monkey; the result of a probably forced copulation), and then we have to assume a totally corrupted, mortal, and irrational creature beget a incorrupt, immortal, and perfectly rational creature. And then we have to assume that once Adam was born, he was either whisked away to a perfect Garden of abundance without death and where all beasts were submitted to him, or that the entire nature of the world was changed upon his birth and then changed back after his Fall.
Or we have to believe that the Perfect God whom cannot decieve created an evil, corrupt thing. Which is so absurd as to border on blasphemy.
Last edited:
F
frobert
Guest
For those who are interested in support for evolution in US compared to other countries.
Support For EvolutionA study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.[111]
M
mVitus
Guest
Pre-fall, if you cut Adam, would not he have bled? But also with the incorruptible body, it’s quite conceivable God could’ve intended to perform a continuous miracle. And even if not that, never dying could’ve referred to spiritual life, just as taking the fruit that meant death referred to spiritual death. When it comes to the language of Genesis, there’s a lot of room for interpretation while still being within the bounds of Teaching. So no, evolution does not contradict original sin. It is a way of explaining how our physical bodies came into being, not our God-given souls.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I mean, we can probably fit anything at all into a box if we push hard enough. It is theoretically possible to stretch the two sides enough to at least superficially allow for a Christian understanding of evolution but if we’re going to twist both Scripture and the theory of evolution that far it seems best to me, at least, to just pick one side or the other. Both theories have their own internal consistency, but marrying them just seems to create a lot more confusion than it clears up.
Secular evolution and soulless man, or Biblical creation and a God who didn’t create evil. Until I get a strong answer to how to hammer out the details, I’m gonna have to believe they are mutually exclusive… Buuuuuut I will admit that I am not the omniscient arbiter of what is or isn’t so lest we end up running in circles and annoying each oher, it is probably best for me to let it rest.
Secular evolution and soulless man, or Biblical creation and a God who didn’t create evil. Until I get a strong answer to how to hammer out the details, I’m gonna have to believe they are mutually exclusive… Buuuuuut I will admit that I am not the omniscient arbiter of what is or isn’t so lest we end up running in circles and annoying each oher, it is probably best for me to let it rest.
R
rossum
Guest
Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (emphasis added)Biblical creation and a God who didn’t create evil.
If God created all things except Himself, and evil exists, then ipso facto God created evil.
You might also note that evolution says as much about souls as the theory of gravity or mathematics, i.e. nothing. Souls are an optional add-on to evolution. Souls do not fossilise and cannot be detected in DNA.
rossum
S
setarcos
Guest
Are you kidding…if you can believe in virtually any super natural event - the sun dancing arround at fatima, Mary popping in to say high to children, statues crying blood, a piece of unlevened bread turning into the literal body of christ and the wine his blood without no scientifically verifiable evidence of this, umpteen other miracles, heck quantum mechanics, baluums Ass (spelling?), spirit creatures, etc. etc. - can you tell me why it cannot be a possibility that a serpent spoke??
G
Glark
Guest
I beliefe the thread is about the theology of evolution, not the science. But since you mentioned the fossil record …
Chances are you are depending on a relatively tiny number of paleontologists to tell you what has been found. How many decades have you personally spent actually studying real fossils? Have you studied the entire fossil record in detail? Do you have a Ph.d. In paleontology?
I would wager that most paleontologists are atheists and they see what they want to see in the evidence - evolution. Don’t be so naive as to suggest that all scientists are dispassionately objective when it comes to origins science. Or they are simply brainwashed victims of the Zeitgist and follow the herd (how far do you think a “six days” creationist would get in an academic environment dominated by atheism?)
Charles Darwin didn’t see the evidence for his theory (as in, gradualism) in the fossil record. Neither did Gould and Eldredge, who resorted to a ridiculous twist on spontaneuos generation to explain away “sudden appearance” and “stasis” - two predictions of creation theory.
Pierre-P. Grasse: “Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis … [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it … The error in their method is obvious.”
Chances are you are depending on a relatively tiny number of paleontologists to tell you what has been found. How many decades have you personally spent actually studying real fossils? Have you studied the entire fossil record in detail? Do you have a Ph.d. In paleontology?
I would wager that most paleontologists are atheists and they see what they want to see in the evidence - evolution. Don’t be so naive as to suggest that all scientists are dispassionately objective when it comes to origins science. Or they are simply brainwashed victims of the Zeitgist and follow the herd (how far do you think a “six days” creationist would get in an academic environment dominated by atheism?)
Charles Darwin didn’t see the evidence for his theory (as in, gradualism) in the fossil record. Neither did Gould and Eldredge, who resorted to a ridiculous twist on spontaneuos generation to explain away “sudden appearance” and “stasis” - two predictions of creation theory.
Pierre-P. Grasse: “Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis … [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it … The error in their method is obvious.”
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
That has usually been interpreted more like “calamity” or “destruction” than claiming that he created evil in the first place. God did not create evil, but makes use of it once it has been created. Sin was not created by God and evil (even natural evils like death and disease and calamity) was a result of sin, therefore it cannot be said that God created evil.
Just because I can tack on the concept of souls onto the theory of evolution and keep the superficial appearance of seamless marriage doesn’t mean anything. And that is the problem, superficially, it seems fine. Once we go into the details, the evolutionist Christian starts to have to either pretend the details don’t matter or he has to start twisting the theory of evolution itself so far out of whack that it loses any “scientific” quality it may have had in the first place.
Just because I can tack on the concept of souls onto the theory of evolution and keep the superficial appearance of seamless marriage doesn’t mean anything. And that is the problem, superficially, it seems fine. Once we go into the details, the evolutionist Christian starts to have to either pretend the details don’t matter or he has to start twisting the theory of evolution itself so far out of whack that it loses any “scientific” quality it may have had in the first place.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
My particular reference to it was of course literary, and not flippant.I see this a lot and it bothers me, the seemingly (I wom’t assume tone) flippant references to a talking snake.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.