The Book of Genesis, and perhaps other parts of the Hebrew Bible (such as Ruth) are spiritual literature that describe real people and events through figurative language and parables. By refusing to see past the literalist view of it, you are missing the intent of many of its words.Sorry if I must misunderstood you. What is your position?
No one is failing to see past the literalist view. I realize there are four senses to the interpretation of the scriptures; however, the issue we have today is that many people deny the literal and historical truths contained in the Bible, under the pretext of the passage merely being “figurative language and parables”.The Book of Genesis, and perhaps other parts of the Hebrew Bible (such as Ruth) are spiritual literature that describe real people and events through figurative language and parables. By refusing to see past the literalist view of it, you are missing the intent of many of its words.
The Church has not forbidden it yet. I think it is a hoax, but that is just my opinion and nothing more. Based on what I know, at this time a person can believe in theistic evolution and remain in good standing with the Church.And as long as you do not dispute that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, then I have no quarrel.
Moral Relativism is directly tied to the belief that nothing made us, we are responsible to nothing and what may be right for you may be wrong for me. Pope Benedict clearly said that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. And the quote from Pope John Paul II, while famous among secularists, ignores the fact that he was talking about theories of evolution, not just one. So please read his address in its entirety.I’ll patiently wait for someone in this thread to provide where the Church teaches that the Book of Genesis may not be taken allegorically, despite the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Justin Martyr and various other early Church Fathers; as well as when the Church’s allowance of believing in theistic evolution was revoked.
As for my own contribution to this topic: seeing as how the Church makes no ruling on youth earth creationism versus theistic evolution, Christians should cease to focus on this (save perhaps as a hobby) and focus on the real problems of the world, like moral relativism and poverty.
Okay. I agree. What is the relevance of this statement to the topic at hand?Moral Relativism is directly tied to the belief that nothing made us, we are responsible to nothing and what may be right for you may be wrong for me.
Since I am not an atheist, nor am I arguing that evolution was not guided by God, I am not seeing the relevance of your statements.Finally, in Communion and Stewardship, it is again made very clear that the constant teaching of the Church must be upheld, namely that God had a causal role in the development of life. This is radically opposed to the idea that a mechanism made you, turning you from an ape to a man For No Particular Reason.
Because the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution, so your attempt to make an issue out of nothing is only alienating fellow Christians while ignoring the problems of the world at hand.The “real problems of the world”? Why do you want to distract people from this issue?
What does the above sentence mean? It makes no sense.As long as you do not deny that the Bible is 100% inherent - even when it discusses scientific and historical matters - you are on safe ground.
Many people today limit the inherency of the Bible to areas of faith and morals only, and claim that it is not also inherent in scientific and historical matters. That’s what I was referring to. I meant that he is on safe ground as long as he does not deny that the Bible is completely inherent - not only in areas that deal with faith and morals, but also those that pertain to scientific and historical points…What does the above sentence mean? It makes no sense.
Thank you very much for posting this. Some here believe the Bible does not record things God actually did and a few here want to purposely confuse Christians about the truth of the Bible. This is called modernism, the false and dangerous belief that new new knowledge makes parts of the Bible wrong, according to them. You can identify these statements quite easily because the writers insist the statements are true. The statements can be identified as false because science, they will argue, cannot speak about God or the supernatural. It cannot study these things and therefore, cannot comment on them. There are no scientific papers analyzing the claims in Genesis, for example. Yet those same writers will cross over here and claim that science, which cannot study such things, does have something to say about the Bible. How is this possible? Obviously, they are trying to convince Christians about something science cannot demonstrate is true.Many people today limit the inherency of the Bible to areas of faith and morals only, and claim that it is not also inherent in scientific and historical matters. That’s what I was referring to. I meant that he is on safe ground as long as he does not deny that the Bible is completely inherent - not only in areas that deal with faith and morals, but also those that pertain to scientific and historical points…
In the last post on the previous page I provided a number of quotes from Papal encyclical to show that the Church teaches the complete inherency of the Bible.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.htmlYes, but it should be kept in mind that while “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits… If nevertheless there is a disagreement… it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
Yes, your right. I always use the wrong word.You mean “inerrancy,” not “inherency.”
Theistic evolution? What is that? According to the biology textbook, a self generating engine created you. No supernatural influence of any kind was involved. As it stands, random mutation and natural selection (along with a bit of genetic drift and ‘environmental pressures’) represent the total end product. You are not here for any particular reason. In fact, according to Stephen Gould, if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.Once again, you fail to clarify on the relevance of your statements. Nobody here is disputing that atheistic unguided evolution is a heresy. But the fact is that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution.
And yet it is not inerrant, as the story of Joshua and the sun testifies. We now know that the sun doesn’t move around the earth, as the writer of Judges assumed.In the last post on the previous page I provided a number of quotes from Papal encyclical to show that the Church teaches the complete inherency of the Bible.
In the last post on the previous page I provided a number of quotes from Papal encyclical to show that the Church teaches the complete inherency of the Bible.
So you don’t believe what the Church teaches?And yet it is not inerrant, as the story of Joshua and the sun testifies. We now know that the sun doesn’t move around the earth, as the writer of Judges assumed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolutionTheistic evolution? What is that?
I don’t remember my textbook telling me that. In fact, it would be you asserting that God is incapable of controlling the process of evolution.According to the biology textbook, a self generating engine created you. No supernatural influence of any kind was involved.
I could say the same thing about the Bible. It’s possible to say that the Bible was completely composed by men who had no inspiration from God, but that doesn’t change the reality, which is that the Bible is divinely inspired; just as biological macroevolution was guided by God.Holding up the biology textbook and adding the words, “I believe God did it.” does not change the contents in any way. Which means that what is being promoted here is a theory that does not involve God in any way, shape or form.
To find out what the Church believes, I suggest you read Communion and Stewardship:
See Part 64, which includes the words “incompatible with the Catholic faith.”
Once more, I am well aware the Church condemns atheistic unguided evolution. It does not condemn theistic evolution.And Part 69, which includes the words “simply cannot exist.”
So scientists aren’t infallible, but any insane guy that quotes other crazy people who claim to represent “the scientific community” and tells you what the Church teaches is infallible?I just started reading the two volume book titled: Galileo was wrong; the Church was right. This book begins with about 30 pages of quotes from major scientists admitting that they do not know if the earth moves around the sun, or if the sun moves around the earth. These 30 pages are then followed by one scientific experiment after another that confirms that the earth is indeed fixed and the sun moves around it. And these experiments were performed by scientists who do not believe this. It is fascinating to read the scientists admit what the evidence confirms.