Genesis reliable for faith?

[1Lord1Faith]

due to the change in cultural perceptions and demands, the Church is more able to assert effectively a stance on these issues that is more in line with divine morality

Now maybe we’re getting somewhere. So, after 3k years, culture has finally caught up to be a closer resemblance of “divine morality” in the 20th century, regarding women’s equality anyway.

So what helped to keep women in a position below that of men? It wouldn’t have anything to do with Genesis or Corinthians would it? And when people started leaving the Churches in the 1960’s we lost our cultural attachment to Scripture thereby throwing off a patriarchal culture in order that we may come to a more “divine morality”. Is that what you meant to say?

Paul – acting alone – does not define doctrine

Umm…but doctrine is based largely on Scripture. See the issue?

Moreover, not every word of Scripture has doctrinal content, so we cannot assert that the presence of his words in Scripture demands that his words be taken as doctrinally binding.

Of course not, hence my questioning of Genesis 3 as a basis for anything doctrinal, and hence my basis for referring to Scripture as inerrant, whatever that means.

The Church formulates doctrine. The Church has not stated, as a doctrinally-binding on faith and morals, that Paul’s assertions about women’s roles is irreformable doctrine.

Yes, I realize that, and yet, Aquinas used Paul’s assertions to justify an all male priesthood well into the Middle Ages. So there must have been some doctrinal authority to the assertions, because I assume Aquinas knew what he was doing :man_shrugging:t3: Maybe not.

 

[Gorgias]

And when people started leaving the Churches in the 1960’s we lost our cultural attachment to Scripture thereby throwing off a patriarchal culture in order that we may come to a more “divine morality”. Is that what you meant to say?

Nope. I think you’re ascribing too much credit to the Church in perpetuating a “patriarchal culture”.

Umm…but doctrine is based largely on Scripture. See the issue?

I see what you’re trying to assert. It’s invalid extrapolation, though. It’s like saying “people drown in water” and then pointing to a child splashing and playing in a kiddie pool and saying “he’s in water – therefore, he’s drowning.” Presence in Scripture doesn’t imply a statement of doctrine.

So there must have been some doctrinal authority to the assertions, because I assume Aquinas knew what he was doing

Sure, he did. Then again, he also thought that babies in the womb didn’t become human until they “quickened.” In other words: he was a product of his time and place – of his culture, as it were. We don’t blame him for that… but neither do we presume that, just because Aquinas said it, therefore it must be settled doctrine.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I think you’re ascribing too much credit to the Church in perpetuating a “patriarchal culture”.

I don’t think I am. Have you read this entire thread. Such a small sampling I know, but the perpetuation is still around. Still.

Same with evolution. Many Catholics still think evolution is against Church teaching. But, being a member of CAF, you already know that.

This is not even to mention Protestantism. Sola scriptura, creation museum, But to even Protestantism out, some denominations have female pastors

Presence in Scripture doesn’t imply a statement of doctrine .

No, not to Catholicism. But it does to many Protestants.

Also, presence in scripture implies inerrancy according to the Church. Is that a good approach for the Church to take?

In other words: he was a product of his time and place – of his culture , as it were.

Aren’t we all. Are you saying that St. Paul and Aquinas were “modernists” of their time?

 

[Gorgias]

Also, presence in scripture implies inerrancy according to the Church. Is that a good approach for the Church to take?

It’s important to understand what “inerrancy” means, then. I think you’re taking it somewhere that it’s not intended to go. Is Scripture inerrant? Yes. Is every statement, by every person on the pages of Scripture, inerrant? No. Otherwise, we’d have to concede that all kinds of immoral actions are, in fact, whitewashed by their presence in Scripture.

Am I asserting that Paul was incorrect in his assessment of proper behavior of a particular community at a particular point in time? Not at all. Does this mean that this assessment must hold for all times and all cultures? Not at all.

…after all, if it did, then that would imply that we should be held to the very letter of the law of the Mosaic covenant. But, the Church makes it clear – in the very pages of Scripture – that it doesn’t hold for all people in all times and places! Why, then, would we assert that the words of St Paul in Scripture must take on permanent doctrinal status, when the very words of God to Moses do not???

Are you saying that St. Paul and Aquinas were “modernists” of their time?

LOL!

I think I’m saying that none of us humans fully escape the contexts of our lives.

 

[EndTimes]

Several assumptions that are based in Genesis have fallen: flat earth, geocentrism, subordinating women, and creationism.

That’s news to me…

The Creator Created Creation, Yes?

Adam and Eve are the real first parents of Man - according to Catholic Teachings

The length of Genesis’ day as being 24 hours is a very rare belief.

Today? Best to get to know Jesus’ Mind via His Teachings…

 

[EndTimes]

Do you mean a specific male and female were the first human beings […] ?

This is the Teaching of The Catholic Church.
ref: Humani Generis

 

[Gorgias]

Do you mean a specific male and female were the first human beings and were not evolved from prior life forms?

Scripture doesn’t speak to that question. It does, however, mention that humans were created from pre-existing matter.

 

[EndTimes]

Scripture doesn’t speak to that question. It does , however, mention that humans were created from pre-existing matter.

Yes… From Dust…

 

[Gorgias]

Yes… From Dust…

So… in a figurative account, what might ‘dust’ be allegorically referring to? Must it literally be “dirt”? Might it be the other things formed from the dirt?

Genesis 1:24 – “Then God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature’…”

See?

 

[EndTimes]

So… in a figurative account, what might ‘dust’ be allegorically referring to? Must it literally be “dirt”?

Why not? As the Creator Created Creation via His Word (let there be Light and there was Light),
Why waste valuable time wondering and arguing and futily attempting to prove or disprove - whether He could Create Man from Dust? … Etc… Etc… Etc…

1. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
2. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

You see! That makes sense WHEN dust is dust…

And in The New Testament we have:

1. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

 

[goout]

Theology of the Body goes into both Genesis and Ephesians 5 extensively.
And St Pope John Paul 2 is not at all concerned with literalism, he is concerned with exposing the salvific goodness that is contained in these passages.

 

[goout]

Do you believe Adam and Eve were created from “scratch” and had no biological parents?

I believe what the Church teaches, and I also accept what science has established in varied fields from biology to geology to anthropology to genetics.
Truth does not contradict truth, and where truth is true , I try to conform my mind to it.

 

[goout]

I think science does a good job addressing the biological human tree that Adam and Eve would have sprung from. Yes, it seems clear that humans have biological parents.
And I also believe that human beings are a unity of body and soul, and Adam and Even along with all other human beings descended from them have a soul that is directly given by God. That is not explainable by science, obviously.

 

[EndTimes]

Yes, it seems clear that humans have biological parents.

No.

No one has shown that both Adam and Eve - parents of all humans - sprung from non-humans

The history of the Historical science of Paleontology in search for The Missing Link is ridden with storied hoaxes invented by so-called evolution scientists daring to self-label themselves as experts…

Anything else?

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes, it seems clear that humans have biological parents.

No.

No one has shown that both Adam and Eve - parents of all humans - sprung from non-humans

No one knows the specific material origin of Adam and Eve. The Church does not claim to know this or define it. I was not addressing the specific material origin of Adam and Eve.
I was merely observing that human beings have biological progenitors, and science fleshes this out (pun intended) pretty well.
I didn’t even call those progenitors “human”, to avoid confusion with the definition of a human being, which is a unity of body and soul.

I am not concerned here with the missing link or the conflating of science and theology. If there is such a thing as a specific progenitor of Adam, it will never be definitively found. But science has done a lot of good work on the biological lineage that produced human beings.
So that is good. Truth does not contradict truth. Faith and reason should be integrated.
It is awesome how Genesis describes us as coming from the dust of the earth. We are part of God’s creation, not separate from it. We are unique, yet part of the whole. Not just a bundle of atoms, but still consisting of that “dust”. Not on a par with God, but created by God.
Genesis, without scientific knowledge, intuits what science later helps reveal about God’s creation.

 

[EndTimes]

I was merely observing that human beings have biological progenitors, and science fleshes this out (pun intended) pretty well.

So you say… Yet the Church neither teaches that in its Magisterium nor has ‘science’ clearly shown that to be so… If you think otherwise? “Chapter and Verse” (euphemism) on both accounts.

 

[EndTimes]

All humans have parents

Yes…

And the first parents of Humankind are Adam and Eve…

Shall there be anything else?

 

[EndTimes]

Your self-assured glibness betrays the weakness of your arguments.

Ad Hominems such as that - are the epitome of having no argument whatsoever to speak of…

Anything Else ?

 

[goout]

goout:

I was merely observing that human beings have biological progenitors, and science fleshes this out (pun intended) pretty well.

So you say… Yet the Church neither teaches that in its Magisterium nor has ‘science’ clearly shown that to be so… If you think otherwise? “Chapter and Verse” (euphemism) on both accounts.

?
You dispute that human beings have a mother and a father?
I have no idea what issue you are trying to focus on and I have no idea why my comments cause you defensiveness.
I am not claiming authority for anything. I am merely observing what science reveals, and what the Church teaches.

 

[EndTimes]

You dispute that human beings have a mother and a father?

Of course not.

Adam and Eve ARE the First Parents of Humankind.

_