its war!

[freesoulhope]

hello its mark again, im am having a war, it is a war i refuse to give up. my war is a result of a conflict between creationists and mainstreem scientific veiws. On the one hand i feel that science gives a reasonable explanation to the reality around us, but then again, it conflicts with centain aspects of the bible in the sense of how one is supposed to interpret scripture. I want to interpret the bible symbolically, becuase it seems like your supposed to anyway, and in this way there seems to be a good marrige between science and christianity. But then we have creationists who say that it still conficts with the bible ever way you look at it, and that scientists are decieved as well as those who interpret genesis any other way that wouldnt mean a literal reality. do you have any opinions on this matter?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Yes. A very, very strong one.

The Catholic Church holds that it is possible to either believe in evolution or to not. It is not a matter of doctrine. Many Catholics, because of this freedom, embrace evolution. Others do not. Either opinion is fine with me.

What I have an incredible problem with is that so often those who do embrace evolution look very negatively upon those who do not, often either stating directly or strongly implying that these people are stupid, uneducated, prisoners to protestant ideas, or otherwise impaired.

This is flat out wrong. Both opinions are acceptable for a Catholic. Both have many strong points, and many weak points. I find that those supporting evolution tend to refuse to acknowledge its weak points. Those opposed to it are not perfect in their recognition of their own weaknesses either, but in my experience not nearly so much so as those whom believe in evolution.

The fact is that evolution is far from being a proven fact. So are any of the alternative views that have ben suggested. There is one thing we know for certain: God made the universe, and God made man. Persons on both sides of the arguement must realize that this is all that matters. We must allow science, and when necessary, the Magesterium to continue to figure this issue out and avoid devisiveness over it at all costs. It is hard enough to defend the Church against those whom wish to destroy Her without appearing and/or being disunified.

Due to this divisiveness, very important Catholics, such as Mr. Sungenis, are ridiculed and marginalized. This is unacceptable, especially when we consider things such as the fact that Mr. Sungenis has been able to destroy the likes of Mr. James White where other apologists have faltered. Why put a wall between the general Catholic comunity and Mr. Sungenis simply because he does not support evolution? This is a problem which happens all to often in our world. How can we expect Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis to defend against people like Mr. White when they are too busy defending against one another? Please be aware that I am not in any way attempting to mount a vendetta for Mr. Sungenis here, I am only using him as an example.

This division must cease. This issue is doing incredible damage to the faith of the Church, just as it has done to virtually every Protestant denomination. God is our creator. This is what matters.

 

[freesoulhope]

that is a good anwser man! i feel you are wise on your stance. i find it hard to believe in evolution but somtimes i feel that i have to, because i feel intelectualy bullied in to doing so. i know this is weak of me, however i do not like to look stupid, but i totally respect people like sugenis.i think his aguments are very inteleigent even if they are found to be wrong in the future. please give reply if you want

 

[Crumpy]

War? Hey, take it down a notch OK?

Let’s assume you are Catholic. Take a look at paragraphs 51 through 141 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, slowly and prayerfully.

That’s a good, rational starting point for understanding the Church’s teaching on scripture. Pay close attention to 109 and 110.

And…well, I can’t locate it. But CCC has a statement somewhere that the language of Genesis may be symbolic or figurative, but that it refers to actual primordial events (original sin). Here it is, paragraph 390 - “figurative language” “primevil events”.

That’s the CCC! It’s a whole lot better than getting boxed into an either/or situation – war, if you will – over seven day creation.

Just today, something “sunk in” with me that I was trying to understand and express. When we talk about scripture, let’s distinguish “literal” and “historical”. I have no problem talking about Adam and Eve, neither does the Catechism, the Bible itself, or the Church in many places.

When someone says “literally true” they’re talking about history. I don’t know that any history is written to be literally true. There’s always “spin” on it. I don’t care if it’s even modern history. Every historian has a point of view and expresses him/her-self in finite ways. Look how hard it’s been in U.S. history to sort out the facts of the war in Iraq. What were the facts? How was information used? etc.

Even modern people (Christians, Muslims, Jews) look at Genesis in different ways.

When discussing ancient historical matters, I prefer to express myself like Fr. Benedict Groeschel on EWTN – “I don’t know, I wasn’t there.” No amount of wrangling will settle the matter.

The paragraphs in the CCC also emphasize an important matter about interpreting the Bible, especially the “senses” of scripture. It is inappropriate to restrict yourself to strictly a historical interpretation of scripture. I refer you to paragraph 117, but to the entire section of CCC as well.

You can, I think, exorcise this demon in your mind if you take a look at Fr. Jean Corbon, Path to Freedom (around $10 at amazon). This is a spiritual exegesis of scripture (in around 260 pages). Let’s see if I can remember this. He describes Gen 1 as a song, Gen 2 as a poem, and Gen 3 as a love story (drama), if I recall correctly. My words: creation is to be understood as an immense documentation of the generosity (“gratuitousness”) of God and understood in terms of His love.

Corbon describes the early Bible books as being written sometime after the first exile as an explanation of faith and human beginnings. Yaroslav Pelikan describes Genesis as an account telling us who we are.

As these Bible accounts unfold, there is a calendar superimposed “right off the bat”. A lot of creation occurs in six days (but it is by no means ended,by the way – see the gospel of John where the disciples are picking grain on the Sabbath - Jesus says He is working like His Father is still working.) The Sabbath is set up as a day for people to rest and contemplate the covenant that God has made with man ( more of God’s gratuitousness). The account of creation in Genesis is written through the mindset of the writer(s) and the people to whom it was written, and for the purposes for which it was written.

Let your mind rest on whatever spot of equilibrium you have about creation, and then move on to what God is really saying.

 

[Crumpy]

One more observation: I picked up an anniversary edition of some protestant sermons. The only one I’ve read so far has to do with Genesis.

Moses is thought to be the write of Genesis, and of course that is disputed. But, taken for granted for the moment, consider that he wrote that account of creation, when he had been raised with specialized Egyptian education. He would have been taught that the universe was created when a big egg with wings was flying around and eventually hatched. How radical an idea that the universe had been created by God.