Myths and fairy tales ?

[twinc]

Twinc, I’m not trying to be rude, but please look into some punctuation. I shouldn’t have to read what you write three times to be able to understand what you’re saying.

“Many words” aside, I’m more than willing to say that it is Man, not God, who is confused. However, the Bible is passed down by Man. Even if God inspired its authors, that inspiration was still filtered through human minds and written by a pen held in human hands. It was still a human mind that had to make sense of what it was being told. So yeah - regardless of where the confusion lies, it still makes sense to treat Genesis as an instructive and inspirational myth rather than literal, historical fact.

not at all - cannot be as you conjecture.God is not a God of confusion except where He means to confuse.Genesis is historical and must be accepted as such though one may also and as well as the historical accept it as instructive and inspirational -twinc

 

[twinc]

I had NO CLUE that there were some Catholics who were actually Young Earth Creationists. NO CLUE!!

If the world was 6000 years old… then I guess the oil that came from dinosaurs and coal that came from plants was a process that happened overnight, right? Some people…

even the Pope had to be put right on this one,since it seems his pontifical academy of scientists it seems didnt tell him for reason or reasons unknown.Both coal and oil can and has been ptoduced almost overnight in the laboratory but not in sufficient quantity to rival that produced by God and the global flood - twinc

 

[StAnastasia]

I had NO CLUE that there were some Catholics who were actually Young Earth Creationists. NO CLUE!!

grndslm, you will find them on this Internet forum, and in a couple of little YEC groups like the Kolbe Center. I had never encountered the phenomenon in thirty years of Catholic teaching, until I came to Catholic Answers.

StAnastasia

 

[twinc]

grndslm, you will find them on this Internet forum, and in a couple of little YEC groups like the Kolbe Center. I had never encountered the phenomenon in thirty years of Catholic teaching, until I came to Catholic Answers.

StAnastasia

you will only find a few Catholic creationists here and there but the numbers are doubling and trebling by the minute.There are of course numerous creationists right across the religious spectrum and there is this unplanned and unsought unity and a united front and the Creation Research Society has over 600 members with a Master’s or Doctor’s degree in a natural science.The many other creation organisations also have people with similar qualifications on their staff - btw have you seen the film or DVD titled Expelled,no intelligence allowed to just see and grasp what is going on - twinc

 

[StAnastasia]

you will only find a few Catholic creationists here and there but the numbers are doubling and trebling by the minute.There are of course numerous creationists right across the religious spectrum and there is this unplanned and unsought unity and a united front and the Creation Research Society has over 600 members with a Master’s or Doctor’s degree in a natural science.The many other creation organisations also have people with similar qualifications on their staff - btw have you seen the film or DVD titled Expelled,no intelligence allowed to just see and grasp what is going on - twinc

Twinc, you’re being hoodwinked. The CRS is housed in a 3,000 foot building, most of which is office space and bathroom. It’s got some employees, and some people listed as members. If I were a betting woman, I’d put my money on the 100,000 professional biologists working at research universities on major research projects, rather than on “flood geology.”

Yes, I have seen Expelled. It’s a piece of utter nonsense, linking Darwin to the Nazi “Holocaust.” In fact, the film crew contacted my office to set up a shoot with some of our scientists, and we pulled the plug at the last minute when we found out Premise Media had lied to us about what the film was about. It’s essentially a whining screed against universities that engage in biological research without giving a hearing to Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). An excellent analysis of all the untruths in the film can be found at expelledexposed.com/.

StAnastasia

 

[adstrinity]

so why did Adam die at the age of 930 when he was created immortal in the image and likeness of God.With all the millions of skulls and skeletons of dead animals that had died in the survival when nature was red in tooth and claw and horribly deformed and diseased,God without batting an eyelid,so to speak,says to Adam “look at the very good world I have created”.Wisdom in Catholic bibles says God did not create death or the tendency to die.The word in Hebrew means dying you will die. - btw Adam named all the animals,so if Dinosaurs were in the queue they existed the same time as man,if they were not in the queue they came after humans - bones and dinosaur tissue have been found that should not have been found after millions and billions of years - twinc

Regarding 930 years – not literal. The better a person was the “older” they were. That’s a way of measuring them. It’s like Methuselah. He was a really great person. A priest at RCIA told me this one.

“Die the death” – classes teach this. It’s not my idea.

Yes, that’s because the story is teaching humans are above animals. It doesn’t necessarily mean that “Adam” named each animal. Just that we’re above the animals, which is important to know and believe, what with people who believe they should be given rights now.

As far as the Gen 3:22 – again, doesn’t imply that it was literal.

I had NO CLUE that there were some Catholics who were actually Young Earth Creationists. NO CLUE!!

If the world was 6000 years old… then I guess the oil that came from dinosaurs and coal that came from plants was a process that happened overnight, right? Some people…

Wait, do we KNOW for a FACT that that is how we get oil?

And, it’s not that there’s a problem with YEC Catholics, as long as they understand the lessons of Genesis.

 

[StAnastasia]

So the question is… do you worship a God who engages in adolescent pranks… or one who understands humanity’s limitations, gives us all the knowledge we can currently process, and gradually reveals more to us as we grow?..
(p.s. - “myth” is not a dirty word, but for the record, neither is “fairy tale.” As one who’s made a study of such things, the noble fairy tale certainly does not deserve to be stuck in the Disney ghetto. Just sayin’.)

Teteli, I’m afraid for the literalists it’s the “God of Adolescent Pranks” (GAP).

You’re right about the common misunderstanding of the word “myth.” In my theology seminars and lecture courses, I don’t use the term. I use “symbolic language” or “metaphor” or “story” instead, as those terms are less likely to cause offense and mislead beginners in the study off religion than is “myth.” It works for my pedagogy.

StAnastasia

 

[John_oxios]

Moscati - I adore you.

Look, guys - if the Genesis story of Creation were 100% accurate, the world would be roughly 6000 years old. There are histories - actual histories - that go back further than that.

Take India. For the longest time, India’s accounts of her own history were discounted by Western historians, in part because they did not mesh with the Bible’s Creation story. Then they started finding ruins. In particular, they found one town, complete with harbor, in the middle of the desert. It was built on the banks of a river - a river that hadn’t gone through that part of the world in more than 6000 years!

That’s not even touching things like carbon dating.

Point is, there is evidence - pretty darn solid evidence - that the world, and humanity, is a lot older than Genesis gives it credit for. Putting your fingers in your ears and going “La la la, I don’t believe you” doesn’t change that.

How about that monkey Skull they found in the 20th century they called her ‘Lucy’ who was supposedly the missing link between ape and man and they carbon dated it back far enough to fit into their evolutionary scale?
Then the whole story was found out as untrue!
Actually I thinlk the Earth as we know it is 8000 yrs old Biblically.
Whatever happened before that is covered by Genesis

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The theory is this, something happened of cosmic proportion to make the Earth Formless.
What the Bible tells us is that man (Human beings) are the only creatures of His creation that He breathed life into, and in his own image So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them ( Gen 1:27)

Anything beyond that, men try to dispel God, and the Bible by trying to prove it wrong.

Somebodies trying to make a monkey out of us!!!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Teteli, I’m afraid for the literalists it’s the “God of Adolescent Pranks” (GAP).

You’re right about the common misunderstanding of the word “myth.” In my theology seminars and lecture courses, I don’t use the term. I use “symbolic language” or “metaphor” or “story” instead, as those terms are less likely to cause offense and mislead beginners in the study off religion than is “myth.” It works for my pedagogy.

StAnastasia

William Barclay, said, “Myth is a truth revealed. The story is the husk, the kernel is the truth discovered.”

They didn’t have T.V, radio, nor comic books or any other type of media… they painted picture with words and imagery neither of which discounted the Truth.

God bless,
John

 

[Mike_Dye]

I think maybe the problem is with secular society’s understanding of myth. In the modern sense, “myth” simply means “not factual”, and therefore, not valuable or necessary. That’s the legacy of the Enlightenment at its worst.

But the ancient understanding was different–myth was true, in a very real sense, because it told us something true about the world/us/life/God. That’s why there are two different accounts of creation in Genesis. One emphasizes the truth that life comes from God and is good, and the other explains and institutes the sacramental nature of marriage and families. Secular society would say that because the ‘facts’ of each contradict each other, they’re just ‘myths’ that we can toss out or ignore. But the Catholic understanding is that these stories were given for a reason–the Church has collected and handed them down as Sacred Scripture because they show us truths about God and us that we need to know. Historical veracity seems almost beside the point.

I’m a Catholic and I’m studying the sciences. I don’t believe the earth was formed in a literal seven days (I’m with the Catechism and St. Augustine), but that doesn’t mean I believe the Genesis story is just a silly little fairy tale. There’s more to it.

Very well said, Pretty much what I teach in our RCIA session on Scripture. The Bible is inspired by God and is truly Gods word but in not to be regarded as a scientific journal or a history book, but rather a book of faith for people of faith. Even though there may be good science and good history in it.

 

[Moscati]

you will only find a few Catholic creationists here and there but the numbers are doubling and trebling by the minute.There are of course numerous creationists right across the religious spectrum and there is this unplanned and unsought unity and a united front and the Creation Research Society has over 600 members with a Master’s or Doctor’s degree in a natural science.The many other creation organisations also have people with similar qualifications on their staff - btw have you seen the film or DVD titled Expelled,no intelligence allowed to just see and grasp what is going on - twinc

My school is featured rather prominently in that “documentary”. They didn’t like us very much.

For an alternate perspective on the entire issue, I’d recommend Dr. Conor Cunninghams’s “Did Darwin Kill God?”. He shows how evolutionary theory has been co-opted by people like Dawkins, and provides a great historical overview of Christian thought on the subject.

 

[Moscati]

How about that monkey Skull they found in the 20th century they called her ‘Lucy’ who was supposedly the missing link between ape and man and they carbon dated it back far enough to fit into their evolutionary scale?
Then the whole story was found out as untrue!
Actually I thinlk the Earth as we know it is 8000 yrs old Biblically.
Whatever happened before that is covered by Genesis

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The theory is this, something happened of cosmic proportion to make the Earth Formless.
What the Bible tells us is that man (Human beings) are the only creatures of His creation that He breathed life into, and in his own image So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them ( Gen 1:27)

Anything beyond that, men try to dispel God, and the Bible by trying to prove it wrong.

Somebodies trying to make a monkey out of us!!!

God bless,
John

Just for information’s sake . . . when I first began to study biology, I was amazed at how rather like Genesis the arc of the evolutionary story, as scientists understand it, really is. It begins with an Earth that is literally formless and void, with no life–just heat. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”–the prevailing theory is that the very first organisms came from the seas.

“The Lord God made man out of the dust of the ground”–at a molecular level, we’re all just dust, rearranged. (The thought always occurs to me on Ash Wednesday–‘for dust you are, and to dust you shall return’). There’s less contradiction, even if one chooses to be more literal in their interpretation, than a lot of people realize.

 

[StAnastasia]

My school is featured rather prominently in that “documentary”. They didn’t like us very much. For an alternate perspective on the entire issue, I’d recommend Dr. Conor Cunninghams’s “Did Darwin Kill God?”. He shows how evolutionary theory has been co-opted by people like Dawkins, and provides a great historical overview of Christian thought on the subject.

Moscati, I haven’t seen the film. but I’ll try to. Richard DAwkins came to my department in October, and was gracious even to me, a theist! But I understand he is different when on a campaign.

 

[djeter]

“From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels’ resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against Christian faith. When pagan apologists for the official pantheism of the Roman empire denied that the death-and-resurrection myth of Jesus differed in any significant way from the myths of Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Attis, etc., they failed to stem the rising Christian tide. In the last two hundred years, however, as anthropologists have discovered all over the world foundational myths that similarly resemble Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection, the notion of Christianity as a myth seems at last to have taken hold — even among Christian believers.”

Professor Rene Girard explains the difference between myth and the gospels here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/

A previous post discusses who he is and introduces his theories here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/04/rene-girard/

dj

 

[twinc]

Moscati, I haven’t seen the film. but I’ll try to. Richard DAwkins came to my department in October, and was gracious even to me, a theist! But I understand he is different when on a campaign.

Prof.Richard Dawkins doesn’t really think much of me or even Catholics with a foot in both camps.Perhaps you are unaware of what he thinks of those who believe and teach that there is a God and especially those like creationists who insist on a creator.God delusionists he says and in his new book those who believe in Noah’s Ark and the flood come in for special ridicule.This is what I have read is in his new book - so now lets all rush out and buy it - twinc

 

[SugarMagnolia]

The literalism of Fundamentalist Protestantism will be a destructive influnce in Catholicism if it is left unchecked. Church leaders may have made mistakes in the past (Galileo for instance) but the Church is not really opposed to science.

Unlike Protestatism, the Catholic Church has always had an appreciation for the poetry of the Bible, so there’s no precedent for reading scripture literally. I have not even studied Catholicism extensively and I know this. There are metaphors, symbols, allegories and myths (with the word myth understood in its true definition). I can understand the avoidance of the word myth because it is also used in the sense of falsehood. But I personally have no problem with the word when properly used. A myth is much more than just a symbolic story; it’s a symbolic story that represents a deeper truth. Adam and Eve, when read literally, communicates so little: If God says don’t eat the apple, then don’t eat the apple. A three year old can comprehend that. However, when read as a creation myth it opens up a world of deeper philosophical and theological truths.

Let’s not us Catholics be blindsided by Fundamentalist Protestantism! Biblical Literalism is anti-intellectualism. It is a call to willful ignorance! What intelligent person could believe that God gave us this extraordinary ability to learn and discover the wonders of his creation but doesn’t want us to use this ability? I may have said this elsewhere but–assuming evolution is true (and the evidence is overwhelming), would God really have explained it in all it’s intricate biological detail to Moses? Would people have been able to comprehend even a word of it if he did? Of course not! It would have to be in a form everyone could comprehend. After all, he gave us the intelligence to grow in our understanding. Truth expressed via myth and metaphor can be understood on many levels. This is how myth and metaphor work. So much of Catholic tradition rests on metaphorical interpretations of scripture. Unlike Protestantism, Catholism has tradition in addition to scripture, so those Catholics who reject metaphorical and mythological interpretations of Genesis are in fact rejecting Catholicism and embracing Protestantism with its belief in scripture alone.

I don’t know why anyone would want our understanding of science to remain at the level of the late Bronze Age. Didn’t Jesus have a parable about the talents? I don’t remember where it was, but it would seem to say that we should use the gift of our intelligence, rather than burying it away. But that, of course, is reading his parable as a parable rather than as financial advice.

Also, let’s give God some credit here. The world is amazing! Why reduce it to “God said ‘poof!’ and everything just appeared as it is.” The more evolutionary biologists discover about the evolution of species, the more geologists discover about the age of our earth, the more astronomers learn about the origins of our universe, the more do we learn about God’s beautiful wonderful amazing work of creation! What Father just does all of his children’s work for them so they can sit back and not study, learn, discover, and experience the ‘eureka’ moments when they finally figure out something they’ve been puzzling over for ever so long? A good Father wants his children to inquire, to grow, and experience the wonder of discovery. The world is so much more wonderful than people think it is. By discovering it ourselves, rather than just having all the answers handed to us, spelled out for us as if we lacked the (God-given) ability to figure it our ourselves, we can truly appreciate it.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

And finally, a word of defense for Richard Dawkins (I can see people picking up stones already). As a science writer, Dawkins is excellent. He explains difficult science in clear, eloquent prose. He is a great teacher of his science.

As for his writings on religion and atheism, I think we need to realize that he spends much of his time arguing with Biblical Literalists. I believe it is the Fundamentalist Protestants with their Biblical Literalism that have made him such a vocal opponent of religion. After all, they’re the ones telling him and other scientists that they’re wrong and that everything you need to know about biology can be found in Genesis.

I truly believe that if it were not for the creationists, Dawkins wouldn’t even bother arguing against religion. His atheism would then simply be his own personal view of things, which he wouldn’t constantly be challenged to defend. In the first chapter of his latest book, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” he starts with a good analogy. Suppose you were teaching a class on Ancient Rome and someone in your class claimed that Ancient Rome never existed? Then, instead of simply doing your work of studying Ancient Rome, you’d have to divert your time and energy to defending the very existence of Ancient Rome. That’s exactly what the Biblical Literalists have done; they’ve diverted Dawkins’ time and energy to arguing religion rather than doing the science that he would surely rather be doing.

Moscati, I haven’t seen the film. but I’ll try to. Richard DAwkins came to my department in October, and was gracious even to me, a theist! But I understand he is different when on a campaign.

I can well believe this. I attended a talk he gave and he was charming. There was indeed some joking about religion, but these jokes are a form of solidarity among people who have to defend science everyday from the attacks of those who regard Genesis as the last word on biology. In the talk, Dawkins also spoke with undisguised emotion of his awe at the amazing diversity of life.

St Anastasia, I wish I could attend one of your seminars. From your posts here, I’m sure I would learn a lot. If you have any recommended readings, I’d be interested. As I am gradually making my return to Catholicism, I especially need to read the work of those who see Catholicism as compatible with scientific truth. I’ve read the late Stephen Jay Gould and a little of E. O. Wilson, so I know that returning to the faith doesn’t mean I have to start rejecting scientific facts and start believing in talking reptiles.

 

[grndslm]

That was beautiful, SugarMagnolia! Nice.

grndslm;6250003:

I had NO CLUE that there were some Catholics who were actually Young Earth Creationists. NO CLUE!!

If the world was 6000 years old… then I guess the oil that came from dinosaurs and coal that came from plants was a process that happened overnight, right? Some people…

Wait, do we KNOW for a FACT that that is how we get oil?

And, it’s not that there’s a problem with YEC Catholics, as long as they understand the lessons of Genesis.

There is no such thing as FACTS when it comes to a topic that you can not verifiably reproduce. Creation, evolution, and petroleum generation are all examples of things that we cannot verifiably reproduce on a scale reasonable to understanding our universe.

However, I actually got the theory of petroleum coming from dinosaurs and coal coming from plants from a Young Earth Creationist, named Jeff Hovind. His theory was that the flood actually created all the pressure necessary to create the oil and coal. He’s pretty kooky, tho.

From a bit of research, it seems that coal is formed by plants… and oil is formed by micro-organisms. Here’s some reading, if anybody cares…

• energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html
• straightdope.com/columns/read/2652/did-oil-really-come-from-dinosaurs
• green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080064.html
• suite101.com/article.cfm/paleontology/63838/2
• asianresearch.org/articles/1987.html
• answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6021

But since we can’t reproduce a Great Flood… we actually can’t really say that Hovind isn’t correct. His theory holds just as much water (no pun intended) as the accepted theory of BIOLOGICAL LIFEFORMS NEEDING MILLIONS OF YEARS UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE TO FORM INTO COAL AND OIL.

 

[Moscati]

Moscati, I haven’t seen the film. but I’ll try to. Richard DAwkins came to my department in October, and was gracious even to me, a theist! But I understand he is different when on a campaign.

It was broadcast as a special on the BBC.

Dawkins wasn’t actually featured in Cunnigham’s film (I think he was asked to appear but turned down the offer). Dr. Dan Dennet from Tufts University was, and I understand their philosophical views to be very similar. Dawkins is just the poster child for that stream of thought. I’m glad to hear he was gracious to you! I would hope that graciousness rubbed off on his readers, who in my experience, tend to be less charitable.

 

[twinc]

The literalism of Fundamentalist Protestantism will be a destructive influnce in Catholicism if it is left unchecked. Church leaders may have made mistakes in the past (Galileo for instance) but the Church is not really opposed to science.

Unlike Protestatism, the Catholic Church has always had an appreciation for the poetry of the Bible, so there’s no precedent for reading scripture literally. I have not even studied Catholicism extensively and I know this. There are metaphors, symbols, allegories and myths (with the word myth understood in its true definition). I can understand the avoidance of the word myth because it is also used in the sense of falsehood. But I personally have no problem with the word when properly used. A myth is much more than just a symbolic story; it’s a symbolic story that represents a deeper truth. Adam and Eve, when read literally, communicates so little: If God says don’t eat the apple, then don’t eat the apple. A three year old can comprehend that. However, when read as a creation myth it opens up a world of deeper philosophical and theological truths.

Let’s not us Catholics be blindsided by Fundamentalist Protestantism! Biblical Literalism is anti-intellectualism. It is a call to willful ignorance! What intelligent person could believe that God gave us this extraordinary ability to learn and discover the wonders of his creation but doesn’t want us to use this ability? I may have said this elsewhere but–assuming evolution is true (and the evidence is overwhelming), would God really have explained it in all it’s intricate biological detail to Moses? Would people have been able to comprehend even a word of it if he did? Of course not! It would have to be in a form everyone could comprehend. After all, he gave us the intelligence to grow in our understanding. Truth expressed via myth and metaphor can be understood on many levels. This is how myth and metaphor work. So much of Catholic tradition rests on metaphorical interpretations of scripture. Unlike Protestantism, Catholism has tradition in addition to scripture, so those Catholics who reject metaphorical and mythological interpretations of Genesis are in fact rejecting Catholicism and embracing Protestantism with its belief in scripture alone.

I don’t know why anyone would want our understanding of science to remain at the level of the late Bronze Age. Didn’t Jesus have a parable about the talents? I don’t remember where it was, but it would seem to say that we should use the gift of our intelligence, rather than burying it away. But that, of course, is reading his parable as a parable rather than as financial advice.

Also, let’s give God some credit here. The world is amazing! Why reduce it to “God said ‘poof!’ and everything just appeared as it is.” The more evolutionary biologists discover about the evolution of species, the more geologists discover about the age of our earth, the more astronomers learn about the origins of our universe, the more do we learn about God’s beautiful wonderful amazing work of creation! What Father just does all of his children’s work for them so they can sit back and not study, learn, discover, and experience the ‘eureka’ moments when they finally figure out something they’ve been puzzling over for ever so long? A good Father wants his children to inquire, to grow, and experience the wonder of discovery. The world is so much more wonderful than people think it is. By discovering it ourselves, rather than just having all the answers handed to us, spelled out for us as if we lacked the (God-given) ability to figure it our ourselves, we can truly appreciate it.

who told you the Church made a mistake in the past regarding Galileo and how comes it that you have accepted this.Be assured though that the Church will be making a mistake if she embraces the pseudo/phony science posing as true/real science “wolves in sheep clothing” etc - one wonders if as Scriptures say “friendship with the world[in these sort of cases]does indeed lead to enmity with God” - btw not using one’s talents is bad enough but misusing them is far far worse - twinc