I came to the creation/evolution hybrid theory a long time ago. Those who are going to take the literal creation story would then subscribe to the flat earth with the sun going around it and, well you know.Ah will we ever come to a conclusion on this topic.
The languaje used by Genesis 1 to 11 was very similar to the one used in all creation poems of the time and region. And Genesis first part was read as a poem in the First Temple.
This site does not speak for the Catholic Church, and its inappropriate to assert opinions or positions presented on it as a fact of Catholic teaching. Perhaps its time to bring the *Imprimatur *and *Nihil Obstat * to websites. There are ample official Catholic resources on the web for those not afraid of what theyâll find about evolution. At best, the deparate clinging to Genesis as âhistoryâ is in conflict with the catechismal teachings and scholastic science of Catholic teaching institutions for over two generations.
âRegardless of what is actually right?â No, I disagree. If the ideas in question are pagan, that is to say: they replace the ineffable mystery of God with a nature god, then it is correct to say âthose ideas are pagan.â Likewise, if an idea is superstisious, that is to say places too much trust in an untrustworthy method of predicting or controling things, then it is wise to see it as such and call it what it is â superstition.
Go to the bottom of the page I linked to, both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are there.
Sorry, I didnât go to the bottom of the page to see those. As to your âreal historyâ comment", the entry you reference says:
Perhaps a non-issue for you, but creationists have succeeded where the pro-abortionists couldnât; theyâve motivated previously passive anti-religious and athiests into activism if not downright militism. Now even the far more benign idea of âintelligent designâ has been co-opted by the creationists, destroying the ideologic buffer between the conflicted ideas that allowed discussion.
God bless,
Itâs become fashionable to bash Christianity largely because the Catholic Church and other major denominations have passively stood aside while the American evangelical movement redefined it with showmanship, faith healers, tongues-speakers, âthe Raptureâ, and resurgent creationism, thus making it an irresistable target.
Please do. Iâd like it to be shown how such issues can be reconciled with our faith and dogmas.
Actually I think itâs both wise and depressing that the Church uses ambigious language to deal with matters that they know are important but refuse to clear up definately because there is still much to sort through and carefully consider. The point is the naturalistic driven philosophy of macro-evolution contains things that undermine our faith, things that directly conflict with and confound us if we are to believe it is the truth and try to compromise it with our faith. The issue is that the scientists who promote evolution have done a successful job peddling to the majority of people to believe their interpretation of the universeâs origin. Such evolutionary ideas now permeate popular culture despite any conclusive evidence, itâs simply all conjecture. As more secular scientists and the world began to accept evolutionary ideals, itâs popularity scared the Church to concede by saying it was alright to believe in evolution and that the Church would sit back and allow the scientific community to further study the inconclusive but compelling âevidence.â The confusion about the issue and the lack of faith on the part of the Church has led to this debacle. But thanks to the Holy Spirit the Church has not fully lost the truth and erred. Its ambigious and neutral stance on the matter was made clear by John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is wrong with reading passages at face value when they are meant to be read at face value? Genesis, Exodus etc. are written as historical literature. Like the Gospels for instance⌠Or should we not take things like the Crucifixion account at face value? The examples you give are example of hyperliteralism. Like taking a poetic, hyperbole, or figures of speech such as âItâs raining cats and dogsâ to mean that animals are actually falling from the sky. Which is different from phrases intended as literal details. Itâs about the semantics, grammar and language usage as well as the context of the passage and one can also include consistency with other articles of literal faith.
The passage is out of context with the usage of days as described in Genesis. Peter is using a figure of speech to describe the relevance of time to God. In the Genesis account the time is directly related to man and the physical universeâs point of view. See here:
Thatâs a false dichotomy. Genesis and Exodus are historical literature, but not everything within them is historical.
Sure, and that hyperliteralism produces a pagan conception of God when itâs applied to the first chapters of Genesis.
As a rule: I never blame the bible for anything. I maintain that the fault is that of the expositor not the word as written(see my sig).
Obviously weâve had a misunderstanding here. Let me try to explain what I was saying. Iâm assuming that all of us, as Christians (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) know about the Logos. So, if we were to exchange that truth for a face-value reading of a big man in the sky âtalkingâ we would have fallen so far we had might as well be âpagan.â The truth is that Jesus is the word, co-eternal⌠etc etc⌠the face-value reading of Genesis is so impoverished that is mere paganism by comparison.
Iâm not sure what you mean. I suspect that youâre presenting another false dichotomy but Iâm unable to figure out what you mean exactly. To answer your questions, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ realy and truely worked miracles (such as healing the blind) instituted the sacrement of Baptism (using water), that God created all things and maintains , that God meant what he said when he created matter (it is good) and that I am not a gnostic heretic. Futher I maintain that there is no contradiction in believing those and other truths taught by the Church which has the Roman Pontiff as itâs visible head.
I was interested in reading this story about Brother Consolmagno. However, CWNews has removed the page. I have no idea why anyone would refer to creationism as kind of paganism. It just seems like a totally inaacurate and unfair characterization. In any case, it looks like a debate has ensued here regarding creationism vs. evolution.
I was speaking to the ineffability of God, my point stands *because *Peter is unable to say what God is and has to settle for what God is like.
Thatâs a false dichotomy. Again, I believe that Exodus is historical literature but that some events are not meant to be taken literaly, such as God going up and down in Exodus 3:8 and again in Exodus 19:20.
From that second link:
Bible literalists know that their well intentioned bible studies to not yield the unity that our Lord promised. They canât acknowledge Godâs ineffability or theyâll be âutterly hopelessâ having âabsolutely no hope of understanding the Scriptures.â On the other hand, they canât abandon what faith they do have. So they commit to biblical literalism no matter the cost. (Not that I blame them, their conception of God is far far better than no God at all.)
Iâm aware of that, the issue is on what criteria do you separate what is intentionally allegorical and intentionally presented as historical detail on the part of the writer. It can be done. An obvious example is the Gospelswhen telling us about Christâs life and mission on Earth, and also when we can clearly see Christ telling us parables that are no factual but a teaching aid.
Youâll have to demonstrate precisely what passages do and show how it makes sense even with accord to the rest of the Bible. For example you say the idea of God âtalkingâ is pagan, yet God talks plenty of times in Exodus and throughout the rest of the Bible⌠He talks to command the creation into existence and talks to command the Israelites to follow His laws and observances and military orders. This months Gospel accounts that we hear in Church tell us the story of Christâs baptism by John where God says âThis is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.â And all who were there heard it! So does this mean the Gospel is presenting a pagan God? Of course itâs nonsense to think so and the idea that simply because God can talk is pagan is mislead and inconsistent. And for arguments sake, just because something may be shared amongst pagans and us doesnât necessarily immediatedly make that something to be disdained. After all, both pagans and Christians âprayâ, but that doesnât automatically mean prayer is a specifically pagan ritual that should be avoided. Both Pagans and Christians make icons and statues, but we donât treat them the same way, context is important. And Creationists donât read things hyperliterally in the first place and donât apply that sort of approach to Genesis. Itâs a false impression only found in mocking Hollywood movies and other urban legends about fundamentalists. I used to believe the same things too. (But of course that is not to say some people donât do so either intentionally or mistakenly). If the opening chapters of Genesis can be demonstrated to convey grammatical structure that demands a literal interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Bible, then we ought to read it as such just as the Gospels can be clearly demonstrated to be biographical fact and demand a literal interpretation.
Except that Genesis doesnât make any mention of a big man in the sky or his shape or any physical features, and your idea that âtalkingâ is strictly a pagan quality is mislead and inconsistent. So youâll have to demonstrate clearly what passages of Genesis are impoverished by a face-value reading so as to render them incompatible with our faith. Otherwise I still cannot see how you can come to such conclusions. AiG has commented on Brother Guyâs accusations here:
What the writer says is indeed true though. If there is a point on which we cannot know for certain what is being said or expressed, then arguing about it is useless because weâll never get anywhere and each cling to our own interpretations; so itâs a reality in terms of debate, not that the religion in itâs entirety becomes lost of meaningless or hopeless. Neither is the author saying this is the case here on this topic, he says this to discourage anyone brushing off the issue as unknowable, because then that itself is what makes the situation hopeless. But this isnât so, there is one truth, and even you know that the Catholic Church is the one with divine authority with the job to delivering to us correct, inerrant and infalliably defined dogmas.
Well sure it is a divisible topic, but so what? Many of our own morals and teachings divide members of our own community. Truth is divisive, even Christ says He comes to bring a sword that will divide people. The goal is unity, but not at the cost of truth and morality. Fundamentalists do indeed acknnowledge Godâs ineffability, but the argument is that it doesnât pertain here to the creation account. We do know clear things about God, that He is good, that He is the creator, that He lead the Israelites out of Egypt, that He is just, that He loves us and many other things that weâve literally come to learn. But this is different from clearly ineffible things like the co existence of the Trinity, or Godâs self-existent and everlasting nature, or omnipotence, or as a being that is outside the scope of time. This argument is that the account of creation doesnât fall under the category of ineffible in terms of the events and actions it describes. To know that such and such was created within the span of this day is perfectly understandable. However to wonder how God creates something from nothing through His divine word is ineffible because we cannot comprehend it. Creationists will readily admit that.