Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation story isn't science but reveals God's love, pope says
US Catholic ^ | February 6, 2013 | Carol Glatz

Posted on 02/07/2013 6:26:00 AM PST by Alex Murphy

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The biblical account of creation isn't a textbook for science, Pope Benedict XVI said.

Instead, the first chapter of Genesis reveals the fundamental truth about reality: that the world is not the result of chaos, but is born of and continually supported by God's love, the pope said Feb. 6 at his weekly general audience.

In a series of Year of Faith audience talks about the creed, Pope Benedict touched on the description of God as "creator of heaven and earth."

In an age of science and advanced technology, how are Catholics supposed to understand the Old Testament account of creation that says God created the heavens and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh? the pope asked.

"The Bible isn't meant to be a manual of natural science," the pope told the estimated 5,000 visitors and pilgrims gathered for his audience. "Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things," he said.

The creation account in Genesis reveals the fundamental truth that "the world is not a collection of opposing forces, but has its origin and steadiness in the Word, in the eternal reason of God, who continues to sustain the universe," the pope said.

The creation story also points to the fact, he said, that God has a plan for the world and for humanity, a plan that gives people "the courage to face the adventure of life with trust and hope."

It shows that everything God creates is "beautiful and good, filled with wisdom and love; God's creative action brings order, leads to harmony and gives beauty," Pope Benedict said.

God created man and woman in his image and breathed life into the human form he molded out of clay from the earth, according to Genesis, the pope said. The biblical affirmation means that humanity is not self-made or god-like, but is united by the same origin despite cultural, historical and social differences.

It also means, he said, that "we all carry in us the vital breath of God, and every human life, the Bible tells us, is under the specific protection of God."

"This is the most profound reason behind the inviolability of human dignity against every temptation to measure a person's worth using criteria of utility and power," he said.

The description of the Garden of Eden means that God gave humanity, "not a wild forest, but a place that protects, nourishes and sustains," he said.

"Man must not see the world as his own property to pillage and exploit, but as a gift from God" to safeguard and develop with respect "following the rhythms and logic" of God's plan.

But while God created "a universe of goodness, harmony and beauty," human beings freely chose to believe in lies over the truth and, in that way, that brought evil into the world, the pope said.

The symbol of the serpent reflects the "constant temptation to abandon (man's) mysterious alliance with God," he said.

The serpent doesn't reject God but instigates suspicion by suggesting that following God's word is somehow "a chain that binds, that deprives one of freedom and the most beautiful and precious things in life," the pope said.

But breaking one's relationship with God through sin destroys every human relationship, and only God, who is always reaching out with his loving hand, can restore things the right way.

"Through the saving obedience of Christ, the new Adam, God himself has justified us and enabled us to live in freedom as his beloved sons and daughters."

At the end of the audience talk, the pope greeted members of the Conventual Franciscans who recently held their 200th general chapter in Assisi. The pope urged them to show the men and women of today "the beauty of following the Gospel in simplicity and fraternity."


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Theology
KEYWORDS: creation; origins; pope; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last
In an age of science and advanced technology, how are Catholics supposed to understand the Old Testament account of creation that says God created the heavens and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh? the pope asked. "The Bible isn't meant to be a manual of natural science," the pope told the estimated 5,000 visitors and pilgrims gathered for his audience. "Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things," he said.
1 posted on 02/07/2013 6:26:04 AM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I don’t think that is really a intellectually consistent position. If Genesis is meant as a fairy tale, then that isn’t showing man love; it’s simply lying to us, which makes the Popes’ assertion that God did so self-contradictory and unbelievable.


2 posted on 02/07/2013 6:39:28 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Alex, I’m no papal cheerleader but his statement approximates the “framework” view of the creation account which is considered acceptable in most Reformed circles. At least in this statement he doesn’t advocate heretical views such as macroevolution


3 posted on 02/07/2013 6:46:32 AM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
I don’t think that is really a intellectually consistent position. If Genesis is meant as a fairy tale, then that isn’t showing man love; it’s simply lying to us, which makes the Popes’ assertion that God did so self-contradictory and unbelievable.

I can't argue with that.

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

John 5:46-47
See related threads:
Catholicism and evolution: Are they contradictory?
Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution
God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope
Pope praises science, but insists God created world
The Problem of Polygenism in Accepting the Theory of Evolution [Catholic Msgr. Charles Pope]
Radio Replies Second Volume - Creation and Evolution
A meeting of religion and science: Sister Frances Zajac sees no conflict in her callings
Atheist says that Church accepts darwinism [Catholic Caucus]
Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith
Creationists, Intelligent Design Advocates Blast Vatican for Not Inviting Them to Evo Conference
Catholics on Evolution (Ecumenical)
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
Catholic universities plan scientific examination of evolutionary theory
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says [Open]
How a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution
Austrian cardinal says Darwinism should be studied as science
The Sense that it is True that Six-Day Creationism is Paganism
Creationist Defends Bible-Based Science Against Vatican Astronomer's Criticism
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

4 posted on 02/07/2013 6:47:58 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I think you mistaken in understanding the Pope’s teaching. He isn’t calling Genesis a fairy tale, but the inspired word of God written in a way to communicate the truth about creation and life.

Secondly, what is your belief of Genesis?


5 posted on 02/07/2013 6:48:05 AM PST by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

No, the account of creation isn’t science - no more than any other eyewitness testimony is.

But then again, if science could answer all questions, they wouldn’t need ethics committees.


6 posted on 02/07/2013 6:52:23 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Two points:

1. Since when is science the final arbiter of all truth? It never has been. Science is the observation and application of natural laws... it doesn’t deal with philosophical and metaphysical truth.

2. The creation story in Genesis isn’t told as a science manual. It is a true story of God’s love and our beginnings told from the perspective of a Father to His children. When it was originally told, we were told in such a way that man could understand. Just as you simplify the complex for your young children, so God did for us. This doesn’t make it false. Rather, it is full of meaning and truth... just not from a scientific, literal reading.

For example, consider what was done on each of the six days. In the beginning, the Earth was without form and void. On the first three days, God made the form (light from dark; sea from sky; dry land). During the next three days He filled these forms in order (sun and moon; fish and birds; plants and animals). This isn’t science... it is more than that.


7 posted on 02/07/2013 7:31:58 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Benedict says God has a plan for mankind but the scientists he puts so much trust into to explain natural science say there is no plan, only random events that will eventually end in all life on earth being destroyed completely, utterly.

Benedict says all human life is under the protection of God. A fair question would be:
When did this protection start? With “Lucy” and what Nat. Geo. and scientists call the first humans?

“Instead it (the Bible) is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things,” he said.”

But the very science Benedict relies on to explain nature and “all things” is in the spiritual darkness of atheism and yet claims truth for its self, all else being myth and credulity.

It’s a poor shepherd that leads thirsty sheep away from the water.


8 posted on 02/07/2013 7:33:27 AM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

He didn’t say it was a “fairy tale”. If that’s what you heard you weren’t listening.


9 posted on 02/07/2013 7:36:16 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

The Bible has only been in printed form for about 700 years or so, before then the masses couldn’t even read for the most part...how could the creation of the Earth be explained in such a way other than in allegorical form?

People get caught up in the minutiae, rather than focusing on the big picture.


10 posted on 02/07/2013 7:36:39 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Strawman, feel the wrath of the fundamentalist Freepers.


11 posted on 02/07/2013 7:38:00 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
It's the same issue which arose when Copernicus challenged the commonly-held belief that the earth was the center of the universe and did not move, while the sun, planets, and stars revolved around the earth. When Copernicus' book was published, Luther and Calvin rejected his theory as contrary to the Scriptures. The Catholic Church eventually condemned his book but not until about 70 years later. Nowadays no one has any trouble accepting that the earth is a planet revolving around the sun and rotating on its axis.

Galileo said, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

12 posted on 02/07/2013 7:46:49 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
It's the same issue which arose when Copernicus challenged the commonly-held belief that the earth was the center of the universe and did not move, while the sun, planets, and stars revolved around the earth. When Copernicus' book was published, Luther and Calvin rejected his theory as contrary to the Scriptures.

Yeah, what did that dumb Polack know anyway? ;)

13 posted on 02/07/2013 7:49:22 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
If for no other reason than my blood pressure, I think I'm just going to avoid this thread. I'm not in the mood to deal with hypocrisy right now.

Thanks for the expose, though.

14 posted on 02/07/2013 7:55:20 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Too late, you’re here


15 posted on 02/07/2013 7:57:20 AM PST by stuartcr ("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

The Earth-centric model fit the available data better than the heliocentric model. So if at the time you purely looked at the data you would have to have rejected Copernicus.

Also Copernicus clung to the superstitious idea that orbits were perfect circles.


16 posted on 02/07/2013 8:04:55 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Genesis is more awesome then man can imagine. Science textbook and more.

Praise the Lord


17 posted on 02/07/2013 8:11:35 AM PST by winodog (Thank you Jesus for the calm in my life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

“He isn’t calling Genesis a fairy tale, but the inspired word of God written in a way to communicate the truth about creation and life.”

He didn’t call it a fairy tale in so many words, but his implication amounts to the same thing. If he doesn’t believe that God actually formed Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground and breathed life into them, then he thinks it’s a fairy tale. A fairy tale may be a method to communicate moral lessons and such, but it is not a method to communicate truth in any strict sense of the word.

“Secondly, what is your belief of Genesis?”

I believe it is the Word of God, and, since God doesn’t lie, it is a truthful account and not a fairy tale.


18 posted on 02/07/2013 8:19:03 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“1. Since when is science the final arbiter of all truth? It never has been. Science is the observation and application of natural laws... it doesn’t deal with philosophical and metaphysical truth.”

Science isn’t the final arbiter of all truth. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything though. The Pope seems to want to make Genesis compatible with science, by explaining that Genesis isn’t a truthful account. So, if anyone is holding science out as a higher standard of truth, I’d say it was the Pope.

“2. The creation story in Genesis isn’t told as a science manual. It is a true story of God’s love and our beginnings told from the perspective of a Father to His children. When it was originally told, we were told in such a way that man could understand. Just as you simplify the complex for your young children, so God did for us. This doesn’t make it false. Rather, it is full of meaning and truth... just not from a scientific, literal reading.”

Yes, it does make it false, strictly speaking. When I tell a child that the Tooth Fairy will come and put money under their pillow for their teeth, I am lying to them. I may think that I am doing it out of love, or some other kindly motivation, but I am still not telling them the truth. So, the assertion that you, and the Pope are making is essentially calling God a teller of “tall tales”, to put it mildly.


19 posted on 02/07/2013 8:28:13 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA

One doesn’t need to come flat out and say something to make the assertion. If you didn’t hear it, then you weren’t listening critically.


20 posted on 02/07/2013 8:31:58 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“.how could the creation of the Earth be explained in such a way other than in allegorical form?”

Well, how about a simplified narrative that is at the same time not factually untrue? We do that all the time when explaining things to our children, so it can’t be beyond the capacity of God to do the same.


21 posted on 02/07/2013 8:36:03 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
"Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things," he said.

You have a high opinion of faerie tales.

22 posted on 02/07/2013 8:37:27 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

What is “untrue”?


23 posted on 02/07/2013 8:37:56 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I think God through the writer of Genesis did an amazing job of explaining the universe using the vocabulary of a bronze age shepherd.


24 posted on 02/07/2013 8:47:05 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Me? That’s not my quote.


25 posted on 02/07/2013 8:48:26 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, how about a simplified narrative that is at the same time not factually untrue?

I've asked the same question, but I came to a different answer-it's not true or divinely inspired, just a story written by a very superstitious person without any knowledge of scientific fact or reasoning.

26 posted on 02/07/2013 8:49:55 AM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Well, I don’t think anything in Genesis is factually untrue, but apparently the Pope does, so you should probably ask him.


27 posted on 02/07/2013 8:50:07 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

God reveals Himself through His Word and through Nature. And He never contradicts Himself.

So if the Word and the Nature seem to contradict each other than either you have misunderstood Nature or you have misinterpreted the Word.

And this tension will continue until He returns.


28 posted on 02/07/2013 8:51:54 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

It’s the quote of a man who doesn’t consider Genesis a faerie tale.


29 posted on 02/07/2013 8:54:34 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Brett66

“just a story written by a very superstitious person without any knowledge of scientific fact or reasoning.”

Wait, when did this thread become about Al Gore and “An Inconvient Truth”?


30 posted on 02/07/2013 8:57:25 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Wait, when did this thread become about Al Gore and “An Inconvient Truth”?

Post of the Day!

31 posted on 02/07/2013 8:59:01 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
the very science Benedict relies on to explain nature and “all things”

This is very far from the pope's statement and Catholic teaching.

Some seem to try to force a false choice: science or religion. Even with good intentions this has bad results.

32 posted on 02/07/2013 8:59:01 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

LOL!


33 posted on 02/07/2013 9:08:44 AM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I don’t think he would describe it in those terms, but that is what he is in fact describing by his statements. Which is why I said originally that I don’t think his position is intellectually consistent.


34 posted on 02/07/2013 9:11:31 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Too late, you’re here

Yeah, but I'm not a chrstian, so it's all right.

Now if only the Pope would admit that the "virgin birth" isn't scientific either. Unfortunately he is a selective fundamentalist, and therefore a hypocrite.

35 posted on 02/07/2013 9:12:11 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

OK


36 posted on 02/07/2013 9:13:53 AM PST by stuartcr ("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
OK

That's right, baby! Now go back to banging those "awful" Baptists over the head with Thomas Jefferson and leave me alone.

37 posted on 02/07/2013 9:17:04 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Creation is the acts of GOD!!!! Science is flesh man’s lame attempt to explain the acts of GOD!!!!!


38 posted on 02/07/2013 9:17:28 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

???


39 posted on 02/07/2013 9:21:12 AM PST by stuartcr ("I have habits that are older than the people telling me they're bad for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

So the Gospels are the same I suppose.

No need for Jesus to be the Christ, or rise from the dead. Anti science and all that.


40 posted on 02/07/2013 9:32:31 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Speaking of science...I recall Martin Luther Kings’ comments on the ‘bodily resurrection of Christ’ and the ‘virgin birth’ as both being “pre-scientific”...and “mythological stories!”
Ooops, am I now a racist for saying that?


41 posted on 02/07/2013 9:33:19 AM PST by bdegrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Pope Benedict didn’t call it a fairy tale, you did.

What he said was: “The biblical account of creation isn’t a textbook for science.”

Genesis, as I stated previously, is the inspired Word of God. It is eternally true.

Like any other book in the Bible, there are parts to be read literally, and parts that are read allegorically. In both cases they are true and inerrant.

Consider John 6:56:

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Is that passage to be taken literally or figuratively?

Instead of looking for a fight whenever the Pope speaks, maybe you should read his statements with an open mind.

At a minimum, he is a school trained Bible scholar and theologian.


42 posted on 02/07/2013 10:00:44 AM PST by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Science isn’t the final arbiter of all truth. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything though. The Pope seems to want to make Genesis compatible with science, by explaining that Genesis isn’t a truthful account.

You are the one saying it! The Pope simply said the creation account isn't science. You are the one that twisted his words to mean "fairy tale" and "untruth". Very clearly, you have raised science above religion and given it the veto over truth. By your own words: if it doesn't comport with science then it must be fairy tale.

The rest of us are just trying to tell you what you are espousing. The Pope is reaching toward the higher truths.

Yes, it does make it false, strictly speaking. When I tell a child that the Tooth Fairy will come and put money under their pillow for their teeth, I am lying to them.

We explain more to our children than just tooth fairies and Easter bunnies. Ever heard of the birds and the bees? When our child is young, we answer questions in terms they can understand. We aren't lying, they just aren't ready to understand the full processes of intercourse, ovulation, implantation and cell division. We put these things in other terms until they are mature enough to understand it fully.

What do you answer a toddler when they ask where babies come from? Are you a liar for not getting deeply into the science of it? Rather, most people would answer that babies come from the love of mommy and daddy (or some such). That is technically true, but woefully incomplete from a scientific viewpoint.

43 posted on 02/07/2013 10:13:25 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
I believe it is the Word of God, and, since God doesn’t lie, it is a truthful account and not a fairy tale.

So from the Bible, were fruit trees created before or after God created man?

44 posted on 02/07/2013 10:33:54 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

“Pope Benedict didn’t call it a fairy tale, you did.”

No, I didn’t call it a fairy tale, I said he is essentially saying it is a fairy tale, because that is the implication of his words.

“What he said was: “The biblical account of creation isn’t a textbook for science.””

Well, that is only one sentence of his, it is not the totality of his statement.

“Is that passage to be taken literally or figuratively?”

Figuratively, obviously. You see, I agree that there are allegories in the Bible, and they are quite obviously allegories. There is not much room for misinterpretation, because the allegories are not written in a way that they could be taken literally by a reasonable person, and they are clearly demarcated from the historical, literal parts of the text. That isn’t the case with Genesis, though, so it doesn’t fit the pattern of a Biblical allegory. To claim that is what it is, despite the fact that it presents itself as a factual account, is to reduce it to a fairy tale.


45 posted on 02/07/2013 10:41:27 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
“Is that passage to be taken literally or figuratively?”

I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, as in, "This is My Body"

46 posted on 02/07/2013 10:46:33 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“You are the one saying it! The Pope simply said the creation account isn’t science.”

That’s not all that he said, it’s just one sentence.

“You are the one that twisted his words to mean “fairy tale” and “untruth”. Very clearly, you have raised science above religion and given it the veto over truth. By your own words: if it doesn’t comport with science then it must be fairy tale.”

No, I haven’t raised science above religion, or anything like that, nor have I said if it doesn’t comport with science it must be a fairy tale. In fact, if you read my posts on this very thread, I have made statements that directly contradict that.

“The rest of us are just trying to tell you what you are espousing.”

Well, I’m sorry, but you must have misunderstood what I’m espousing, because what you’re telling me is not what I believe or have espoused.

“What do you answer a toddler when they ask where babies come from?”

A tall tale.

“Are you a liar for not getting deeply into the science of it?”

No, not for omitting the science, but for omitting the truth, yes you are lying.

“Rather, most people would answer that babies come from the love of mommy and daddy (or some such). That is technically true, but woefully incomplete from a scientific viewpoint.”

Sure, but your example doesn’t fit well with the example of Genesis. Genesis doesn’t simply leave out some facts or complicated explanations, it gives quite a detailed account as if it were factually accurate. So, it can’t be a case of just “glossing over” some things that people couldn’t understand. If that is true, then it must also be true that alternative explanations which are factually untrue were substituted, hence, it would have to be a fairy tale. There’s no middle ground for you to plant your excuses on.


47 posted on 02/07/2013 10:51:21 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Yes, it certainly does, since “is” does have multiple meanings. For example, if I say “Obama is a jackass”, I probably do not mean that Obama is a barnyard animal.


48 posted on 02/07/2013 10:53:49 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
From the Catechism of the Catholic church:

“159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

The humble evolutionist that proclaims a bag of bones is half human, half ape and that both arose randomly from a slimy pool is in no conflict with “faith” since he, in the words of the catechism, “...is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself,....”

Of course.

“This is very far from the pope's statement and Catholic teaching.”

So you say but it appears to me you understand neither. Maybe you can explain further.

49 posted on 02/07/2013 10:54:20 AM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I think your statement: “If Genesis is meant as a fairy tale, then that isn’t showing man love...” is you clearly stating that is Pope’s position.

The totality of his statements, if you read them, which I have, are reported here: http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/creation-story-isnt-science-reveals-gods-love-pope-says-26864.

For your edification, this text may be more meaningful to you:

In an age of science and advanced technology, how are Catholics supposed to understand the Old Testament account of creation that says God created the heavens and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh? the pope asked.

“The Bible isn’t meant to be a manual of natural science,” the pope told the estimated 5,000 visitors and pilgrims gathered for his audience. “Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things,” he said.

The creation account in Genesis reveals the fundamental truth that “the world is not a collection of opposing forces, but has its origin and steadiness in the Word, in the eternal reason of God, who continues to sustain the universe,” the pope said.

Regarding John6:56, your interpretation is incorrect, as verse 61 contiues:

“[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.”

Jesus didn’t say, “Wait guys, what I meant was....” No!! He said, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

You may wish to reconsider you methods and practices around Biblical interpretation, as well as your interpretation of secular articles discussing religious topics.


50 posted on 02/07/2013 10:59:54 AM PST by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson