You wrote:
“This is for all you Catholic FReepers who accuse me of “bearing false witness” and “making up” the rampant anti-Biblicism of some Catholics on this forum.”
ZC, I think you’re conflating things here. First of all, what is anti-Biblicism EXACTLY? Is anyone here saying the Bible is untrue or are they disagreeing with your interpretation? Second, are you honestly saying that one post makes a thing “rampant”? Seriously now, you’ve been complaining about this for months and months and months and all you have to show for it is ONE POST?
” I cannot believe that you don’t see posts like this, yet some of you choose to attack me for pointing them out!”
I’m not attacking you for pointing it out, I just think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill by assuming one post represents all thoughts on the subject on the part of Catholics. Also, I never would have seen the post if you had not pointed it out because I don’t think I ever even looked in that thread before your pinging me to it.
“Some of you think you can turn back the clock on dogma and keep Biblical liberalism.”
Nope. I don’t think turning back the clock is possible and I don’t try to do it. I just believe what I believe. I take Genesis much more literally than most people. I and a friend are even trying to arrange a series of talks from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at our parish. http://www.kolbecenter.org/
“You are very very wrong and you are going to learn the hard way.”
Nope. I am very, very right and when it comes to this sort of thing I almost always learn things the easy way.
Now, having said that, let’s look at what bdeaner wrote:
“Because it [Genesis] is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don’t read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.”
I think I understand what bdeaner is saying. I would be willing to bet that he believes that Genesis as a creation story is not to be taken literally, but that it affirms, and that he believes, it shows God created the universe, the earth, man and so on. bdeaner is absolutely right when he says that the Church allows a man to hold to Genesis in the most literal sense. He would also be right if he said the Church allows a man to hold to a less than literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. That’s where things are right now. That’s where they will stay for sometime to come. How long is anyone’s guess.
You want everything to be neat and tidy and plainly black and white and have everyone agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of scripture. That ain’t gonna happen. I take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realize God can create in anyway He chooses. bdeaner doesn’t take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realizes God can create anyway He chooses. So, while you’re losing sleep over this, and worrying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of it, I, in my bed, and bdeaner in his, will be sleeping just fine.
Second, bdeaner derives his opinion of Genesis from nineteenth century German Biblical criticism and comparative mythology. And you have no objections to this as a source of Biblical interpretation?
And third, my point is the utter hypocrisy of insisting that John 6 be interpreted literally while insisting just as vehemently that Genesis 1-11 need not be interpreted literally. While I hold no brief for Raymond Brown, I give him this much: unlike most Catholic critics of Genesis, he was consistent.
And as to "one post," anytime there's a thread dealing with the Vatican or the Catholic Church and its position (or non-position) on Genesis the thread fills up with Catholic evolutionists and higher critics.
Not so long ago an atheist science professor stirred folks up by impaling a consecrated host with a nail. The same people who laugh at people who accept Genesis at face value suddenly became simple illiterate peasants in their eucharistic beliefs and nearly had a conniption. I say such an occurrence was justice for Catholic indifference (or hostility) to Genesis (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible for that matter). The J*sus seminar is another example of the chickens coming home to roost.
How you people can base a true "new testament" on a "mythical" old one is beyond me.