Replies

Biblical fundamentalism, naïve literalism . . . are . . . highly problematic, not least of all because they are, in fact, unbiblical.

There you go again! Well, nobody can say you aren't persistent. And you gotta hand it to those desert fathers, knowing about evolution eighteen hundred years before Darwin. (I guess they must have seen it in a vision.)

You know, rzman, you once said that the Catholic/Orthodox churches are "agnostics" in the creation/evolution debate. Yet every time you post something it doesn't seem to endorse "agnosticism." It endorses evolution. Why else attack "naive literalism?" What is there about "naive literalism" that is so deadly to the ancient liturgical churches? I mean, it's not as if they are never literal . . . you and I both know they are. But never about Genesis 1-11.

Why are the ancient churches so afraid of Genesis 1-11? What does that portion of the Bible say that is so poisonous to them? Please, enlighten me.

No wonder I was asked to leave the Catholic Church (and thank G-d that I did so). Why aren't potential converts told at the very beginning that they're going to have to give up their "naive literalism" and embrace evolution and higher criticism? Why not add them to the Creed and the cathechisms so people will know what they are getting into before finding out too late?

Sheesh, why not require new converts to take an oath stating that they reject the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11 and young earth six day creationism? Because this idea of not doing so and then waging unceasing, unrelenting war against YEC and Genesis 1-11 simply doesn't make any sense.

NB: The "British Orthodox Church" is (if I am not mistaken) a Non-Chalcaedonian church under the authority of the Coptic Church of Egypt . . . the same church for which the hearts of western chrstians bleed so much. You can see what they think of so many western chrstians! Perhaps they should turn to the atheists in academia for sympathy?

I see that I did not read the article very closely. The author not only rejects the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but apparently the entire Pentateuch as well. After all, he says that the sacrificial system of the Torah was something people dreamed up in an effort to get close to G-d (as opposed to something G-d commanded, which is the "naively literal" sense of the text).

Mas cerveza, do you have any comments on this? Do "traditionalist Catholics" like yourself also believe that the ancient Hebrews only "thought" G-d commanded this stuff?

You know, rzman, you once said that the Catholic/Orthodox churches are “agnostics” in the creation/evolution debate. Yet every time you post something it doesn’t seem to endorse “agnosticism.” It endorses evolution. Why else attack “naive literalism?” What is there about “naive literalism” that is so deadly to the ancient liturgical churches? I mean, it’s not as if they are never literal . . . you and I both know they are. But never about Genesis 1-11.

>>What that means is there is NOT a defined dogma on how the first 11 chapters of Genesis should be interpreted.

So people are free to take sides and remain within the pale of orthodoxy.

I fail to see why you place so much emphasis on that part of the Bible.

You can see what they think of so many western chrstians! Perhaps they should turn to the atheists in academia for sympathy?

>>So. Perhaps, Western Christians should be a bit more circumspect about their own beliefs, following St. Augustine’s theories as slavishly as they do.

St. Augustine was a great and holy man, but Protestants and Roman Catholics have elevated his opinions to the level of infallible dogma.