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."
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?
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.
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.
So from the Bible, were fruit trees created before or after God created man?
“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.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, as in, "This is My Body"
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
Actually, is is pretty consistent there. What is not clear is the meaning of the word jackass. You did not say 0bama is a barnyard animal. But we know he is a jackass, because we know the multiple meanings of the word jackass.
Something we can all agree upon!!
Thanks for your reply. The Catechism states it very clearly. A longer and more complete treatment of the issue is in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Faith and Reason:
I recommend this to anyone interested in how faith and reason support each other.
This is the teaching of the Church, first clearly established by St. Thomas Aquinas. God can be known by nature and by reason - though transformation and salvation require the grace of God.
Reason is not opposed by religion. Religion transcends reason -this is a key difference. For example, you cannot, using reason/logic alone know that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty... This is known through revelation, through God. Reason alone neither proves nor negates, it is incapable of knowing absolute truths. These transcend reason’s capability.
The same for science. Science can describe or model the how; it cannot know direction, purpose or why. It cannot know these due to the limitations of its method. God, defined as not having a simple location, quantity, size etc. is outside the self-imposed limitations of science. In addition, the supernatural is outside science capacity.
As God and religion transcend the capability of the intellect and the senses to know, they transcend the capability of reason and science. This does not mean they contradict.
Islam teaches a God that contradicts; this was the basis for Pope Benedicts objection and arguments against Islam - it is irrational.
Again, to force the false choice of reason vs. religion or science vs. religion is both incorrect and harmful to both.
True, that was a bad example since jackass has come to have a second meaning because the usage is so common. However, that second meaning only arose because of the original practice of using the word “is” for metaphorical as well as literal comparisons.
Those who insist that it's the literal truth have to discard much of astronomy, physics, geology, and biology to prop up their faith. It seems to me that any faith that requires one to bury one's head in the sand about facts and science is driven by fear and weakness, not by strength.
"If Genesis is meant as a fairy tale, . . . "
Pretending that someone saying the Bible isn't a science text is essentially the same thing as calling it a fairy tale is an example of either incredible stupidity, or of a deliberate distortion the person tossing "fairy tale" around hopes others are stupid enough to believe.
There's nothing contradictory in his statement, either, unless someone is trying to read a contradiction into the statement the same way some people read racism into everything to distort what others say in hopes of furthering their own agenda.
History books aren't science textbooks, they recount what happened without detailing the scientific specifics.If you read history of industry containing the sentence, "Dale Carnagie soon controlled more steel making capacity than his competitors.", you know Carnagie controlled more steel making capacity than his competitors. You don't know whether Carnagie personally prepared the land, poured the foundations, set each machine on it's foundation, bolted and welded each blast furnace together, and did all the other work it takes to build multiple steel works. Unless you're stupid or believe those who you're blowing smoke at are stupid, you also can't claim that by not detailing how steel works are built the author of the history is "essentially" denying that Carnagie had any control over when and how any or all of those steel works came into existence.
Of course, your average anti-Christ, anti-Christian, or anti-Catholic, doesn't have to come right out and say something to make an assertion but anyone who didn't recognize the agenda tied to the absurd "fairy tale" characterization wasn't listening critically.
Or maybe, those who subscribe to the biblical account of creation, rather than discarding anything have, in some sense, gotten beyond the “infinitely wise” scientist who, preoccupied with his charts and maps and theories and uncounted discoveries ignores what it is he is actually looking at, in favor of his own understanding.
When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts, the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
“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.”
Yes, surely, I think that I’ve said as much several times already, and I’ll say it again. His statements imply that Genesis is a fairy tale and not a truthful account of fact that can be read at face value.
“For your edification, this text may be more meaningful to you:”
I’m not sure what the point is of reposting the text of the article that we are already discussing. Seems kind of redundant to me.
“Regarding John6:56, your interpretation is incorrect, as verse 61 contiues:”
I don’t seem anything in that passage that says my interpretation is incorrect. Of course if you believe in literal transubstantiation and all that, you will believe my interpretation is incorrect, whether or not the Bible backs your view. However, that is not the topic of this thread and I think that getting into a dispute of that would not be proper.
“You may wish to reconsider you methods and practices around Biblical interpretation, as well as your interpretation of secular articles discussing religious topics.”
No, I think I will stick to trusting God over men and refusing to take the easy path by going along with the wisdom of the world.
“Pretending that someone saying the Bible isn’t a science text is essentially the same thing as calling it a fairy tale is an example of either incredible stupidity, or of a deliberate distortion the person tossing “fairy tale” around hopes others are stupid enough to believe.”
Well, as I’ve said to several other posters on this thread, my statement was not based on that single sentence, but the totality of the Pope’s statement. So, I’m not “pretending” what you seem to think that I am, which means the rest of your claims about me are built on sand.
Seems to me that requires a rather malicious deity - one who tests people's faith in literal Biblical truth by intentionally deceiving them with contrary evidence.
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.