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."
Before, on the third day, while man was created on the sixth day.
ROTFLMAO
I've heard that based on the totality of their depravity, those who are fascinated by and in love with fairies also love sand.
Now I know that at least in some cases, it's true.
Well, I can see by your response that you’re not serious about discussing the topic and just want to badmouth people. Good day to you then.
It's not a false choice at all. The scientific explanation for the existence of humans is that random events occurred that started life, no need to invoke any higher powers.
And further random events will/can end that life.
Yet the Bible teaches just the opposite, that humans are the direct creation of God and that the present condition of man physically and morally is not upward evolving but deterioration.
Some absolute truths can be known by reason as Paul said God's invisible qualities can be perceived by examining what He has created. Rom. 1:20.
“In addition, the supernatural is outside science capacity.”
Agreed. But this hasn't stopped leaders like the pope from surrendering questions of the supernatural to atheistic science, questions like the origin and formation of life on earth, its purpose and fate.
The attempts to reconcile what is falsely called knowledge with religion has resulted in faith being equated with credulity, belief despite truth and fact.
It is clear that your intention was to post a reply not meant for discussion, but rather argument.
You make a statement that is inconsistent with what was reported, attempting to pass it off as truth.
You continue to demonstrate that you either haven’t read the article or read it thoroughly.
Your interpretation and comments regarding John 6:56 also demonstrate, like those listening to Jesus, you find it hard to hear and believe. And clearly, the Bible does back my view, as it comes straight from the mouth of Our Lord.
I will pray that your zeal for the Truth leads you to the fullest possible relationship with Our Lord.
May God’s peace fill your heart and days!
Was this a one time thing, or is the creation ongoing?
Are the stars forming right now through gravity and nuclear fusion any less created by God than our own?
Adam was created “from dust”. The Bible says that I was also created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. I was also created via natural processes involving DNA.
Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?
The scientific explanation for the existence of humans is that random events occurred that started life, no need to invoke any higher powers.
Some scientist's perhaps, but they are incorrect regarding "Science." Science by itself cannot speak to anything not detectable by the senses and their extensions. It can't address the 'why' only the 'how.' And, since it models what it calls hypotheses, theories and laws, randomness does not answer a scientific question - you can't model true absolute randomness.
The view you are describing is held in the philosophy called Scientism ("That which cannot be known by science does not exist.") Scientism was debunked - it falls in performance error - shortly after it was proposed. It is a fallacy.
If we do not get what science is correctly, we make category errors. And discussing religion and science cannot have the true and necessary foundation.
Thanks for your reply.
“You continue to demonstrate that you either haven’t read the article or read it thoroughly.”
No, I’ve read the article and understood it perfectly well. You haven’t bothered to really ask me anything concerning the article, or what in the article led me to my statements, though. I guess that’s because you prefer to falsely ascribe my statement to a single sentence in the article, so you could set up a straw man for yourself to joust against.
Excellent point. Creation is ongoing in every instant.
I was created by God.
I was created via cellular mechanisms involving DNA.
Knowledge of the latter does NOT obviate the former.
“the dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord”
Who is so foolish as to think that God’s power stops at the casino door? That to say something is “random” is to say that it is beyond the power of God?
” And, since it models what it calls hypotheses, theories and laws, randomness does not answer a scientific question -you can’t model true absolute randomness.”
And one doesn’t have to. Simply put the term “random” is used by scientists to mean unpredictable or unguided like the meteor that supposedly ended the dinosauer age and gave mouse like mammals the chance to evolve into humans. There is another thread running on this very subject.
“The view you are describing is held in the philosophy called Scientism (”That which cannot be known by science does not exist.”)”
That is not what I am describing at all. That which falls outside the realm of science is unscientific and therefore either myth, folklore, or credulity.
“....randomness does not answer a scientific question...”
Oh but it does! It answers the Why? by saying there is no why, no why of a meteor hit or that life should begin at all. It just did, no why, no purpose, random.
What does "reasonable" mean? This is the starting point every man should consider in "debates" such as this.
Only until (and unless) at least a group of people, if not all humanity can and does agree about such a definition, then "debates" such as this are little more than exercises in futility.
The proof of this is right here. I believe it is reasonable to view the account in Genesis is "allegorical", you, apparently believe it's reasonable to call it "literal".
This obviously begs the question, "What does it mean to be reasonable?"
Please note I'm asking more an open ended question here. I don't expect an immediate answer or any answer at all really. It's a question intended to inspire serious self reflection and thought, not only for you but anyone reading this really.
Not one to start/continue a debate, or one to "prove" Creationism or Evolution, per se. Because that is never going to be solved on the Internet.
“What does “reasonable” mean?”
Well, willing and able to properly apply sound reasoning, I would say. I guess that you could argue about what constitutes sound reasoning, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that it is something that is up for debate, because I am not a relativist.
“The proof of this is right here. I believe it is reasonable to view the account in Genesis is “allegorical”, you, apparently believe it’s reasonable to call it “literal”.”
Just because we can both believe that our position is reasonable does not mean we are both correct. If our positions are mutually exclusive, then either only one of us can be right, or we could both be wrong, but we can’t both be right. The way to determine which is correct is to apply the principles of reasoning, which are pretty well established at this point in history.
Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Trees created before man.
Genesis 2:4-9 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Trees created after he created man. Not too good as a scientific document.
Let’s look at the Greek
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin.
Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin.
Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou tsbto thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon
This is the same estin.
So by what scientific logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? Is means is.
It would be unscientific to call a meteor unpredictable if you are given the correct variables. It is no more unpredictable than Apollo 11.
And, again, science can not speak to why, purpose in this sense.
A scientist who speaks to this is outside science, a person who claims this is science is in error. Knowing the uses and limits of tools is critical to both scientists and religionists who wish to discuss this.
That is not what I am describing at all. That which falls outside the realm of science is unscientific and therefore either myth, folklore, or credulity.
Again, this is an incorrect view of science. That which falls outside the realm of science is that which is incapable of knowing by the senses and their extensions. This is a great deal of what we can know that in not myth, folklore nor unscientific.
It answers the Why? by saying there is no why, no why of a meteor hit or that life should begin at all. It just did, no why, no purpose, random.
You can have that view but it is not capable of scientific examination nor proof. Science can model mass, velocity, momentum. Why these exist transcends science.
If we wish science and scientists to be mindful of their limitations, we must be clear on them ourselves. Only then is a fruitful and true discussion possible.
Well, as usual, there is no contradiction in the Bible, only a misunderstanding in your interpretation of the verses. You see, the account in Genesis 1 is a single, self-contained narrative. Chapter 2 is not a continuation of the narrative in Chapter 1, but a different narrative that retells some of the same events, but focuses on different aspects what was summarized in Chapter 1. Now, the verse you cite is specifically talking about the trees in one location on the planet, the Garden of Eden, which he had just created especially for the man to dwell in.
Once you understand that, there is no contradiction in the chronology at all. Here is how it goes:
Day 3 - Fruit-bearing trees created.
Day 6 - Man created.
- Garden of Eden created for man.
- Fruit-bearing trees (which already existed in the rest of the planet) made to grow in the Garden which had just been created for man.
So, where is the contradiction?
“So by what scientific logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? Is means is.”
Scientific logic doesn’t come into play at all, since we’re not doing a science experiment. The things that are applicable are grammar, syntax, context, and semantics. I’m sure that you understand these concepts of human language, since you are using them. So, since you must understand that context and the like matter when interpreting statements like “x is y”, you must have some other motive for bringing up these irrelevant arguments. What is it that you are really meaning to get at?
If this answer is reasoned: "No 'why' can be known or proved by science, therefore it does not exist," this is again the error of Scientism. "Only that which can be known by science exists." This is an demonstrable fallacy and the claim should be exposed as such.
A major obstacle for religion in our culture today is the philosophy of Scientism both among scientists and the public. It's important that we know how to spot it and how to refute it.
At the least we should avoid claiming Scientism is Science and therefore we must choose between Science and Religion. A false choice based on a false premise.
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.