tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post4341321972471572727..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account (vs. Catholic Eric S. Giunta)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6848297152250593242015-04-12T21:10:43.053-04:002015-04-12T21:10:43.053-04:00All of this is old ground that I thoroughly discus...All of this is old ground that I thoroughly discussed in an old Facebook thread 14 months ago (even including the JPII talk that you bring up):<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/730440010324320Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72919444617741184582015-04-12T21:09:11.795-04:002015-04-12T21:09:11.795-04:00Thank you.
JPII noted in this homily:
"The ...Thank you.<br /><br />JPII noted in this homily:<br /><br />"The second account of man's creation . . . has by its nature a different character. . . . different from that of the first chapter of Genesis. . . . of a nature particularly subjective, and therefore, in a certain sense, psychological."<br /><br />Thus, he appears to be arguing that it is a subjective account, in contrast to chapter one, which is historical, within a "story" account that has some elements not absolutely literal.<br /><br />He doesn't separate the biblical Adam and Eve from the historical persons or the first primal pair, as Fr. Barron did.<br /><br />The week before (9-12-79), he talked about Genesis 1:<br /><br />" It must be recognized that the first account is concise, and free from any trace whatsoever of subjectivism. It contains only the ***objective facts*** and defines the objective reality, both when it speaks of man's creation, male and female, in the image of God, and when it adds a little later the words of the first blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth; subdue it and have dominion over it" (Gn 1:28)." [section 4]<br /><br />http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TB2.HTM <br /><br />See also his general audience of 9-26-79, where he refers to "the first man, male and female, as dramatis personae and leading characters of the events described in the Yahwist text of chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis" [whereas Fr. Barron places the first man in a far earlier period].<br /><br />http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19790926_en.html?hc_location=ufi <br /><br />JPII also reiterates the Catholic teaching that the Adam and Eve of Genesis were the first human beings, who fell (original sin):<br /><br />1. We are reading again the first chapters of Genesis, to understand how—with original sin—the "man of lust" took the place of the "man of original innocence." The words of Genesis 3:10, "I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself," provide evidence of the first experience of man's shame with regard to his Creator—a shame that could also be called "cosmic".<br /><br />However, this "cosmic shame"—if it is possible to perceive its features in man's total situation after original sin—makes way in the biblical text for another form of shame. It is the shame produced in humanity itself. It is caused by the deep disorder in that reality on account of which man, in the mystery of creation, was God's image. He was God's image both in his personal "ego" and in the interpersonal relationship, through the original communion of persons, constituted by the man and the woman together. . . .<br /><br />The shame of both was turned in this direction after original sin, when they realized that they were naked, as Genesis 3:7 bears witness. The Yahwist text seems to indicate explicitly the sexual character of this shame. "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." However, we may wonder if the sexual aspect has only a relative character, in other words, if it is a question of shame of one's own sexuality only in reference to a person of the other sex.<br /><br />(General audience of 5-28-80)<br /><br />https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb27.htm <br />Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21913262488488819202015-04-12T19:59:28.891-04:002015-04-12T19:59:28.891-04:001. Give me a link to this homily, so I can see the...1. Give me a link to this homily, so I can see the context.<br /><br />2. "Myth" can mean "true myth" as (famously) in C. S. Lewis's odyssey to Christianity, after conversing with the Catholic Tolkien. It can also mean "an allegorical presentation, within which are true elements of history." Genesis can properly be viewed in that fashion. Once original sin is accepted as a reality, it means that Genesis must necessarily be at least partly historical. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil may possibly be an allegorical symbol representing our choice over against God's choice.<br /><br />3. I cited JPII in my article, several times, assuming the historicity of Adam and Eve (e.g., "at the dawn of HISTORY Adam and Eve rebelled against God.")<br /><br />4. Like the typical "hit and run troller" / hostile commenter, one can find out nothing whatsoever about you. We don't even know your name. Yet you demand that you have the "right" to express your radical reactionary viewpoint on my orthodox Catholic blog.<br /><br />5. I don't care for the Documentary Hypothesis, and think it is outdated and false (and felt the same as a Protestant). Catholics (including popes) are, however, free to hold it.<br /><br />6. I answered you this time and let your comment stand, but in general I take a very dim view of the sort of reactionary thought you hold to. How you shabbily treat St. JPII here is a sterling example of your problem.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4653633170637012502012-05-14T13:22:59.962-04:002012-05-14T13:22:59.962-04:00Thanks very much, Christine, and God bless you, to...Thanks very much, Christine, and God bless you, too!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46993505607657309172012-05-14T12:41:27.632-04:002012-05-14T12:41:27.632-04:00Excellent job defending orthodoxy, Mr. Armstrong. ...Excellent job defending orthodoxy, Mr. Armstrong. God bless you, and keep up the good work.Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05205862627682998184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62582127661554208172011-09-28T17:08:58.681-04:002011-09-28T17:08:58.681-04:00It's not science; I agree. That's not my b...It's not science; I agree. That's not my beef; only that he claimed that Adam wasn't literal.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88634097927091720302011-09-28T16:27:03.809-04:002011-09-28T16:27:03.809-04:00I don't recall using the word hate so please d...I don't recall using the word hate so please don't misquote me. My interpretation of the video was that Fr Baron was stating that Genesis 1 should not be read as science. I don't think that is an un-orthodox position. The use of OT typology with NT characters is acceptable exegesis as far as I know, but I am an engineer not a theologian so what do I know.<br />Peace,<br />Stevecolbushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00063947630002018288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-91031802324788945942011-09-28T00:12:36.533-04:002011-09-28T00:12:36.533-04:00Colbus .
Since when telling the truth is wrong?Do...Colbus . <br />Since when telling the truth is wrong?Do you think that because Dave loves the truth and because he is telling the truth , that according to you he hates fr Barron?<br />Look , as G.K.Chesterton said , we should not separate the virtues , what does this mean you may ask?Well ,some persons nowadays think for example , that because i dont want to offend that person , then i should avoid telling him or her the truth , that`s very wrong , telling the truth to a person is an act of love .<br />Now if fr Barron is going to be offended because of what Dave is saying , well with all my respect,that`s his choice . It`s better to offend people when they are wrong , than to offend God .<br />One more thing . fr Barron is not impeccable you know just like any other humanbeing , so if fr Barron said something which is against the teaching of the Church , then it`s everyone`s duty to correct the error .Do you really believe colbus , that if you leave the person in error , that but doing it , it means that you love that person?<br />So please colbus , no one is attacking the person of fr Barron , but we are against the error of fr Barron .<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-25415167443174800262011-09-27T23:54:33.459-04:002011-09-27T23:54:33.459-04:00He's either right or he's wrong. If he'...He's either right or he's wrong. If he's wrong it is irrelevant who he is or how impressive his credentials are. Wrong is wrong, and he would be misleading others if so.<br /><br />If he's right on the issue, then he ought to clarify that he really thinks Adam is literal (friends of mine have already written him an e-mail), or else argue that the Church doesn't require that and that my whole line of reasoning is wrong.<br /><br />I'm simply calling it as I see it. I didn't say that <i>he</i> was a liberal (I don't think). I said that this particular <i>belief</i> is a liberal one.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79671854449187559212011-09-27T20:39:14.136-04:002011-09-27T20:39:14.136-04:00Dave,
I have always been a fan but I think you are...Dave,<br />I have always been a fan but I think you are way out of line going after Fr Barron on this. If you know anything about his work over the years he has been leading the fight against the influence of modernity on orthodox Catholicism. He is no liberal by any stretch. He has gone after academics who have questioned the Eucharist and other aspects of our Catholic faith. Surely there are more visible liberals that you could question; also his academic credentials are quite impressive.colbushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00063947630002018288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89829216800174514362011-09-27T13:47:02.094-04:002011-09-27T13:47:02.094-04:00Yes, I have stated several times that there is myt...Yes, I have stated several times that there is mythical, symbolic, figurative language in Genesis, but that Adam and Eve were literal, and their fall literal.<br /><br />The Catechism places Genesis, the fall, and Adam and Eve squarely in history. Eric Giunta has denied that. Fr. Barron stated that ADAM was not a "literal figure." So I don't think CCC 390 can be harmonized with either of their views, because they seem to think that the fall occurred with some "first human" that was not the Adam we know from Genesis; whereas the CCC says that it is traced to this Adam, in history; known from the Genesis account.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-11874337474358644822011-09-27T12:09:00.341-04:002011-09-27T12:09:00.341-04:00"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses fi..."The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative LANGUAGE, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265"<br /><br /><br />Paul: GREAT Comment. <br /><br />This is the way I have come to understand Genesis and I think this is what Dave has been saying all along. Adam and Even cannot be some mythical or "literal" figures. Maybe the first "rational" man (i.e., human) did not refer to himself as "Adam" and neither did "Eve" but my understanding is that at one point in time mankind (man and woman)fell because they sinned. This happened IN HISTORY and was not some mythological construct used by the israelites or Christ for that matter. There was a man and woman who sinned and they are referred to as Man and Woman and the Bible uses figurative language to describe the event. It does not try to explain the science behind it because that is not the point. Dave has already demonstrated that the Church beleives this. He has not stated he disagrees with all science or development in doctrines but I think Giunta takes this "dogmatic development" too far by assuming that a THEORY of polygenism is true and some how negates that Adam and Eve were real figures. THat is contrary to Catholic teaching.suprman1020https://www.blogger.com/profile/13265749256034013199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61579335985440702272011-09-27T08:16:11.088-04:002011-09-27T08:16:11.088-04:00Hello all, I did not see this mentioned in the art...Hello all, I did not see this mentioned in the article or in the comments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church at section 390 states: <br /><br />The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative LANGUAGE, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265<br /><br />264. Cf. GS 13 § 1.<br /><br />265. Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.<br /><br />Now the above language seems to reconcile the words of Fr. Barron and Mr. Giunta with what Dave is writing here. Perhaps this might help everyone reach consensus on this issue.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-12398059114923076472011-09-26T23:28:00.554-04:002011-09-26T23:28:00.554-04:00That said, sure, if, as you say, the Old and New T...That said, sure, if, as you say, the Old and New Testaments falsely state that the entire human race took its origin from a primeval couple, then that would mean "all of us [are] born into a system of brokenness, alienation from God, neighbor, and our very selves, and in deed of the redeeming work of Christ" -- it just didn't happen the way the Old and New Testaments, the Fathers, and the Magisterium of the Church say it happened. And if that's the case, the question is: why bother with the Catholic Church at all?<br /><br />Now, all truth is one, so there can never be any conflict between true science and true religion, or between faith and reason. If science has really established that the Catholic Church's doctrine of monogenism is false, is scientifically impossible, then that means the Catholic Church is wrong. But since Jesus has ensured that the Church cannot be wrong about something like that -- something that is inseparable from the truths of the Faith, that is itself a truth of the Faith -- I don't fret myself that science may have disproven what the Church teaches. That's just as impossible as archaeologists finding the bones of Jesus, or historians proving that St. Peter wasn't the founder of the papacy, or proving that King David was a myth. The existence of Adam is not something that can be subject to scientific proof or disproof: science is incapable of examining and testing that proposition, let alone rendering a verdict. Theories and hypotheses about human genetic variation, based on what science currently knows or thinks it knows, prove absolutely nothing one way or the other about whether or not all humans really descend from a common ancestor as the Holy Spirit said. There's simply far too much we don't know, and that we can never, ever, ever know, for anyone to be able to triumphantly pronounce that the human race is descended from no less than 10,000 proto-humans rather than a single common ancestor. In this case, confronted with a conflict between the speculations and guesses of scientists and the perennial teachings of the Church whose Head is Christ, I'll go with the Church.<br /><br />This doesn't mean we have to take Genesis strictly literally, or that the Holy Spirit didn't move the author of Genesis to incorporate elements of the genres of myth or folktale into the story of human origins. It doesn't mean we have to believe God's creating the first man from the dust of the earth was instantaneous or near instantaneous, that God couldn't have set in motion some sort of evolutionary process. It doesn't mean we have to believe the first man was in fact named "Adam" or that he spoke some ancestral form of Hebrew, or that his transgression necessarily involved a fruit (though it could well have, and there's no good reason to think it didn't).<br /><br />But it does mean we ought to, for instance, think for a moment about why, if Adam never really existed, the Catholic Church not only continues to speak of him as real in the Catechism and in papal allocutions, but even continues to honor him with his very own feast day. Yes, I'd say the evidence that Adam's literal existence and monogenism are and remain Catholic doctrine far outweights the evidence in support of the proposition that the Church now regards those matters to be open questions.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33495676437233291162011-09-26T23:08:14.926-04:002011-09-26T23:08:14.926-04:00I do not believe that dogmatic pronouncements, and...<i>I do not believe that dogmatic pronouncements, and their binding character, can be chemically isolated from the original public meaning of those that promulgate them.</i><br /><br />Then why don't you believe what the Church teaches about the literal existence of the first man? When you read this canon, you insert into it the modern notions that "Adam" was purely mythological and never really existed (and thereby render the canon meaningless). How is that not isolating dogmatic pronouncements from the original public meaning of those that promulgate them?<br /><br /><i>If the Tridentine Fathers did not intend to settle a debate about the literal historical existence of Adam and Eve, -- if this historicity is not the object of the canon but simply something that is presupposed while refuting and condemning a particular Protestant error -- than this assumption cannot (by virtue of this canon, at least) be considered dogmatically binding.</i><br /><br />But it can and must be considered doctrinally binding, because without it the dogmatic definition loses its coherence and meaning.<br /><br /><i>"If you know how to confess all of that without believing that Adam really existed, please let me know."<br /><br />You're an intelligent enough man, Jordanes, for me to know that when you say this you are either lying or else have a serious lack of imagination.</i><br /><br />Well, that, or else Catholics cannot believe that there was never really a first man from whom all other humans have descended.<br /><br /><i>If, as most Biblical exegetes (and from all across the ideological and theological spectrum) believe -- and as I believe -- Adam and Eve are mythological types, this takes away nothing from the fact that we are all of us born into a system of brokenness, alienation from God, neighbor, and our very selves, and in deed of the redeeming work of Christ.</i><br /><br />I haven't spoken to or polled all biblical exegetes, so I can't say what their personal opinions on this matter are. If I wanted to poll them, I'd want to restrict my poll to Catholic exegetes both living and dead, and I'd need to see if their exegesis makes sense and conforms to the Rule of Faith. Exegetes and theologians, after all, are not the Magisterium.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-87495631516888660922011-09-26T18:39:27.418-04:002011-09-26T18:39:27.418-04:00Jordanes:
I do not believe that dogmatic pronounc...Jordanes:<br /><br />I do not believe that dogmatic pronouncements, and their binding character, can be chemically isolated from the original public meaning of those that promulgate them. If the Tridentine Fathers did not intend to settle a debate about the literal historical existence of Adam and Eve, -- if this historicity is not the object of the canon but simply something that is presupposed while refuting and condemning a particular Protestant error -- than this assumption cannot (by virtue of this canon, at least) be considered dogmatically binding. Doing so is just divorcing these canons from their living context. This is not Catholicism, it is Fundamentalism.<br /><br />"If you know how to confess all of that without believing that Adam really existed, please let me know."<br /><br />You're an intelligent enough man, Jordanes, for me to know that when you say this you are either lying or else have a serious lack of imagination. If, as most Biblical exegetes (and from all across the ideological and theological spectrum) believe -- and as I believe -- Adam and Eve are mythological types, this takes away nothing from the fact that we are all of us born into a system of brokenness, alienation from God, neighbor, and our very selves, and in deed of the redeeming work of Christ.EricGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992520299275498417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74853173746269931142011-09-26T17:59:58.560-04:002011-09-26T17:59:58.560-04:00Hi Dave, no worries!
We all have our limits. Tr...Hi Dave, no worries!<br /><br /><br />We all have our limits. Trust me, I know.<br /><br />You do a great job and I was not expecting you personally to respond. You stay focused my man! :-) I'm happy for others to respond. As long as I am not too loony tunes!<br /><br />In regards to Cliff... alas the data is here… he has jumped the shark (to the delight of the likes of the BBC.)<br /><br />The data is here but there is more…<br /><br />http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/sir-cliff-speaks-frankly-about-his-companion-the-expriest-920825.html<br /><br />He is now actively playing that "Am I/aren’t I gay" card for publicity. My mother met him once aty a film shoot and was not impressed. Even then she thought he was ego driven and media fixated, <br /><br />But, in the U, you absolutely have to bow the knee to the homosexual cause to stay in business. It is very much 'The Issue' and fast becoming the required incense to the Emperor. As I said to my wife, "Equality contracts to work are coming and I will not be able to sign them. We have to get out before it's impossible for Christians to get work."<br /><br />I haven't got children yet but I am NOT bringing them up in the UK!Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61099420510093469822011-09-26T17:41:35.699-04:002011-09-26T17:41:35.699-04:00Jed,
Interesting, but my mind is too fried with a...Jed,<br /><br />Interesting, but my mind is too fried with all this Adam stuff by now and I have already moved on: back to my series on <i>sola Scriptura</i> (which I'm working on today) and other private issues. Maybe someone else would have some thoughts.<br /><br />I always enjoy your comments, and don't let those atheists getcha down! I had not heard that about Cliff Richard. That's wild.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86445952234782741402011-09-26T17:38:15.982-04:002011-09-26T17:38:15.982-04:00^^^
Sorry about the typos. It's late UK time!...^^^<br /><br />Sorry about the typos. It's late UK time! :-) I'm also an awful proof reader!Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-65590115667506977132011-09-26T17:36:42.920-04:002011-09-26T17:36:42.920-04:00Sorry, on last thing.
Samuel Johnson in the most ...Sorry, on last thing.<br /><br />Samuel Johnson in the most excellent and thoroughly readable book "Darwin on trail" (which sadly I have had to give away as I prepare to the leave the UK for good) makes the point that liberalism, having abandoned faith, is just atheism using religious language, Some liberals realise this and go the next logical step and become atheists. Some cling onto the language but spit out any notions of any real Good.<br /><br />Johnson on the 'Midwest Conservative Journal' blog describes the 'God' of the Episcopal Church (which is now a liberal; anti-Christian organisation) as "vague deity concept." He has it pretty wrapped it up. Liberals, in my experience, can be at different stages of religious devolving but they eventually end up functional atheists like Spong. Now Cliff Richard has jumped the shark on homosexual marriage, I no longer regard him as a Christian. The collapse towards atheism is now just a matter of time or mortality in his case. After all, if you can question the nature of marriage from scripture which is self evident, then the rest is up for dismissal as well. It’s pretty plain he sold his soul to his career where the UK media demand TOTAL compliance with functional atheism as well. Having a live in ex-catholic priest from New York will not be helping either. But liberalism starts with putting society before God in one respect and the rest then follows. One concession is all that is needed.<br /><br />Sigh. My wife was happy to return to SE Asia as she could not handle the militant atheism here any more. And, one by one the Christians are falling here. It’s so bad I'm getting out before I am contaminated!<br /><br />Anyway, As I say, Samuel Johnson makes his case very well but I have had to give the book away. He points out - rightly - that a liberal is just an atheist that has no fully realised it yet.Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71957363673274542502011-09-26T17:01:42.341-04:002011-09-26T17:01:42.341-04:00Of course I affirm what Trent does, Jordanes: and ...<i>Of course I affirm what Trent does, Jordanes: and I do so fully aware that the Tridentine Fathers had no clue of the findings of the natural sciences since the 19th century, and were not gathered to debate the historical existence of Adam.</i><br /><br />Well, so do I. But I also know that the Tridentine Fathers have no clue of those findings, and not being gathered to debate Adam's existence, is not relevant. The canon pronounces anathema upon anyone who does not confess (and I apologise for quoting it again after Mr. DeLano has already done so with helpful emphasis added) "that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema."<br /><br />If you know how to confess all of that without believing that Adam really existed, please let me know.<br /><br />Now, I think Ott probably had a good understanding of Trent not having been gathered to debate Adam's existence. Trent was convened to address the Protestant heresy and implement much needed reform. This is why Trent had to issue its infallible and irreformable teachings about Original Sin, in the context of which Trent insisted that Catholics must believe that Adam really did certain things and that certain things really happened to Adam as a result. In this we see the "hierarchy of truths" alive and at work: original sin, defined infallibly, with other attendant and indispensable truths affirmed.<br /><br />Recall as well that infallibility extends to more than just dogmatically defined teaching.<br /><br /><i>These are not delphic oracles, bro; they have to be read from within their context and their inherent limitations.</i><br /><br />Of course: but, more importantly they are also infallible and authoritative pronouncements of divinely-revealed truth.<br /><br /><i>The Church has never dogmatically pronounced upon whether we must consider Adam to be a literal historical individual</i><br /><br />The Church has never had to do that before, but given the widespread error regarding Adam's existence today, the Church will probably have to do that in the future. I'd say the sooner the better, but that's up to the Holy Spirit.<br /><br /><i>but with the Tridentine Fathers I readily confess that whatever Adam *means*, we have inherited original sin from him.</i><br /><br />We know what the Tridentine Fathers said "Adam" means -- as Mr. DeLano has underscored, it means the first man, the one who sinned and thus introduced original sin which was inherited by his physical offspring.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-65406197241685897842011-09-26T16:55:48.431-04:002011-09-26T16:55:48.431-04:00Dave, in regards to atheism, I agree that an athei...Dave, in regards to atheism, I agree that an atheist is more consistent than a liberal. Absolutely, by far!<br /><br />But atheists cannot be consistent. True, raw atheism collapses down to the law of the jungle. The atheist has no basis upon which to build a moral consensus. Note that the vast, vast majority of prisoners are atheist - totally in contrast to the predictions of the likes of Dawkins wh claim that religion causes evil! Indeed, study after study has shown that religious believers are happier, healthier, more law abiding and contribute more to society. Even the BBC in the atheistic UK admits this - to grinding of teeth! (I am on the threshold of leaving the UK and clearing my things.)<br /><br />Now, an atheist MAY admit that their morality reduces to the law of the jungle. This I have encountered with atheists - though they try, at least in the UK, to argue that morality is subjective.<br /><br />But, I point out… They live every day, every minute as if that was not true! Everyone behaves as if there was an absolute morality. Normal people are shocked by rape and murder. They do not cry, "Hooray for the fittest imposing their will!" Most people recoil from the theology of Neitszche which is the ONLY moral foundation the true atheist can appeal to! We live, day by day, on the assumption that we have free will (something atheism cannot explain or defend - a point I bang my head trying to show atheists,) that there is an absolute morality and the law of jungle does not apply.<br /><br />Atheism may be more consistent than liberalism but you cannot live by it. It is not possible - as the UK, not long an atheistic society is finding out, as people really do live for the day and according to Darwinian principles. Social cohesion is breaking apart leading to riots based on no more than "I can get me a pair of Rebooks and the police can’t stop me!"<br /><br />Atheism is consistent up to the point one tries to live by it. Then one either adopts religious moral principles by default or all hell breaks lose.<br /><br />Given the UK has firmly pitched in with the likes of Richard Dawkins, I have predicted he complete demise of the UK as a nation and the end of British culture and civilisation. So much so that I am shipping out! So far, I am completely on the money and have a remarkable economic, social and political prediction rate! Also note that as the West embraces radical atheism, it is declining and the money and the power is shifting to the religious East. Oh, and lo and behold, there is Christian revival out there! I kept trying to tell the Brits there has never been a happy, prosperous, free atheistic society.<br /><br />They did not want to know.<br /><br />I shake the dust off my feet.<br /><br />Atheism as a system of thought is consistent. As a system to live by - it is inconsistent or deadly.<br /><br />As I have said in many a debate with an atheist (the vast majority of Brits) "A system of thought you cannot live by has to have something wrong with it!""Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-81006725331104403932011-09-26T16:36:36.348-04:002011-09-26T16:36:36.348-04:00OK. This is a bit of a diversion but I would like ...OK. This is a bit of a diversion but I would like to query something related to Adam and Eve.<br /><br />I do not think I am the originator of this idea. I believe I was introduced to it ages ago but so long I cannot remember the source. I do not know if this idea is permitted by the Church or not but I think I am in the realm of acceptable conjecture - but I am willing to be corrected if need be. Hence my post. I am raising a thought for correction. It is a way of reconciling Biblical revelation with the current scientific findings. Please note: I utterly reject non-theistic evolution and am a fan of intelligent design theory which has a lot of evidence behind but the atheistic inquisition will allow it no hearing! However, ID theory tells us little about the nature of the designer and is not, in itself, a basis of theology. It is, however, a powerful counter to pure atheism is far better explains the evidence!<br /><br />Adam and Eve were banished from Eden. Eden was a location on Earth. It was not the Earth itself. It suggests the Earth as a whole was already fallen.<br /><br />I remember picking up an idea from ages ago that Satan had been cast down to the Earth prior to Eden. The Earth was then corrupted by Satan's influence. Eden was a potential remedy point and Adam and Eve a means of redemption, but only if they made the right choice.<br /><br />The serpent was influenced by Satan because the world outside the garden of Eden was already corrupted - explaining the evidence of disease, death, animals eating each other, etc, etc. Mankind was given authority over the beasts… but then chose to join them. Thus Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden into the fallen Earth. A new Adam was thus required (and a new Eve!) to return to the plan of restoration.<br /><br />How crazy is that notion? It would explain dinosaurs, volcanoes, disease on the Earth prior to the rise of Adam and Eve and Homo Sapiens. Unless I am missing something.<br /><br />Thoughts?Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66901880440982259172011-09-26T14:42:52.065-04:002011-09-26T14:42:52.065-04:00Most liberal Catholics remain ostensibly in the fa...Most liberal Catholics remain ostensibly in the faith as they get more and more "out there" because intellectual pride dictates that they have to try to mold the Church into their own image, rather than admit they were wrong, and call a spade a spade, get totally honest and real, and leave, and go Anglican or some other liberal denomination that will allow (indeed, encourages) one to believe whatever they like.<br /><br />The fundamental error here is making oneself a higher judge than the Church: in areas where one insists on having a different opinion (because of prior unwillingness to submit to the Church). It starts with a lack of faith and not properly interconnecting faith and reason.<br /><br />As Aquinas noted (and my mentor, Fr. Hardon, often stated): to deny one dogma of the faith is to lose the supernatural virtue of faith. That is a very scary place to be, because then one is on one's own, and God isn't guiding the person in their faith; it is mere human reason and pretense: and we know where that goes: it is the very attitude that caused the fall: man knows better than God. Right.<br /><br />I think oftentimes that the atheist is more honest with his own opinions than the theological liberal is (which is why I have spent much more time talking to and attempting dialogue with the former category than the latter). The latter is radically inconsistent, whereas an atheist is usually perfectly consistent, while dead wrong, because both premises and conclusions are wrong.<br /><br />Cardinal Newman argued that the only two <i>totally</i> consistent choices in the end were Catholicism and atheism. I agree with him. But he also noted that most people are not honest enough with themselves to follow their opinions through to their logical conclusions. Hence they adopt all sorts of illogical in-between points of view that the world is blessed with.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45445410529696892482011-09-26T14:08:09.508-04:002011-09-26T14:08:09.508-04:00I saw the title and went, "This one's gon...I saw the title and went, "This one's gonna run."<br /><br />34 comments already.<br /><br />Yup.Jedinovicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401504300105353435noreply@blogger.com