This assertion by Fr Robert Barron - Page 5

Julia Mae · #61 Jun 16, '12, 5:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inhimthroughher

I don't want to get off topic but words are important and so are distinctions which is why I made the point I did. People do need to understand that Theology is a Science and the article I gave makes the distinction.

Yes, but that isn't what Fr Barron means when he says that Genesis is not a science book. He is talking about a specific discipline, not a general fund of knowledge that can apply to any area of learning. Philosophy is also science, for instance.

Julia Mae · #62 Jun 16, '12, 5:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Your claim is then what they did and how they sinned is not real either?

This is the teaching of the Church. Has nothing to do with me claiming anything. There was no Garden, no Tree, no Fruit, no Snake or other reptile. It's figurative. If there was a real tree, it would not be in quotes below. And you can stop posting your list if you think it will have any effect on me, it will not. Here is the teaching of the Church, from the Magisterium:

CCC:

How to read the account of the fall

390 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. 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.

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

**buffalo** · #63 Jun 16, '12, 6:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

This is the teaching of the Church. Has nothing to do with me claiming anything. There was no Garden, no Tree, no Fruit, no Snake or other reptile. It's figurative. If there was a real tree, it would not be in quotes below. And you can stop posting your list if you think it will have any effect on me, it will not. Here is the teaching of the Church, from the Magisterium:

CCC:

How to read the account of the fall

390 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. 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.

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. 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.

From that paragraph alone it is certain that Adam and Eve were real.

The list has been overturned?

Inhimthroughher · #64 Jun 16, '12, 6:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

This is the teaching of the Church. Has nothing to do with me claiming anything. There was no Garden, no Tree, no Fruit, no Snake or other reptile. It's figurative. If there was a real tree, it would not be in quotes below. And you can stop posting your list if you think it will have any effect on me, it will not. Here is the teaching of the Church, from the Magisterium:

CCC:

How to read the account of the fall

390 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. 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.

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

There is much more that speaks of Adam and Eve that just Genesis 3. Nor does your statement that none of these things took place follow from the use of figurative language. You are drawing illogical conclusions. No where does the Church state these things did not take place, no where does the Church deny Adam and Eve or original sin. The Church and Scripture affirm their lives and their deeds. I am still waiting for a reply to the Quote from Romans.

**buffalo** · #65 Jun 16, '12, 7:46 pm

Interesting sermon:

8******##### a False Religious World View Masqueraded as Science

someperson555 · #66 Jun 17, '12, 12:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

This is the teaching of the Church. Has nothing to do with me claiming anything. There was no Garden, no Tree, no Fruit, no Snake or other reptile. It's figurative. If there was a real tree, it would not be in quotes below. And you can stop posting your list if you think it will have any effect on me, it will not. Here is the teaching of the Church, from the Magisterium:

CCC:

How to read the account of the fall

390 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. 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.

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

someperson555 · #67 Jun 17, '12, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

More importantly, do you want to?

lol no, ofcourse not.

someperson555 · #68 Jun 17, '12, 1:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

Incest is not intrinsically evil in the collateral line. It is from parent to child.

It is not contrary to either logic and morality.

...
honestly, what can i say to a man who believes that the earth is 6000 years old, and that humanity descended from two people and they were tempted by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree.
even scripture contradicts creationism! when kain goes to live in the land of Nod, he takes for himself a wife. it says this crystal clear in the bible. therefore this clearly proves that other people existed besides adam, eve, and their children.
and not to mention the LOADS of scientific evidence proving otherwise. there were human civilizations which were older than 40,000 years. plus the geological evidence, plus the evidence that humanity is still evolving genetically to this day.
the fact that we can see starlight disproves creationist myth. it takes billions of years for star light to reach the earth, so if we can see starlight then the universe is obviously older than 6000 years.

**buffalo** · #69 Jun 17, '12, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by someperson555

...
honestly, what can i say to a man who believes that the earth is 6000 years old, and that humanity descended from two people and they were tempted by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree.
even scripture contradicts creationism! when kain goes to live in the land of Nod, he takes for himself a wife. it says this crystal clear in the bible. therefore this clearly proves that other people existed besides adam, eve, and their children.
and not to mention the LOADS of scientific evidence proving otherwise. there were human civilizations which were older than 40,000 years. plus the geological evidence, plus the evidence that humanity is still evolving genetically to this day.
the fact that we can see starlight disproves creationist myth. it takes billions of years for star light to reach the earth, so if we can see starlight then the universe is obviously older than 6000 years.

First off, I do not know the age of the earth.

Yes I believe that we are all descended from Adam and Eve as Catholics do. (agree with continuous Catholic teaching and understanding)

The devil can posses. The creature in the garden was a serpent.

Yup - by then there were many descendants of Adam.

How were these civilizations dated?

You didn't catch the paper about humans not evolving in 270,000 years have you? Living fossils are appearing everyday. What the fossil record shows is abrupt appearance, stasis with limited variation within.

Any idea what the speed of light was at creation? How about time dilation? Anisotropic synchrony?

**buffalo** · #70 Jun 20, '12, 7:05 pm

Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

A new book, Science and Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Doug Axe, and Casey Luskin, has hit the street, and we’ll be having a fair bit more to say about it.
For now, just this: Developmental biologist Ann Gauger, who wasn’t sure whether the human race could have come from one original couple, as opposed to Templeton winner Francisco Ayala’s claim of thousands of people, concludes in Chapter 5 that Ayala was vastly overstating his case, and that it is quite possible that there was one Adam and one Eve.*

more...
_______