Should a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Without Qualifications?

[palbert]

I think you're still stuck with the problem of literalism.

Let us suppose that someone said, "John has accomplished a lot as president," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious actions of their leader. That may literally be true. If someone said, "John is the bomb," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious action of their leader, that may metaphorically be true.

The question of figures doesn't disappear because passages intend to invite praise.

The same is true of any passage meant for easy memorability.

Poe's Law.

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[Kulindahr]

I think you're still stuck with the problem of literalism.

Let us suppose that someone said, "John has accomplished a lot as president," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious actions of their leader. That may literally be true. If someone said, "John is the bomb," with the intention of telling the people of the glorious action of their leader, that may metaphorically be true.

The question of figures doesn't disappear because passages intend to invite praise.

The same is true of any passage meant for easy memorability.

There is no metaphor in Genesis 1. Royal chronicle does not use metaphor.

It does make use of poetic elements, in this case the day framework with the "evening and morning" refrain, for example. As in typical in royal chronicle, the days are not meant literally; they are a poetic way of arranging the material in a orderly and memorable fashion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

There is no metaphor in Genesis 1. Royal chronicle does not use metaphor.

It does make use of poetic elements, in this case the day framework with the "evening and morning" refrain, for example. As in typical in royal chronicle, the days are not meant literally; they are a poetic way of arranging the material in a orderly and memorable fashion.

So...is the idea that god created the world a poetic arrangement or a literal fact?

 

[kallipolis]

So...is the idea that god created the world a poetic arrangement or a literal fact?

Speaking for myself, I would say that God is creating, rather than created......the world.

 

[Kulindahr]

So...is the idea that god created the world a poetic arrangement or a literal fact?

A fact. That is, after all, what the chronicle is proclaiming.

 

[Kulindahr]

Speaking for myself, I would say that God is creating, rather than created......the world.

Ah, continuous creation -- a noble notion not inconsistent with scripture.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The royal chronicle that is the first Creation account in Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. Those who do so are ignorantly abusing the account.

The first Creation account in Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't make it metaphor, either. It's a literary form that summarizes an accomplishment of a king in a memorable way. Those items tied to the theme are meant as fact -- e.g., that God created by declaring what He wanted to happen -- but chronology and sequence are merely a framework. We do this as well; think of a summary of a successful season of a soccer team, which might be done by following the actions of the goalie from game to game, then taking in turn each player who scored. We aren't expected to believe that the goalie did everything and then the scorers; rather, we understand that different actions took place in different games. In the same way, the ancient listeners to the first Creation account understood that the order of things as listed wasn't necessarily literal, that for example God probably made plants and animals in a mixed succession. Such details were unimportant; the tale was told to make it easily remembered, so the hearers would understand that God made everything, gave it His personal attention, put everything in order in its place, and set Man as the crowning element of it all, standing in a place that bridged the gap between the rest of Creation and God, being on the one hand an animal, but on the other the image of God.

They most certainly wouldn't understand how anyone could read it as a literal, blow-by-blow account of what God did. And I seriously doubt they would cling to the sort of kid-making-toy-animals interpretation held by most of today's 'evangelicals'.

There is no metaphor in Genesis 1. Royal chronicle does not use metaphor.

It does make use of poetic elements, in this case the day framework with the "evening and morning" refrain, for example. As in typical in royal chronicle, the days are not meant literally; they are a poetic way of arranging the material in a orderly and memorable fashion.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Soooo....is the idea that god created the world a literal fact?

A fact. That is, after all, what the chronicle is proclaiming.

Yes, I see now. Nothing about the creation story is meant literally.

Except, after all, for the creation itself.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And just to be clear about this point^, I'm not arguing against interpreting scripture literally for ritual purpose.

I'm arguing against interpreting scripture literally as the best rational/scientific account...which Genesis 1 isn't.