What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[Catholicity]

I have never heard of the Catholic official position being that Adam and Eve and the Garden were myth.

.

Its not and if a priest or person is teaching it, they are not upholding the catholic faith.

As for me, I understand Adam and Eve to represent both Divine Mysteries and actual males and females born into this world, actually having children - the children too both being in the physical and pointing to mysteries that are revealed in the Hebrew.

What. Are. You. Smoking? It must be good if you can get to that point from whats actually in the text.

[Vivian]

.

Its not and if a priest or person is teaching it, they are not upholding the catholic faith.




What. Are. You. Smoking? It must be good if you can get to that point from whats actually in the text.

First, what the? What are you talking about? I find you very very confusing. What do you mean by 'text'? I was referring to what I said in my post, and surely that statement is not in any way contradictory to the actual text from scripture?

All I can assume is that you like to argue.

As far as my daughter's school...she attends a prestigious college-prep girls-only school, run by the Sisters of Notre Dame.

This is the exact wording about the Garden of Eden from the Catechism:

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.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.

An event happened. The telling of it in scripture uses figurative language. The way the Sisters of Notre Dame teach it - using a Catholic textbook: this event did not happen exactly as it is told in scripture, because what actually happened cannot be described in human terms. And so figurative language, a myth, was created representing this event.

And so there really wasn't a garden and a tree and a serpent as described, this is figurative language, symbolism, analogies, a myth, to explain something that is inexplicable in human language.

Perhaps there are levels of teachings within Catholicism? This is how the Sisters of Notre Dame teach it.

As for me, I agree that this interpretation with some minor additions. If one looks deeper into the meaning of the Hebrew words for serpent, tree, man, woman, etc the mysteries behind what occurred can be seen. Perhaps it takes deeper insight to see these things, or a willingness to see anew, to be made anew, but in spirit, I do not disagree with this teaching. Now I see there was recently a lot of hoopla over a Cardinal calling the story of the Garden of Eden a myth. It seems that some people are super sensitive regarding certain words. Myth does not mean that something did not happen, only that the telling of a truth is done symbolically or with figurative language as the Catechism claims occurred with the Garden of Eden story.

Shalom!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Pope Pius XII said thus in Humani Generis:

Humani Generis. Sections 37-39

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

© source where applicable

It's acceptable Catholic teaching to say that the language in Genesis is figurative but not acceptable teaching to say that the event is mythological. Here there must be a technical distinction between figurative language and myth, as the latter term is being used to mean a fictitious story. A word that would be acceptable to Catholic teaching would be legend — but even that would be straining Catholic doctrine.

—Sam

[Vivian]

Thank you, Sam. I see that Pope Pius XII died in 1958, so there might be more recent teachings on this, coming from the Vatican.

While one definition of myth is a fictional story, another definition is a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people and a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. Perhaps the Sisters of Notre Dame usage of the term myth fits into these categories. It could be that they see this story similar to how I see the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. There is no proof that these actual figures existed, they might represent several historical figures represented collectively as a singular figure. But I do believe that something happened from which these stores arose. It is just that they might not of happened just as they are told, which does not matter, for it is the truths that the stories and characters represent that matter.

Perhaps legend better fits what they believe, but they used myth in the teaching. Or at least this is what my daughter heard, that it was a myth, and she took that to mean that it did not literally happen, but perhaps the Sisters were thinking of other definitions of myth. I was not there. My daughter and her friends are pretty smart and I don't think they misheard the Sisters. Really, the Catechism leaves this wide open, methinks, for many interpretations. How much of the story is figurative and how much is literal? There could be a wide spectrum of opinions within the Catholic Church.

I actually find this rather funny. :)

My daughter came home from school one day telling me that the Catholic Church teaches that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, that it really did not happen literally. I talked with her and told her that I believed that the story was not fictional - that some literal-ness did occur, but that there is much symbolism in the telling, that the events were not being recounted literally but figuratively or symbolically. I actually found the Catholic Church more liberal than me!

I was quite surprised of the stance that the Sisters took - myth, eh? Personally, I do not use that term to describe the Garden of Eden, nor do I use legend. To me it is literal in a sense, it is just that without understanding the Hebrew aleph-beit, and what the letters that spell serpent and tree mean, one might think is it a real serpent or a real tree. Eve encountered something but it was not a scaly figure hanging out in a tree!


Shalom!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Thank you, Sam. I see that Pope Pius XII died in 1958, so there might be more recent teachings on this, coming from the Vatican.

Pope John Paul II went further than any other pope in putting the stamp of approval on evolution but, as far as I know, no pope has rescinded the message contained in Humani Generis. Encyclicals are high-tier pastoral and doctrinal messages, so it's unlikely that the Catholic Church has officially endorsed any other interpretation.

You will find high-ranking Catholics like Cardinal George Pell claiming that the Creation story is mythological but such members are speaking outside of the official doctrine, for better or worse.

While one definition of myth is a fictional story, another definition is a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people and a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. Perhaps the Sisters of Notre Dame usage of the term myth fits into these categories. It could be that they see this story similar to how I see the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. There is no proof that these actual figures existed, they might represent several historical figures represented collectively as a singular figure. But I do believe that something happened from which these stores arose. It is just that they might not of happened just as they are told, which does not matter, for it is the truths that the stories and characters represent that matter.

Perhaps legend better fits what they believe, but they used myth in the teaching. Or at least this is what my daughter heard, that it was a myth, and she took that to mean that it did not literally happen, but perhaps the Sisters were thinking of other definitions of myth. I was not there. My daughter and her friends are pretty smart and I don't think they misheard the Sisters. Really, the Catechism leaves this wide open, methinks, for many interpretations. How much of the story is figurative and how much is literal? There could be a wide spectrum of opinions within the Catholic Church.

I actually find this rather funny. :)

My daughter came home from school one day telling me that the Catholic Church teaches that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, that it really did not happen literally. I talked with her and told her that I believed that the story was not fictional - that some literal-ness did occur, but that there is much symbolism in the telling, that the events were not being recounted literally but figuratively or symbolically. I actually found the Catholic Church more liberal than me!

I was quite surprised of the stance that the Sisters took - myth, eh? Personally, I do not use that term to describe the Garden of Eden, nor do I use legend. To me it is literal in a sense, it is just that without understanding the Hebrew aleph-beit, and what the letters that spell serpent and tree mean, one might think is it a real serpent or a real tree. Eve encountered something but it was not a scaly figure hanging out in a tree!

I myself do believe that the Creation account is mythological (as in fictitious) but I also hold to a broader interpretation of myth. History and Myth are interwoven and both tell different aspects of the same story: history tells us what (more or less) happened while myth tells us why things happen and how they fit into an existential narrative. So even as Myth, the Creation account is worthwhile and true.

But regarding the Catechism, you have to interpret it within the context of the Church's other teachings. There isn't a way to state that the Creation account is on par with myth and still be within the scope of official Catholic doctrine.

—Sam

[Vivian]

Pope John Paul II went further than any other pope in putting the stamp of approval on evolution but, as far as I know, no pope has rescinded the message contained in Humani Generis. Encyclicals are high-tier pastoral and doctrinal messages, so it's unlikely that the Catholic Church has officially endorsed any other interpretation.

You will find high-ranking Catholics like Cardinal George Pell claiming that the Creation story is mythological but such members are speaking outside of the official doctrine, for better or worse.



I myself do believe that the Creation account is mythological (as in fictitious) but I also hold to a broader interpretation of myth. History and Myth are interwoven and both tell different aspects of the same story: history tells us what (more or less) happened while myth tells us why things happen and how they fit into an existential narrative. So even as Myth, the Creation account is worthwhile and true.

But regarding the Catechism, you have to interpret it within the context of the Church's other teachings. There isn't a way to state that the Creation account is on par with myth and still be within the scope of official Catholic doctrine.

—Sam

Thank you for this discussion, Sam. I appreciate your honesty and your intelligence - or at least your intelligent writing!

In looking through my daughter's religion textbook, I see that it states that the first two chapters in Genesis give us truths of faith, but not scientific truths. Adding that they speak to our faith and devotion to God, as our creator, but not to the scientific facts regarding creation, stating that they are 'not an eyewitness account of what happened billions of years ago'.

In reading online, it appears that presently there is a debate within Catholicism regarding Adam and Eve as the sole parents of humanity - monogenism versus polygenism, though presently the Vatican has been silent. Several authors pointed out that the Vatican has changed its doctrine to match scientific conclusions, and predicted that accepting polygenism over monogenism will be the next move.

I offer though that thus far what has been changed within Catholic Doctrine has been interpretation - the Catholic Church wisely realizing that as humanity advances, our understanding of scripture will also advance.

Just for fun, let me offer a widely accepted understanding of the first two chapters in Genesis held by Wisdom Traditions. Adam and Eve represent the 'first' of spiritual humanity - the first in the evolution of mankind to be able to receive the breath of God, being able to seek God, to have relationship with God. There were other humans on the earth at the time that they appeared - which is pretty clear from scripture itself, but they were the first to be able to 'reside in the Spiritual Garden' and commune with God. Their fall from the Garden, being sent out into world among the rest of humanity, was by Divine Intent and Plan, to elevate all of humanity, to quicken all of humanity's evolution - leading to the point of humanity being able to receive the Messiah in the flesh, and beyond, to the second coming.

Perhaps this will make sense to you.

Shalom!

[nickcopernicus]

This is the relevant text of North Carolina's Amendment 1:

Amendment 1

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

© source where applicable

That's not just limiting homosexual unions; there are no legal unions except for heterosexual marriage. No common law marriages, no civil unions, no domestic partnerships. The amendment is decried not because it institutes a ban that did not exist before but precisely because it injects that ban into the DNA of North Carolina, the same state that once also included this in its constitution:

The Constitution of North Carolina, 1875

All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the third generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.

© source where applicable

Attachment 76088


It's always a horrible day when governments and citizens steal equality from others for no better reason than personal prejudice — even if that prejudice can be religiously justified.

—Sam

Nick:
It’s an even worse day when we consider that all these consanguineous country bumpkins (in North Carolina) are so blinded by their religious ideology that they can’t see that we have much more pressing things to worry about (recession, healthcare, terrorism, homicide, poverty) than who marries who.

I mean seriously, why do they care if homosexuals get married? Biblical doctrine also prohibits worshiping other gods and extramarital sex. Why aren’t they pushing for those to be illegal? Maybe because their bigotry would be exposed for what it is?

[Cerebrum123]

Thank you for this discussion, Sam. I appreciate your honesty and your intelligence - or at least your intelligent writing!

In looking through my daughter's religion textbook, I see that it states that the first two chapters in Genesis give us truths of faith, but not scientific truths. Adding that they speak to our faith and devotion to God, as our creator, but not to the scientific facts regarding creation, stating that they are 'not an eyewitness account of what happened billions of years ago'.

In reading online, it appears that presently there is a debate within Catholicism regarding Adam and Eve as the sole parents of humanity - monogenism versus polygenism, though presently the Vatican has been silent. Several authors pointed out that the Vatican has changed its doctrine to match scientific conclusions, and predicted that accepting polygenism over monogenism will be the next move.

I offer though that thus far what has been changed within Catholic Doctrine has been interpretation - the Catholic Church wisely realizing that as humanity advances, our understanding of scripture will also advance.

Just for fun, let me offer a widely accepted understanding of the first two chapters in Genesis held by Wisdom Traditions. Adam and Eve represent the 'first' of spiritual humanity - the first in the evolution of mankind to be able to receive the breath of God, being able to seek God, to have relationship with God. There were other humans on the earth at the time that they appeared - which is pretty clear from scripture itself, but they were the first to be able to 'reside in the Spiritual Garden' and commune with God. Their fall from the Garden, being sent out into world among the rest of humanity, was by Divine Intent and Plan, to elevate all of humanity, to quicken all of humanity's evolution - leading to the point of humanity being able to receive the Messiah in the flesh, and beyond, to the second coming.

Perhaps this will make sense to you.

Shalom!

Genesis 1-11 teaches historical truth, and is not in any way shape or form a "myth"(it is quite clear that the genre of all of Genesis is that of historical narrative). The NT writers constantly warned against believing in myths, but they taught Genesis to be Scripture, and since God was so against myths, He wouldn't allow one to be so critical a foundation of our faith(without the doctrine of creation, the Resurrection makes no sense). The warnings against believing in myths are in these verses.

1 Timothy 4:7
Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

2 Timothy 4:4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Titus 1:14
and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.

Genesis wasn't treated this way by any NT author, and shouldn't be treated that way by any of us now.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Thank you for this discussion, Sam. I appreciate your honesty and your intelligence - or at least your intelligent writing!

In looking through my daughter's religion textbook, I see that it states that the first two chapters in Genesis give us truths of faith, but not scientific truths. Adding that they speak to our faith and devotion to God, as our creator, but not to the scientific facts regarding creation, stating that they are 'not an eyewitness account of what happened billions of years ago'.

Yes, that is acceptable Catholic interpretation; what that speaks to, however, is not so much whether Adam and Eve were actual persons but rather whether the Creation account is a literal history of the world. Catholic doctrine allows for the interpretation that God's creation of the cosmos, the land, the animals, etc. in Genesis are figurative — the framework or gap hypotheses, for example, are acceptable Catholic teaching.

Pius XII, though, made a distinction regarding the story of the Fall; that can use figurative language, according to Catholic doctrine, but the story itself cannot be comparable to myth.

In reading online, it appears that presently there is a debate within Catholicism regarding Adam and Eve as the sole parents of humanity - monogenism versus polygenism, though presently the Vatican has been silent. Several authors pointed out that the Vatican has changed its doctrine to match scientific conclusions, and predicted that accepting polygenism over monogenism will be the next move.

I offer though that thus far what has been changed within Catholic Doctrine has been interpretation - the Catholic Church wisely realizing that as humanity advances, our understanding of scripture will also advance.

Well, we see some Catholic authorities take this view (e.g., Cardinal Pell) but the official doctrine has not changed and, given as Pius XII delivered an encyclical directly answering the question, it's unlikely that the official stance will be changed anytime soon. Definitely not by Pope Benedict XVI.

Just for fun, let me offer a widely accepted understanding of the first two chapters in Genesis held by Wisdom Traditions. Adam and Eve represent the 'first' of spiritual humanity - the first in the evolution of mankind to be able to receive the breath of God, being able to seek God, to have relationship with God. There were other humans on the earth at the time that they appeared - which is pretty clear from scripture itself, but they were the first to be able to 'reside in the Spiritual Garden' and commune with God. Their fall from the Garden, being sent out into world among the rest of humanity, was by Divine Intent and Plan, to elevate all of humanity, to quicken all of humanity's evolution - leading to the point of humanity being able to receive the Messiah in the flesh, and beyond, to the second coming.

Perhaps this will make sense to you.

I wouldn't say that's an invalid way to interpret the story, certainly. I take the view that the Creation account is a transfer from nearby ANE (ancient near-east) cultures and retains many of the same characteristics. The primary difference is the focus on monotheism and the element of human sin. The author(s) was(were) telling a similar story as other ANE cultures — how the world came to exist, how the genders separated, why God was removed from the local community — but did so within the context of Monotheism, which was a pretty significant narrative change in and of itself.

We can create additional themes and archetypes for our own understanding (e.g., evolution), of course, but I think that the original author's thematic intent was pretty simply and contemporary.

—Sam

[JimL]

Do you think Jesus sinned when he drove the money changers out of the Temple, knocking over their tables, or when he called people snakes or whited tombs?

He also called people raca, or fools, though he called it a sin to do so. Of course being God the same rules don't apply to him.

[JimL]

President Obama will possibly clarify his stance on the same-sex marriage issue today. At least he will probably be asked to.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-in-interview/

What is REALLY at issue for people here on Tweb on both sides of the debate? Is it all about real actual rights? Is it just about rights to use the term and not so much about real rights?

If it's about real rights, then what real rights are now missing? I don't want to deny actual rights to any law abiding person.

If it's about kidnapping the term "Marriage" mostly and not about real rights, then I have a real problem with that.

I believe the term "Marriage" should be preserved to avoid confusion for parents and children. It muddles the genders, and I think preserving gender identity is helped by preserving the meaning of words and terms such as "Marriage." Call it something else: "Civil Union" or "Homogeny" but don't call it "matrimony" or "marriage."

Thoughts?

How does the term marriage "muddle the genders?" And how does the same term being applied to same gender unions in any way effect heterosexual unions? The call it something else issue is a red herring, the real issue is the legitimacy of homosexuality, and those who deny its legitimacy want to impose their "beliefs" on the those who disagree by denying homosexuals equal rights.

[Hamster]

So basically marriage is Kellogg's and Gay Marriage is those big off-brand bags of cereal on the bottom shelves. They're allowed to make the same kind of cereal but they can't call it froot loops

[OtherCheek]

How does the term marriage "muddle the genders?" And how does the same term being applied to same gender unions in any way effect heterosexual unions? The call it something else issue is a red herring, the real issue is the legitimacy of homosexuality, and those who deny its legitimacy want to impose their "beliefs" on the those who disagree by denying homosexuals equal rights.

Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't muddle the genders. And I think the issue of same-sex marriage IS about the term, and using it to justify a lifestyle that is not healthy for the promulgation of the human race.

[Vivian]

Yes, that is acceptable Catholic interpretation; what that speaks to, however, is not so much whether Adam and Eve were actual persons but rather whether the Creation account is a literal history of the world. Catholic doctrine allows for the interpretation that God's creation of the cosmos, the land, the animals, etc. in Genesis are figurative — the framework or gap hypotheses, for example, are acceptable Catholic teaching.

Pius XII, though, made a distinction regarding the story of the Fall; that can use figurative language, according to Catholic doctrine, but the story itself cannot be comparable to myth.



Well, we see some Catholic authorities take this view (e.g., Cardinal Pell) but the official doctrine has not changed and, given as Pius XII delivered an encyclical directly answering the question, it's unlikely that the official stance will be changed anytime soon. Definitely not by Pope Benedict XVI.



I wouldn't say that's an invalid way to interpret the story, certainly. I take the view that the Creation account is a transfer from nearby ANE (ancient near-east) cultures and retains many of the same characteristics. The primary difference is the focus on monotheism and the element of human sin. The author(s) was(were) telling a similar story as other ANE cultures — how the world came to exist, how the genders separated, why God was removed from the local community — but did so within the context of Monotheism, which was a pretty significant narrative change in and of itself.

We can create additional themes and archetypes for our own understanding (e.g., evolution), of course, but I think that the original author's thematic intent was pretty simply and contemporary.

—Sam

Shalom Sam!

It seems that you are seeing something that ties into the teachings of my church when you stated that the Creation account is a transfer from nearby ANE cultures and retains many of the same characteristics.

We and others teach that the Garden of Eden is not a physical place, but a spiritual place that is reached through the ascent of consciousness. It is where mystics of today, the greatest mystics, abide, unite, with God.

The Judaic-Christian tradition is not the only spiritual stream into which 'Adam and Eve' were placed. There were numerous Adams and Eves placed, or initiated with the Breath of God we might say, in this world - there are more than one Adam into which God breathed, making him a spiritually alive creature. And so we would say that all the world's spiritual streams emanated out of 'Adam and Eve' or spiritual alive individuals. The Adam and Eve of our Bible is the lineage through which the Judaic-Christian stream flowed, the stream in which the Messiah was first able to incarnate.

And so we teach that the children of Adam and Eve are spiritual children - those who were able to carry forward the spiritual stream of consciousness, or what some call the light transmission, in this world. Cain and Abel - their first children - were not able to do this as we discover in the story told about them - they succumbed to the beastly nature. Seth though was the seed through which the spiritual seed propagated, leading to the rise of Abraham, and Israel and ultimately the Messiah. So Adam and Eve are the spiritual parents of the Judaic/Christian/Muslim spiritual stream into humanity.

To tie into this thread - it is spiritual children whom God calls us to produce - this is the commandment that God calls us to fulfill. There were and definitely are today plenty of physical children. Be fruitful and multiply is speaking of spiritual regeneration - being born of spirit, which Jesus clarified in Matthew 12:50. How do you think we become the mother of Christ? Not by procreating physical babies, but by producing spiritual children, rising up others into the body of Christ - whether we are male or female. And definitely whether we are in a marriage with one of the same gender or not.

Thus we teach that the gender of a married couple does not matter in God's eyes - what matters is that they both become brothers, sisters, mothers of Christ.

Even if the reader disagrees with this teaching, they cannot argue with Jesus breaking gender generalizations, saying that both men and women can be true mothers - revealing that these terms which we associate with specific genders actually transcend gender. This applies equally to marriage.

Shalom and Happy Mother's Day to all those, male and female, who are mothers of Christ.

Vivian

[Hamster]

Can't wait to be Jesus' brother and his wife at the same time