How do you reconcile choosing to believe one metaphor over another? How can context, timeframe and culture within the bible ever be overlooked when deciding what the biblical message is?
I think the Catholic Church, with its spotty ‘pick & choose’ approach to accepting allegories and metaphors in the Bible needs a good overhaul when it comes to context, rituals, timeframes, meanings and how these messages apply to people TODAY.
I think it’s great that evolution is accepted in Catholicism (see article below) and that it has the ability to strengthen rather than negate one’s faith. However, how can (many Catholics) think that God actually flooded the entire earth in the story of Noah’s Ark?
I think it’s great that evolution is accepted in Catholicism (see article below) and that it has the ability to strengthen rather than negate one’s faith. However, how can (many Catholics) think that God actually flooded the entire earth in the story of Noah’s Ark?
Biblical context WOULD note that the whole earth appeared flooded if witnesses of the time stood and looked around and saw nothing but water. BUT, not having yet explored the entire earth nor having had a walkee talkee to get a status update of flood waters from correspondents stationed across the globe, I think it is safe to say that this story is one of MOST in the bible that is also a metaphor; the flood was most likely regional, not global.
At what point is it ok to “pick and choose” to accept certain biblical metaphors over others? Or to declare that (among issues such as gender equality, etc.) that being homosexual is an outright sin against God without taking into consideration the context, timeframe, culture and meaning?
I refer back to an earlier blog I posted. Daniel Karslake's documentary For The Bible Tells Me So is a film everyone needs to see. It addresses the misconception about homosexuals and the origins of their oppression. http://craftingtheschism.blogspot.com/2008/04/for-bible-tells-me-so.html
Biblical literalism is a relatively new concept that has damaged and hurt so many, especially with the idea that homosexuality is an “abomination”.
Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene, of Disciples of Christ, puts it best in the aforementioned film:
"When the term abomination is used in the Hebrew Bible it’s always used to address a ritual wrong, it never is used to refer to something innately immoral. Eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an abomination because it was a violation of a ritual requirement." The film points out here, too, that it is also an abomination to eat shrimp, rabbit and plant two different seeds in the same hole.
Context and history is key: Leviticus condemns men lying with men but also the eating of shrimp and the simultaneous wearing of linen and wool. Modern evangelicals use the Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah as a ban against same-sex carousing, ignoring 500 years of scholarship that interprets it as a cautionary tale of inhospitable hosts. Says Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the film, "The richness of the Bible is that we don't take it as literally so."
So, while articles appear about how “advanced” the Catholic Church is, it is one institution that is still way, WAY behind in terms of recognizing the obvious such as gender equality, women as priests vs. women not being priests back in the day, compassionate acceptance of homosexuals, etc.
At what point is it ok to “pick and choose” to accept certain biblical metaphors over others? Or to declare that (among issues such as gender equality, etc.) that being homosexual is an outright sin against God without taking into consideration the context, timeframe, culture and meaning?
I refer back to an earlier blog I posted. Daniel Karslake's documentary For The Bible Tells Me So is a film everyone needs to see. It addresses the misconception about homosexuals and the origins of their oppression. http://craftingtheschism.blogspot.com/2008/04/for-bible-tells-me-so.html
Biblical literalism is a relatively new concept that has damaged and hurt so many, especially with the idea that homosexuality is an “abomination”.
Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene, of Disciples of Christ, puts it best in the aforementioned film:
"When the term abomination is used in the Hebrew Bible it’s always used to address a ritual wrong, it never is used to refer to something innately immoral. Eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an abomination because it was a violation of a ritual requirement." The film points out here, too, that it is also an abomination to eat shrimp, rabbit and plant two different seeds in the same hole.
Context and history is key: Leviticus condemns men lying with men but also the eating of shrimp and the simultaneous wearing of linen and wool. Modern evangelicals use the Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah as a ban against same-sex carousing, ignoring 500 years of scholarship that interprets it as a cautionary tale of inhospitable hosts. Says Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the film, "The richness of the Bible is that we don't take it as literally so."
So, while articles appear about how “advanced” the Catholic Church is, it is one institution that is still way, WAY behind in terms of recognizing the obvious such as gender equality, women as priests vs. women not being priests back in the day, compassionate acceptance of homosexuals, etc.
The Church hoards the dangerous tendency to pick and choose a message from an ancient page of gray and display it in black and white.
-------------------------------------------
Vatican: Guess what, Darwin? Evolution is OK
Catholic Church says theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible
Catholic Church says theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible
By Philip Pullella - Reuters
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species." Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation. Earlier this week, a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain. Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views. "Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned." Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world. Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools. Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum. The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species. It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text. As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science." Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution. "In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said. "Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly," he said. Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species." Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation. Earlier this week, a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain. Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views. "Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned." Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world. Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools. Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum. The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species. It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text. As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science." Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution. "In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said. "Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly," he said. Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment