What is Reddit's opinion of
In the Beginning…': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Ressourcement: Retrieval and Renewal in Catholic Thought (RRRCT))?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
9 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
>The creation narrative in Genesis is written in the form of Hebrew poetry. In poetry, there may be figurative language. So the creation narrative should be read like a poem.
To quote Pope Benedict:
>The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.
His homilies on Genesis really illuminate how a Catholic should read these narratives.
I haven't read it myself, but maybe In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and The Fall by Benedict XVI would be helpful for your questions?
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is a big fan of ID. Wrote a book about his understanding of the issues. I don't believe it's a product of the Magisterium - you don't have to agree with it.
​
I've heard these are good resources on this question:
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Conference-Benedict-Gandolfo/dp/1586172344
Sorry! That's a heresy!
In the beginning is a book by Pope Benedict that would be a good read for you:
https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Ressourcement-Retrieval/dp/0802841066
I accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the biological development of the human person, but I also maintain that there is more to the human person than just biology: we are composites of bodies and souls, and (as Ratzinger says, and as I will quote more extensively later on) "the rise of the spirit... cannot be excavated with a shovel." That is, our physical nature is explicable by way of evolutionary processes, but those processes do not account for our fundamental identity as beings who are called into relationship with God.
We must begin with the fact that the purpose of Scripture is not scientific accuracy but rather the communication of theological messages. On Genesis specifically:
>We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.
-Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning....
I think that a proper exegetical reading of the creation narratives demonstrates that the biblical text is not really concerned with a scientific explanation so much as it is with presenting a kind of reflection on the nature of existence, of God, and of human beings. There are even two creation accounts contained within the first two chapters of Genesis, one after the other, which implies that the writers (or those who put together the final version) weren't aiming for historical accuracy but rather for the communication of a message.
What could that message be, then? Well, let us take a look at the context.
Atheists often question the validity of Genesis by comparing it to the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish, and it is indeed true that the Enuma Elish and Genesis resemble each other in more than a few ways. One of the prevalent theories holds that the first creation narrative in Genesis was written during the period of Bablyonian captivity by Israelite priests as a critique of the Enuma Elish. In the Enuma Elish, the creation of the world is the accidental byproduct of a war between the gods, and human beings are rather haphazardly created from dragon's blood in order to serve the gods as slaves. Genesis counters these rather depressing views of the origins of the world and of humanity by insisting that God (1) intended to create a good world characterized by order (hence the "on the first day", "on the second day," etc. dynamic—it shows an orderly process of creation) and (2) created humans simply that they share in the goodness of the created order.
I think a very strong case can be made, therefore, that the Genesis creation accounts were not intended to be taken literally by the authors themselves. Rather, they speak allegorically to communicate deeper truths: namely, that the created order is founded upon reason; that God freely chose to create; that human beings are willed; that human beings exist for the sake of relationship with God; that sin disrupts the orderly design of the created world.
As Ratzinger reflects,
>The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ... herein ... lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.
Genesis is not incompatible with contemporary geology, palaeontology and evolutionary theory. It is not a scientific text and does not attempt to impose itself upon the domain of science. Nevertheless what it does offer is the truth about who God is and about who we are.
Well PM me if you find any clues! The easiest would be if he likes the pope because then he could just read http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Catholic-Understanding-Creation-Resourcement/dp/0802841066 but as that is likely not the case, his best bet is probably G.K. Chesterton.
If he reads Chesterton on Aquinas, it would be hard to value ideas at the expense of people for very long. I might be getting over talkative on this subject, but the heresy of gnosticism is what is going on when somebody thinks that having the right beliefs, or seeing the world in the right way is what it takes to be a good person.
When people are talking about it with regards to Christianity they often put it in very specifically christian terms, but its a really general condition where somebody thinks that having all the right books memorized in their heads is all that they need to get by. It's found across all religions and amongst various "secularisms" as well. When somebody as a marxist doesn't want to deal with people who have compromised and taken public office or something, or who only wants to be associated with other people of equally pure ideals, they're being gnostic.
I'm not describing it very well, but basically its the brash, youthful, uncompromising archetype. When teenagers feel like there would be good music if musicians would just hold out but that everybody eventually caves in and tries to make money, they're being gnostic. It's a book that approaches the heresy of gnosticism with such a broad field of vision that will encourage someone to put down their books for a while and trust people in the real world.
On a more serious note, it isn't a very faithful person who thinks that God has put him on earth with a bunch of conniving liars. While its true that our human institutions are our own to a certain extent, there is a formless form that things like the marketplace, the parliament, and law enforcement have that should be workable ideas for someone who sees the world through their relationship with God.
I hope I haven't worn out my point, basically it's that its more religious to be trusting of people in general (not that they're good, necessarily, just that they aren't so powerful as they seem in conspiracies) and that old religious guys in general would not support being holed up alone with books. I guess I'm talking more about myself than what I understand about your brother at this point. Again, if you ever think it'd be a good idea to PM names of guys and books that he likes, I'd be happy to look for examples of really old religious guys talking about chilling out and trusting people if you think that'd be helpful. But at that point it might be getting self-indulgent on my part, and not trusting you guys to work it out.
I would encourage you to read up on the standards Christians impose upon themselves vis-à-vis the Scriptures.
> To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
If you're looking at the creation narratives in Genesis in particular, this is a good place to start. As Ratzinger writes:
> We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.
Popular alternatives to In the Beginning…': A Catho...
How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide
God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships
