From 8e9d3cd30955ab323206a6da576bc9d8a45fd9bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Ortega=20Froysa?= Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 17:08:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] New post about interpreting Scripture. --- ...6-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.cfg | 5 ++ ...-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html | 81 +++++++++++++++++++ style.css | 13 +++ 3 files changed, 99 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.cfg create mode 100644 blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html diff --git a/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.cfg b/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a3ec05 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2021-09-12-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html +title = Literal Interpretations of Scripture +description = It seems that too often we get obsessed with people's interpretations of Scripture, and whether it adjusts to a literal interpretation or a more nuanced view that are compatible with modern scientific discoveries. +created = 2021-09-12 +updated = 2021-09-12 diff --git a/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html b/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62f298c --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0146-literal-interpretations-of-scripture.html @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +

Some time ago, I was talking with a friend, and he brought up how a mutual +friend of ours had suggested that it is possible that Moses, the Biblical +character from the Old Testament, did not historically exist. Rather, that he +is simply a literary character used to explain Israel's liberation from Egypt +and settlement in the Holy Land. My friend asked me this to get my opinion on +whether or not this is doctrinally acceptable. My answer, however, is not as +simple as a "yes" or "no". Perhaps it is not, I have not investigated to see if +the Church has any magisterial teaching on this matter, but I would like to take +this opportunity to comment on interpreting Scripture in general as a historical +text.

+ +

To begin, I'd like to say that I greatly respect this mutual friend of ours, +and I know that either he was joking when he said it, or he has good reason to +believe it's a possibility. This mutual friend was a seminarian, and has studied +a Master's degree in history. He is also a person I know to uphold doctrinal +orthodoxy, even if it is unpopular. So whether or not I agree with his opinion, +I believe it is respectable simply from his credentials and merits. However, +since I do not have much knowledge regarding this topic, I will instead focus on +another topic where I am knowledgeable of the magisterial teaching and current +scientific theories regarding the matter: Creationism versus Evolution.

+ +

Whenever we bring up a question regarding Faith or Morals, our first step +must always be to pick up a Catechism, or in general see what the Magisterium of +the Catholic Church has to say on the matter. Not just to find a definitive +statement, but especially to find the reasoning. If the Church has an official +teaching on such a matter of Faith or Morals, we must either subject our +opinions to that teaching, or reject the teaching and Christ's Church (i.e. +reject Catholicism). It's not necessary to know why things are the way they are, +only God knows that for sure. But we must be humble like children before the +infinite wisdom and knowledge of God. If, on the other hand, the Church does not +have any definitive teaching on the topic, then we are free to take a variety of +opinions so long as they are compatible with the rest of Catholic Doctrine.

+ +

To explain this with our example, the Church has no definitive teaching +on the question of Creationism or Evolution; and in fact, She shall never +have such a teaching, as this is a question of science and not Faith or Morals. +As such it lies strictly outside the jurisdiction of the Church's teaching +authority. You can easily discern this by contemplating whether believing in one +or the other contradicts any doctrine for our salvation, which neither Evolution +nor Creationism does.(1) As such, it is not +problematic for a Christian to believe either of these theories. God will not +judge either of these people based on their beliefs on how species came to be as +they are.

+ +

So the question now stands, if the Church has no official teaching, and +therefore which you choose to believe has no direct effect on your salvation, +which should you believe? Should you believe the interpretation of Scripture +that is more true to the literal meaning, or the interpretation that has been +harmonized with modern scientific discoveries? My view on the matter may be +controversial, but I believe you should believe whatever helps you to grow in +faith and charity. If it helps your faith to believe in Theistic Evolution, then +do so. If you find it difficult to harmonize Evolution with Biblical inerrancy +then go ahead and believe in Creationism. But most importantly: be respectful of +those who disagree with you, and recognize that this one belief of yours in +personal. Do not convince others that this is the only thing that a +good Christian can believe. And to carry my point home: don't use your personal +belief as an excuse to hinder scientific discovery on the matter. If you are +truly convinced of your opinion, let the truth find its way out, as it +eventually will. But do not be afraid of scientific discovery, for truth cannot +contradict Truth.

+ +

Finally, since I'm bound to get some commentary on the matter, I will +publicly state that I accept Theistic Evolution. I think that this theory helps +to explain certain accounts in Genesis, such as where Cain's wife comes from; +but as a lay person, I don't wish to be so naïve as to proselytize others with +my belief. Only God knows the ultimate truth behind these sorts of things, and +on the final day when the truth is revealed to us, we should be humble in +accepting whatever may be the case. So again, believe what you want, but accept +that the Church has no official standing on these matters, that scientific +theories are imperfect and subject to change, that you may be wrong, and above +all that it's ultimately not that big of a deal.

+ +

Notes

+
    +
  1. + When speaking of "Evolution" I'm specifically referring to Theistic + Evolution. As a random and meaningless evolution that is not directed by + God for the creation of Man in His image & likeness is directly in + contradiction with Judaeo-Christian theology. +
    2. +
diff --git a/style.css b/style.css index 18f8c1f..242950d 100644 --- a/style.css +++ b/style.css @@ -81,6 +81,19 @@ ol.refs > li:before { content: "[" counter(step_counter) "] "; } +ol.notes { + padding-left: 5px; +} + +ol.notes li { + list-style-type: none; + counter-increment: note_counter; +} + +ol.notes > li:before { + content: "(" counter(note_counter) ") "; +} + ol.roman-numerals { list-style-type: upper-roman; }