An athiest here checking in on curiosity.

[chilehed]

Hello hello.

I have been wondering, there has not been much faith around myself in my life, I have explored faith and it does not call to me at all...

I suspect that faith has had a much greater role in your life than you think.

Faith is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known". It's not possible to live as a human being without having it.

 

[chilehed]

It appears that you agree that the Bible is literal and inerrant. However, Catholic theology has always held that the Bible is inerrant on theological matters, but not that it is literal and inerrant in other subjects that it touches -- such as the age of the earth and the order of creation...

Not exactly. The official teaching is that "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

For example, the historical facts that King David existed, or that Jesus visited Capurnaeum, are manifestly non-theological, and yet are held to be inerrant records because the truths that God wished to confide were that in fact King David did exist and Jesus did go to Capurnaeum.

On the other hand, the literary forms of the early chapters of Genesis indicate that God was likely not intending to confide a truth about the geological timeline of creation, and so any claims about the age of the earth based on those passages are strictly the ideas of those who make the claims.

 

[lucaspa]

Not exactly. The official teaching is that "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

For example, the historical facts that King David existed, or that Jesus visited Capurnaeum, are manifestly non-theological, and yet are held to be inerrant records because the truths that God wished to confide were that in fact King David did exist and Jesus did go to Capurnaeum.

I don't want to argue Catholic doctrine with you, but the existence of David or Jesus going to Capurneum are not necessary "for the sake of our salvation", are they? From what you quote from the official teaching, it seems that you need to show how David's existence or Jesus being in Capurneum is "for the sake of our salvation". I suspect that what Jesus did in Capurneum relates to our salvation, but Jesus could have done that in any town. Similarly, David's relationship with God and manifestation of God's favor was necessary for the preservation of Israel, and may be necessary for Judaism, but is a historical David necessary "for the sake of our salvation"? Could the Psalms have been written by anyone and still be as beautiful and evocative of God?

On the other hand, the literary forms of the early chapters of Genesis indicate that God was likely not intending to confide a truth about the geological timeline of creation, and so any claims about the age of the earth based on those passages are strictly the ideas of those who make the claims.

I agree entirely. But in the doctrine you quoted, why would it not be that the creation is also a "truth ... for the sake of our salvation"? I am not being picky, but genuinely curious. I have seen creationists argue that without a creation as stated in Genesis 1-3, you coudn't have Jesus and salvation. What is the Catholic response, in your opinion, to that argument?

 

[chilehed]

I don't want to argue Catholic doctrine with you, but the existence of David or Jesus going to Capurneum are not necessary "for the sake of our salvation", are they? From what you quote from the official teaching, it seems that you need to show how David's existence or Jesus being in Capurneum is "for the sake of our salvation".

Well, there's nothing there about "necessary", as if you have to know it in order to attain salvation. That's a Protestant idea, that there exists information without which one cannot be saved.

My point is that what you said is not an accurate description of Catholic teaching.

I agree entirely. But in the doctrine you quoted, why would it not be that the creation is also a "truth ... for the sake of our salvation"? I am not being picky, but genuinely curious. I have seen creationists argue that without a creation as stated in Genesis 1-3, you coudn't have Jesus and salvation. What is the Catholic response, in your opinion, to that argument?

I presume that you mean YEC's. I'm a creationist myself, but I'm not a YEC.

I'd say that creation did happen as stated in Genesis 1-3, but that what's stated wasn't intended to be a science text.

Like when my kids first asked about the origin of babies, my answer was true but wasn't intended to detail the bilogical processes. More important was the bit about love, relationship and their dignity and importance as human beings.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, there's nothing there about "necessary", as if you have to know it in order to attain salvation. That's a Protestant idea, that there exists information without which one cannot be saved.

I'm confused. The part of the Catholic "offical teaching" stated: "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

Isn't what is for the "sake of our salvation" also not necessary for our salvation? If it is a "truth" for the sake of our salvation, if we reject that truth, are we not also rejecting the salvation? If I have misunderstood, please explain.

In the Anglican tradition (which is admittedly closer to the Catholic), what is stated that nothing not in scripture can be declared "necessary" to our salvation. For instance, if someone were to declare that opposition to abortion was necessary to salvation, they would have to demonstrate that by scripture. It originally came about because the Catholic Church, ironically, was declaring (in Luther's time) that certain practices (such as penance and indulgence) not mentioned in scripture were necessary for salvation.

I presume that you mean YEC's. I'm a creationist myself, but I'm not a YEC.

I'd say that creation did happen as stated in Genesis 1-3, but that what's stated wasn't intended to be a science text.

Sorry, but you cannot state that "creation did happen as stated in Genesis 1-3 but then state that it is not a science text. That is contradictory. How creation happened is science! You are stating that the earth existed prior to the sun and stars because that is how it happens in Genesis 1. You are saying either 1) God spoke men and women into existence (Genesis 1) or 2) God formed a man from dust and then a woman from the man's rib (Genesis 2) because both are how it happens.

If you are going to hold the position below:

Like when my kids first asked about the origin of babies, my answer was true but wasn't intended to detail the bilogical processes. More important was the bit about love, relationship and their dignity and importance as human beings.

So, did you or did you not give an alternative how babies happen? You may not have given the details of sex, but did you say that babies are born (come out of) mommy? Or did you say the stork brought them? Both of those are how it happens. The first lacks all the details but is essentially accurate. The second is not accurate or truthful.

The question is whether Genesis 1-3 is accurate about how it happened. It can (and I believe, is) true about the Who and why of creation, but is not accurate about the "how". Creationism is about the "how". Since I don't think Genesis 1-3 gives the true "how", I am a theistic evolutionist. Evolution (science) being the how it happened.

So, is "creation did happen as stated in Genesis 1-3" a truth for the sake of our salvation?

 

[chilehed]

Isn't what is for the "sake of our salvation" also not necessary for our salvation?

"For the sake of" and "necessary " are different words, so I'd expect that they might have different meanings.

If it is a "truth" for the sake of our salvation, if we reject that truth, are we not also rejecting the salvation? If I have misunderstood, please explain.

You can't reject something unless you know it. "Ignorance is no excuse" may be a principle of law, but no one honestly thinks it's a just principle and it certainly isn't part of a good relationship.

In the Anglican tradition (which is admittedly closer to the Catholic), what is stated that nothing not in scripture can be declared "necessary" to our salvation. For instance, if someone were to declare that opposition to abortion was necessary to salvation, they would have to demonstrate that by scripture. It originally came about because the Catholic Church, ironically, was declaring (in Luther's time) that certain practices (such as penance and indulgence) not mentioned in scripture were necessary for salvation.

You keep using the word "necessary", but it's not used in that part of the Catechism. And in any case, "necessary" does not mean "absolutely required in all cases without exception"... again, that's a Protestant thing, thinking that God requires us to know things we can't possibly know.

In Catholic theology one sometimes hears the phrase "essential to the faith", which means "part of the essence of the faith". It doesn't mean "know this or burn".

The Anglican tradition of which you speak is diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. But that's another topic.

Sorry, but you cannot state that "creation did happen as stated in Genesis 1-3 but then state that it is not a science text. That is contradictory.

Not at all. There exist more literary forms than that of a modern science text. If the author didn't intend for it to be taken as a science text, then to insist on taking it as one is to do violence to what the words actually state.

That argument that "without a creation as stated in Genesis 1-3, you coudn't have Jesus and salvation, therefore the earth is 6,000 years old" is goofy. The need for salvation isn't due to the age of the earth, it's due to the fact that Man rejected God. And that's exactly what happened, according to the accounts in Genesis. It's the entire point of the story: God created the universe, we are the crown of creation, we rejected him and it's been downhill since then. That's how creation happened as stated in Genesis; the age of the universe is irrelevant to the story.

"Hey, daddy, how did we get here and why's our family so messed up?"
"Well, kids, there was a day when mommy and I met and fell in love, and a day when we got married, and a day when we had you kids, and a day when we failed to grow up and so we got a divorce."
"Oh, so you met mommy four days ago?"

That's silly.