9. aprillil väitlesid Sydneys tuntud võitlev ateist Richard Dawkins ja Sydney peapiiskop kardinal George Pell (vt MercatorNet):
“Et verbum caro factum est”
1 tund tagasi
kolmapäev, 11. aprill 2012
Tellimine:
Postituse kommentaarid (Atom)
Nii et auväärt kardinal arvab, et inimesed pärinevad ahvidest, Aadam ja Eva ei ole reaalsed isikud, vaid neid tuleb mõista kujundlikult, kogu Genesis on müüt.
VastaKustutaDawkinsil oli täiesti õigus sel juhul eitada pärispattu, juhul kui Aadam ja Eva on mitte reaalselt kunagi elanud isikud, kuna kust siis tuleb original sin.
Lühidalt, kardinal ajas modernistlikku pläma!
Olen nõus, et kardinal Pelli mõningad väited olid vastuolus magisteriaalse õpetusega inimese põlvnemisest nagu see on formuleeritud näiteks Pius XII entsüklikas "Humani generis".
VastaKustutaLisan siia relevantse lõigu nimetatud entsüklikast:
VastaKustuta"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."
Samas peab ka tunnistama, et punktis 37 jääb lahtiseks Eeva pärispatu küsimus: Kui "pärispatt [...] lähtub konkreetse Aadama poolt sooritatud tegelikust patust ning [...] antakse sigitamise [generation] kaudu edasi kõigile", Eva aga ei lähtu Aadamast sigitamise kaudu ning tema saamine Aadamast eelneb pattulangemisele, siis mis moel laieneb pärispatt Eevale?