We start off discussing UFC and Boxing, from the opinion that one is barbaric, and the other is gentlemanly.  Is the popularity of UFC creating a paeanistic environment where we glorify brutality and violence?  Then we get down into the dirt of Genesis and its true meaning, and debate about who is really responsible for the fall of mankind. Cal (the Atheist) believes God is responsible (if he exists) and Tim defends the Catholic teaching that mankind chose to fall.  Who makes the better argument?  Drop a comment and let us know.

30 COMMENTS

  1. realtimhaines SkepticCalKane you were great at explaining it. Cal is good b/c his questioning helps us learn more. Great great show u do

  2. Tim, it was my understanding that the Church has not stated that the Genesis account of the fall must be taken as allegorical and not literal. I am pretty sure Catholics are free to choose to recognize either, and I generally believe the latter, but I’m open to see resources that prove me wrong.

  3. GabrielDannemiller That is correct from what I understand as well. Theologically and dogmatically there is nothing wrong with it, although I personally think it gives a richer perspective to consider it as allegorical.

  4. @SkepticCalKane Hey Cal! I would like you to read my comment on the last show. It might clear some stuff up.

  5. GabrielDannemiller The Church doesn’t declare that it’s either literal, or allegory, because the literary style of the text is not a doctrinal issue, it’s a theological one.   But I don’t know of any theologian who holds that it is literal, and the early Church did not either.  Regarding the question of the fall itself, that is doctrinal, and one could arrive at that truth by reading the scripture literally, or allegorically. As I said, the scripture is authoritative, and true, but the language is allegory.  Therefor, nothing changes doctrinally, regardless of how we read it.  But to interpret the scripture (theology) you have to read it from the context of its genre, rather than to read it all the same way as we would read, for example, the Gospels or the letters of St. Paul.  Neither can we read a letter the same way we would read poetry.  
    The Gospels are “narrative”, or “account”.  But not allegory.  Genesis starts off as Allegory, but then progresses to a historical account.  But the creation/fall narratives are Allegory.  If it were not allegory, then we have to ask how there was light before there was a sun, why God—who created all things from nothing—needed a rib from Adam to bring Eve into being, why there are two different creation narratives, and we’d have to ask what ever happened to the serpents that were able to vocalize. 
    Some Church fathers wrote about various topics in Genesis with the understanding that it is allegory.  One of the most common topics was the passage of time, and creation NOT occurring along 6 days of 24 hours each.  I want to say Aquinas also wrote about the allegory of Genesis; I can practically swear by it, but I can’t recall where he wrote it, or what exactly he said.  I’m confident about the Church fathers though.

  6. TheDRSophia GabrielDannemiller I invite you to read the response I just left for Gabriel.  It provides a little more clarity, I think.

  7. TheDRSophia  I saw it and read it just need to find some time to respond to it. I’ve been insanely busy for the last few weeks so don’t think I’m ducking you haha 🙂

  8. The thing about the Ufc is that it has, moved into the market that boxing has lost, the Ufc has the razamataz that boxing has lost, boxing although it’s a great sport, has been ruined by greedy managers and the sporting body. Where I come from travellers sort disputes between families by bare fist fighting. It’s not boxing or Ufc, but to watch it is pretty barbaric to watch.

  9. JediMasterTim GabrielDannemiller St. Pope John Paul II commented on the two Genesis accounts from what I understand from Christopher West’s Theology of the Body Explained. Genesis 1 takes a very objective sort of outside view, while Genesis 2 is more subjective from how man sees things. 
    I disagree about your statement regarding light. We do not know everything God made, and God could have had light come from anywhere (not just the sun) we cannot see everything in the universe. I also do not believe that God needed a rib to make Eve, rather he chose to do what he did that way to add additional meaning to it. I also believe God did, in fact, create everything in 6 days. If you come upon the resources of the Church Fathers, please let me know, I’d like to read them and perhaps change my opinion on this, but for now I simply cannot accept allegorical creation. If I can believe in an all powerful God and I definitely see no contradictions to a literal interpretation of this.
    As for the fall, well, that I can accept as more symbolic, because I found a paragraph in the Catechism that states that the account of the fall uses figurative language. So the serpent falls into that category as well as the apple, etc, but not the creative account.
    I will be looking into all of this more most likely.

  10. I just had an ahaa-haa moment towards the end of this show. People should stop busting their butts@the Gym when you’re getting a way better upgraded version of you body@ the end of times. U0001f60a

  11. CalKane TheDRSophia  That’s cool! I appreciate your hard work in finding the time to do this show and appease us audience members X3. Thank you!

  12. Iniesta1123 realtimhaines SkepticCalKane
    I agree…Cal’s great questions lead to Tim’s great answers regarding the “fall of man”!
    I’m on the back and forth discussion part of … my words not theirs … the perfect intellect choosing to disobey God when tempted by deception and evil.  Excellently discussed with clarity!
    By the way, within the last year I heard an excellent priest explain how Eve was not blown away by a “talking snake”…the garden was perfectly ordered with all things working in harmony.  Whether the snake actually spoke words or whether the snake could communicate with mankind was quite normal there…death and disorder come following the fall.  I found that tidbit something to think about; don’t know if you will.  God bless you all, catholicchild

  13. Okay guys time to man up and to all women time to women up…what a challenge to us all, but here goes with regard to, “Okay Eve, I hope it was worth it.”  And, “Okay God, this isn’t fair…cause if I was in the garden…or if You had only said to us, God, that…”
    For a number of years, I laughingly on bad days shook my fist at Eve.  Until one day, God revealed to me in prayer, that Eve was every woman but one who has been created…I am Eve.  I, too, would have basically blown it as she did, so I take responsibility for my contribution to the fall.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.  (By the way, Eve was not responsible because man did not fall until Adam ate of the fruit of the tree.  And where was Adam?  His role as protector–I believe Wilson has said this–was not being fulfilled.  But, again, they were not aware of their evil until Adam ate…hence mankind fell with Adam’s sin.)
    Powerful ending Tim Haines!!!  Amen Brother!  Gents, please keep your dialogue flowing through the airwaves and internet.  How do I know when live shows will be broadcast?  No facebook nor twitter on this end.

  14. ferritte Well we already knew that the universe formed from nothing.  Is the point here that something happened on its own, without a “big banger”?  “Spontaneously” doesn’t mean “cause-less”, so if that’s how they’re using the word, then science is back to square-one.   There is likely a discernible mathematical formula for understanding the “spontaneous” cause of the universe, but that pains science into a corner, because they’d have to explain how order and precision both happened “spontaneously” without an ordered, willful “causer” behind it.  We’ll talk about it on friday.  Thanks for sharing it!!!

  15. JediMasterTim GabrielDannemiller

    Hey Tim! I think you are mistaken on the Church Fathers to a degree. I think St. Augustine was the only one who did not interpret Genesis 1 as six 24-hour days (of the Fathers that offered their opinion, not all of them did). St. Augustine interpreted the creation as instantaneous. However, that issue was always a matter of theological speculation and not part of the actual Gospel that all Catholics must hold. Catholics are indeed perfectly free to be young earth creationists (I’m not one lol). That being the case, this topic kind of irks me because I see it as largely irrelevant. The point of Genesis 1 is not “how long” it took God to create the universe and everything in it. It’s: “God created the universe and everything in it! So you worship the God who made the sun instead of worshiping the sun!)” lol. So Genesis 1 is about the Catholic doctrine of Creation ex nihilo. Likewise with the fall of man in Genesis 3, I don’t know nor do I care if there was literally a tree and a snake. They are certainly symbols. It’s possible they could have actually been the things they symbolize but again, it’s irrelevant. The “blow by blow” for how the fall went down is much less important than “what were its causes and consequences?” My two cents.

  16. Hey Tim/Cal! Good episode again! So Cal, your misunderstanding things about the fall a bit. First, look at it from the starting point that God and Satan are real. Then understand that Adam and Eve know that God is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. They did indeed realize this. They should have put their absolute trust in God. Instead, they believed the devil. While Satan certainly does share a lot of responsibility here, the blame still lands first and foremost with Adam and Eve. Satan tempts Eve with pride “you will be as God.” Eve then concludes that the devil is right and God who cannot lie, is lying to her and/or holding out on her. Can you see the gravity and tragedy of that conclusion now? And then when Eve goes to Adam, he like Eve, concludes that God who made them and loves them is holding back on him. He believes Eve instead of God and joins her in her sin. They were so full of pride that they wanted to hoist themselves up to God’s level by their own effort and power. The horrific consequences of their sin has effects down throughout all of human history up to today. The real tragedy is that God would have gifted them with heaven (and therefore participation in His own divine nature) had they not tried to grab it for themselves, by themselves. Participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) is the gift we have in Jesus Christ through His Church (specifically through the sacraments). 

    Also notice that the first thing both Adam and Eve do when they get caught is attempt to pass the blame on someone else instead of owning up to their action and asking for forgiveness. Typical huh? Bottom line, instead of trusting the God who made and loves them, they trusted the devil. THAT is the fall and THAT is what Jesus Christ came to reverse.

  17. GabrielDannemiller JediMasterTim I respect our disagreement, but I want to make sure I understand you.  You think God literally took a rib from Adam to create Eve?  Do you think there was also a talking snake?  Why wouldn’t satan have used a dove instead of such a menacing animal like a snake?  Rhetorical question there.
    St. Augustine did not believe God created everything in 6 days. Not in the way that we understand “Days” anyway.  I think Augustine’s view—which was shared by a few others—was that a day in the narrative was 1000 years.  But that also introduces some problems because what we see on the Earth alone had to have taken more than 6 thousand years (6 “days”).  Could God have done that?  Sure.  A God who can make all things from nothing can literally do anything.  But God doesn’t do anything that doesn’t make sense.   “Fast-forwarding” the natural order so that the universe can hurry up and develop in 6000 years doesn’t make sense.  If the Catechism says the fall uses figurative language, that paints a picture for the entire creation narrative. If one piece is figurative, we can’t say that the whole of it is literal.  As it progresses Genesis becomes more literal, but we’re talking bout the creation/fall portions of it.  
    Further, here’s something that I offered to someone else in a YouTube comment, which I’ll paste here rather than type it all over again: “in Galatians St. Paul speaks of the allegory of the wives of the two sons of Abraham.  Now, there is a question as to whether this is ACTUAL allegory, or if he is simply assigning an allegorical analog for the purposes of his letter. But in either case, he would have to have known that Genesis is not entirely literal, or the assignment of an allegory in his letter wouldn’t have any context for the readers.  And a scholar of St. Paul’s class wouldn’t even dare to even assign an allegory to an entirely literal text.”
    I want to stress also that whether Genesis is 100% literal or 100% allegory, we’re talking about the language, not the lesson.  Whether allegory or literal, nothing changes, doctrinally.  But in my opinion the allegory-style makes a lot more sense, and jibes with everything we know about God’s character today.  The literal-style only introduces logical problems.  Just something to consider.  From the perspective of reason Genesis as a literal text is not just mysterious, it borders absurd.  Genesis as allegory introduces some mystery, but not to a degree that exits reality, as far as I’m personally concerned.  I hope this doesn’t sound like admonition.  Things always sound “off base” over text  compared to a verbal lol.  I’m just representing and defending my view, I’m not necessarily admonishing yours.  
    I hope that comes across clearly.

  18. Matthewpao JediMasterTim GabrielDannemiller  Now, you made me rush through my response to Gabriel so that I could get to yours. I hope your’e satisfied!!  Nah, just kidding.  So anyway, Augustine wrote quite a lot about how time is “handled” in Genesis, and in a couple of other books.  His argument about a day being 1000 years is just one example.  But that’s all the example we need.  If the author wrote “Day” (and he did) but we’re talking about “years” (which we are), then “day” cannot be regarded as literal.  If it requires an interpretive key, that’s all the reason we need to know that the narrative is not literal.  So it’s either poetry or allegory, since those I believe are the only non-literal pillars.  And doctrine isn’t built from the poetics, so that rules out “poetry”.Whether it’s literal or allegory makes no difference to me at all.  But in matters of discourse, we have to discuss the texts from the perspective of its language and literary style.  Because Cal wasn’t trying to understand the theology through the text, he was using the text to criticize the theology.  So an accurate treatment of the text was primarily necessary.  When Catholics are talking to other Catholics, we would just discuss the text as it’s written…just as the Church Fathers did…because there’s no need to discuss literary style, etc.  Augustine for example would talk about  ‘creation over 6 days by God’s hand’ though it’s clear that he believed it was not 6 literal days.  It’s also safe to say that he didn’t believe God actually had hands.  So then why is he talking about “6 days” and not offering clarification?  Why is he talking about “God’s hand”?  When the language or literary style is irrelevant to the point, it’s not bothered with.  In the case of this episode, the primary issue was the exploitation of the language to discredit the [misunderstood] theology. So the literary style was objective number-1 for my purposes here.   Hope that all makes sense.  Thanks for your consistently great comments brother!

  19. JediMasterTim Matthewpao GabrielDannemiller

    Gotcha Tim. And yeah that does make sense. I was getting more theological in my comment at the top of the thread. I actually should have waited until I heard the entire show because you had said a lot of what I had in mind lol. The main point I would tell Cal and anyone else about the text is that the real horror of the fall was that Adam and Eve both believed the devil instead of God. I was hearing Cal say to you “well why didn’t God fully explain the consequences of their actions?” That kind of irked me lol. God is perfectly good. God created them and loves them. Adam and Eve knew that! God telling them not to do something was fully sufficient knowledge for them to know not to do it and they did it anyway. But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ and because of this “felix culpa” we have so great a Redeemer!

  20. JediMasterTim GabrielDannemiller Absolutely. Thanks for the solid response. I’m always amazed at how you find time to do everything, even respond to those listening to the shows. You, sir, are the man.

  21. Jedi Master Tim/cal
    Are you aware that Adam and Eve are saints with their feast day 24Dec in Orthodox Church. I was taught that the sin was disobedience. The apple from the tree of knowledge is itself irrelevant.
    The creation story is misunderstood consider the account of the sun not existing until day 4.I have discussed with a creationist this and they are blinded to reason.Its good to se people with different perspectives not yelling at each other
    Keep up the good work

Comments are closed.