Posted: Oct 10, 2010 3:54 am
quas wrote:Alright, I still need some more clarification.TimONeill wrote:There was no set formula by which you could work out what was literal and what wasn't. Catholics had, and still have, the idea of "tradition" - ie what has been taken purely literally for a long time is to be taken literally.
What are you referring to here? Are you saying that Catholics have a tradition for taking the Genesis as a literal historical account?
I would have thought it was perfectly clear that I've said precisely the opposite. Some other things, however, (the ressurection, the miracles of Jesus) have traditionally been taken literally. If you ask a Catholic theologian how they know which things are meant to be taken literally and which are to be interpreted in other ways they will explain that they are guided by "tradition".
Are you saying that the current Pope believe that a snake once talked to humans?
No, he doesn't.