A theological argument FOR abortion

[JohnDamian]

Well, isn’t existence and life a burden? Since one’s existence can just be experiences of suffering and humiliation. Some political philosophies such as classical liberalism believe that it is one’s personal responsibility to provide for their own welfare not the domain of the state? In this context, wouldn’t existence be burden since one must provide for themselves with the fruit of their own labor. I do agree with R Daneel that life should not be regarded as a totally positive gift that can be enjoyed with total freedom detached of any responsibilities, restrictions, and negative aspects such as suffering. It is the main reason why I consider myself a lukewarm pro-lifer at best where other political issues eclipse the abortion issue. (But I am also saying this from the perspective of one who suffers from bipolar disorder and I most certainly do not see existence as an entirely positive experience.)

I do believe that the pro-life movement should sincerely try to mitigate the negative aspects of the human condition since I often wonder what would be the material state of the unborn after they are born. I often ask myself whether pro-lifers ask themselves whether they think that the lives the are trying to protect would be free from material privation and adversity and would have access to health care after they are born. In other words, pro-lifers should focus on the corporal works of mercy first.

Everyone suffers to a degree, but I must say that every life - particularily every life in the western world – is more than just the experience of suffering.

Even considering the privitations of a childs life, everyone in the western world can be brought up in care, or adopted, or fostered. To say that these childrens lives are not worth living purely because of the increased potential for suffering and hardship in their futures is heartless.

Just because some parts of existence are burdensome does not in any way detract from the value of ones existence.

No one is “better off dead”.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, isn’t existence and life a burden? Since one’s existence can just be experiences of suffering and humiliation.

To be technical, I would have to say no. If existence and life was a burden, then everything in existence would be suffering. Clearly, this is not the case, therefore existence and life are not a burden.

Now, sometimes suffering can accompany a thing that has existence and can accompany it throughout its existence. But this does not make existence itself a burden.

To be technical at least … and hence to precise.

It is the main reason why I consider myself a lukewarm pro-lifer at best where other political issues eclipse the abortion issue. (But I am also saying this from the perspective of one who suffers from bipolar disorder and I most certainly do not see existence as an entirely positive experience.)

Needless to say, it’s very disturbing that you think that people are better off dead than suffering. Why don’t we kill anyone that we think is suffering? Why must we only make that call before they’re born? Anyone we see suffering should be shot in the head, no?

I do believe that the pro-life movement should sincerely try to mitigate the negative aspects of the human condition since I often wonder what would be the material state of the unborn after they are born.

I suppose doctors should try to mitigate negative aspects of the human condition before saving people’s lives. Because maybe their lives aren’t worth saving if life isn’t that great.

I often ask myself whether pro-lifers ask themselves whether they think that the lives the are trying to protect would be free from material privation and adversity and would have access to health care after they are born. In other words, pro-lifers should focus on the corporal works of mercy first.

If saving a baby from being torn apart is not a corporal work of mercy, I don’t know what is. I mean, right?

 

[elts1956]

Baptism by water is “immersion”, babies are sprinkled and thus not really immersed. Also, water baptism has nothing to do with Jesus saving the lost; ask the thief on the cross as an example. Salvation comes by faith and by God’s grace and always has in the OT and the NT.

For all the doubters about that the Letter to the Hebrews and specifically chapter 11 is for folks that believe otherwise. Also, the Psalms will reveal the same as will the Prophets.

It would not surprise me to find more children in the Kingdom than adults. People go to hell for rejecting what “good news”; can a child reject that which they cannot comprehend?

Amen. A child has a pure heart yet untainted by the world in which they live.

Matthew Chapter 18 vs. 1-6
AT the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them.
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences; for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
;”

I understand you are not Catholic and therefore, in some instances, you have a different understanding than we do. Dismas, the repentant thief, (his name appears in the 12th century) on the Cross underwent what Catholics call a Baptism of Desire. Does this mean faith, yes certainly, but it also means an ultimate desire to be with Christ.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IX
Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God… And he baptized him. (Acts 8:36-38 KJV)

And I even quoted the KJV

 

[Black_Rose]

To be technical, I would have to say no. If existence and life was a burden, then everything in existence would be suffering. Clearly, this is not the case, therefore existence and life are not a burden.

Now, sometimes suffering can accompany a thing that has existence and can accompany it throughout its existence. But this does not make existence itself a burden.

Buddhism acknowledges Dukkha (suffering) and one of the three marks of existence is suffering. By following the Noble Eightfold Path one can attain the cessation of suffering (nirvana) and enlightenment.

Needless to say, it’s very disturbing that you think that people are better off dead than suffering. Why don’t we kill anyone that we think is suffering? Why must we only make that call before they’re born? Anyone we see suffering should be shot in the head, no?

I never said that; I was saying the existence isn’t burden-free or solely a positive experience.

I suppose doctors should try to mitigate negative aspects of the human condition before saving people’s lives. Because maybe their lives aren’t worth saving if life isn’t that great.

Doctors also try to mitigate the negative aspects of the human condition too. Don’t they try to relieve pain and heal injury, in addition to saving lives?

JohnDamian:

No one is “better off dead”.

Isn’t that the *reductio ad absurdum *of the OP? That is would be better to abort fetuses so they could go to heaven or at least evade the possibility of going to hell (since they would not commit any sin meriting hell but they would still be tainted by original sin) by going to limbo?

 

[Areopagite]

Buddhism acknowledges Dukkha (suffering) and one of the three marks of existence is suffering. By following the Noble Eightfold Path one can attain the cessation of suffering (nirvana) and enlightenment.

Buddhism is wrong. Buddha believed in reincarnation and yet disbelieved in the soul. When asked how these could both be true, he merely said, “Contradictions are not a problem.” He denied the principle of non-contradiction. Buddhism is a mess, and it doesn’t make sense.

Also, it clear to me that many times during my existence, I have not undergone suffering. Hence, suffering is not intrinsic to existence. Hence, Buddha is wrong.

I never said that; I was saying the existence isn’t burden-free or solely a positive experience.

I would not say all existence is this way, however.

Doctors also try to mitigate the negative aspects of the human condition too. Don’t they try to relieve pain and heal injury, in addition to saving lives?

But should they? If existence isn’t worth it, maybe they should just end lives instead.

 

[Sarpedon]

I see the difference now. When you talk about “thought process” you seem to talk about both the conscious and the subconscious processes of the brain. To me, thinking means only the conscious part, where the contemplative thoughts reside. Maybe we were talking past each other. After all insects, which do not have a cerebral cortex at all, also perceive reality and react to it. According to your words, they are also “thinking” creatures. That sure sounds weird to me.

That’s somewhat on track to what I am talking about. There is a distinction between an act of the intellect itself and the application of that intellect to any specific situation. Start by thinking of the intellect as the thinking brain itself, apart from what the brain perceives. However, you must go one step farther- our knowledge of the intellect as a “brain” is based on our observation, which is the application of our intellect. Therefore, the intellect itself cannot be said to be simply the brain, or any particular physical thing. It is simply the intellect. and we must not lose sight of this. We may characterize our intellect as the brain, but to do so requires applying the intellect- and we must make a rational conclusion that our intellect can be applied that way prior to accepting the consequences of that application as valid. Therefore, we must use philosophy, as an activity of the intellect alone, before we use any specific application or characterization of that intellect, such as science. This is why philosophy necessarily precedes science and any other particular discipline.

As I said before, I am willing. But I also like the “ain’t broke, don’t fix it” type of parsimonous approach. You show me something that cannot be empirically detected, show me a non-empirical method to separate the wheat from the chaff, and we are in business.

Easy- science cannot validate itself, yet as a particular application of the intellect, it cannot be first in the causative order of our knowledge. Therefore, we must be able to use some prior method to establish the veracity of that particular application (or any other application). This is the intellect, apart from our characterizations through the intellect. I realize this is very complicated, but to accept the application of our intellect through science as valid, there simply must be some method further back than science that we use.

How can the “the wisdom of the world is folly with God” be “interpreted” otherwise than what it says? It seems to me that these atrificial interpretations “reserved” by the Church to the Church are designed to explain away the embarrasing questions.

Well, as rational creatures, we are made “in the image of God.” Since we are made in His image, when we use reason and our free will, we are partaking in the wisdom and activity of God. That’s not human folly, but divine wisdom. History bears me out on this- the scholastic philosophers used human reason quite a bit.

Yes, we talked about it a lot. Empiricism is the basis of all our knowledge. There is no “abstract”, “external” validation for it. To risk another Biblical quotation: “by their fruits we shall know them”. Empiricism works - and that is all we need. If it ever stops working, we can look further.

It works for things highly specific- technology and natural causation. That does not mean that the whole spectrum of reality can be summed up in those two things. As Gilson comments, there is a great danger in philosophy that pops up again and again- that we discover some method that works well in specific capacities, and then we rush to define everything within those capacities. This has happened in things other than science historically, and Gilson’s book traces the occurrence of this error through history. Empiricism works perfectly in an empirical world- but is reality wholly empirical?

You got that right. How could the most basic nature of reality be called “love” when love is specifically a human trait and humans are less than a flyspeck in the vastness of the universe, which does not “care”?

Simply because “love” is not defined as human love- rather, human love (which transcends eros, or the sexual), is only a reflection of the greater reality of love.

Yes, but those preferences are not “arbitrary”, they exist objectively, imposed by the laws of nature (biology, to be specific).

Laws of behavioral science are not uniform or universal. Just because most people prefer something does not make it universal. What happens when 51% of a population wants something? Does it become the human good? If not, is there a number that qualifies the human good? If there is not a number that qualifies it, and the human good is not objective outside of us, yet not present in any individual one of us, yet not predicated on a certain percentage of the multitude of us, where is it?

 

[Geremia]

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”) is already a “human being”.

And why is it “definitely not a ‘he’ or a ‘she’?” Cannot that be determined by the genetics of the particular sperm cell that penetrated the egg? Remember, modern science has shown that every person is either male or female all the way down to each of his or her individual cells, XX chromosomes being in all females’ cells and XY in all males’.

 

[R_Daneel]

Now, when he “does not accept it as evidence” does that mean he understands its significant or veracity or simply knows about some evidence without understanding its significance or veracity?

If he just “knows about” the evidence but doesn’t understand the evidence, then of course he would not know that the evidence contradicts his belief. His belief is completely in tact and there is no reason to consider that he deceiving himself, right? Hence, I do not see how this would be self-deception.

If he actually understands the evidence and thus knows the evidence contradicts his belief, and yet sticks to his belief anyway, then I can see how this constitutes self-deception. Hence, self-deception is believing something you know to be false.

I’m probably missing something, no?

Honestly, if self-deception isn’t making yourself believe what you know isn’t true … why call it deception? For you to admit the ability to deceive yourself (i.e. to lie to yourself), then you have to acknowledge the ability to believe something you know is false (because they are the same thing).

Let’s go to specifics, it is easier to work with a particular example. Christian assertion: “God is good”. Good means to be helpful (a very simplistic definiton, I know). Evidence: “God is not helpful”. There are no signs that God would come to help to those who are in dire need of it. Therefore the evidence (the lack of actions) contradicts the hypothesis (God is good). How is this dilemma “resolved”? By bringing up all sorts of different excuses. It would take a long time to analyze all the possible excuses, and at the end, when all of them are refuted, some new ones would be presented - none of which could stand the light of rational scrutiny. That is what I call self-deception. In a sense it is like “doublethink” - to hold two contradictory assertions as “true” - simultaneously (refer to the book “1984” by George Orwell). It is very hard to imagine how it can be done, but apparently it is possible. Compartmentalizing is the word, if I am not mistaken.

So … how exactly does any of this stop it from being a gift?

First of all, why did you put “giving” in quotes? If a person lends me something, it can be said that he gives it to me … even if it’s just temporary or doesn’t become my exclusive property. Even if you are lent money, you still are given money. So, the teenager is definitely given the car.

As long as it is mutually understood what the stipulations are - before one accepts a gift, that is fine. And a rejected gift is not a gift. It may be an intended gift, but the acceptance is a crucial part of becoming a gift.

Imagine a birthday present, given to you, for example a nice set of kitchen implements. You are NOT told by the giver that you can only use them for making one specific type of dish. Someone else, whom you have no reason to trust tells you about this requirement. If you use it for any other purpose, the giver will take it back from you - without your consent. You use it to make a different type of dish, and the giver takes it back from you without your consent. In my eyes, that is not really a gift. But, I guess you see it differently. Stalemate. I just wonder, what your reaction would be, if this actually happened to you.

 

[R_Daneel]

Nope. It’s both. No doubt about it.

We have here semantical differences. A loan is very different from a gift. Otherwise we could use the two words interchangebly.

Are you saying existence and life is a burden? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying non-existence is better than existence?

Sometimes life is definitely a burden. This is attested to by those people who find their life intolerable, and commit suicide to end it. Let’s imagine life as a function, like a sin(x). Some of the curve is above the x-axis, other parts are below. The part which is above represents the “good life”, the part which is below represents the “bad life”. If the good part is overwhelming, of course that life is predominantly good. If the bad is overwhelming, the life is predominantly bad. How could it be otherwise?

And obviously if someone gives you a gift … no matter what it is or how much you own it, it’s never permissible to do any and all things with it. Even if the teenager does own the car, he shouldn’t drive over people with it even if he wants to for some reason.

That is a pretty bad example. The “running over others” has nothing to do with ownership. If the teenager has no right to sell the car, or to destroy it, he does not own it, and thus it cannot be considered a true gift.

It depends what you mean by “absolute.” I’d ask you for a definition of this. I would say that a rock is not bound to any morality whatsoever, whether God exists or not. Hence, is it okay to say that there is no absolute morality?

And as explained before (at least to some extent), a person saying something like “No one can directly end the life of an innocent person” or something like that, and then say this also applies to God … is missing the larger truth (and you could say, the “absolute” foundation of that moral principle) … namely that God completely owns all human lives and hence has the right to do what He wants with them. The same cannot be said with humans, who do not own other human lives (and really not even their own either). So it can be said that there is an “absolute” (depending exactly what you mean) foundation of morality … and hence say that morality is absolute.

But you really need to explain what you mean by “absolute.”

Well, let’s do a little analysis here. By absolute or universal morality (which is a Christian concept, not mine) we understand that an action is either morally right or wrong, no matter who commits it. This includes murder, genocide, what have you.

If you make an exception for God, saying that God can do whatever he wants, then this absolute or universal morality becomes meaningless. How can something be universal if there are exceptions? If there is one exception, why can’t be others?

But the problem just starts here. Why do you consider God exceptional? You said: “because God created everthing”. Now if this would be a universal code, then the manufacturer could take back his car from you, since he was the creator of the car. Presumably you would not agree to this, especially if it were your own car.

So it is not the fact that God is the creator, which gives him special “rights” or special “excuse”. Then what is it? Is it God’s power? That would lead to the moral code that “might makes right”. I bet you would not accept that, either. It could justify the extermination of any “weak” group by any strong one.

So there remains one option. You say that God can do anything whatever he wants, not because he is creator, or because he is stronger than us, rather because he is God. And that is the fallact of special pleading.

 

[R_Daneel]

No one is “better off dead”.

All those who commit suicide have a different opinion.

 

[R_Daneel]

Easy- science cannot validate itself, yet as a particular application of the intellect, it cannot be first in the causative order of our knowledge. Therefore, we must be able to use some prior method to establish the veracity of that particular application (or any other application). This is the intellect, apart from our characterizations through the intellect. I realize this is very complicated, but to accept the application of our intellect through science as valid, there simply must be some method further back than science that we use.

And how do you plan to justify the “usage of the intellect” without resorting to a circular reasoning? If you refer to the principle: “because it works”, then you use my criterion, the validation of science. By the way, by “science” I mean the overall scientific method, comprised of observation, hypothesis forming and validation.

Well, as rational creatures, we are made “in the image of God.” Since we are made in His image, when we use reason and our free will, we are partaking in the wisdom and activity of God. That’s not human folly, but divine wisdom. History bears me out on this- the scholastic philosophers used human reason quite a bit.

Sorry, that is sheer mysticism. By calling “human folly” a “divine wisdom” you did a redefinition. The Bible is blatantly against “temporal endeavors”, as expressed in the quotation I cited.

It works for things highly specific- technology and natural causation.

What other type of “causation” is there? Every bit of “causation” in the interchange of some particles, a wholly physical phenomenon.

That does not mean that the whole spectrum of reality can be summed up in those two things.

I asked before: “what other parts of reality are there”? Just one example, if you would. But don’t use mysicism, please. That is not acceptable.

Simply because “love” is not defined as human love- rather, human love (which transcends eros, or the sexual), is only a reflection of the greater reality of love.

I am talking about “agape”. The universe does not exhibit “agape” either. What do you mean when you say that the very foundation of reality is “love”?

Laws of behavioral science are not uniform or universal.

I am not talking about human behavior exclusively. All living creatures exhibit the tendency of “preferring” survival. Of course this is nearly a tautology, since “life” only means the “effort” to maintain ones homeostasis, even in changing conditions.

 

[Sarpedon]

And how do you plan to justify the “usage of the intellect” without resorting to a circular reasoning? If you refer to the principle: “because it works”, then you use my criterion, the validation of science. By the way, by “science” I mean the overall scientific method, comprised of observation, hypothesis forming and validation.

Because we have no other option. This is similar to your criterion, yes, but there is a fundamental difference- it is impossible to go further back than the intellect itself, while it is indeed possible to go further back than science as an application of the intellect.

Sorry, that is sheer mysticism. By calling “human folly” a “divine wisdom” you did a redefinition. The Bible is blatantly against “temporal endeavors”, as expressed in the quotation I cited.

Huh? You ask me how Catholics understand something, and I explain it. You then condemn this as “mysticism” and go on to state that the Bible is in fact against temporal endeavors. You as an atheist are welcome to do that, but realize that no Catholic pays attention to your private interpretation. The simple fact of the matter is that Catholicism is not opposed to temporal matters. The Bible is ambiguous on the matter (what is “the wisdom of God” and “the wisdom of man?”), but the Church has highly developed philosophy to explain its overall position, which extends far beyond the Bible while including it. By arguing against this you only strengthen the Catholic case- the Bible itself is confusing and ambiguous, and that’s why we need an official interpreter.

What other type of “causation” is there? Every bit of “causation” in the interchange of some particles, a wholly physical phenomenon.

It’s not that simple- the question of causation extends far beyond the level of such physical phenomena. Among other things, it includes the relationship between the potential and the actual, or why things come into and pass out of being. Why is it that things that have being lose being? How can something nonexistent gain being? Does it come from other being? Is that being autonomous? These are only a few examples of the questions present in the field.

Incidentally, this is why the first cause argument is never understood. St. Thomas is not talking about natural causation, in the sense of, say, reproduction or natural processes. He is addressing the issue on the level of potentiality and actuality, of which natural processes are merely a type of actuality. I don’t know that much about his whole argument, but it does go to a deeper level than most people assume.

I asked before: “what other parts of reality are there”? Just one example, if you would. But don’t use mysicism, please. That is not acceptable.

When I give you an answer, you simply label it “mysticism” and dismiss it as incorrect. That’s the end of the discussion!

You need to give me more substantial answers if you want me to address your questions. You are really illustrating my point perfectly. When I give you examples, you immediately label them as mystical and ask me for evidence that science is not the only reality. You immediately dismiss anything non-scientific as not real, and therefore not capable of providing evidence for something non-scientific!

Just for the record, I am not using mysticism at all. I have repeatedly demonstrated how philosophy and the intellect operate at a deeper level than the application we call science. Therefore, philosophy is both a part of reality that is not science, and a method than can be used without science. You still haven’t given me a substantial analysis of why you think this argument is wrong. I know what you state over and over- but where are your reasons for doing so?

I am talking about “agape”. The universe does not exhibit “agape” either. What do you mean when you say that the very foundation of reality is “love”?

The universe may not exhibit agape, but we do. Why else do we act as anything another than survival machines? Philosophy is cumulative, science included. You will not accept any of my reasons for this agape with your current philosophical position. That’s why we are engaging at the deepest levels, such as epistemology.

I am not talking about human behavior exclusively. All living creatures exhibit the tendency of “preferring” survival. Of course this is nearly a tautology, since “life” only means the “effort” to maintain ones homeostasis, even in changing conditions.

You didn’t answer my question. We do not need to only talk about humans. Is there a certain numerical statistical percentage that a species must have in terms of preferences for those preferences to constitute the good for that species?

I asking you a very simple question- where is the human good? You cannot believe that the good is object and outside of us. Therefore, the good must be within us. Do you believe that the good is present in each individual’s preferences? In that case, one person’s preferences are just as valid as anyone else’s, no matter what those preferences are. If the human good is present in some group societal preference, then you should be able to give me the percentage that qualifies that good.

If the good is not outside of us, yet not present in any of us individually, yet not predicated on any percentage of us, then it’s not anywhere. If it’s not anywhere, then we have no human good, which means that we are nihilists. At least Nietzsche was honest enough to admit this fact.

 

[Betterave]

Huh? You ask me how Catholics understand something, and I explain it. You then condemn this as “mysticism” and go on to state that the Bible is in fact against temporal endeavors. You as an atheist are welcome to do that, but realize that no Catholic pays attention to your private interpretation. The simple fact of the matter is that Catholicism is not opposed to temporal matters. The Bible is ambiguous on the matter (what is “the wisdom of God” and “the wisdom of man?”), but the Church has highly developed philosophy to explain its overall position, which extends far beyond the Bible while including it. By arguing against this you only strengthen the Catholic case- the Bible itself is confusing and ambiguous, and that’s why we need an official interpreter.

Are you sure **this **is the way you want to put it? It seems overstated to me. (The Bible itself is…? or people themselves?)

You still haven’t given me a substantial analysis of why you think this argument is wrong. I know what you state over and over- but where are your reasons for doing so?

Good question…I’ve wondered that a time or two myself.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you sure **this **is the way you want to put it? It seems overstated to me. (The Bible itself is…? or people themselves?)

Yes- the Bible does not have a clearly organized philosophy because it’s not meant to be a Summa- its an inspired record of the earliest human experiences of God’s work through the Church. It’s a collection of experiences, not a complete synthesis.

 

[Betterave]

Yes- the Bible does not have a clearly organized philosophy because it’s not meant to be a Summa- its an inspired record of the earliest human experiences of God’s work through the Church. It’s a collection of experiences, not a complete [formal?] synthesis.

This is no doubt correct (with the exception noted), but the Church teaches that the Bible, per se, is a materially sufficient rule of faith, does it not? I would say this means that the *Bible itself *is NOT intrinsically confusing and ambiguous, even if in practice, i.e., when ill-informed and unbalanced people read it, it often is.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is no doubt correct (with the exception noted), but the Church teaches that the Bible, per se, is a materially sufficient rule of faith, does it not? I would say this means that the *Bible itself *is NOT intrinsically confusing and ambiguous, even if in practice, i.e., when ill-informed and unbalanced people read it, it often is.

My understanding is that the Bible is equipped to convey a particular point only when read as the original authors intended, with an understanding of the context. I suppose that someone who is ill-informed and unbalanced does not have a solid grasp of such literary forms and contexts.

Nevertheless, God clearly never intended the Bible to be read as a verbatim rule of faith- otherwise, the Bible would be organized like a Catechism, not a varied assortment of historical experiences.

 

[Sarpedon]

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

(my emphasis)

Taking an isolated quote at face value and interpreting it without knowing the whole underlying context and history behind it does not fit with these Catholic principals, which have the most direct effect on Catholic life and achievements.

 

[Betterave]

My understanding is that the Bible is equipped to convey a particular point only when read as the original authors intended, with an understanding of the context. I suppose that someone who is ill-informed and unbalanced does not have a solid grasp of such literary forms and contexts.

Nevertheless, God clearly never intended the Bible to be read as a verbatim rule of faith- otherwise, the Bible would be organized like a Catechism, not a varied assortment of historical experiences.

hmmm… a little prejudice there towards one form of exposition, perhaps? The best way to express certain great truths might not be in the form of an organized Catechism. I don’t want to make a big issue out of it, but if God is one of the original authors and it is a ‘living word’…? You can’t mean that we should restrict ourselves to reading only as the original human authors intended, surely? (Think of medieval mystical interpretations of the Song of Songs, for example.)

 

[Sarpedon]

hmmm… a little prejudice there towards one form of exposition, perhaps? The best way to express certain great truths might not be in the form of an organized Catechism. I don’t want to make a big issue out of it, but if God is one of the original authors and it is a ‘living word’…? You can’t mean that we should restrict ourselves to reading only as the original human authors intended, surely?

Of course not, but it would be a mistake to assume that the teachings of God are always self apparent in the text. For example, when Jesus says that “you must be born again to enter the kingdom of God,” what the heck is that supposed to mean? We need to have the guidance of the Church and an understanding of the philosophy and theology that underly the issue to fully understand what scripture teaches, at least in most cases. That doesn’t devalue scripture at all, it simply places it in the correct place.

Song of Songs is an excellent example- without understanding philosophy, it would seem that the book is mostly about sexuality- but that’s not the full truth. We need the guidance of the Church and the nuanced view given by philosophy to fully appreciate scripture.

 

[Areopagite]

Let’s go to specifics, it is easier to work with a particular example.

I agree that examples are invaluable, however, the example that you gave (that I shall examine) still doesn’t elucidate your thoughts. I need some definitions.

Christian assertion: “God is good”. Good means to be helpful (a very simplistic definiton, I know).

Whoa. Okay, “good” just means “helpful”? Um. That’s pretty simplistic. I’ve talked about the philosophical and theological definitions of “good” so many times, and it doesn’t just mean “helpful.” If you want to go over what “good” means … I guess we can do that … again.

Evidence: “God is not helpful”. There are no signs that God would come to help to those who are in dire need of it. Therefore the evidence (the lack of actions) contradicts the hypothesis (God is good).

Well, what does “helpful” mean? Is all kind of helpfulness good? If I need help in order to commit a murder, is that kind of helpfulness good? No, of course not. Hence, your simplistic equation of “goodness” and “helpfulness” is obviously not well thought out. Very simplistic. Try again.

Particularly, define what “helpful” means and what “need” is and so forth. I have defined these many times throughout my time here at the Catholic Answers Forum. But I will gladly lay it out all again if you need me to. But, please, if you can clear up what you mean by these, that would be helpful.

How is this dilemma “resolved”? By bringing up all sorts of different excuses.

The “excuses” I have given point out your failure to correctly define terms. So … they’re pretty good excuses. If you don’t think so, show me why not.

It would take a long time to analyze all the possible excuses, and at the end, when all of them are refuted, some new ones would be presented - none of which could stand the light of rational scrutiny.

I just presented the case that you defined “goodness” quite badly, and I think “rational scrutiny” is on my side on this one.

That is what I call self-deception. In a sense it is like “doublethink” - to hold two contradictory assertions as “true” - simultaneously (refer to the book “1984” by George Orwell). It is very hard to imagine how it can be done, but apparently it is possible. Compartmentalizing is the word, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, it is possible. However, the difference between you and me, is that I can justify the existence of such a thing, whereas you cannot. I can admit that self-deception exists because I believe one can believe something and that one knows to be false. However, you do not agree that one can believe something one knows to be false … and yet believe in self-deception. I cannot understand how you could possibly reconcile these two. That is doublethink, I say.

As long as it is mutually understood what the stipulations are - before one accepts a gift, that is fine. And a rejected gift is not a gift. It may be an intended gift, but the acceptance is a crucial part of becoming a gift.

No, no, no. A rejected gift is still a gift. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be called a gift (hence, why we call it a rejected gift). I can refuse gifts, but I can only do that if they are gifts, otherwise I wouldn’t be refusing gifts. Gifts can be accepted or rejected, but for them to be a rejected gift, they at least have to be a gift (otherwise, they would be a rejected … something-or-other).

Imagine a birthday present, given to you, for example a nice set of kitchen implements. You are NOT told by the giver that you can only use them for making one specific type of dish. Someone else, whom you have no reason to trust tells you about this requirement. If you use it for any other purpose, the giver will take it back from you - without your consent. You use it to make a different type of dish, and the giver takes it back from you without your consent. In my eyes, that is not really a gift. But, I guess you see it differently. Stalemate. I just wonder, what your reaction would be, if this actually happened to you.

I may hate his gift. But it’s still a gift. Albeit a weird one.

In any case, you are trying to relate this to various theological claims … and I’m just confused. Can you relate this better to a particular theological example?

I’ll just say, God won’t condemn you for doing something evil that you honestly didn’t know was evil. So, right there, your example doesn’t seem to apply. Even if an ordained Catholic priest tells you such-and-such is evil, and yet you honestly believe the priest is wrong, then your commitment of that evil will not be counted to you as sinful, i.e. you will not go to hell for it. I don’t know if that resolves your issue. I’m frankly I bit confused what you’re trying to say.

We have here semantical differences. A loan is very different from a gift. Otherwise we could use the two words interchangebly.

No. A loan can be a kind of gift. I can give someone a car … giving him complete ownership of it and all … and that can be considered a gift but not a loan. Or … I can give him the car … and yet still own it (and, yes, still pay the bills and insurance for it) … and that can be considered a gift as well as a loan. Or … I can give someone a car with the agreement that he pay me back for it at such-and-such a time … in which case, that would not be a gift but just a loan. So, some gifts are loans, some loans are gifts, some gifts aren’t loans, some loans aren’t gifts. Definitely two words that are not interchangeable.