Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[mulligan59]

I’m afraid not.

In the first place, if love is a debt, then God is not asking for a free gift, but calling in payment on a debt. A notion of a debt is totally antithetical to the notion of a gift, which entitles something freely given and not owed. Either our love is a gift, or it is a debt, but it cannot be both.

Furthermore, according to this analogy, a husband is entitled to point a gun at his wife and demand her love. What would you say of a husband who did such a thing? And yet he, in fact, does have a claim on his wife’s love.

I didn’t use the word debt, I used the word entitled. However, I see how you arrived at your interpretation (although I doubt that you honestly misunderstood me). Let me re-phrase" It is “right and just” (to borrow from the Mass), that we should love God, as God made us to know him, love him and to be happy with him forever. However it is not right and just that our hypothetical rapists should force our hypothetical woman to copulate. The husband pointing a gun at his wife would be threatening murder. He has no right to murder his wife (although he does have a claim on his wife’s love, the marriage debt, but tell that to a feminist). God however can do what he will with us.

This isn’t that difficult. Frankly, not to go adhominum on you, but merely to speculate, you seem angry with God, and it is mitigating your ability to argue.

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Linotype"]Exactly what I said but in different words–what you are suggesting is more of a philosophy thread than a Catholic vs. Science; but you do not need to change venue on my account.

“Catholic vs. Science”? I didn’t know they stood in opposition. That would certainly be news to the many Catholic scientists with whom I work.

Petrus
…again, I’ve sinned… please forgive me… I should have included “Traditon” in my response…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I didn’t use the word debt, I used the word entitled.

It is the same thing. Something owed in justice is a debt by definition, and there be no “entitlement” without some sort of claim to title.

Let me re-phrase" It is “right and just” (to borrow from the Mass), that we should love God, as God made us to know him, love him and to be happy with him forever. However it is not right and just that our hypothetical rapists should force our hypothetical woman to copulate.

That’s not the question. The question is it “right and just” that God should coerce our love under threat. If you want to use analogies you have to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

The husband pointing a gun at his wife would be threatening murder. He has no right to murder his wife (although he does have a claim on his wife’s love, the marriage debt, but tell that to a feminist). God however can do what he will with us.

Which is saying, might makes right.

 

[jcrichton]

You are clearly just using whichever examples that are suited to your beliefs. I never said that animals act like humans in all situations. Remember, humans are violent to their own species, as well.

…your reference was that other animals behave in such fashion… I was reminding you that their behavior is dictated by their environment. (i.e.: There’s that episode from animal planet or another such channel that depicts a female monkey or the sort entering a village and taking possession of a baby–the matriarch’s offspring had died and she seized her underling’s. This poor animal needed to fulfill her motherly instincts and she sought a human child–perhaps a window to how some in the animal kingdom view humans: lower echelon–when the mom and others attempted to take the baby from the animal she bit the baby on the head…)

Humans do kill and commit horrific acts against humans and nature in general but they do it while aware of the moral and social breaches that they are perpetrating–animals do not make that distinction.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I do know a lot about Catholicism. The only thing I never really had was the belief in God part, not the knowledge of theology part. What I know was not enough to keep me, but that doesn’t mean it would be fair for me to just ignore anything new I hear about it. Catholicism is talked about in the news every once in a while, and I want to receive my info from the horses mouth.

There are many reasons why one might want to continue learning about a particular religion, without choosing to be a part of it. And, regarding your Mexican culture example, I don’t go elsewhere and write bad things about Catholicism. I generally stick up for Catholicism, because regardless of my own beliefs, I often read people getting things completely wrong about it, and feel the need to fill them in about what the Church actually says.

…perhaps I misread some of your statements… I really thought that you had stated something to the fact of having a laxed Catholic upbringing where your parents’ greatest involvement was the basic necessities (marriage, baptism, attending Mass on Sundays) and that you picked up “whatever” as it came along but that you never ever believed in what sparse theology your parents followed. And as your quest for “truth” brought you to atheism you were able to “see the light.”

…if that is not a correct summation, I apologize.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[drpmjhess]

…again, I’ve sinned… please forgive me… I should have included “Traditon” in my response…Maran atha!
Angel

Tradition? I don’t understand.

 

[mulligan59]

It is the same thing. Something owed in justice is a debt by definition, and there be no “entitlement” without some sort of claim to title.
.

I am entitled to the fruit of my labor, but most wouldn’t view such circumstance as a debt I owe to myself. But conceding your semantical argument, if we are the fruit of Gods’ labor, we are in fact owed to Him. If we do not honor our debt, should there be no penalty? But your raped woman owes no debt to the rapist. That analogy breaks down. However your second attempt, the marriage example, the more I ponder it, is a bit more compelling.
In fact the Church uses it, i.e. the Church as the bride of Christ. Yes, God demands our love, but he doesn’t kill us the first time we fail. No, he forgives us over and over again, if we acknowledge the debt, our failure, and are similarly willing to forgive those who tresspass against us.

That said, I suppose we could legitimately shrink the a lifetime of transgression and forgiveness episodes of our hypothetical couple down to a single gun to the head episode, and a single decision, and have your analogy in tact. In this example, if God were the gun weilding husband, and his bride said “please forgive me, I know not how to love you, but I know I owe you my love”, then the gun is uncocked, and the wife is forgiven.

God paid our debt himself. He forgives our failure. Ultimately he only demands that the debt be acknowledged. If we acknowledge the debt he forgives it. Christ illustrated this point in direct and clear terms in the parable of the indebted servant.

That’s not the question. The question is it “right and just” that God should coerce our love under threat. If you want to use analogies you have to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
.

I think you originally confused the fruits by making (or maybe I only assumed) our rapist a stranger. But to answer your question directly, yes, it is right and just that we should pay our debts, or at least beg forgiveness if we cannot. In terms of the threat component, I thought we already agreed on the concepts of mercy and justice.

Which is saying, might makes right.

Ironically, that in the practical world, devoid of any sense of morality (which I maintain can only come from God), might does make right. It is Christianity which tells us to love and forgive, as God loves and forgives us.

You know, I think this entire argument comes down to simply “do we trust God’s justice”. When we are not willing to give God his due, or if we try to second guess his perfect justice, we are essentially eating the apple all over again. It is exactly the same sin. Kind of simple (like me,I know, I’ll say it for you). But simple works.

 

[mulligan59]

Tradition? I don’t understand.

You can say that again! (couldn’t help myself)

 

[drpmjhess]

You can say that again! (couldn’t help myself)

You are Marantha are just incoherent.

 

[mulligan59]

You are Marantha are just incoherent.

Must be the scotch. In seriousness, I wasn;t paying attention, didn;t even read the exchange. But c’mon Doc, you’ve accused yourself of being a heretic…how could I let a groved pitch like that go by?

 

[drpmjhess]

Must be the scotch. In seriousness, I wasn;t paying attention, didn;t even read the exchange. But c’mon Doc, you’ve accused yourself of being a heretic…how could I let a groved pitch like that go by?

Bill, I’ve lost track of this argument as well. As I remember it, jrcrichton used the phrase “Catholicism versus science.” That struck me as quite odd given the extensive involvement of Catholics in science in the last 1900 years: Copernicus, Galileo, Boskovich, Mendel, Duhem, Teilhard, and countless others.

Petrus

 

[mulligan59]

Bill, I’ve lost track of this argument as well. As I remember it, jrcrichton used the phrase “Catholicism versus science.” That struck me as quite odd given the extensive involvement of Catholics in science in the last 1900 years: Copernicus, Galileo, Boskovich, Mendel, Duhem, Teilhard, and countless others.

Petrus

I believe Pastuer was also a Catholic. The formulation should be Real Catholicism versus False Science. But there are so few real Catholics today and so many false scientists.

 

[drpmjhess]

I believe Pastuer was also a Catholic. The formulation should be Real Catholicism versus False Science. But there are so few real Catholics today and so many false scientists.

No, that’s not correct. There are so many real Catholics, and so few false scientists.

 

[mulligan59]

No, that’s not correct. There are so many real Catholics, and so few false scientists.

I know, you flaunt what you acknowledge to be heresy and make light of it. But I assume you would consider that (your varieyt) to be “real” Catholicism. There’s no where else we can go. The phrase that comes to mind is “cast not thy pearls before swine”.

 

[drpmjhess]

I know, you flaunt what you acknowledge to be heresy and make light of it. But I assume you would consider that (your varieyt) to be “real” Catholicism. There’s no where else we can go. The phrase that comes to mind is “cast not thy pearls before swine”.

Oink, oink, oink!

But I still don’t see what you mean by “so many false scientists,” unless by that you mean the astronomers who accept that the earth revolves about the sun, the biologists who know that species evolve, and the geologists who know that tectonic plates migrate across the magmatic surface of the earth. If so, I’m with the false scientists, and I’ll take my stand alongside the thousands of heretical Catholic theologians who accept the principles of contemporary biblical interpretation and ecumenical and interfaith dialogue.

Petrus

 

[mulligan59]

Oink, oink, oink!

But I still don’t see what you mean by “so many false scientists,” unless by that you mean the astronomers who accept that the earth revolves about the sun, the biologists who know that species evolve, and the geologists who know that tectonic plates migrate across the magmatic surface of the earth. If so, I’m with the false scientists, and I’ll take my stand alongside the thousands of heretical Catholic theologians who accept the principles of contemporary biblical interpretation and ecumenical and interfaith dialogue.

Petrus

The science I doubt, but I can at least sort of understand, in human terms those who believe it. The theology I cannot. It is illogical to remain “Catholic” if you deny the dogmas and think other “faith traditions” have value. The outlook is really Masonic (and of course it is a goal of masonry to destroy the Church)… So good luck to with that (I think it’s going to be tequila) distilling project you know where (you’re gonna need water for your mash even it not to grow the catus, aren’t you?).

 

[drpmjhess]

The science I doubt, but I can at least sort of understand, in human terms those who believe it. The theology I cannot. It is illogical to remain “Catholic” if you deny the dogmas and think other “faith traditions” have value. The outlook is really Masonic (and of course it is a goal of masonry to destroy the Church)… So good luck to with that (I think it’s going to be tequila) distilling project you know where (you’re gonna need water for your mash even it not to grow the catus, aren’t you?).

Bill,

(1) The science is impeccable. There is no credible alternative to non-geocentric astronomy, to evolution in biology, and to plate tectonics in geology. You are free to hold your moribund views on science, of course, but you remain in a cultural ghetto as real science progresses around you. You would be laughed out of court were you ever to advance your ideas at a meeting of any scientific organization other than the Flat Earth Society.

(2) You are so out of touch with Catholic theology it’s breath-taking. Your chauvinism alone is mind-boggling, if you seriously think that believing other “faith traditions” have value is heresy. If heretics go to hell – whatever “hell” means to you – I’ll have co-labourers aplenty in my infernal vineyard, including my family, my fellow parishioners, our Dominican and Jesuit priests, our archbishop and our local ordinaries, my theology students, and virtually every Catholic theologian I know. It will be a splendid gathering of Catholic clergy and laity, along with all the other people your chauvinism sends to hell – the Jews and Muslims, the Hindus and Buddhists. And wherever two or more are joined…

Petrus

 

[mulligan59]

Bill,

(1) The science is impeccable. There is no credible alternative to non-geocentric astronomy, to evolution in biology, and to plate tectonics in geology. You are free to hold your moribund views on science, of course, but you remain in a cultural ghetto as real science progresses around you. You would be laughed out of court were you ever to advance your ideas at a meeting of any scientific organization other than the Flat Earth Society.

(2) You are so out of touch with Catholic theology it’s breath-taking. Your chauvinism alone is mind-boggling, if you seriously think that believing other “faith traditions” have value is heresy. If heretics go to hell – whatever “hell” means to you – I’ll have co-labourers aplenty in my infernal vineyard, including my family, my fellow parishioners, our Dominican and Jesuit priests, our archbishop and our local ordinaries, my theology students, and virtually every Catholic theologian I know. It will be a splendid gathering of Catholic clergy and laity, along with all the other people your chauvinism sends to hell – the Jews and Muslims, the Hindus and Buddhists. And wherever two or more are joined…

Petrus

No doubt I would be laughed at. So what. But the whole “flat earth” thing is such a red herring, the ancients know the earth to be round. It is a mythic distortion to say that cynics believe in, or ever did believe in a flat earth.

But here is just one, small snippet of Catholicism on the other subject_ I could find you a hundred more pretty easily:

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”

 

[drpmjhess]

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”

I’m not a Mason, although my grandfather and his brother were. They were great men!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is absolutely true that it can be shown that Peter and his successors had primacy from the earliest days. Christ’s commission to Peter is evident: “Satan would desire to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for Thee Peter, that thy faith not fail”. And of course he was the rock, he was given the keys, and the power to bind and loose. But if this is not enough, I can link you to tons of other documented proofs.

It’s the standard Catholic translation approved by Trent. I guess modernists have “improved” translations or reinterpretations.

To say something is logically consistent is not to imply that it is “good”. It was logical for Stalin, given his objectives, to starve the Ukrainians and steal their farms. It does not make it right.
Islam from its inception was a religion of conquest. Just because something is called “religion” doesn’t mean it is all goodness and light. And I suspect you agree here. But Islam is a false religion as are all other non-Catholic.

There is a huge difference between doing good and evil. One who zealously did good, would be good. One who does evil, evil. But you warp the argument into one against adherence to doctrine, as though “doctrine” (which is a value neutral expression) were the problem. You’re essentially arguing, "believe whatever you want as long as you don’t take it seriously.

“Shocked beyond belief”. Come now…

If a valid Pope, who was not contradicting any previously defined doctrine of the Church by doing so, proclaimed that Catholics must do a particular thing, then of course I would do it. I would not murder innocent people as you put it, but I would be honored to fight in a Crusade assuming it were legitimately called by one (the Pope) with proper authority. It is amazing to me that such an idea should be considered “weird” nowadays.

Who am I (or who are you) to demand such change?

Who am I to demand it? Sane