Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[buffalo]

No sources for my claim that the Holy Spirit has neither a “Y” chromosome nor a male sex organ? You’re right – I have no sources to support this claim. It’s merely a hunch on my part.

Sources for Church Documents that refer to the Holy Spirit as a she.

 

[reggieM]

Sources for Church Documents that refer to the Holy Spirit as a she.

The primary source for that idea is feminist theology, circa 1982.

 

[drpmjhess]

The primary source for that idea is feminist theology, circa 1982.

Not a problem since God is neither a woman nor a man. I alternate pronoun, depending on the context.

 

[reggieM]

Not a problem if you dismiss Jesus’ teaching on God our Father or if you think Jesus was wrong in this passage:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you.

 

[drpmjhess]

Not a problem if you dismiss Jesus’ teaching on God our Father or if you think Jesus was wrong in this passage:

Not a problem. Jesus and the evangelists were all men, writing in a patriarchal culture. Naturally, male-centered language predominated in parable and liturgy, in letter and gospel. Still, it’s not a problem now unless you are threatened somehow by the divine feminine!

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Not a problem. Jesus and the evangelists were all men, writing in a patriarchal culture. Naturally, male-centered language predominated in parable and liturgy, in letter and gospel. Still, it’s not a problem now unless you are threatened somehow by the divine feminine!

Petrus

Still waiting for sources.

God Has No Daughters:
Masculine Imagery
in the Liturgy

 

[mmortal03]

What I meant was that there is nothing of eternal relevance. There is no moral obligation for me to work to alleviate the suffering of people I don’t know, like Myanmnar cyclone victims, or future generations of humans. It might be nice to care for these people, but unless I can expect reciprocal treatment from them or their society (e.g., expecting international aid for a crisis here at home), there is no moral obligation on me to help them.

There may not be any obligation at all, but I would argue that it is more than just something nice to do. There are non-religious reasons for helping other people, and I wouldn’t so quickly buy into the idea that reciprocal treatment from others wouldn’t come. Furthermore, there could be other benefits besides direct repayment, if personal benefit is the only reason there is to you.

It doesn’t take a god to exist to make me want to help others if they are suffering. Sure, I don’t have to do anything, but why not help them some? They are human beings just like you and I, and they feel pain just like you and I do. Regardless of what happens when we die, the pain and suffering that happens now we know for a fact is real. Of course, this is an “ought” and not “is” kind of issue, so you won’t find me trying to make a proof out of it, but you can see what I am getting at.

 

[reggieM]

Not a problem. Jesus and the evangelists were all men, writing in a patriarchal culture. Naturally, male-centered language predominated in parable and liturgy, in letter and gospel.

Apparently you believe that Jesus’ identification of God as Our Father is merely a culturally-influenced notion and not a statement about the nature and image of God.

Still, it’s not a problem now unless you are threatened somehow by the divine feminine!

I’m not threatened by feminist theology (since it is hardly taken seriously), but it is very disturbing to know that you’re teaching theology to Catholic students.

 

[mmortal03]

Again, you have refused to enter the process of proof. You have beat about the bushes but never committed to the hunt.

So, I will do what you have refused to do.

1. If a single unicorn was proven to exist and then it was destroyed I could I then say that unicorns do not exist?
2. To this date unicorns (of hystoric tales) haven’t been verified to exist. Although malformed/misdeveloped rams and deer have been found to exist resembling the mythical creature.
3. Therefore, it is scientifically, logically, and philosophically impossible to prove that they do not exist somewhere in a manner/state yet undiscovered.
4. Rationale for the possibility of their existence: The discovery of new species such as the mountain horses of Asia that were discovered less than a decade ago. They are very unique in their physiology, body dimensions, and appearance as compared to all other species of horse…especially in the cranial/skull design. If you asked someone ten years ago if this previously flourishing undiscovered species could stay hidden in Asia (due to its population density and probability of discovery) for thousands of years one would say that it was likely impossible. Yet, they exist in areas not having a horse-related/dependent human culture.
5. Therefore, it is reasonable to doubt the existence of unicorns, but is scientifically necessary to hold out the possibility of their existence until proof shows otherwise.

What you have just produced here isn’t a proof, either, though. Number 3 didn’t directly derive from number 2. Number 4 was unnecessary, and you used your own assumptions for what a unicorn is there. Where did those ideas even come from?

Though I do think your basic logic was sound, for the sake of emphasis regarding the topic at hand I would have also worded some of it a little differently. For number 5, I would have said that “it is reasonable to doubt the existence of unicorns, but is scientifically necessary to hold out the possibility of their existence until proof shows otherwise, but to not pursue it further until new worthwhile evidence arises in the events of other scientific endeavors.”

You basically did the same thing I did in the discussion above, except you placed numbers next to your paragraphs, and used "therefore"s to begin the points at the end.

What if I had asked you to instead disprove the statement that unicorns do not exist using linear logic? You could not have, and so I could have then made the implication that since you couldn’t disprove my statement, that my concept of a unicorn was therefore somehow right.

This is the meaning of the challenge. Science demands proof…not hyperbolic assumptions. It also holds out for hope of discovery of the unseen, the unknown, and the undiscovered. Just because we cannot see it, feel it, touch it, smell, it, taste it, hear it, etc. does not mean that we cannot sense it in reality.

This is why we cannot materially prove that time does or does not exist. Yet, we understand, quantify, and sense its reality and effect.

Time is a much more materially existing property than God is, and there is tangible work that has been done on this problem. Physicists often speak of time as being a reality, and not just a useful construct, but I am not a physicist, so I can’t speak for them. That is what I meant when I said what I did above.

You approached these problems again and again in a defensive manner. Take the time to re-read your own responses. The entire point of the questions was for you to use linear thought to make your points through a positive proof…rather than a negative disproof. This is what science requires.

I have no problem with linear logic, but linear proof is not always possible. There are math problems where you can only disprove that something exists, but you can’t prove all the cases where it does exist. This is the kind of thing that I think is involved in a few of your proposals.

I haven’t been defensive, just analytical. For sure, I am coming at this from the perspective of my position, but I am not doing it for the sake of my ego, but because I see obvious flaws in what you are proposing, and for you to ask me to linearly prove the opposite would be inconsequential to get the message across, or much more tedious than it is worth, or impossible, depending on which one we are taking about.

So, please be intellectually honest enough to admit that you approached the questions from the wrong perspective.

Are you kidding? I have only not approached the questions from your particular, overly restrictive perspective, not the wrong perspective.

You approached them from the perspective of a personal opinion

This isn’t about opinions.

or belief in your problem solving

I’m not sure what you mean.

and defense of a negative

It isn’t a defense of a negative, it is disproving a supposed proof of logic by giving a counterexample. Why should I be the one following your rules to come up with the things that I am to prove or disprove?

…not the discovery of a positive.

Discover a positive? Who says that your 4 questions are the ones that are needed to do this? Do you see what I am saying? Your four questions might not be the appropriate place to start. That has been the point I have been trying to make.

This is not scientific in method or linear in logic…this is how you feel. I feel that God exists but that does not make it a rationale position scientifically nor can I approach it in that manner from a scientific or logic problem solving perspective.

I may be missing something here, because I think I agree with you on that assessment of your views.

It is often difficult to remove yourself from the fight long enough to discover the true conflict. Did you even once attempt to sit down and truly try to solve the equations? No you did not…at least that is what your responses indicate.

I wouldn’t still be here if I didn’t.

What you missed is that some things we know exist yet we cannot prove; like time because they are beyond our tangible reality.

I didn’t miss that, I see that, but I find it different from what you are using it to allude to, as I have mentioned above.

Does this demand that God exists through science…no it does not. But, more importantly, it does demand that God might exist and that our lack of faculty (ability to sense and prove) something does not mean that it does not exist.

Science doesn’t take sides. And there is no shame or ignorance in just saying “I cannot prove that unicorns exist and I cannot likewise prove that they do not” as I now do so.

Yet, without the possibility of proof to the contrary the possibility exists that there was once at least one single anomaly from which we see the legend grow…maybe a horse with a bony protrusion like the Chinese man with the bony horn (see the Guiness Book of Records).

I don’t disagree with you on this.

Which, if true, would prove that at least one once existed but no longer does…that is what the question was actually about. Again, why did you read so much into it?

You approached it from a perspective of advancing a belief rather than logical discovery. And, you failed. My success was not in proving my assertion or belief. Rather, it was in admitting that I cannot be certain and that I depend on some faculties (senses) that cannot be materially explained…like my concept and belief in the reality of time.

It is not my perspective to advance a belief, I am simply analyzing your statements and giving a logical alternative to your strict definitiveness. Remember that my position is as an agnostic atheist. There are things that we don’t have an answer for, yes, but that doesn’t mean that it proves your position. I thought you said yourself that you weren’t trying to prove that God exists here (nor was Pascal).

You can tell yourself that you succeeded all you want to in some sly, pretentious way. But I never disagreed with the idea that we depend on some faculties that cannot be completely materially explained. You built that one up yourself.

What we can do is use science to explain these issues as best we can.

Maybe in the future you will decide to approach the problem from a simple and logical scientific approach…maybe not. But one cannot logically say “This is true or untrue, this exists or does not, and we reject the use metaphysical understanding and non-quantifiable means to prove it” unless you can apply that method to every situation and concept…again, such as time.

This is a flawed argument. Just because we cannot prove everything doesn’t mean that nothing can be appropriately proved with science or that metaphysics fulfills a beneficial role.

I do not assume that I have a greater understanding of anything over you. Again, my previous statement about such assumptions was in reference to many atheists. I simply have maintained an adherence to logic and scientific method while you have diverged from that path.

I have begun to realize that flooding is your technique that you use to put your opponents on what you then call the “defensive”.

The challenges I offered were reduced to their simplest values in all 4 cases. By attempting to expand the problem into variant paths you attacked your own method (the use of logic and science method over spiritual/metaphysical and otherwise unproveable means)…not the ones presented by the challenges in my posts.

This is where we disagree. I did not introduce anything extraneous into my arguments, but you just want it to be so.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Hopefully you aren’t gone for good, as I wouldn’t say this discussion has been all for naught.

 

[anthony022071]

Not a problem. Jesus and the evangelists were all men, writing in a patriarchal culture. Naturally, male-centered language predominated in parable and liturgy, in letter and gospel. Still, it’s not a problem now unless you are threatened somehow by the divine feminine!

Petrus

Christ was the Son of God,so he was not bound to culture. He called God the “Father” not because of the culture,but because that is the way God wants to be addressed. The Jewish culture was patriarchal because God revealed himself to the patriarchs and prophets as a He.

What do you mean by the divine feminine? Do you mean goddesses? That would obviously be incompatible with Christianity. The lure of the divine feminine in other cultures led the Jews into idolatry,cult prostitution,and human sacrifice.

 

[drpmjhess]

There may not be any obligation at all, but I would argue that it is more than just something nice to do. …

It doesn’t take a god to exist to make me want to help others if they are suffering. Sure, I don’t have to do anything, but why not help them some? .

Of course you want to help; the incredible outpouring of sympathy and aid to Myanmar and China show how deeply ingrained is the instinct to reach out to help other people in need. What I’m saying is that without some entity to bind us there is no binding moral obligation to engage in altruism, however nice a thing it is to do, and however good it makes us feel, and however much it helps construct a society accustomed to reciprocal assistance.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

What do you mean by the divine feminine? Do you mean goddesses? That would obviously be incompatible with Christianity. The lure of the divine feminine in other cultures led the Jews into idolatry,cult prostitution,and human sacrifice.

God is neither male nor female, but the Godhead reflects both feminine and masculine qualities. Or rather, the complementarity of human masculinity and femininity are pale reflections of the infinite richness of the divine personality. Limiting God to masculinity, declaring that God cannot be feminine because our puny minds cannot conceive of the infinity of the divine being is a species of blasphemy.

Of course, I am not forcing you to conceive of God as feminine, any more than I would expect you to force others to conceive of God exclusively in masculine terms. There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,

For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man’s mind;
and the heart of the Eternal
is most wonderfully kind.

Petrus

 

[veritashunter]

*B]Originally posted by Mmortal 03:

"This is inevitable in the setting of a debate, as sides have been taken, and until you get to the crux of it, it will often just seem as if each side is manipulating their own separate set of variables, instead of each side manipulating the same set of variables.

Also, it would be kind of difficult to “sort of” be an atheist. In other words, you “sometimes” believe in, or live your life taking into consideration possible metaphysical stuff. Therefore, it is something quite different to debate with an atheist coming from a theist perspective, than debating with a theist from a different religion. In the former case, using the qualities of your god as components of your argument just doesn’t fly, for example.*"

Dear MMortal03:

What reason could be offered to extend the discussion? I set the debate in static terms so that no one could “manipulate the variables” as you stated above. Yet, you tried to expand the discussion to additional variables and tangents stepping away from a systematic logical approach using scientific method. You contradict yourself again and again.

You stated that one cannot consider a “metaphysical stuff” (spiritual) thereby requiring the debate to be framed strictly based in physical proof and scientific laws ignoring all other things that cannot be proven by such means.

So, I asked you to solve some questions using that method reduced to its simplest terms. Again, you won’t do it yourself but you are certain to diasect how poorly I do so. That is nothing more than a dodge of the issues.

You proposed constraints…no unproven data (metaphysical). Read your own words! Only the physical remains. And if it is physical it must conform to the physical laws of science including physics, biology, chemistry, etc. So, just prove “time” exists. Scientific method is simple enough.

I merely asked you to apply the philosophy you propsed in real life. Obviously, from your responses, you propose a “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy.

That is your choice.

But why be so defensive when someone asks you to do something so crazy as to actually apply your own words to real problem solving.

You seem to be obsessed in having the last word, reframing the discussion instead of enterring the process; unwilling to solve the proposed problem yet trying to solve the person presenting it…like a politician! Good enough.

I, personally, will admit that I have more flaws, shortcomings, faults, and mistakes than I can recount. There…thank goodness we have finally remedied that problem.

Might you possibly solve one of the problems posed in just one of the initial posts?

You are not willing to follow through with your own assertions so there is nothing further to present to you. There is an old Appalachian saying that you might have heard before “It’s impossible to teach someone anything that knows everything”.

I truly do wish you well in the future but there is no point in pursuing obstinant thought. So, why waste more words?

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[buffalo]

Apparently you believe that Jesus’ identification of God as Our Father is merely a culturally-influenced notion and not a statement about the nature and image of God.

I’m not threatened by feminist theology (since it is hardly taken seriously), but it is very disturbing to know that you’re teaching theology to Catholic students.

Hmmm- I have called him on this several times. He claims he has the support of the institutions he teaches at. The problem is bigger than you think.

Poor kids - they look up to their teachers and believe what they say. You should read some of his other posts.

I did ask him for the name of his Bishop - I received no reply.

Buffalo - stampeding over heresy.

 

[anthony022071]

drpmjhess:

God is neither male nor female, but the Godhead reflects both feminine and masculine qualities. Or rather, the complementarity of human masculinity and femininity are pale reflections of the infinite richness of the divine personality. Limiting God to masculinity, declaring that God cannot be feminine because our puny minds cannot conceive of the infinity of the divine being is a species of blasphemy.

God has revealed himself as “Father”. God has his own reasons for that. Scripture sometimes expresses the God’s love and his wisdom in feminine terms,but there was no question that the person of God was to be addressed as a “He”. That is not a mere cultural limitation,it is a matter of divine revelation.

 

[anthony022071]

mmortal:

Pascal assumed Christianity to be the right one, and also stated that belief alone would not gain salvation.

He was right. Belief should be accompanied by repentence,forgiveness of others,works of charity and mercy,and avoidance of sin.

But then, somehow, he still felt that the logic behind his assumption of this would hold.

His wager to just believe in God by itself is meaningless, because it does not definitively imply infinite happiness if God exists, but Pascal assumes otherwise.

It isn’t meaningless. Pascal assumed that Christianity was the right religion,but he did not believe that mere belief would lead to eternal salvation. He was a Catholic,and Catholics know that men are saved by both faith and works. First a man must believe in God,and then he will have a reason to pray to God for his mercy and grace (divine assistance to persevere),and to fulfill God’s commandments. The intention of Pascal’s wager is to cure someone of unbelief;it is not about all the requirements for eternal salvation.

His logic states that a wager that God exists implies infinite happiness if you are right, outweighing any burden it places on you lifetime, but that you would be solely burdened by whatever limitations it places on you during your one lifetime if you were wrong, and that this would pale in comparison to the other value, which would approach infinity. This would be the case, if those were the only possible outcomes of believing.

If a believer takes up the burden of the cross,if he fulfills the commandments,then he will be saved. That is the only possible outcome,because God is just,and he judges men by their works.

 

[drpmjhess]

God has revealed himself as “Father”. God has his own reasons for that. Scripture sometimes expresses the God’s love and his wisdom in feminine terms,but there was no question that the person of God was to be addressed as a “He”. That is not a mere cultural limitation,it is a matter of divine revelation.

N0 – cultural limitation! The Bible was written by men in a male-dominated culture embedded in the overwhelmingly patriarchal Mediterranean world. (With the growth of cities and government and priesthoods and temple hierarchies, Iron Age patriarchy had begun to muscle out the more sexually egalitarian primal religions of the Neolithic.)

God is not ontologically male, since “male” and “female” are only biological categories. I agree that it makes no sense to change the words of the “Our Father” like some do, but more inclusive language can be good. The university chaplain opened the baccalaureate Mass last year with the words “God our Father and Mother” – and the bishop was present! I’ll let you know what he says for this year’s baccalaureate; that should reveal whether or not he was disciplined for this imagined “infraction.”

Petrus

 

[anthony022071]

N0 – cultural limitation! The Bible was written by men in a male-dominated culture embedded in the overwhelmingly patriarchal Mediterranean world.

The writings of the prophets were written under the inspiration of God. Are you now denying that the scriptures contain divine revelation?

The Mediterranean world was not overwhelmingly patriarchal. There were many goddesses who were worshipped,many pagan priestesses and prophetesses.

 

[drpmjhess]

The writings of the prophets were written under the inspiration of God. Are you now denying that the scriptures contain divine revelation? .

Of course they were written under inspiration, but inspiration is not unconscious taking of divine dictation. The biblical authors all wrote from definable perspectives, influenced by gender, age, economic and social class, cultural assumptions, degree of political power, etc.

 

[mmortal03]

What reason could be offered to extend the discussion?

I don’t know, maybe there is more to it than just the four issues you proposed?

I set the debate in static terms so that no one could “manipulate the variables” as you stated above.

You manipulated the variables from the beginning, by choosing bad static terms to work from.

Yet, you tried to expand the discussion to additional variables and tangents stepping away from a systematic logical approach using scientific method. You contradict yourself again and again.

I don’t contradict myself. Where did I step away from a systematic logical approach using the scientific method? I systematically went through your initial posts, pointed out the flaws based on logic, and proposed to you that these might not be the best starting points to use. You have continued to imply that your four proposals are the only way of attacking the problem scientifically and logically, and without going into a talk of the metaphysical. This is false.

You stated that one cannot consider a “metaphysical stuff” (spiritual) thereby requiring the debate to be framed strictly based in physical proof and scientific laws ignoring all other things that cannot be proven by such means.

Would you like to include metaphysical stuff? I don’t see how that would get us anywhere. Furthermore, logic doesn’t have to derive from physical proof to work. There are completely abstract forms of logic and proof in mathematics that need no physical proof to be valid. One can look at certain examples based on this and clearly describe counterexamples as to why a supposed proof is not so, without relying on any direct physical evidence at all.

If one does this, he must then develop a new proposal that seems to solve the problem more appropriately, or agree, based on the current set of knowledge, that the problem isn’t yet workable.

On what reasoning did you find your four proposals to be the ones we need to take a look at? Are they the ones that you base your own faith on? This is an honest question. Instead of having you pull 4 things out of the air with little context, maybe you could explain to me why these four things are the most elemental and definitive points of discussion to bring up when there is a debate between an atheist and a theist.

So, I asked you to solve some questions using that method reduced to its simplest terms. Again, you won’t do it yourself but you are certain to diasect how poorly I do so. That is nothing more than a dodge of the issues.

I’m not dodging it, I just thought you could see the obvious flaws in those proposals, and could come up with something better. Are those all that the Catholic Church has got? (I am asking this in a genuine manner. It isn’t an attack against the Catholic Church.)

You proposed constraints…no unproven data (metaphysical). Read your own words! Only the physical remains.

Actually, the physical AND the logical remain.

And if it is physical it must conform to the physical laws of science including physics, biology, chemistry, etc. So, just prove “time” exists. Scientific method is simple enough.

Maybe we should take a top down look at why the proving of time existing is the appropriate endeavor here. Neither the atheist nor the theist are denying that it exists.

I merely asked you to apply the philosophy you propsed in real life. Obviously, from your responses, you propose a “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy.

That is your choice.

It has never been my choice, you just keep saying that it is!

But why be so defensive when someone asks you to do something so crazy as to actually apply your own words to real problem solving.

I can only say that my words and your interpretation don’t match.

You seem to be obsessed in having the last word, reframing the discussion instead of enterring the process; unwilling to solve the proposed problem yet trying to solve the person presenting it…like a politician! Good enough.

You keep saying this, and I have continued to say that the process cannot be followed as you have set it forth. It needs modification. I am not going to humor you when you have got the starting points wrong. We need to develop different starting points, and I would like to discuss with you where you came up with the starting points that you proposed, so that I can better understand where you are coming from.

I, personally, will admit that I have more flaws, shortcomings, faults, and mistakes than I can recount. There…thank goodness we have finally remedied that problem.

Thanks so much for being humble, but do any of these apply to the problem at hand?

Might you possibly solve one of the problems posed in just one of the initial posts?

No, as I said, I think we need to reconsider them, along with looking at other possibilities being available.

You are not willing to follow through with your own assertions so there is nothing further to present to you. There is an old Appalachian saying that you might have heard before “It’s impossible to teach someone anything that knows everything”.

I don’t claim to be a know it all, so why don’t you just get to the point instead of keeping all these mysterious pieces of knowledge that you supposedly have shrouded from view.

I truly do wish you well in the future but there is no point in pursuing obstinant thought. So, why waste more words?

I agree that obstinate thought is the problem here.