Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[reggieM]

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

True. The teachings of Christ and the writings of the New Testament were counter-cultural. The claim that Christ’s teachings were a product of his male-dominated culture is part of the desacralizing trends that have poisoned theology for the past several decades. It places the theologian in the position of judge of history – and in this case, judging the teachings of Christ Himself. This is like cafeteria-Catholicism, sifting out whatever is not palatable to the modern appetite.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

In those passages where the Word spoke through the prophets,they were not writing from human perspectives and limitations. If you think they were,then you can’t rightly say that they were written under divine inspiration. If you believe that the Word spoke through the prophets,and if you believe that the Word became incarnate,you have to accept that God is to be spoken of as He and Father.

 

[drpmjhess]

In those passages where the Word spoke through the prophets,they were not writing from human perspectives and limitations. If you think they were,then you can’t rightly say that they were written under divine inspiration. If you believe that the Word spoke through the prophets,and if you believe that the Word became incarnate,you have to accept that God is to be spoken of as He and Father.

No – it’s perspectival. The biblical writers reflect all sorts of presuppositions of their time and place that we now recognize as outdated: (1) a geocentric cosmos in Joshua 10:13; (2) a patriarchal culture when Lot handed his daughters over to be raped by the mob in Genesis 19:8; (3) a flat earth view in Genesis 6-9.

Biblical hermeneutics has always had to distinguish various senses of scripture; in fact in medieval exegesis four senses were noted: literal, allegorical, moral, and mystical. Obviously the Bible’s authors were not writing literally when they referred to God in exclusively male terms, since God has no Y chromosome or male reproductive organs. So they were referring to God’s masculinity allegorically, or morally, or mystically, rather than literally.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

No – it’s perspectival. The biblical writers reflect all sorts of presuppositions of their time and place that we now recognize as outdated: (1) a geocentric cosmos in Joshua 10:13; (2) a patriarchal culture when Lot handed his daughters over to be raped by the mob in Genesis 19:8; (3) a flat earth view in Genesis 6-9.

Biblical hermeneutics has always had to distinguish various senses of scripture; in fact in medieval exegesis four senses were noted: literal, allegorical, moral, and mystical. Obviously the Bible’s authors were not writing literally when they referred to God in exclusively male terms, since God has no Y chromosome or male reproductive organs. So they were referring to God’s masculinity allegorically, or morally, or mystically, rather than literally.

Petrus

So God authored Scripture not knowing the future? Seems like He didn’t plan very well.

How has God released us from these understandings?

 

[drpmjhess]

So God authored Scripture not knowing the future? Seems like He didn’t plan very well. How has God released us from these understandings?

Either God is ignorant (spouting geocentrism and flat earth) and sadistic (condoning the rape of Lot’s daughter’s) or these passages were not divinely inspired, but humanly composed. And that’s only the beginning.

The Old Testament is rife with horrific stories which – if true and condoned by God – make credible Richard Dawkins’ description of God as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Of course, since Catholic experience renders it impossible to agree with Dawkins’ description of God, those stories and passages in the Bible that reflect the above characteristics cannot be read literally.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Either God is ignorant (spouting geocentrism and flat earth) and sadistic (condoning the rape of Lot’s daughter’s) or these passages were not divinely inspired, but humanly composed. And that’s only the beginning.

The Old Testament is rife with horrific stories which – if true and condoned by God – make credible Richard Dawkins’ description of God as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Of course, since Catholic experience renders it impossible to agree with Dawkins’ description of God, those stories and passages in the Bible that reflect the above characteristics cannot be read literally.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

How has God released us from these understandings?

 

[drpmjhess]

How has God released us from these understandings?

We were never bound to understand God as condoning or commanding the horrors of the Old Testament.

 

[buffalo]

We were never bound to understand God as condoning or commanding the horrors of the Old Testament.

You mean the people who wrote these didn’t believe themselves?

…and Catholic sources for your claim?

 

[drpmjhess]

You mean the people who wrote these didn’t believe themselves?

…and Catholic sources for your claim?

Good question. I suppose some Hebrew guys thought at some point that it was morally acceptable for Lot to hand over his daughters to be raped by the angry mob in Sodom. Then again, some Americans think that what went on with teenage girls in Temple consummation beds in the “Yearning for Zion” Mormon polygamist compound was morally acceptable.

Catholic Source? My Catholic brain, which I enjoy the autonomy of using.

 

[anthony022071]

drpmjhess:

No – it’s perspectival.

When the prophets say “Thus says the Lord”,they are writing from God’s perspective. If you think that they were writing from a human perspective,then you don’t really believe that God’s Word has spoken through the prophets.

The biblical writers reflect all sorts of presuppositions of their time and place that we now recognize as outdated: (1) a geocentric cosmos in Joshua 10:13;

Joshua 10,13 doesn’t presuppose a geo-centric universe.

(2) a patriarchal culture when Lot handed his daughters over to be raped by the mob in Genesis 19:8;

Lot did not,in fact,hand over his daughters over to the mob.
Two angels were with him,and they would have prevented anyone from harming his daughters.

Scripture does not record Lot’s offer as something to be approved of,but just as a fact.

(3) a flat earth view in Genesis 6-9.

Scripture does not say that the earth is flat. Anyone who speaks of North,South,East and West can be said to hold a flat earth view,because we experience the earth as flat.

Biblical hermeneutics has always had to distinguish various senses of scripture; in fact in medieval exegesis four senses were noted: literal, allegorical, moral, and mystical. Obviously the Bible’s authors were not writing literally when they referred to God in exclusively male terms, since God has no Y chromosome or male reproductive organs. So they were referring to God’s masculinity allegorically, or morally, or mystically, rather than literally.

They referred to God as a He because that is how God has revealed himself,and that is how God wants to be spoken of.
It wasn’t their choice. The Hebrews were descended from pagan Amorites and Hittites,and they were inclined to backslide into paganism,so if the prophets were writing from a cultural perspective,they would have been prophets of paganism.

 

[anthony022071]

I suppose some Hebrew guys thought at some point that it was morally acceptable for Lot to hand over his daughters to be raped by the angry mob in Sodom.

Where in scripture does it say that it was morally acceptable?

Lot didn’t hand over his daughters anyway. There were two angels with him,and they would have prevented the mob from harming them.

 

[buffalo]

drpmjhess:

When the prophets say “Thus says the Lord”,they are writing from God’s perspective. If you think that they were writing from a human perspective,then you don’t really believe that God’s Word has spoken through the prophets.

He has already stated this many many times. Scientism permeates his perspective and he cannot bring himself to believe.

 

[anthony022071]

mmortal03,

please see post 635.

 

[anthony022071]

Furthermore, a key component of his introduction to the wager is that we can’t know whether God exists or not. But then how could Pascal be certain of even one quality of this God, that if He DOES exist, He has a rule that if we live our lives solely as if He exists, we would definitively get infinite happiness if He does, but if we don’t, we definitively get eternal punishment at the worst, or nothing at the least?

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Yet you make such a clear cut stament that some would believe you must be correct, specially when you throw in “titles” and “credentials” that are supposed to give your statement some sort of veracity.

The question still remains, is your source God Himself? Did the Holy Spirit reveal this fact only to you? Could you cite a passage in the Holy Scriptures were it is found that the Holy Spirit can be defined by our own particular whims?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

So when Jesus said “Our Father who art in Heaven…” He was really afraid of what people thought of Him and so we should understand that Jesus did not have a Father but a whatever “drpmjhess” thinks should be according to whatever he is discussing at the time?

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Don’t bother responding–I read through the rest of the posts!

 

[jcrichton]

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.

:crying: :crying: :crying:
…you’ve just hit on the reason for the 40K “Christian” denominations and the reason why Catholics are in such confusion’ Satan’s job continues to get easier by the second!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[drpmjhess]

anthony022071;3691076:

He has already stated this many many times. Scientism permeates his perspective and he cannot bring himself to believe.

No, not scientism; theology permeates my perspective, and theology that’s in dialogue with a world more recent than the twelfth century. The church that cannot change is moribund.

 

[drpmjhess]

Could you cite a passage in the Holy Scriptures were it is found that the Holy Spirit can be defined by our own particular whims?/QUOTE]

I never defined the Holy Spirit.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo;3691115:

No, not scientism; theology permeates my perspective, and theology that’s in dialogue with a world more recent than the twelfth century. The church that cannot change is moribund.

Let’s substitute the word truth in this sentence.

The truth that cannot change is moribund.

The Jesus will not change His teachings is moribund.

The Catholic Church that will not bow to moral relativism is moribund.