HELP! Defending Masculinity of God with stupid Liberal Professor!

[Captain_America]

I think worrying over God’s gender is futility, a sign of how far we are from grace and perfect knowledge.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below is the definitive statement from the Vatican clearly delineated for Catholics concerning this grave disordered error/heresy of attempting to redefine the masculine gender of our Holy Triune God in which the Holy See clearly denounces this presumptious sin . . . and the Holy See has been very actively fighting against this virulent widespread gross heresy for years . . .

CDF NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1995

[In 1995 the **Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had rejected two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised New American Bible NAB)) for use in the Liturgy,

**owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. **
These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. …]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the :bible1: Biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.
2. The first principle with respect to :bible1: Biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred :bible1: Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.
3. The translation of :bible1: Scripture should faithfully reflect the Word of God in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression

without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivitiesINDENTa) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l. The natural gender of “personae” in the :bible1: Bible, including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional :bible1: Biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit IS TO BE RETAINED.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are NOT to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. ****There shall be NO ****systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

*To read the rest of the Holy See’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s publication please cllick on the following link: *

:coffeeread: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

Copyright © 1997 EWTN
All Rights Reserved

---

Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210[/INDENT][/INDENT]

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . in dedication to our* Father** Who Art in Heaven*+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below is a quote from the reliable Catholic Baltimore Catechism which approaches the basics of the Catholic Faith in regard to the nature of our Holy God . . .which quotes also contain specific Biblical references from **Sacred :bible1: Scripture **. . . the easily approached question-and-answer format is marvelously helpful in learning and understanding the Catholic Faith . . . great for the students . . . great for the teachers . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

The Unity and Trinity of God
Lesson 3 from the Baltimore Cathechism

24. Is there only one God?
Yes, there is only one God.

I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me. (Isaiah 45:5)

25. How many Persons are there in God?
In God there are three Divine Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

26. Is the Father God?
The Father is God and the first Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 1:3)

27. Is the Son God?
The Son is God and the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

28. Is the Holy Ghost God?
The Holy Ghost is God and the third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? (I Corinthians 3:16)

29. What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?
By the Blessed Trinity we mean, one and the same God in three Divine Persons.

Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

30. Are the three Divine Persons really distinct from one another?
The three Divine Persons are really distinct from one another.

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove, upon him. And a voice came from heaven: “Thou art my beloved Son. In thee I am well pleased.”** (Luke 3:22)**

31. Are the three Divine Persons perfectly equal to one another?
The three Divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God.

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

32. How are the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, one and the same God?
The three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because all have one and the same Divine nature.

33. Can we fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God?
We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because this is a supernatural mystery.

34. What is a supernatural mystery?
A supernatural mystery is a truth which we cannot fully understand, but which we firmly believe because we have God’s word for it.

:coffeeread: Link: catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson03.html​

:bible1:
Jesus saith to him:
Have **I **been so long a time with you;
and have you not known me?
Philip, he that seeth **me **seeth the Father also.
How sayest thou, shew us the Father?
John 14:9

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You dear Lord Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
:harp:​

 

[Betterave]

You’ve corrected a bit but I suppose my main point was God in the - as you have it - mode of being ‘Son’ as a human male does not necessitate God as masculine.

I certainly don’t want to be presumptuous about this, but I would say that you are right: “God in the…mode of being ‘Son’ as a human male does not necessitate God as masculine” - but you are still wrong in a sense. The point is that God *as God *necessitates that his mode of being human is as a male. We believe that no one comes to God (the Father) except through the Son, and that the Son is the perfect image of the Father.

I think Aquinas thought the perfection of humanness was masculinity and therefore that women were deficient, hence: “Femina est mas occasionatus”. Although the Church - as I understand it - does not agree with this, is there a suggestion that God is then fundamentally more masculine?

On Aquinas’ doctrine please read the following. Apparently your view of Thomas’ teaching is common but mistaken:

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9811/opinion/nolan.html

As for God being fundamentally more masculine, God perfectly embraces all masculine *and *feminine perfections, but in relation to man, yes, I believe it is really quite clear that the God revealed to us by the Son is fundamentally more masculine.

 

[Betterave]

…I think you’re very confused… and you haven’t answered one question at all, not one!
I really can’t understand you on this Do you think I’m leading you into some kind of trap because I’m Muslim? Paranoia; another epidemic of the modern world!

Rest assured: this is not a matter of you being Muslim. Tony is like that with everyone. He often becomes quite belligerent if you ask him to explain his view.

 

[Betterave]

Personally, I think it would be extremely arrogant and inappropriate for me, as a non-Catholic to argue what the correct view of Gods gender is for Catholics.

I disagree. veritas82 has made very respectful and appropriate arguments as a non-Catholic. There is no reason you couldn’t do the same, is there?

However I am interested in raising certain points.

1. The original post does not claim that the professors make specific claims about Gods gender within the Catholic dogma. Only that she objects to referring to God as female in any theological discussion. That seems a little narrow to me.

That is (still) obviously an inaccurate characterization of the claims made in the OP.

1. It is questionable whether consensus on Gods gender is really necessary for Catholics as a group. Ones individual perspective may be different than another. But both may be acceptable in the broader definition of what it means to be Catholic.

Or only one may be acceptable - as in fact seems to be the case when we examine facts.

1. Limiting discussion or definitions of what Catholicism is to references to scripture or the catechism may have unintended consequences of good and potentially valuable ideas. Just because Jesus or Aquinis did not use modern feminist language does not mean that the use of such language, or any idea outside the cannon, is incompatible with a definition of Catholicism. It might be, but there are potential problems with that exclusionary perspective that one should be aware of.

Perhaps incompatible, perhaps not - but perhaps you should say more than “perhaps, perhaps.” You claim there are potential problems with “that exclusionary perspective.” Okay; so what are they?

 

[Captain_America]

Calling God a woman is silly. Calling God a man is silly. Referring to him by masculine is not, so long as we are clear who is being referenced- that being the appropriate rule for most pronoun use. Jesus called him Father, and invited us to do likewise. So we do.

This does it for me. . .

 

[mcteague]

I disagree. veritas82 has made very respectful and appropriate arguments as a non-Catholic. There is no reason you couldn’t do the same, is there?

I am not saying one can not contribute to the discussion. But I think people who define themselves as part of a group should be allowed to determine much of what defines that group for themselves, and not be defined by people who do not choose to define themselves as such. Sometimes its a thin line. I tend to give religious belief a lot of latitude in how it chooses to define itself

That is (still) obviously an inaccurate characterization of the claims made in the OP.

No it is not. You are obviously reading the OP differently than I am. Let us look at the post for a moment.

1. In the title she equates liberal with stupid as though they were synonymous You might argue that those words are simply unrelated adjectives describing the professor. That seems to generous.
2. She does not in any way suggest that this class is specifically about Catholic teaching. As I said before it appears to be a comparative religion class of something. So none of what she attributes to her professor or the material contradict anything that you might accept as correct Catholic teaching
3. There is nothing to suggest that the book she read was addressing the Catholic religion in particular. It did seem to be addressing religion from some other perspective
4. When describing one particular professor at her school she again equates liberal with stupid. The use of “and” softens it to less than a definitional relationship. But it does suggest her underlying view

It seem to me that she prefers a very traditional view of gender roles and religion. That is her right. My annoyance, not arrogance, at her was that I did not see her realizing that an academic discussion of the subject in no way interferes with her personal beliefs. Unless of course she wants it to. Is is not better to listen to what people are saying and think about it. Instead of being threatened by a different idea, why not (at least in the beginning) give it a fair hearing. Even if you have concluded in this discussion that God is best described in masculine term didn’t the discussion have value for you. Didn’t the consideration of that other perspective add to your understanding?

I will add after a bit of thought that I may be being a little hard of the OP. But just a little.

Perhaps incompatible, perhaps not - but perhaps you should say more than “perhaps, perhaps.” You claim there are potential problems with “that exclusionary perspective.” Okay; so what are they?

I am a bit tired, so I may discuss this more tomorrow. I will respond briefly. One important way of examining law or social policy is to ask ‘what is the underlying issue that is being attempted to be addressed’. In the case of the gender of God question, it is rectify (probably unintended) Catholic contributions to the subjugation of woman. A possible implication of God as masculine is that men are closer to God in the sense of being closer to perfect. And are therefore inherently more qualified for power. Additionally one can look at the role of Mary in relation to God and claim that the woman can have sufficient agency through their influence upon the male.
One could certainly argue, as was done for years, that as woman have influence on their husbands they don’t actually need the right to vote.
Now I doubt that you or anyone on this site believes woman should lose the franchise, but you have to see how the literal interpretation that you support can and has been used to support ideas and policies like this.

Does considering the idea that God could have chosen to reveal “himself” in many different ways add or subtract from religious understanding. If we insist that God is masculine then we concede gender as a precondition of Gods existence. That would seem to contradict the way God is normally defined

Lastly, I would mention that Catholics are not fundamentalists. Although anyone visiting this site might think so. Looking up catholic, we find that it means liberal. Though probably not quite in the way I would like. Still it does suggest to us that narrow restrictive definitions of what a Catholic is may be antithetical to what it actually is.

Cheers

 

[veritas82]

"If God is male then the male is god"
I read an interesting article from a book by Peter Kreeft (someone may have mentioned it before?) entitled ‘Sexual Symbolism.’. His main purpose is to refute feminist claims that a male only Priesthood is inherently chauvinistic. His argument can perhaps be summed by the following paragraph: ‘First, priests of Christ who are Christ’s mouths through which he himself says, “This is my Body,” must be men because Christ is a man. Second, Christ, the perfect human image of the Father, is male because God is Father. To deny my first proposition is to deny the Eucharist, and thus Catholicism. To deny my second proposition is to deny the authority of Christ, and thus Christianity.’ The first argument is not really related to this discussion, but the second most assuredly is.

As for God being fundamentally more masculine, God perfectly embraces all masculine *and * feminine perfections, but in relation to man, yes, I believe it is really quite clear that the God revealed to us by the Son is fundamentally more masculine.

Kreeft has pretty much said what you have said and indeed what others have said on this thread, but perhaps he is more emphatic in stating the Divine as fundamentally masculine: ‘But why is Christ’s maleness essential? Because he is the revelation of the Father, and the Father’s masculinity is essential.’

Kreeft is suggesting that the maleness of Christ is a symbolism that has meaning, namely that the Divine is fundamentally more masculine. This then has a connotation for mankind since to have a relationship then we must be feminine, which is the symbolism of His Church. Thus if there is any chauvinism in Christianity, then it is one of a female kind! The soul is something fundamentally feminine and inclines to its masculine lover: ’In becoming a man, Jesus in a sense let women be and went after men to transform them—not into women, and certainly not into wimps, but into men like himself. He redefined manliness and power as the courage to suffer instead of the lust to dominate; giving instead of taking. Women were a little less in need of that lesson.’

I rather like the last paragraph, which includes: ‘The ground of Mary’s greatness is the thing so simple and innocent that it is too simple and innocent for the feminists to see. The reason she is crowned Queen of Heaven, the reason for her great glory and power is her total submission to God-her sacrifice, her suffering, her service. Muslims see it, but so-called “Christian” feminists do not.’

There is an interesting link here between sexuality and religion. Religion is fundamentally heterosexual and therefore ‘homosexuality’ is like a spiritual masturbation. This relation between sexuality and religion is perhaps the very heart of the matter and why St Augustine made a link between apostasy and adultery (which may explain the aetiology of the word ‘infidelity’). HH John Paul II’s work on The Theology of the Body is then a monumental piece – in this light – than any other in modern Western history.

The quote above is from colleague of his. I view the quote as something representative of the modern world; a sound-bite that sounds convincing, but on closer inspection collapses utterly.

On Aquinas’ doctrine please read the following. Apparently your view of Thomas’ teaching is common but mistaken.

I wasn’t sure whether he did. It seemed that the idea of women being deficient was prevalent in medieval Europe and this was taken (incorrectly or otherwise) from Aristotle (ref Catholic Encyclopaedia). I made the connection that since Aquinas was ‘Aristotelian’ then he thought likewise. I do not know the author of the source, though there is suggestion he is erudite. If we take his point to be wholly true (he hasn’t left anything out) as well as the Catholic Encyclopaedia then a belief in an inferiority of women may have been a popular medieval myth, rather like today that original sin is seen as the damnation of babies or condoms will solve promiscuity!?!

And God knows best

 

[veritas82]

I am not saying one can not contribute to the discussion. But I think people who define themselves as part of a group should be allowed to determine much of what defines that group for themselves, and not be defined by people who do not choose to define themselves as such. Sometimes its a thin line. I tend to give religious belief a lot of latitude in how it chooses to define itself

As you, I certainly would hold a book on Islamic creed written by a Catholic with suspicion. Likewise, Muslims have no authority on Catholic doctrine. However, I do not speak authorotatively, but rather more like an arbitrator (as previously mentioned). Perhaps I see myself more like a parent helping his child (with no negative connotations at all!). The child asks his parents for some help with homework; the parents who haven’t studied this topic for a long time (or ever) ask all kinds of questions to try and understand what is going on and in so doing the child answers their own questions. I’d hope that my comments have been useful and that they are judged on the merit (or otherwise) of what is said, rather than judgement having been passed purely on my religious denomination
Why is your religion etc by the way?

 

[Betterave]

"If God is male then the male is god"
…]
The quote above is from colleague of his. I view the quote as something representative of the modern world; a sound-bite that sounds convincing, but on closer inspection collapses utterly.

Very apposite comments. I’ll just add that I think that the view informing the quote you mention is essentially atheistic: it assumes that there is no *real *God, who is radically other and transcends all creatures, so that whatever analogical language we use to talk about ‘God’ is in fact just a contrived valorization of whatever class of creatures that language best applies to. It certainly bespeaks a rejection of revelation. And amazing though it seems, some Catholics seem to have forgotten that ours is a revealed religion, the result of God’s initiative towards man.

I wasn’t sure whether he did. It seemed that the idea of women being deficient was prevalent in medieval Europe and this was taken (incorrectly or otherwise) from Aristotle (ref Catholic Encyclopaedia). I made the connection that since Aquinas was ‘Aristotelian’ then he thought likewise. I do not know the author of the source, though there is suggestion he is erudite. If we take his point to be wholly true (he hasn’t left anything out) as well as the Catholic Encyclopaedia then a belief in an inferiority of women may have been a popular medieval myth, rather like today that original sin is seen as the damnation of babies or condoms will solve promiscuity!?!

Certainly possible. But as anyone who has ever really studied the so-called “Dark Ages” knows, most people’s ideas about the middle ages are mostly just popular modern myths.

 

[Betterave]

1. In the title she equates liberal with stupid as though they were synonymous You might argue that those words are simply unrelated adjectives describing the professor. That seems to generous.

First, I’d say that generosity is important, and erring on the side of too generous generally isn’t a serious kind of error.
Second, I disagree with your reading. I think ‘liberal’ is best read as a specification of ‘stupid.’ It’s not just a stupid professor - it’s a stupid liberal professor. I do think it would be fair to ask the OPer for clarification on this point.

1. She does not in any way suggest that this class is specifically about Catholic teaching. As I said before it appears to be a comparative religion class of something. So none of what she attributes to her professor or the material contradict anything that you might accept as correct Catholic teaching

I don’t see where you get that reading from:
Ok, so currently I reading through material to be discussed at a class later this week in which the author says that Masculinity conquered “The Great Mother” and replaced it with a masculine God and now we must reclaim feminine spirituality.

Ok, at this PATHETIC school I am at, all if not most of the professor believe in calling God “she” and using he and she interchangeably. I have talked to a priest, a seminarian, and TWO people with master in theology about this so I now perfectly well why this is just a load of ****. But I am already gearing up to openly debate my professor in class about this because I am DONE sitting there and letting him flat out lie about what our church teaches.

???

1. There is nothing to suggest that the book she read was addressing the Catholic religion in particular. It did seem to be addressing religion from some other perspective

I missed the part about a book…

1. When describing one particular professor at her school she again equates liberal with stupid. The use of “and” softens it to less than a definitional relationship. But it does suggest her underlying view

Sure, but perhaps that view is legitimate? Maybe, maybe not, I’d say.

It seem to me that she prefers a very traditional view of gender roles and religion. That is her right. My annoyance, not arrogance, at her was that I did not see her realizing that an academic discussion of the subject in no way interferes with her personal beliefs. Unless of course she wants it to. Is is not better to listen to what people are saying and think about it. Instead of being threatened by a different idea, why not (at least in the beginning) give it a fair hearing. Even if you have concluded in this discussion that God is best described in masculine term didn’t the discussion have value for you. Didn’t the consideration of that other perspective add to your understanding?

The thing is, she is attending a Catholic institution. The purpose of such an institution is not to confuse students or to teach them that the Church is wrong. This is an important and serious issue in contemporary Catholic education.

I will add after a bit of thought that I may be being a little hard of the OP. But just a little.

Gracious of you to say.

Gotta run now. Hasta luego.

 

[bhall0689]

Second, I disagree with your reading. I think ‘liberal’ is best read as a specification of ‘stupid.’ It’s not just a stupid professor - it’s a stupid liberal professor.

Sure, but perhaps that view is legitimate? Maybe, maybe not, I’d say.

The thing is, she is attending a Catholic institution. The purpose of such an institution is not to confuse students or to teach them that the Church is wrong. This is an important and serious issue in contemporary Catholic education.

Gracious of you to say.

Gotta run now. Hasta luego.

I go to said school. Only about 40% of the students are Catholic. It is a very liberal university, something that is apparent from the first moment on campus. I’m sorry if the student is dissatisfied, but it is a fact that we are not always going to agree with the things that are taught in the classroom and the opinions of those around us. I often don’t agree. It’s college. College is supposed to challenge your views and opinions about the world. It does not mean that you have to agree. In fact, it’s great if you don’t! You get an opportunity to speak up, defend, strengthen, and challenge your own perceptions of the world. Class is very hum-drum if you agree with each facet of the agenda and you don’t learn anything. If you can’t take the heat . . .

I take offense with your equation of “liberal” to “stupid,” as I consider myself liberal. Then again, I consider many conservative opinions uninformed and short-sighted, but I would never call them “stupid.” A diversity of opinions in society keeps us in check.

Personally, I am a feminist, but I take no issue in calling God “He,” simply because there is no suitable pronoun that would encompass both the feminine and masculine qualities of the divine, and a fluctuation between “He” and “She” leads to confusion. I accept it as a practice that is rooted deeply in tradition and take no offense.

 

[veritas82]

Very apposite comments. I’ll just add that I think that the view informing the quote you mention is essentially atheistic: it assumes that there is no *real *God, who is radically other and transcends all creatures, so that whatever analogical language we use to talk about ‘God’ is in fact just a contrived valorization of whatever class of creatures that language best applies to. It certainly bespeaks a rejection of revelation. And amazing though it seems, some Catholics seem to have forgotten that ours is a revealed religion, the result of God’s initiative towards man.

An Islamic mystic/philospher (ibn al-Arabi) talked about the created God. He said that God is infinite, so as soon as we try and define Him we thereby make Him finite and how can you make the infinite, finite? Therefore doctrine is not God. The mind cannot grasp God, but the spiritual heart can, not that it can encompass Him, by no means! Which of course fits in with the feminine soul inclining to masculine Divinity. Of course the doctrine is necessary, but its a learning tool as opposed to reality. However, the real meaning of these doctrine is something which can only be understood through experience. So what does God’s masculinity mean? We may be able to conceptualise this, but only through experience can its depts be penetrated.

Certainly possible. But as anyone who has ever really studied the so-called “Dark Ages” knows, most people’s ideas about the middle ages are mostly just popular modern myths.

Too true. The phrase ‘Medieval’ is a derrogatory one coined in the 16th century; it was this bit in the middle between ancient and modern Worlds. Also the school insult ‘Dunce’ comes from the medieval scholastic scholar Dunce Scotus. My research is to cover some of this ‘myth’ and so we’ll see

 

[Betterave]

I go to said school. Only about 40% of the students are Catholic. It is a very liberal university, something that is apparent from the first moment on campus. I’m sorry if the student is dissatisfied, but it is a fact that we are not always going to agree with the things that are taught in the classroom and the opinions of those around us. I often don’t agree. It’s college.

But it’s not just a college - it’s a Catholic college, isn’t it?

College is supposed to challenge your views and opinions about the world.

That’s not false, but it is at best a half-truth, so it shouldn’t be presented as if it were the whole truth. And I assume you recognize that your statement is a half-truth? That college is certainly supposed to be about more than that?

It does not mean that you have to agree. In fact, it’s great if you don’t! You get an opportunity to speak up, defend, strengthen, and challenge your own perceptions of the world. Class is very hum-drum if you agree with each facet of the agenda and you don’t learn anything. If you can’t take the heat . . .

If you are actually interested in the truth, learning the truth should not be humdrum. It shouldn’t have to be spiced up by liberal doses of falsehood (pun intended).

I take offense with your equation of “liberal” to “stupid,” as I consider myself liberal. Then again, I consider many conservative opinions uninformed and short-sighted, but I would never call them “stupid.” A diversity of opinions in society keeps us in check.

I specifically did not equate “liberal” to “stupid.” Liberals tend to be evil, rather than stupid.
(I’d prefer to just say, “stupid is as stupid does,” and stick to concrete issues.)

 

[mcteague]

As you, I certainly would hold a book on Islamic creed written by a Catholic with suspicion. Likewise, Muslims have no authority on Catholic doctrine. However, I do not speak authorotatively, but rather more like an arbitrator (as previously mentioned). Perhaps I see myself more like a parent helping his child (with no negative connotations at all!). The child asks his parents for some help with homework; the parents who haven’t studied this topic for a long time (or ever) ask all kinds of questions to try and understand what is going on and in so doing the child answers their own questions. I’d hope that my comments have been useful and that they are judged on the merit (or otherwise) of what is said, rather than judgement having been passed purely on my religious denomination
Why is your religion etc by the way?

My comments in this area may have not been clear. I have no objection to an Islamic person writing a book about Catholicism, or anyone contributing to a discussion about anything. However there is a difference between saying, " FOOs believe or do X", and “you are not a FOO because you do not believe or do X”. The first is available to anyone. I think the second, in the form it is written, should be reserved for those inside the group. In this case FOOS. However, a person outside the group, in this case a religion, can ask " My understanding is that FOOS do and think X. How can you claim to be a FOO when you do not?" It is a subtle difference. But to me an important one.

I suppose it is more an issue of politeness than anything else. Lets suppose that you never do the daily prayers that are part of the Muslim religion, and I see you passed out drunk on a regular basis. As my understanding is that Muslims are supposed to do daily prayers, and that they do not drink, I might ask " How can you call yourself a Muslim". However I would say, " You are not really a Muslim". I will leave that to other Muslims.
As I said it is matter of politness.

My own religious beliefs are rather unusual and somewhat complicated. At various times I have been; Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddist, generic Pagan, Unitarian, and Druid. I see value and truth in almost all religious belief. But also some falsehood. And I recognize the possibilty that none of it may be real. That does not mean I am Agnostic. Agnostic say, " I am not sure, but choose to act as if there is no God.

I say that the religions of mankind are but keyholes through which we peer out trying to understand things that are beyond us. And yet I recognise the possibilty that all I see through that key hole may only be in my mind. And so I am a believer in all ( to some degree), and a believer in none at the same time. My religious belief encompasses all religious belief and no religious belief at the same time. At the risk of sounding terribly conceited; my religious beliefs are beyond religion as it is understood by most people.

I say whatever religion you believe is true, and would never argue against the essence of someone’s religious beliefs. As I said it is a bit complicated and unusual.

 

[bhall0689]

But it’s not just a college - it’s a Catholic college, isn’t it?

That’s not false, but it is at best a half-truth, so it shouldn’t be presented as if it were the whole truth. And I assume you recognize that your statement is a half-truth? That college is certainly supposed to be about more than that?

If you are actually interested in the truth, learning the truth should not be humdrum. It shouldn’t have to be spiced up by liberal doses of falsehood (pun intended).

I specifically did not equate “liberal” to “stupid.” Liberals tend to be evil, rather than stupid.
(I’d prefer to just say, “stupid is as stupid does,” and stick to concrete issues.)

I don’t think my statement is a half-truth. Each bit of knowledge that I encounter challenges the way I think about my environment, because the world is truly changed. I now know something I did not. I know think about something in a different way. You might not agree, but your assessment of the “truthfulness” of my situation is offensive and flat-out wrong.

I would also argue that one cannot know the true without examining that which is not true. Instead of whining, I think the student should approach this as a learning experience.

 

[veritas82]

My comments in this area may have not been clear. I have no objection to an Islamic person **(Muslim) ** writing a book about Catholicism, or anyone contributing to a discussion about anything. However there is a difference between saying, " FOOs believe or do X", and “you are not a FOO because you do not believe or do X”. The first is available to anyone. I think the second, in the form it is written, should be reserved for those inside the group. In this case FOOS. However, a person outside the group, in this case a religion, can ask " My understanding is that FOOS do and think X. How can you claim to be a FOO when you do not?" It is a subtle difference. But to me an important one.

OK I’m a little confused I’m afraid I get the bit about ‘so and so believes X’ not so sure about the other. Did you mean it would be impolite of me to say so and so is not a Catholic because of some reason? I understand where you’re coming from. Did I do that ? That said, just because a Catholic (or anyone) says so and so does not mean it is representative of the Church (or their denomination). What happens if their is a situation where I know more than them? (This may never happen).
Admittedly I hate it when people impose beliefs onto my religion that aren’t from it and then blame me for it - understandable! The difference between me and them normally is that I actually bothered to study the books from teachers (Muslim and Catholic) and do not have an agenda. To understand a religion (or anything) can only be done through its own eyes anything else would be only an intelligible one; i.e. one that exists in the mind of the onlooker but has no existence.
If I have offended anyone then I apologise unreservedly

At the risk of sounding terribly conceited; my religious beliefs are beyond religion as it is understood by most people.
I say whatever religion you believe is true, and would never argue against the essence of someone’s religious beliefs. As I said it is a bit complicated and unusual.

Hmm not sure it is that unusual, sounds a bit like my parents. What is religion as understood by most people? My dad is one for saying its just you and God and that’s it! All the theology legal stuff just gets in the way and divides people. Sort of the organised bit disorganises the whole point. Would that be something of what you believe?

 

[mcteague]

OK I’m a little confused I’m afraid I get the bit about ‘so and so believes X’ not so sure about the other. Did you mean it would be impolite of me to say so and so is not a Catholic because of some reason? I understand where you’re coming from. Did I do that ? That said, just because a Catholic (or anyone) says so and so does not mean it is representative of the Church (or their denomination). What happens if their is a situation where I know more than them? (This may never happen).
Admittedly I hate it when people impose beliefs onto my religion that aren’t from it and then blame me for it - understandable! The difference between me and them normally is that I actually bothered to study the books from teachers (Muslim and Catholic) and do not have an agenda. To understand a religion (or anything) can only be done through its own eyes anything else would be only an intelligible one; i.e. one that exists in the mind of the onlooker but has no existence.
If I have offended anyone then I apologise unreservedly

Hmm not sure it is that unusual, sounds a bit like my parents. What is religion as understood by most people? My dad is one for saying its just you and God and that’s it! All the theology legal stuff just gets in the way and divides people. Sort of the organised bit disorganises the whole point. Would that be something of what you believe?

You have not offended me. And I doubt anyone else has been offended by your contributions. My comments about not feeling it is appropriate for someone outside the religion to define it were not directed at you. I was really saying that for me I am not going to tell Catholics what is correct regarding the masculinity of God. Except in a purely accademic discussion.

The difference between me and people that hold views like your fathers is that they generally have their own specific view. And they usually do not consider atheism a religous belief.

I would best be described as a religious anarchist. I have no beliefs and all beliefs (well all most). Most people adhering to a particular faith would say that is not possible. And from their perspective they might be right. But it works for me.

One very important thing I got out of Catholicism is the ability to hold two or more seemingly contradictory things in my head, and actually be ok with it.

I can hear peope asking; “What the heck does he mean by that?”.
Well take the idea of God for example. In the Catholic religion there is one God, but there are also three Gods. It doesn’t really make any sense. I am sure there are boat loads of medieval scholastics who’ve written mountainous volumes explaining how that works. But the truth is it really doesn’t make any actual sense to a rational human. But does that mean you need to reject the Catholic God. No. If you are a Catholic you just kind of roll with it.
Having the ability and being comfortable keeping seemingly contradictory ideas in your head is a very useful. That does not mean we should reject the need and desire for clarity in life. But as you live, you accept that sometimes it is just not possible.

 

[veritas82]

One very important thing I got out of Catholicism is the ability to hold two or more seemingly contradictory things in my head, and actually be ok with it

Thanks for your comments. I once asked a priest - who I must say was so sincere that it would make you cry with embarrassment for ones own inadequacy - about the trinity and just not getting it. He said it is God and thus a mystery. That works for me whether I believe it or not.
I’ll mention a little of the rest later - God willing - but just as a side thought, are we not in a universe of opposites?