Holy Spirit

[edwinG]

patricius:

There certainly was doubt on Abraham’s part, or else it wouldn’t have been much of a test!

Okay, if you really “know” God, then you know He doesn’t want you to murder innocent people! And if you really love God, then you also love your neighbor as yourself. I would hope this implies not slaughtering your son-- especially if you know God well enough to understand that He would never want something like that! If Abraham really knew God, and thought he heard a voice telling him to slaughter his son, he should have cloncluded that he was hallucinating.

Was Abraham “in God’s presence”? Well, you must agree that God is omnipresent, so I’m not sure what that question means. And why should Abraham be excluded from the group “man,” which is supposed to know good and evil?

I think this story just works so much better if we don’t try to force an overly historical reading onto it.

Hi Patricius,
The first line in bold type. Okay etc.
This is the answer. Our faith in His love and wisdom , accepting we dont understand. To us it may seem wrong but who are we to advise God. Trust Him , He loves you more than you could possibly love anyone. In the moment of your greatest love for someone, could you hurt them? God can not hurt you, will not hurt you, will not allow you to be hurt, as He is love and you are putting your trust in Him. For a person to doubt His love is from a lack of understanding otherwise it would be counted at least as callousness. Put this firmly in your heart, God loves you, and if you are one who seeks to do His will, he will also bless you.
Love moves His hand. God does not allow people to die or be killed for the fun of it. The death of a bad person is grief to Him.He who is love would much prefer that the person who died, chose His will so that he may live. I used this example before, because Jesus had a lesson in it for me. The conflict in Afganistan. This first had God’s hallmarks on it when, before September, the Taliban invoked God because they blew up the largest Buddha statue in the world. They did this to appease God so that He would bless their attack on America. This in turn bought America to Afganistan. I can tell you God took no delight in the killing of the Taliban, He was grieved by it but His love for the suffering Afgans was more. The whole episode was a grief to God, and we cause this by our lack of seeking His will. We are responsible not God. God does not go anywhere to kill anyone. He has to go to rescue the downtrodden. He would much prefer the downtrodden to be freed without loss of life or distress.
When Christ speaks you know. A full stop.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[edwinG]

patricius:

The ultimate question here is one that was originally posed by Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro: namely, does God’s preference (or command) for something make it good, or does He command it because it was already and independently good?

Obviously this is a complicated question. Maybe I’ll start a thread on it… Here, suffice it to say that the prohibition of murder-- especially one’s close relatives-- is, to me at least, a law that is “written on our hearts,” commanded by God not on a whim but because it reflects an essential truth about human nature, that of our basic dignity. Any god who would command an abrogation of that dignity would not be worthy of our obedience. Therefore, I conclude that this account is not (entirely) historical, in the strict sense of the word.

Hi patricius,
I have no problem with this account being wholly historical. It boils down to an appreciation of how much He loves us, and a demonstration of His wisdom, and His love and His blessing on those who choose to obey.
. Would you personally restrain a rescue worker who appeared to be going into a volatile situation. To him it may be a controlled situation but you think it is highly dangerous because you lack particular knowledge.
If you believe in Christ and that we belong to Him what right do we have to make a decision which may harm us. So every time you do something a bit dangerous you are going against your own words because you are potentially sending yourself of to murder and you belong to Christ, not yourself. How could you possibly send someone else’s property, your life, to death.And you do this without Authority, love or wisdom, but on a mere whim.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[amarischuk]

Hello Edwin,

I see that you are in Thailand. I am not far from there, I am currently teaching in rural Taiwan. I was thinking of going to Thailand for Chinese New Year…or Cambodia.

Thank you for your message. I think that we will just have to disagree. I cannot bring myself to abandon logic and the Church cannot ask me to, as according to Aquinas our will is dependant on our rational faculties. I cannot will to believe something I know is not true, unlike what Kierkegaard taught.

I think there is a serious difference between believing in the Trinity (a mystery in the Greek sense of the word mysterion- not inexplicable but infinitely explicable) and that Pi equals an even 3 or that God contradicts his own laws, or that the Gospel accounts just can’t seem to nail down the number of men/angels at the tomb on that important Sunday.

That and I do not believe in this mystical enlightening. I have been on both sides of the fence and frankly I would love to believe everything in the Bible but it simply isn’t true.

 

[patricius]

*Answer: ***Negative, **except in the case–which never may be admitted too easily or rashly, and then ONLY if it is not opposed to the mind and decision of the Church–when it can be proved with solid arguments that the sacred writer intended not to give a true and strict history but to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words.

I think the question at issue here is whether the way God is depicted in this account represents a “solid argument” that this isn’t a strict history. Additionally, the question has been raised whether Old Testament authors had even conceived of such a thing as a “true and strict history.” But this is a topic for a different thread. Either way, I think it’s premature to forbid debate on this topic. The quote above makes it clear that these questions of exegesis and hermeneutics are still very much open for discussion.

Your understanding that God is at times unjust is terribly flawed, and contradictory to the dogmas of Catholicism.

God is never unjust. But He doesn’t always operate strictly according to the principles of justice. The definition of “unjust” that you posted read that it was “unfair.” Let me ask you: was Calvary “fair?” How?

I’m not saying it was “unfair,” or that God is “unjust.” But I don’t think fairness or justice was a consideration at Calvary, or at Bethlehem. And that’s lucky for us.

My basic problem here is not that Genesis tells us that God willed Isaac’s death. He has His reasons that we do not know. My problem is that He would command something that He has subsequently revealed to us as, by its very nature, causing spiritual death.

 

[Strider]

amarischuk:

IThank you for your message. I think that we will just have to disagree. I cannot bring myself to abandon logic and the Church cannot ask me to, as according to Aquinas our will is dependant on our rational faculties. I cannot will to believe something I know is not true, unlike what Kierkegaard taught.

I think there is a serious difference between believing in the Trinity (a mystery in the Greek sense of the word mysterion- not inexplicable but infinitely explicable) and that Pi equals an even 3 or that God contradicts his own laws, or that the Gospel accounts just can’t seem to nail down the number of men/angels at the tomb on that important Sunday.

That and I do not believe in this mystical enlightening. I have been on both sides of the fence and frankly I would love to believe everything in the Bible but it simply isn’t true.

amarischuk,
Did you notice my little note to you in my post # 30 above?
What I meant by it was that I sense a certain amount of intellectual pride in your posts. That is not meant as an insult, but a simple observation.
Where does the Bible say Pi = 3? I’'ve never seen that anywhere.
Where does God contradict his own laws? Not that he couldn’t, of course, he being God.
amarischuk, it’s not a history book, not in the sense we understand history books. Read those gospels carefully, Each describes a different incident in accordance with what the evangelist wanted to convey and to whom he was writing.
One does not have to suspend logic to believe the Bible; that would negate it entirely. One must only understnad the sacred author’s intent, within the context of his time,culture and circumstances.
I really would like to know where Scriture says Pi =3.

 

[Strider]

amarischuk
Oh, I just looked up the thread where you got that bit about Pi = 3. Someone was debating with someone else who said that the pool of Siloam was circukar and its diameter was exactly 3 times its circumferance.
Did you bother to go to a concordance and look up all references to Siloam? I did, and it ain’t there.
I guess that if you’re looking for a reason tio disbelieve the Bible, any misstatement will do.

 

[amarischuk]

Did you bother to go to a concordance and look up all references to Siloam? I did, and it ain’t there.

1 Kings 7:23

The sea was then cast; it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings7.htmBut I merely mention that in passing, along with other things such as the creation account or any number of scientifically wrong things (Joshua telling the sun to stand still). The real problem isbn’t that, because with a little modernism a person can say that the bible is wrong about science but right about faith and morals.

But it is the faith and moral problems such as Abraham and Isaac which aer also in conflict. SImply put, when one studies the bible, you do not see that consistency of one author.

My view is that it is a historical book of how the JEws viewed themselves at the time. No infallibilty, just a primary document akin to any other primary document.

Adam

 

[edwinG]

amarischuk:

Hello Edwin,

I see that you are in Thailand. I am not far from there, I am currently teaching in rural Taiwan. I was thinking of going to Thailand for Chinese New Year…or Cambodia.

Thank you for your message. I think that we will just have to disagree. I cannot bring myself to abandon logic and the Church cannot ask me to, as according to Aquinas our will is dependant on our rational faculties. I cannot will to believe something I know is not true, unlike what Kierkegaard taught.

I think there is a serious difference between believing in the Trinity (a mystery in the Greek sense of the word mysterion- not inexplicable but infinitely explicable) and that Pi equals an even 3 or that God contradicts his own laws, or that the Gospel accounts just can’t seem to nail down the number of men/angels at the tomb on that important Sunday.

That and I do not believe in this mystical enlightening. I have been on both sides of the fence and frankly I would love to believe everything in the Bible but it simply isn’t true.

Hi amarischuk,
I hope you are enjoying Taiwan. Actually it was Taiwanese who led me to Christ.l was an acupuncturist and acupuncture is the medical aspect of Dao. I found dao people in Brisbane and they accepted me into Dao and said I could study any scripture. I chose the bible and they blew me away with some info in Jesus. They believe like their life depends on it ( and it does LOL) that their names must be in the book of life and they put them in in a ceremony.
Back to the subject. I have underlined part of your post.
Therein lies your problem. You are talking flesh. As we grow in the spirit our whole aim is to submit to His will. And boy does He know a lot. If you want to know anything ask Him. He made it and He knows all.
Christ be with youhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG

 

[Strider]

1 Kings 7:23But I merely mention that in passing, along with other things such as the creation account or any number of scientifically wrong things (Joshua telling the sun to stand still). The real problem isbn’t that, because with a little modernism a person can say that the bible is wrong about science but right about faith and morals
But it is the faith and moral problems such as Abraham and Isaac which aer also in conflict. SImply put, when one studies the bible, you do not see that consistency of one author
My view is that it is a historical book of how the JEws viewed themselves at the time. No infallibilty, just a primary document akin to any other primary document

Okay, so it’s not a math book any more than it’s a direct history book as we would write it, but it is an historical account, as you just admitted.
Can you read the Abraham and Isaac incident as an exact type of Chirst? And the creation account is not meant to be science, obviously. It’s written in different order in Gen 1 & 2. It’s just a statement that God made everything, that he is the uncaused cause (despite some of the posts in the creation threads). The Church allows both literal (directed evolution) and literalist (direct creation) interpretation of Gen 1 & 2. She only requires belief in a “first man and woman”, each with a human soul.
The Bible isn’t infallible, it’s inerrant. It’s the Magesterium that’s infallible. Try the Catechism again, with a slightly opened mind. We all know authority to interpret is a major problem and the cause of many thousands of Protestant denominations.
The Church gives some latitude, but the problem, as I see it, is in this written by you above, “My view is that it’s a historical book of how the Jews viewed themselves at the time.”
That’s the problem: Everybody looks at the Bible “In my view.”
It never, NEVER works.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Patricius,

I don’t have the power to forbid the topic for debate. I am simply pointing out that you have departed from Catholic hermeneutics, and doctrine when you deny the historicity of God commanding Abraham to slay his son Issac.

Any “solid argument” offered by a Catholic ought to be in accord with Catholic hermeneutics. I haven’t seen any such argument attempted, nor any application of Catholic hermeneutics adhered to. I’ve simply seen a conclusion drawn which is contrary to 2000 years of Catholic teaching, as well as contrary to the Judaic tradition prior to the advent of Christianity.

I suggest following Catholic methodology, if one is Catholic.

**How to DO exegesis **

(Pilfered and summarized from an article by Rev. Leonard Obloy)

1. Delimit the text - narring what exactly will be the passage under consideration. Usually, the exegete will select a certain periscope, such as the deluge. This sets the limits that will be under observation, usually a selection of verses.
2. Set the text - This means the work of textual criticism. The exeget must see whether or not there are any variant readings fro the delimited test. These must be examined, state which readings are chosen and why.
3. Work up the text - language, grammar, and syntax analysis. Every word is examined and parsed, sentences diagrammed out. How one understands certain words may be crucial to interpretation.
4. Check parallels - if parallels exist (especially in the synoptic gospels) these must be examined. Does the passage quote other books of the Bible? What is the context in these other books? The wider context is observed.
5. Check the history of the exegesis of the text - What have others throughout history said about this passage? How was it interpreted by the Fathers and others? Perhaps one will see how it has been used in the Liturgy of the Church.
6. Do one’s own exegesis, using:

Form Criticism
Source Criticism
Redaction Criticism
Analyze the Structure
See what are the elements that seem to make a structure
See what elements seem to disrupt that structure
Bring questions to the text
Answer problems in the text

Questions will be asked. What is the context of this passage? What does the author intend to say. This is an endeavor to get to the literal sense. After arriving at the literal sense, they will see if any fuller sense or typical sense is present.

The exegete will check his or her own interpretations against the rule of faith. Does anything one has proposed as an interpretation of the passage go against what is commonly held by the Church?

Notice that the above is *questioning, *rather than concluding. It is the competence of the magisterium to either authoritatively approve of, tolerate, or reject any interpretation of Scripture.

Catholics depart from Catholic hermeneutics when they simply conclude an interpretation that is contrary to the mind of the Church, such as you have done. Do you know how the Church has always interpreted that narrative as pertaining to a historical event? Do you know that admitting to it being not strictly history is prohibited UNLESS certain conditions apply? Have those conditions been met in this case?

Can you prove by solid argument that “the sacred writer intended not to give a true and strict history but to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?” If not, then why would you interpret this passage contrary to Catholic tradition?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let me ask you: was Calvary “fair?” How?

Calvary was a gift from God. Is any gift given out of love, unfair? I don’t believe so. To be fair is to be free from self interest, to be honest. Yes, the act of atonement by the Savior at Calvary was fair.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My problem is that He would command something that He has subsequently revealed to us as, by its very nature, causing spiritual death.

I disagree that such a command from God, if acted upon, would cause spiritual death. Abraham obeyed. Did it cause for him spiritual death? No. You need to place trust in God, as Abraham did.

 

[edwinG]

amarischuk:

The simple answer is that the Bible isn’t God’s revelation in the way you think it is.

Kierkegaard called this the teleological suspension of the ethical…this is contrary to Catholic moral philosophy.

Even many in the middle ages rejected this interpretation of the Abraham and Isaac story (see Hugh of St. Victor’s response to the allogorization of scripture in the Didascalion). Pere M-D Chenu OP discusses this at length in “La Theologie aux Douxieme Siecle” and prefers the typographical model.

To alter the angel’s criticism of St. Jerome (you are not a Christian but a Ciceronian), I am not a Christian but a Thomist.

Always the argument on this seems to boil down to “Once a mind is closed it can not learn.” read: I am close minded and obviously not a good Catholic. Well, I prefer consistency to blind obedience and the God I worship is a God of order and reason, not the anthropomorphic tyrant of the OT.

Any serious study of the Bible inevitably leads to a much more moderate position; unless one is mentally unbalanced like the cases of so many fundamentalists and rad-Traditionalists who have an obsession with Marian apparitions, eschatology and the Anti-Christ.

Adam

Hi Adam,
This post of yours is an answer to mine,but you left a question unanswered.
As you are critical of Gods love I asked you if you were living up to His standard in this age. It is easy to look back with current knowledge ( revelation) and be critical of a past incident.
So the question is Christ has commanded us to not even be angry. or to overcome it before the sun goes down. That is the height now of the bar that once had killing under its unbrella.
It pays also to remember that even though these laws were given God always wanted people to me merciful above all else. In His mercy He forgives.
Do you hold onto anger?
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinG