L
Lochias
Guest
Yup. The common denominator in that litany of unjust abuse and tyranny is…you.
Now that I know where you’re comin’ from, I find further discourse with you to be meaningless at best. Bye.
- Status
Now that I know where you’re comin’ from, I find further discourse with you to be meaningless at best. Bye.
R
Robert_Caritas
Guest
I wrote a response to this mistake two posts ago [edit: post 35]. If someone kills righteously in the Old Testament, it is in accordance with God’s law.
Also the Bible is very clear that many many of its teachings have layered meanings and that interpretation is key. Jesus-Christ makes this point many times in the Gospels.
I often find that anti-religious people know many obscure Old Testament quotes, but have rarely read, let alone study the Gospels. The Gospels are the beating heart of the Bible and hold the key to understanding the other books.
C
clem456
Guest
Ummm yes, it does. You insist on a literal interpretaion and basically ridicule exegesis and the flowering of the understanding of Scripture. Reread your post. It is classic fundamentalism, you just leave the God part out of your belief.
R
Robert_Caritas
Guest
I agree to a certain extent. I have used logical arguments to address this person’s own arguments. What follows will show to what extent you are right.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
No of course it’s not a problem. You asked about objective morality, but your contention is that in our subjectivity we might mess up. That’s a real problem with how we act, true. That’s why we explain morality many different ways and why Catholics in particular will go to such lengths to talk about morality from reason alone without recourse to revelation.Thats a BIIIIG problem! because the question is gonna be: WHICH GOD??? Allah? Jesus? Jehovah? Shiva? or some god according to some cult leader out there…
thats why absolute morality is impossible. there is no way we can agree from whom it should come from!even in your religious books and histories such things as murder, theft and rape are negotiable!
But it’s not a problem at all with the mere existence of such an objective morality. There is only one God, and Christianity has the fullness of truth regarding Him. If you think otherwise, you’re wrong, and from your subjective point of view may come to different conclusions, but this doesn’t change what objective morality is, only what you think it is.
To reemphasize, subjectivity in what we see know and think is a real issue, and if you have a particular moral issue you want to dispel the subjective cloud of confusion around we could do that in another thread. But again, the mere fact that lots of people are wrong does not diminish the truth of what is right.
C
clem456
Guest
Exactly. We accept the triumph of objective standards all the time in common sense ways. Laws against theft, which are almost universally supported despite the fact that people steal. Yet the oldest moral standards available are easily discarded by some:
“Hey look, there’s a Christian sinning!”
This does bring up the challenge we have as Christians, to not be the source of scandal.
T
thewanderer
Guest
in your example:
intent: ofing the father
means: you did not say how. is it natural (bare hands) or artificial (knife)?
See, here’s the thing, if that were actually the Church’s argument and reasoning I would agree with you. I mean, if it were really as arbitrary as this makes it sound you would be right, it would be totally senseless. The problem being that you leave your understanding of the means at a very general level and don’t bother to look into them at all. That would be like me comparing working to get the money for a house to, say, the “undercover operations technique” (ie offing my father) and saying, “Look, See! There’s no difference morally between gaining money through work or through this special method called undercover operations technique, and anybody who claims that there is is just being ridiculous!”result: gain money
no that is wrong from the beginning.
now the ‘natural’ vs ‘artificial’ contraceptive…
natural
intent: to have itimacy, connection and sex
means: calendar method
desired result: fun and no baby
artificial
intent: to have itimacy, connection and sex
means: condoms
desired result: fun and no baby
why one and not the other. totally senseless
Look, if you are actually interested/willing to learn more about what the Church actually holds and why I am more than willing to oblige by helping to clear up your misconceptions, because what you have posted so far shows that you seriously misunderstand what the Church thinks about these things. If not, thats totally fine too, I’ll drop it.
The one thing I do ask though is that until you actually take the time to figure out what the Church does and does not teach and what the Church’s reasons for his are you refrain from claiming that the Church’s position is illogical, ridiculous, and unreasonable. You can say you think the Church is wrong and that you don’t understand her reasoning, but to dismiss it completely as ridiculous or illogical without being willing to actually investigating the reasons behind it would show a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. I try to be respectful to those whose beliefs I do not understand and I expect the same treatment from others.ps, I just want to note that you used ‘calener method’ instead of NFP… I hope you do realize that NFP is not the rhythym method? To be honest, I think all women should be taught how to use NFP, regardless of whether or not they use condoms because NFP is not about avoiding kids, it is about self-knowledge and female empowerment. Do you have any idea how amazing it is to not be stuck wondering which day your period will start? to not have to bring extra pads/tampons with you except on the days that you know that your period will start? NFP is simply a way of gaining information about yourself, then, what you do with that information is up to you.
M
ManRay
Guest
Uhmmm - no it doesn’t. I’m arguing that very learned people from all walks of life have coherently broken down biblical text, and have come to differing conclusions. BUTTTT - If they aren’t a catholic, or studied in a catholic setting - then they can never be right - or have a quality point. Period. This the “just because” logic. There is no real authority. Your brain doesn’t contain some extra section of intellect pal. There isn’t some special theistic version of English. The reality is that the only way it doesn’t sound completely horrific when god kills children, is that you can always claim authority, and open up the pretty package of contextual twisting ness ness. Hehehe. The catholic church is right in this regard. Christianity would have withered away. I can logically prove big foot doesn’t exist all day, and thousands of people will explain to me how I’m wrong. Belief never equaled truth. Most people are dishonest and never even conscious of it.
C
clem456
Guest
Exactly^^^^^
It’s like me going over to the Bhuddist board and debating with them. I know nothing about it. It’s my responsibility to learn some basics before I start refuting everything I hear.
It’s like me going over to the Bhuddist board and debating with them. I know nothing about it. It’s my responsibility to learn some basics before I start refuting everything I hear.
C
clem456
Guest
Again you claim that God kills people based on your narrow and fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. You use this belief to underpin your arguments on this issue, despite the fact that Catholics do not believe that “God kills Children” or “orders others to kill children”. You are fundamentalist in your outlook.
And yes I do agree with your last sentence,
although I would substitute “many” for “most”
M
ManRay
Guest
We aren’t talking about the correct way a bishop should dress etc…etc… Cmon. That’s a cop out. We are talking about words, and the meaning of words, philosophy, logic etc… Theists whether catholic, muslim or whatever seem to think that they have their own special brand of it. Not true.
C
clem456
Guest
Now words have meanings? I thought the words were set in stone according to your interpretation. If you think words have meanings, who interprets them and develops the meanings? You realize some words have more than one meaning? And sometimes words change meanings over time and cultures?
Or are they set in stone?
M
ManRay
Guest
IT ISN’T SOME CHURCH AS THE SOLE AUTHORITY - I DO KNOW THAT MUCH.
I just read a two page explanation of how the below -(and the thousands of other references of the same sort-) …and I have to tell you…it’s rather scary how far a/ the church will go so as not to have god look like a complete savage bully conjured up by ancients who also probably believed that dragons ate their missing children.
Isn’t it funny how god changes over the course of time in scripture…? You don’t find that strange? It’s like exegesis of the old testament was all about maintaining that god has very good reasons for all of the horror, and the newer testament is pretty much trying to ascertain what Jesus and the apostles were actually talking about. I for one think it’s rather frightening.
academia.edu/784882/Num_15_32-36
Numbers 15:32-36
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
32 And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and had found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day,
33 That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude.
34 And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him.
35 And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him without the camp.
36 And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded.
L
Lochias
Guest
How?
B
buffalo
Guest
There is a difference between murder and killing, eg. legitimate defense.
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s look at it this way. Truth is the ultimate. We know God is truth itself. He has to broadcast His truth because man cannot come to it by himself.None of us are born in a vacuum. We learn truth from others.
M
ManRay
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
A few important excerpts from a great read below…
tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Eco_91.pdf
Some contemporary theories of criticism assert that the only
reliable reading of a text is a misreading, that the only existence
of a text is given by the chain of responses it elicits, and that, as
maliciously suggested by Tzvetan Todorov (quoting Georg Cristoph
Lichtenberg apropos of Jakob Boehme), a text is only a picnic
where the author brings the words and the reader brings the sense.
In some of my recent writings I have suggested
that between the intention of the author (very difficult to
find out and frequently irrelevant for the interpretation of a text)
and the intention of the interpreter who (to quote Richard Rorty)
simply “beats the text into a shape which will serve his own purpose,” - any church/pick one
One way of understanding philosophical concepts is often to
come back to the common sense of dictionaries.
But if books tell the truth, even when they contradict each
other, then their each and every word must be an allusion, an
allegory. They are saying something other than what they appear
to be saying. Each one of them contains a message that none of
them will ever be able to reveal alone. In order to be able to understand
the mysterious message contained in books,** it was necessary
to look for a revelation beyond human utterances, one which
would come announced by divinity itself, using the vehicle of
vision, dream, or oracle.**
C
clem456
Guest
You don’t understand the Catholic reading of inspiration as it applies to Scripture.
IF you’re really interested, start here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM
III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
If a moral code is absolute, it has to apply to everybody. So my answer to the poll question is definitely no.
C
clem456
Guest
Ok, we are really getting absurd here. So you are saying that a Church that wants to hide “God’s bullying” has consistently produced a book for 2 thousand years that details these atrocities. And why would the Church do that, if it is so bent on hiding those things? So that 2 thousand years later we could be wasting time disputing these things with you? :juggle:
If the Church wanted to shine up the image of God to your liking, wouldn’t she have just left those parts of scripture to the dustbin of history?
God does not change. People change.
You have preconceived notions about Catholicism which are wildly inaccurate. Why do you continue? What purpose does it serve?
- Status