P
PRmerger
Guest
Sure.
There’s an easy answer: it wasn’t wrong at the very beginning of human society.
- Status
There’s an easy answer: it wasn’t wrong at the very beginning of human society.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.
You will find nothing in Catholicism which endorses male domination of women.
Really?
Perhaps it was the manner you asked her? Perhaps a domineering tone ought to be replaced with a loving request?
I know that if *my *husband asked me to get him a case of beer, I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that.
B
Bradski
Guest
A fundamentalist view is just that. No more and no less. As far as I am concerned, when it applies to religion it has negative connotations. Any literal interpretation of certain aspects of the bible I will class as fundamentalism. I include everything within Genesis.
And as far as knowledge of the matter in hand, there are times when I educate myself on a subject to the best of my abilities as the conversation is progressing. If that is the case, I will mention it in my posts. If I know nothing of a subject, then that will be mentioned. In the matter of original sin, neither is applicable. Don’t confuse my use of a partiicular fruit with a lack of understanding.
In any case, I am responding to posts in this thread. This is not a refutation of the council of here or there or obscure theological arguments about dogma.
L
Lucretius
Guest
But it was wrong, because natural law applies to humans as such. If the prohibition to Incest was conventional or due solely to Divine command, I can see what you mean, but it’s based on natural law, which doesn’t change.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
B
Bradski
Guest
Misdirection.
No-one said that Catholicism endorsed it. But God said it was part of Eve’s punishment. there have been enough posts trying to determine if the pain of childbirth was increased or just ‘resumed’.
One has to accept some of Genesis if original sin has any meaning at all. So…
…do you accept that part of Eve’s punishment, by God, was that women were to be dominated by men?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct.
And it is not to be confused with something that is “fundamental to the faith”.
Yes. We Catholics are not fundamentalists.
Although we do have fundamentals of the faith.
No.
Fundamentalism is a belief that limns a rigidity and is recusant to reason.
P
PRmerger
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
You won’t find many atheists arguing with that.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent. I will remember this.
A
Aloysium
Guest
You may wish to consider the possibility that, just as the early universe was this universe but very different, so too was early mankind. We can easily consider our early selves and even now, as apes, so I don’t see a problem. It has not been revealed how physically mankind came to flourish from its beginnings. This is for good reason. One reason might be that the the natural law which is relevant now, was not then. We find something similar in the creation of the physical universe, where it took a very long time before atoms and molecules came into existence according to current thinking. Ultimately, we are all brothers and sisters, descendants of Adam and Eve. The big issue now, and the sinfulness of incest has to do with the dynamics of the family and genetics. I can easily imagine that Eve coming from Adam, and it being clearly genetically advantageous, that each offspring could have a different make-up as a result of direct divine influence, as opposed to the random changes that occur within our current bodily make-up (which results in tumors and disease far, far more than any positive change). People then lived ten times longer, I would assume in good health and able to procreate. I truly don’t know how it happened. I don’t care actually, because pretty much in everything the more we know about the world, the more we know we know nothing. So, I don’t sweat it; there’s nothing much to deal with in terms of knowing God’s will.
B
Bradski
Guest
That’s quite a lengthy way of saying: ‘I don’t know’. Which is an entirely valid position.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not sure what you mean here by the “slippery slope”. This term is usually applied to moral decisions, rather than cognitive processes. The diagram clearly shows people stepping away without losing their balance, leaving one doctrine after another behind them.
For some reason you have inserted some concepts into this discussion, “slippery slop” and “impoverished understanding”. Perhaps this is meant to lead readers to assertions in previous posts that “no one knowingly and willingly rejects God”? If one has sufficient “understanding” then one will always choose God?
But you have also stated that you do not believe that God would “punish” man by giving him concupiscence, so is “impoverished understanding” your substitute for that term?
You have also stated that God does not want us to be 'afraid", that scripture references about being afraid of God are a projection of human psychology, and that an all compassionate, always forgiving God draws us through His love, not through fear. This statement, who Catholics believe was made by Jesus…
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt. 10:28
might be categorized in such a paradigm as a projection of the human psychology of the writer?
For Catholics, there are realities of which we should be afraid, and such fears do not prevent us from having a loving relationship with our Creator.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
Yes.
Catholics accept ALL of Genesis, Bradski.
In the beginning it was not so.
However, due to the Fall, what was meant originally: men and women of equal standing
was corrupted.
And now men do, because of their flawed judgement, dominate women.
There is no doubt about that.
safehorizon.org/page/domestic-violence-statistics–facts-52.html
And this brings the question back full circle: we Christians have the answer for this.
You still need to give an explanation as to why men dominate women.
What’s the atheistic answer?
Clearly, men shouldn’t do this.
But they do.
Why is that?
G
guanophore
Guest
Exactly. You seem to be unfamiliar with the pain that comes to farmers who struggle against the land.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. I think it would probably be helpful if you didn’t rely on what you remember from being head choir boy.
I am sorry, luv, but it limns the lack of familiarity with the subject quite transparently.
G
guanophore
Guest
Really? Have we found the gene for that? Will genetic manipulation cure us? :extrahappy:
I think not, since they knew nothing about genes until rather recently.
P
PRmerger
Guest
To whom is this post directed?
V
Vico
Guest
The idea is that there will be desire and conflict…:
Genesis 3:16 NABRE
16 To the woman he said:
I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain[a] you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.
17 To the man he said: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat from it, …
Footnotes:
3:16 Toil…pain: the punishment affects the woman directly by increasing the toil and pain of having children. He shall rule over you: the punishment also affects the woman’s relationship with her husband. A tension is set up in which her urge (either sexual urge or, more generally, dependence for sustenance) is for her husband but he rules over her. But see Sg 7:11.
Song of Songs
7 How beautiful you are, how fair,
my love, daughter of delights!
8 Your very form resembles a date-palm,[f]
and your breasts, clusters.
9 I thought, “Let me climb the date-palm!
Let me take hold of its branches!
Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine
and the fragrance of your breath like apples,
10 And your mouth like the best wine—
Wthat flows down smoothly for my lover,
gliding[g] over my lips and teeth.
11 I belong to my lover,[h]
his yearning is for me.
12 Come, my lover! Let us go out to the fields,
let us pass the night among the henna.
13 Let us go early to the vineyards, and see
if the vines are in bloom,
If the buds have opened,
if the pomegranates have blossomed;
There will I give you my love.
14 The mandrakes* give forth fragrance,
and over our doors are all choice fruits;
Fruits both fresh and dried, my lover,
have I kept in store for you.
7:11–14 The woman’s answer assures him of her love, and invites him to return with her to the rural delights associated with their love (cf. also 6:11–12). Yearning: used only here and in Gn 3:16; 4:7. The dependency and subordination of woman to man presented as a consequence of sin in the Genesis story is here transcended in the mutuality of true love.*
B
Bradski
Guest
No. It was a specific punishment meted out to women. Becuse of what Eve had specifically done. Yeah, Adam got slapped as well, but you suffer domination because of what Eve had done.
There’s no point in asking why it is so. Eve ate the fruit. And persuaded Adam to do so also. No way you can blame your punishment on him.
So you ask me why you are dominated? Well, there are two answers.
One is the natural order of things. Males are big and strong and you are not. We can procreate with umpteen partners for very many years and you cannot. We are a little more civilised these day, so we reach the point where I don’t actually ask my wife to get me a case of beer. But it’s the natural order, like it or not.
Two is…God commanded it. Genesis 3:16.
It seems that you go with the second option. I didn’t click the link, but no doubt it is repleat with stories of women suffering domestic violence.
So if you want the Catholic answer as to why you can’t leash your dog the first time or why men dominate you, it was God’s call. It is a punishment.
B
Bradski
Guest
The one which it followed.
- Status