Tower of Babel and Space Exploration

[Gorgias]

That sword cuts both ways.

Absolutely. That’s why I stick to what the Church teaches.

I said,
“How does that disprove my point? Isn’t self-deification, at it’s core, the sin of pride?”

You’ve twisted it to try to squirm out of your error.

Actually, it was you who turned it on its head, and are now claiming I have. Nice move. Not effective, but nicely played.

This discussion has also arrived at its conclusion.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That sword cuts both ways.

Absolutely. That’s why I stick to what the Church teaches.

Again, you’re making up teachings and ascribing them to the Catholic Church. Where does the Catholic Church state that this episode is not a case of self-deification?

I said,
“How does that disprove my point? Isn’t self-deification, at it’s core, the sin of pride?”

You’ve twisted it to try to squirm out of your error.

Actually, it was you who turned it on its head, and are now claiming I have. Nice move. Not effective, but nicely played.

Uh, it is you who denied that self-deification is a form of pride. I quote:

You said:
No… that’s not self-deification, it’s the sin of pride – the same sin that our first human parents committed.

At this point, if this were a trial, I would object, “ARGUMENTATIVE! All this fellow wants to do is prove his moot point! Why is he even continuing this line of false reasoning and attributing it to me?”

This discussion has also arrived at its conclusion.

Glad you agree.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, you’re making up teachings and ascribing them to the Catholic Church. Where does the Catholic Church state that this episode is not a case of self-deification?

De_Maria:

Oh, there’s this little book called the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Here’s what it says:

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.

So much for “Gorgias makes up his own teachings, but De_Maria asserts what the Church teaches”, eh…?

Glad you agree.

Apparently you don’t, since you seem invested in continuing it! (And I’m the one who’s only interested in proving his moot points? If you say so… )

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Again, you’re making up teachings and ascribing them to the Catholic Church. Where does the Catholic Church state that this episode is not a case of self-deification?

De_Maria:

Oh, there’s this little book called the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Here’s what it says:

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.

So much for “Gorgias makes up his own teachings, but De_Maria asserts what the Church teaches”, eh…?

You have an interesting way of thinking. You did the same thing on the other thread.
You construe this to mean that the Catholic Church has defined this verse to specifically exclude the idea that the people of Bable were trying to deify themselves?

I don’t agree. And I think that the idea that the people of Babel were trying to become like unto God is definitely within the parameters of Catholic Teaching.

Glad you agree.

Apparently you don’t, since you seem invested in continuing it! (And I’m the one who’s only interested in proving his moot points? If you say so… )

Your point IS moot. I don’t understand why you can’t see it. You’ve misconstrued the Catechetical teaching that you submitted and are reading into it, much more than it says. That teaching DOES NOT deny that the people of Babel were attempting to become like unto God.

You can continue believing this, you certainly have every right. But I know that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Here, for example, I quote Pope Benedict the XVI
February 17, 2017:

The narrative of Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles, which we heard in the First Reading (cf. Acts 2:1-11), contains against the background of one of the great frescoes we find at the beginning of the Old Testament: the ancient history of the construction of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). But what is Babel? It is the description of a kingdom in which men had concentrated so much power that they thought they no longer needed to rely on a distant God and that they were powerful enough to be able to build a way to heaven by themselves in order to open its gates and usurp God’s place.

However, at this very moment something strange and unusual happens. While the men are working together to build the tower they suddenly realize that they are building against each other. While endeavouring to be like God, they even risk no longer being human because they have lost a fundamental element of being human: the ability to agree, to understand each other and to work together.

Do you think that our Pope Emeritus lacks understanding of Catholic Teaching or of Scripture?

 

[Gorgias]

But I know that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Absolutely. “Valid” doesn’t mean “right”, though.

And, by the way, if the teaching (other than in homilies, since homiletics isn’t an expression of dogmatic theology) says “pride”, then the teaching is “pride”. Pretty cut and dry.

Do you think that our Pope Emeritus lacks understanding of Catholic Teaching or of Scripture?

No. I think he was preaching.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

But I know that my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Absolutely. “Valid” doesn’t mean “right”, though.

I didn’t say that valid meant right. So, you’re knocking down your own
straw man, again.

And, by the way, if the teaching (other than in homilies, since homiletics isn’t an expression of dogmatic theology) says “pride”, then the teaching is “pride”. Pretty cut and dry.

And, by the way, if the teaching doesn’t deny that self deification is a form of pride, then, self deification is still a possible interpretation of that verse.

And, by the way, if the teaching isn’t an infallible pronouncement which
expressly limits the interpretation of the verse to certain interpretations, the
your opinions certainly can’t do so.

Do you think that our Pope Emeritus lacks understanding of Catholic Teaching or of Scripture?

No. I think he was preaching.

And you think he goes around preaching error? Or why does this make a
difference?

Or perhaps you think that you understand dogmatic theology better than a former pope? You think your opinion has greater validity than his?

I’m pretty sure this Pope was co-author of the Cathechism that you
cited. So, if he didn’t limit his interpretation to leave out the possibility
of self deification in the story of Babel, I’ll take his word over yours
100 % of the time.

 

[Gorgias]

And, by the way, if the teaching isn’t an infallible pronouncement which
expressly limits the interpretation of the verse to certain interpretations, the
your opinions certainly can’t do so.

I think that the “Catholic forum version” of Godwin’s law is “a Catholic discussion is over when one party has to resort to a claimed “lack of infallibility” in their assertions.”

And you think he goes around preaching error? Or why does this make a
difference?

No, he doesn’t. Yeah, it does. Preaching isn’t an attempt to give a lecture with doctrinal certainty. You should take a class in homiletics some time. I think you’d enjoy it!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

And, by the way, if the teaching isn’t an infallible pronouncement which
expressly limits the interpretation of the verse to certain interpretations, the
your opinions certainly can’t do so.

I think that the “Catholic forum version” of Godwin’s law is “a Catholic discussion is over when one party has to resort to a claimed “lack of infallibility” in their assertions.”

But that’s just your opinion. I think an understanding of what is infallible teaching
and what isn’t, is apropos when speaking with someone whose tone infers that he absolutely knows that something is taught infallibly by the Church, when in fact, the Church hasn’t even suggested it.

And you think he goes around preaching error?

No, he doesn’t.

Therefore, he is preaching the true Catholic Doctrine in this case, as well.

Or why does this make a
difference?

Yeah, it does. Preaching isn’t an attempt to give a lecture with doctrinal certainty.

Lol! What a ridiculous assertion. And you say it with a straight face.
Maybe you wouldn’t attempt to preach with doctrinal certainty, but I’m sure that every Catholic Priest, preaching in the Church, is doing his best not to let God down.

You should take a class in homiletics some time. I think you’d enjoy it!

You should. It sounds like you misunderstood the one you attended.

 

[Gorgias]

when speaking with someone whose tone infers that he absolutely knows that something is taught infallibly by the Church, when in fact, the Church hasn’t even suggested it.

That doesn’t apply to the current discussion, though… unless you’re suggesting that your notion of “Babelian god-usurpers” is taught infallibly by the Church…

Lol! What a ridiculous assertion. And you say it with a straight face.

Again: take a homiletics course or two.

You should. It sounds like you misunderstood the one you attended.

So… now you’re an expert on homiletics as well as doctrine? You should write a book, brother…

 

[SeraficLeo]

In the ancient world the heavens were understood to be an angelic realm that earthly beings could not access. By building a bridge into heaven the men were not only trying to defy a natural law (as they understood it) but also claiming to be gods or make themselves gods.

Space today is just another frontier for man, like crossing the ocean. It does not involve a depraved hubris. Actually for ancient man even crossing the ocean (or living near it) was a terrifying thing because they often feared another deluge (hence they worshipped and sacrificed to a plethora of protecting sea divinities, e.g. Poseidon for the Greeks).

 

[De_Maria]

That doesn’t apply to the current discussion, though… unless you’re suggesting that your notion of “Babelian god-usurpers” is taught infallibly by the Church…

So, you’re not asserting that your argument it taught, exclusively and infallibly, by the Church? It sure sounds like it.

Again: take a homiletics course or two.

So… now you’re an expert on homiletics as well as doctrine? You should write a book, brother…
[/quote]

I’m certain a Catholic discussion is over when one party has to resort to a claimed lack of homiletics training in their assertions.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I don’t think it was the desire even to be/become ‘equal’ with God that was the problem in the Tower story but specifically that man intended to do or accomplish this independently of God:

They said to one another, “Come, let us make a city and a tower… Let us make a name for ourselves.”

Even pagans would have seen this as grossly impious as the men at no point even bothered consulting ‘the gods’ for approval, which even pagans felt was absolutely prerequisite and obligatory before any significant undertaking, especially if it was corporate/public and had reference to religion (even mundane matters like going to war required consulting the gods first for their approval or blessing).

 

[Gorgias]

I’m certain a Catholic discussion is over when one party has to resort to a claimed lack of homiletics training in their assertions.

One can only hope…

 

[Anrakyr]

The fact that sailed over your head only proves the point.

You spend a lot of time throwing big words to get a “gotcha” moment rather then “did I help you see the truth?”