Frank Apisa wrote:
I not only have those catechisms you asked about -- I have a Protestant catechism also (yep, there are Protestant catechisms)...
No kidding! I wouldn't have guessed that in a thousand years...
Quote:I have over a dozen Bibles in my study -- Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. I also have the Book of Mormon -- and I study them also.
Wow! (I could say "Idem", but that would be too focused on me :wink: ).
Quote:I have an extensive library of books ABOUT religion -- and tons of books on philosophy.
Maybe I could borrow some. As you've probably noticed, I only have the Encyclopedia Britannica (on DVD) and Encarta. And a Catechism somewhere.
Quote:I essentially have an undergraduate major in philosophy, religion, and comparative religions -- my undergraduate work was done at a Lutheran College and courses in philosophy and religion were required in every term.
I could say that I have a B.A. and
Licenciatura in Philosophy from a Pontifical Catholic University, and a Master's and PhD in other areas... but again, that would be too focused on me.
Quote:I have debated extensively with priests and monsignors (in private life and over in Abuzz) -- and if necessary, I could probably look up a few threads where these men complimented me on my knowledge of Catholicism and Catholic teachings.
Don't let them know about this poor soul. They would be embarrased (especially if they knew of my own contacts with priests and bishops...
).
Quote:I mentioned earlier that there are not many Catholics around in A2K to defend or explain the Catholic position -- and at times, I have taken on that function.
You probably do it better than I could ever possibly even hope to do it.
Quote:Try not to fret over my abilities to handle myself in this discussion. I promise you I can take care of myself very adequately.
Sure. But despite all your promises and diplomas,
you haven't said one word about my rebuttal of your views on academic life of the Middle Ages (is this silence an evasion or an admission?).
You didn't respond one word to my analysis of Catholic Biblical interpretation (and you were so eager to bring me into that subject). In case your computer didn't register it, here it goes again (we don't want Cicerone Imposter and other admirers to think that you're avoiding the very topic you pushed to bring to the fore):
---------------
Quote:I would remind you, however, that you entered a thread discussing the biblical view of homosexual conduct...
Yes. And I rephrased the question to speak of the Christian view of homosexuality. And I did this because of a very simple reason:
Quoting isolated Bible verses (as you're dying to do) is a futile excercise according to historic Judaism and Christianity. You know this, but that doesn't matter: You want the Church to read the Bible the way you do--so that you can say "Gotcha!" and proclaim victory.
If you really want to derive Bible teaching from a couple of verses, contact the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, or any other of the hundreds of nineteenth century U.S. sects (which, by the way, think the Catholic Church was too influenced by classical Greek philosophy).
Quote:...specifically the command of the god of the Bible to kill people who engage in such activity -- and further discussing whether or not it is hypocritical of Christians not to kill them or, at very least, to lobby for laws making homosexual conduct a capital crime.
I already explained how the Church decides these issues. But, of course, if you're in a hurry to declare Christians "hypocrites", pay no attention to what I say and just indulge your urge.
Quote:you are essentially saying: I don't care what this thread is about, I want to discuss what I want to discuss.
I'm essentially saying:
There is a flaw in the way you're posing the issue. And the conclusion you're so eager to extract for the world to see is obviously flawed as well (since the Church does not read the Bible like that). But since you're almost savoring the victory you want to proclaim to the four winds, my objections are just "evasions" that frustrate your need.
Quote:I am interested in whether or not the command of your god to do something specific when specific circumstances present themselves -- is binding -- or is something that can simply be disregarded.
It is binding if the Supreme Court declares it to be binding. It is not binding if the Supreme Court declares otherwise. And you know which is the "Supreme Court" that I'm talking about. Now,
if you don't believe in "Supreme Courts", then it will be binding if it fits your sensibilities, and it won't be binding if it doesn't (the Protestant response).
Quote:Is the command of the god of the Bible -- which is to say, the command of the god of the Christians -- to kill people who engage in homosexual conduct -- in any way binding on Christians -- or are Christians allowed to disregard commands from their god if they don't particularly like the command?
I already explained that, from the beginning, Christians have related to the Gospel through the pastors of the Church.
Whoever wants to get rid of the Church, ends up with the paradoxes you're trying to handle.
Quote:I equate what they are doing there to something you said earlier to someone else in this thread.
You wrote: Quote:
Believe me: Many people reject the Church's teachings not because they are not persuasive or false in their view, but because they are not convenient.
it is my opinion that the reason Jews and Catholics don't deal with individual passages is not because it makes no sense -- but because it allows them to avoid facing up to the many passages that show the god of the Bible to be a murderous, barbaric, petty monster.
The Church does not "avoid" passages that are inconvenient. If you went to mass every day, you would read the totality of the Bible in a year. If you went to mass every Sunday, you would read the totality of the Bible in three years. Furthermore,
there are plenty of "inconvenient" doctrines that the Church does not simply brush aside (divorce, contraception, abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, celibacy, etc.). So I think you are wrong: all over the world Christians die for what they believe, convenient or not. They are not eager to be assimilated to the world and avoid scandal (well, maybe some are--especially in the U.S., but that's another story). But the Church does have the authority to teach the Gospel through the ages. And the Church grows in its understanding of the Gospel (cf. Cardinal Newman).
Quote:I think there is almost as much rationalization and out-right denial in A2K as there is in those two books.
The Church has specific criteria to decide which "reinterpretations" of the Gospel pervert its meaning, and which are legitimate developments. See Newman's "Essay on the Development of Doctrine".
Quote:Humans wrote those books...
Most certainly. And one of the key tasks of Biblical interpretation is to distinguish the purely human element from the divine element.
Quote:...and humans, like you, are apt to gloss over the obvious in order to try to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
You think the meanings of the totality of the Bible are obvious? You think the meaning of the Leviticus passage on homosexuality is obvious? Maybe its human meaning is obvious to you. But
you're not doing any attempt whatsoever to reconcile that verse with, for example, Christ's commandments to forgive those who offend us. Or to reconcile that passage of Leviticus with the Prodigal Son's story. It is like, for you, Leviticus alone is the Bible. [Talking about taking things out of context]
Quote:But since you brought it up, I will quote item 2414 -- which is the only applicable paragraph in the Catechism regarding the Church's position on slavery:
"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason -- selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian -- lead to the enslavement of human beings..."
...because it is wrong and false in at least two major areas.
First: the seventh commandment (Thou shall not steal) obviously does not forbid slavery. The interpretation of the seventh commandment to forbid such enterprise is a stretch of unacceptable proportions.
It forbids stealing from people. And you can steal their freedom, their human dignity.
Frank, it is very dangerous to take upon yourself the task of Biblical interpretation. Do you have any idea of how many religions started this way? You seem to
believe that whatever human meaning you can infer (with purely human means) from the Bible, that must be accepted as the Word of God. Wrong. You'll just get the human meaning of a specific verse or paragraph. And this is only interesting for historians or archaeologists. For the Church's guidelines on Biblical interpretation, read the Catechism, paragraphs 112-114 and 115-117.
I've said this before, and I repeat it: We wouldn't have the Bible if we didn't have the Church first.
As St. Augustine (4th century) once said: "I wouldn't even believe in Scripture if the Catholic Church hadn't commanded me to do so."
What is the worst that could happen? The world will end? I highly doubt it. People will be forcibly drawn in to a lifestyle they don't want? Also highly doubtful. It's the irrationality of the whole argument that bothers me. Maliagar is fond of words, but words are just words, with resonance, but no real power. Words cannot shape the destiny of the human race, nor can they shape religion, in the long run, as times change. Only human beings can do that, and if you are a true Christian, you must accept that all human beings deserve a chance to not only be heard, but to be allowed leniance in how they want to live their lives. If they are gay and also want to accept Christ as their saviour, I do believe that the Church ought to accept that. Also, there is no point getting into a circular argument regarding how humans invented words, and language and what not. All religious texts are the interperetation of the supposed word of some god or other, and therefore hold little merit as absolute truth.
c.i.
