Catholics on same-sex marriage
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2013, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 08:00 PM by Chavez182.)
Catholics on same-sex marriage
I hear a lot about fundamentalists or evangelists talking crazy and making no sense in an argument. However, in my experience, this is what I always encounter more. This guy dodged the points and just kept skirting the issue. We started on the topic of same sex marriage and ended with the statement below. Do you think he realizes that he doesn't make sense?

So brief background, I am a former Roman Catholic (left in my mid teens, so about a decade ago). My sister still associates with that faith but she recently posted this picture to facebook (Ten Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage) in support of sex marriage. Her pastor commented on her post, and I replied. He ended up sending me this as his last message.

" I think in order to understand how to read scripture we need to first drop our presuppositions about it, which is sort of difficult.

First, scripture is without error. This is most certainly a teaching of the Church. However, what do we mean without error? That is where Fundamentalists and Catholics differ. We recognize that certain things that are recorded in scripture have a "context" to them, as well as cultural suppositions. If we were to read in a "literature class" a Fantasy Novel, we might discuss the ideology that was being conveyed by the author. We would not get caught up in semantics such as: "Does the snake really talk?" The author had a specific intention that was used allegorically through that particular snake. So there is a "truth" given to us through a story or parable, and it is that truth that is without error.

This has been the Tradition of the Church since its inception. Reading the Early Fathers we see more often than not, allegorical interpretations of scripture or spiritual understandings. For instance, in Genesis there are "two" creation narratives side by side. Does that mean they are to be taken literally? It means quite the opposite, there are two stories that contradict each other, because they contradict each other if perceived as being "historical claims." But they do not contradict each other if they are understood to be parables. Thus there is no inconsistency. Jesus spoke in Parables, would it not be unreasonable to assume that the Word of God also had parables.

The Church also sees that many of the actions of the Kings of Israel are often horrible, but the story of scripture often condemns those actions itself. But to be fair, no Church (except maybe the Westboro Baptist Church) really interprets God to be Barbaric, so the argument to me always ends up being a logical fallacy Straw-man.

In order to know the "genre" of the text one has to do, work. Academic work. And there are some good biblical commentaries I can suggest for that. Of course this requires effort on your part. In my experience it is much easier to mischaracterize the Church's teaching and then condemn it. But in my view all you have done is condemn something the Church herself doesn't believe. So it is a pointless exercise.

Philosophy is worth studying as is Particle Physics. I always say that the relationship between wisdom (philosophy) and knowledge (science) is that science can create a nuclear bomb, but philosophy tells us not to use it."


*sigh* My face hurts... And he never even addressed why Catholics feel justified in fighting against same sex marriage!



PS - If anyone has any advice, it is more than welcome.

Bil

"Imagination allows us to escape the predictable. It enables us to reply to the common wisdom that we cannot soar by saying 'JUST WATCH' ."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 09:11 PM
RE: Catholics on same-sex marriage
Cont'd

**

*Chris - I think in order to understand how to read scripture we need to first drop our presuppositions about it, which is sort of difficult.

First, scripture is without error. This is most certainly a teaching of the Church. However, what do we mean without error? That is where Fundamentalists and Catholics differ. We recognize that certain things that are recorded in scripture have a "context" to them, as well as cultural suppositions. If we were to read in a "literature class" a Fantasy Novel, we might discuss the ideology that was being conveyed by the author. We would not get caught up in semantics such as: "Does the snake really talk?" The author had a specific intention that was used allegorically through that particular snake. So there is a "truth" given to us through a story or parable, and it is that truth that is without error.

This has been the Tradition of the Church since its inception. Reading the Early Fathers we see more often than not, allegorical interpretations of scripture or spiritual understandings. For instance, in Genesis there are "two" creation narratives side by side. Does that mean they are to be taken literally? It means quite the opposite, there are two stories that contradict each other, because they contradict each other if perceived as being "historical claims." But they do not contradict each other if they are understood to be parables. Thus there is no inconsistency. Jesus spoke in Parables, would it not be unreasonable to assume that the Word of God also had parables.

The Church also sees that many of the actions of the Kings of Israel are often horrible, but the story of scripture often condemns those actions itself. But to be fair, no Church (except maybe the Westboro Baptist Church) really interprets God to be Barbaric, so the argument to me always ends up being a logical fallacy Straw-man.

In order to know the "genre" of the text one has to do, work. Academic work. And there are some good biblical commentaries I can suggest for that. Of course this requires effort on your part. In my experience it is much easier to mischaracterize the Church's teaching and then condemn it. But in my view all you have done is condemn something the Church herself doesn't believe. So it is a pointless exercise.

Philosophy is worth studying as is Particle Physics. I always say that the relationship between wisdom (philosophy) and knowledge (science) is that science can create a nuclear bomb, but philosophy tells us not to use it.
2 hours ago · Like

*Chris - Anyways, Bil, nice to meet you. For now I have to clean out my car, and pack for a trip tomorrow. Anytime you want to discuss these things I'm available via Facebook. Peace
2 hours ago · Like

*Bil - I can't fathom how the story of "Noah's Ark" is without error... It doesn't make sense at all. Also, if I was in a literature class and the book I was reading contained talking snakes, I would immediately know that it is a work of fiction. And if a story is to be without error should it not be consistent, and not self-contradicting? If there was an all powerful and all seeing god that loved his 'children', I would expect him to be more understanding about human nature. Also, maybe this is just me but, if I was a god, I wouldn't want my stories based off of the stories of other religions. I would want something unique, that makes my stories stand out.

Regardless of what interpretation of the bible one decides to use, I have yet to come up with a repeatable means of experiencing any god that is repeatable and measurable. Until god decides to let himself be visible to science, I will leave the god hypothesis on the sidelines.

Philosophy is interesting, but it is not wisdom. I would say it is more along the lines of perspective altering, for the better or worse. Nuclear physics and chemistry create the bomb, but psychology tells us that if we use the weapon, others will use their nuclear weapons to destroy us. If this wasn't true, it would be the quickest way to end wars with the minimum loss of life to our own forces.

Have a pleasant trip. The possibility exists, that I will take you up on that if I am bored. Have a good one.
about an hour ago · Like

*Bil - PS. We never did settle why same sex marriage shouldn't be legal...
about an hour ago · Like

*Chris - I think if you studied a bit of philosophy you would recognize several logical inconsistencies in your own statements. And I agree, we have not settled on the legality of SSM.

The meaning of the word Philosophy is "love of wisdom" - that is Sophia (Wisdom) and Philo (love). So by its very definition it is the activity of loving wisdom. So to say it is not wisdom seems, somewhat ironic.

All fields of science employ suppositions that are discovered in various philosophical systems. It is in fact to think apart from some philosophical system. There is a great deal of overlap, and this is where Dawkins goes terribly wrong, is He confuses the two and ascribes to scientism.

Your first paragraph really doesn't take anything into consideration about what I wrote above. If God exists, and does not exist in the universe (that is to say his Being is external to the Universe), then asking him to be tangible to the sciences is ultimately to ask God to cease to be God. That manner of speaking is generally referred to as "begging the question."
27 minutes ago · Like

*Bil - philosophy [fɪˈlɒsəfɪ]
n pl -phies
1. (Philosophy) the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. (Philosophy) the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school the philosophy of Descartes
3. (Philosophy) the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline the philosophy of law
4. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) Archaic or literary the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint
7. serenity of temper
[from Old French filosofie, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos lover of wisdom]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

wisdom [ˈwɪzdəm]
n
1. the ability or result of an ability to think and act utilizing knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight
2. accumulated knowledge, erudition, or enlightenment
3. Archaic a wise saying or wise sayings or teachings
4. Obsolete soundness of mind Related adjective sagacious
[Old English wīsdōm; see wise1, -dom]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Philosophical point of view does not necessarily equal wisdom, but, at this point we are debating semantics instead of giving reasons for the existence of a god or the illegitimacy of same sex marriage.

The scientific method starts with a question, offers a solution (a guess), makes a prediction, tests it, and analyses it. If you choose to call that guess philosophy, so be it I never claimed science avoids making a guess. The key is it also makes a prediction and tests that prediction....

If your god exists but cannot interact with this universe then how could he have interacted with this universe to influence the bible. Or how could he have enabled all the 'miracles' that the saints have enacted.
10 minutes ago · Like

*Bil - If he has done miracles in the past, why would he not subscribe to tests to prove his existence to his beloved children?

Also, I think we are at the point where we can say that the source of the bigotry towards same sex marriage is the bible, and we are now debating the validity of that collection of works.
7 minutes ago · Like

*Chris - lol...none of that above changes the fact that the etymology of the word itself is Love of Wisdom...

Its like saying "Love of Wisdom" has nothing to do with "wisdom." Sorry not convinced.

God can interact with the universe, but in a way differing from how objects within the universe act. The incarnation for instance was an example of that. Jesus walked on water, raised people from the dead, and yet people still did not believe. Why? Because faith requires something a little more than deductive experience, it really requires grace and freedom of will. Miracles continue to occur around the world today, healings, incorruptible bodies of saints, Eucharist turning into heart-tissue. But all of these can easily be discounted when one assumes that which they hope to prove.

God is far too big to be deductively known, and so logically speaking you are begging the question when you ask the "super-natural" to be known through the "natural-sciences." It is categorically fallacious to suggest such a possibility unless we work from inference, and that always requires faith, both natural inferences and supernatural inferences. But to presume that science is the only measure of truth is to declare that only nature exists, therefore you are begging the question by stating that the only means to truth is through science.
4 minutes ago · Like

*Chris - I'm getting to the point that this discussion is a bit too difficult to give expansive answers. I wish you lived closer, as I had just offered a Course on the Cosmological understanding of God's existence, Evolution and why QM and String Theory is reconcilable to STA's arguments for God's existence. As well as offering a great deal of time on Same-Sex Marriage. I just hate the forum of facebook, because I find soundbites is all it results in.
about a minute ago · Like

**

This is my first actual debate. If anyone has ANY suggestions, advice or corrections, please share them.

Bil

"Imagination allows us to escape the predictable. It enables us to reply to the common wisdom that we cannot soar by saying 'JUST WATCH' ."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2013, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 10:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics on same-sex marriage
The Roman Church bases their arguments for their antiquated position on marriage on a number of positions which are easily shown as false.
1. They didn't even name it a "sacrament" until the Council of Trent. How is it the Church which says it's the church of "Scripture and Tradition", just happened to miss this "tradition" until the made up a new one, and if it's a "sacrament" given them by Jebus, how is it 1000 years of Catholics just happened to not notice that fact ? (There were no seven sacraments until Trent).
2. His bs about what the Church Fathers did "since the beginning" is completely false. He obviously knows nothing about the history of his own cult. His "Fathers" fought like cats and dogs for hundreds of years over everything. There was nothing even approaching "orthodoxy" for centuries.
3. He will no doubt be quoting Thomas Aquinas (and "natural law") if he ever gets to marriage. At the rate he's rambling, I seriously doubt it. Aquinas' proofs/arguments are easily refuted.
4. Pin him down, make him stop rambling, and explain his assertions with no evidence. Ask him why exactly he believes the things he says he believes, or anything ... it will no doubt be circular.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: