Elephants in Orissa Attack Exactly One Year After Persecutions
#61


G.K.Chesterton

This much, O heaven--if I should brood or rave,
    Pity me not; but let the world be fed,
    Yea, in my madness if I strike me dead,
Heed you the grass that grows upon my grave.
If I dare snarl between this sun and sod,
    Whimper and clamour, give me grace to own,
    In sun and rain and fruit in season shown,
The shining silence of the scorn of God.
Thank God the stars are set beyond my power,
    If I must travail in a night of wrath,
    Thank God my tears will never vex a moth,
Nor any curse of mine cut down a flower.
Men say the sun was darkened: yet I had
    Thought it beat brightly, even on--Calvary:
    And He that hung upon the Torturing Tree
Heard all the crickets singing, and was glad.
Reply
#62
(12-29-2009, 03:38 AM)DrBombay Wrote: The bible is not a theological or philosophical text book.  But you "stick with" it and your peculiar interpretation safely removed from any sound Catholic understanding of the essence of God, if it makes you "feel" good.

The Bible is inerrant. There is no errors. The Bible is not a theological or scientific book, but it touches upon theology and science. It is a book that contains history, science, philosophy, and theology. Whenever it touches upon these areas, it is prefect. The history in the Bible is without error. The science in the Bible is without error. The theology in the Bible is without error.

(12-29-2009, 03:38 AM)DrBombay Wrote: Sometimes the writers of sacred scripture employed anthropomorphic literary devices to describe God because, you see, finite beings (like me and, I presume, you) can't really apprehend the infinite.  Hard to believe, I know. 

That is pure Modernism. The writers of scripture did not use anthropomorphic literary devices. Anthropomorphism belongs in Greek mythology, not in the Bible. That is also close to the heretical sacrilegious view that the writers of the Bible were culture bound and time bound. The writers of the Bible were inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit, not by culture and time. God is a pure spirit. He has no body parts. Anthropomorphism is the attempt to put human characteristics in God where they do not belong. We are made in God's image, not God in our image. it is. According to God's revelation he has revealed himself as masculine. This is God's will and revelation, not humans putting anthropomorphic maleness on God. We did not make God father because he is the first father. God is where all fatherhood and personality comes from. He is the first person. That is not the anthropomorphism of putting body parts and human reproductive organs on God.


(12-29-2009, 03:38 AM)DrBombay Wrote: For instance, God wasn't really tired on the 7th day of creation.  He did not need to rest.  But, he uses that to teach us an important lesson.
Unless you're now going to argue that God was exhausted after 6 hard days of creating....   ::)

Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God rested because he was exhausted. You are adding to scripture an interpretation that is not there. You are adding anthropomorphic nonsense to the passage. The interpretations from the Church have always been that God rested because he stopped creating. That is all the passage says and means. God rested because he ceased to create any new things.
Reply
#63
The Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The Bible, especially the Old Testament, abounds in anthropomorphic expressions.

and:

The Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The justification of this language is found in the fact that truth can be conveyed to men only through the medium of human ideas and thoughts, and is to be expressed only in language suited to their comprehension. The limitations of our conceptual capacity oblige us to represent God to ourselves in ideas that have been originally drawn from our knowledge of self and the objective world. The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites.

Full article here:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

Unless you want to accuse the Catholic Encyclopedia of Modernism...which is possible, I suppose, since it was written around the time of Pascendi, so the ideas were definitely extant.  But you'll really need to refute the article with more than just flinging "modernism" at it.  That's not a very sound argument...just sayin.

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me: for my soul trusteth in thee. And in the shadow of thy wings will I hope, until iniquity pass away. --Psalms 56:2

What!??  God has wings?!?  Really??

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.
  --John 1:29

What!??  Jesus is a lamb?!? Baaaa!!! Really??

Yea...you might want to re-think biblical literalism.  Leads to all sorts of prottie problems.
Reply
#64
No one ever said that every single word in the Bible is literal. Of coarse there is metaphor in some verses. The vast majority of the Bible is literal though. Over 80% can be understood without interpretation. The Bible is literal in its history, theology, and science. That is Bible literalism, not literalism of every verse.

Every Catholic traditionalist and fundamental Protestant does not believe that Jesus is an actual lamb. To think that Protestants and Catholics who believe in literalism actually take those verses as literal is a caricature and silly. Any literalist knows the difference between the metaphor of God having wings and the literal history of God having been seen by Moses in a burning bush or Eve talking to the serpent.
Those Christians who believe the Bible is literal know God is a spirit and Jesus is a man from the Bible. They are not going to believe in literal wings and lambs. You seem to have a caricature of what literalists believe. No fundie Prot believes the absurd notions you put forth. I have yet to see a fundie Prot or Catholic who fits the definition of Anthropomorphites.

No literalist is against the use of metaphors that are found in many verses. The problem is when metaphor is used to explain historical events or speech that is literal. Both literalists and liberals agree that there are metaphors in the Bible. They disagree on which passages are metaphor and to what extent is it found in the Bible. It is the liberals who believe metaphors, myths, and allegories cover the vast majority of the Bible.  In contrast to the liberal myths, literalists believe in the literal histories of the Bible.

There is also a difference between the use of a metaphor and the use of anthropomorphism as historical reality. Anthropomorphists are those who believe their anthropomorphism to be fact. Bible writers used metaphors to describe aspects of a pure spirit, but they knew they were metaphors. The Greeks in contrast believed their anthropomorphism was true. That the gods did come down in bodies and engaged in human activities.
Liberal Feminist Catholics believe this is what is used in the Old Testament. Actual anthropomorphic language believed to be true by the men who wrote under the influence of their sex and culture.
Reply
#65
(12-29-2009, 09:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Full article here:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

Unless you want to accuse the Catholic Encyclopedia of Modernism...which is possible, I suppose, since it was written around the time of Pascendi, so the ideas were definitely extant.  But you'll really need to refute the article with more than just flinging "modernism" at it.  That's not a very sound argument...just sayin

The Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The Bible, especially the Old Testament, abounds in anthropomorphic expressions.

After that they put this a sentence later:

"Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man's; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is usually obvious. "

If that is the case, one would have to ask is it even anthropomorphism anymore?

The article gets confusing and convoluted all in one paragraph. They slam the Greeks and pagans for anthropomorphism, then claim this same anthropomorphism is in the Old Testament, and then in the next sentence deny that it is anthropomorphism. The above paragraph does not fit the precise definition of anthropomorphism.
Reply
#66
Well, you've put yourself at odds with St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII and every pope who recommended Aquinas, not to mention the Catholic Encyclopedia, meanwhile putting yourself on the same side of the religious divide with a bunch of bible thumping, snake handling fundies.

So...ummmmm....yea.....good luck with that journey, son.  :tiphat:
Reply
#67
I know I am late getting in but wanted to add something to this.

Some of this Hindu assaults where in response to Protestants with AK-47s opening fire on a girls school (equivalent to Kindergarden onto about 5th grade) and execution of a Hindu holy man that was able to defeat protestants in theology debates, not suprising as Prots only have a 3rd of the Faith, sacred scriptures and even those are missing chapters and whole books.

So I find this a bit hard to swallow...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)