Ask a Theologian III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both the Hebrew words Ruach and Shekhinah are grammatically feminine, as Hebrew has no such thing as a neuter gender. While the Greek πνεῦμα (pneuma) is grammatically neuter, the holy spirit is also called the παράκλητος (Parecletos), which is grammatically masculine. (I've heard that some, especially Roman Catholics, consider Paraclete to be the proper name of the holy spirit, but the term in fact a title meaning counselor and refers explicitly to Christ in at least one place in the bible. The holy spirit is not The Paraclete, but Another (of the same rather than different kind) Paraclete.) The Latin word Spiritus is grammatically masculine, as is the German Geist. Romance and Germanic languages tend to follow suit, making the words for spirit grammatically masculine throughout the west.


The gender we use does not really matter, as it is only grammatical gender, not physical gender. While Christ took on a male form in his time on earth, the father and the holy spirit are never traditionally conceived as having physical form or physical gender.


I think the main reason "he" is used is because it is generally considered the generic, default pronoun used when gender is unknown or irrelevant. As the feminine was not the default, using it would tend to emphasize the presence of a gender where it ought to be absent. Referring to someone as an "it" is considered disrespectful, and a denial of personhood. I remember reading a footnote in one bible that acknowledged the spirit's lack of gender but warned against using "it" for the holy spirit because it robbed Him of his personhood and place in the trinity,
 
A lot of Christians do seem to have a tendency to refer to the Holy Spirit as "it", though - the Third Person does seem rather impersonal compared to the other two.

Of course the issue of which pronouns should be used for divine persons has become rather a larger one in recent decades, especially in feminist theology, which has sometimes sought alternative titles for the persons to get away from masculine assumptions. But the traditional use of masculine pronouns for God isn't supposed to reflect any genuine maleness about him, of course, and this goes for all the persons - even the Son, in his pre-incarnate state at least.
 
A friend of mine is a deacon's kid, and offered to sell me some pre-consecrated hosts she found in her home. Is there anything in canon law that explicitly prohibits this? Has anybody ever tried this? Would you be interested partaking of the body and blood of Christ without sitting through a church service for a very reasonable fee?

Speaking of deacons' kids, can you tell me about kid deacons? I've heard that many Oriental Orthodox Churches will ordain children to the diaconate. How common is this? What is the history of the practice? Can children deacons still get married after their ordination?
 
I would have thought that if the Communion meant anything at all, you would sit through the service and receive it in the time-honoured fashion.
 
A friend of mine is a deacon's kid, and offered to sell me some pre-consecrated hosts she found in her home. Is there anything in canon law that explicitly prohibits this?
I would imagine not, as the Priests must purchase it themselves.
 
What, if any, is the meaningful difference between deism and atheism? How is the distinction not a completely arbitrary decision on the part of the believer?

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church regards belief in the teachings of the Church to be essential for someone to be considered Catholic. At least, this is the impression I got from my Catholic teachers when I was young. Is there any truth to this?
 
I would imagine not, as the Priests must purchase it themselves.

They purchase bread and wine before they do their thing. Since my friend's father is a deacon, he is allowed to officiate the liturgy, but he has to use elements that have already been consecrated by an area priest. Pre-consecrated elements, to my awareness, are always given for free. Anything else would strike me as quite blasphemous, which is why I wonder if it's ever been tried and if pre-emptive measures are in place.
 
Oh, I took Pre-Consecrated to mean it's the bread and wine they intended to do there thing with.
 
Have I tried to believe in God the wrong way ? - a bit of background.

When I was growing up, I spent many years at "Bible Study" and then joining friends at church meetings studying the Bible. At the same time my father would have a "circular" argument. Who created God ? Nature - Who created Nature ? God and so on.

In addition, my parents made us read encyclopedias at home to keep us up to date with information and science. Later in my early 20's, I saw the classic film "The Ten Commandments" in the picture theatre as a special feature. A friend who was with me thought we should join a church. Which we did and he went on to study theology and become a priest. I left to to another country. There, I re-commenced my study at another church. However, no matter what I did, I just could not "believe". I suspect it comes from my focus on facts and logic in my early years with encyclopedia and maths.

So what I discovered is that the way many Christian's try to teach you to believe in God is as follows;

Read Jesus' acts and life;then believe in Jesus as your Savour; then read the rest of the Bible and then believe in God. So in short: Jesus-> Bible-> God. (I think he says somewhere, no-one gets to God except through me, which may explain this teaching method).

Whereas I take a different approach God -> Bible -> Jesus. i.e. Prove "God exists" and then the rest follows.

I have never been able to get past "Believe in God". I ask myself, Which God ? There are so many, which religion is right. So which religion is right because they all say they are the right one and all the others are wrong. No objective analysis can be made as they are all subjective of the others.

So after about 20+ years of study and research in to the Bible and other religions, I have become an "Atheist". For me "science" is what I use to get an understanding of the world and beyond, and I accept that this is never-ending journey of discovery. And for me quite simply "God does not exist", as there will eventually be an answer to most questions. Maybe not in my lifetime, or not 1,000 years in the future, but the "not knowing" does not cause me any problems.
 
As a fellow Atheist (and a fellow New Zealander as it happens) I have to ask you kiwitt what motivated you to spend 20 years trying to believe in God? Why fight your own belief in science and reason for so long?

Anyway I certianly agree with all you have said. For me evidence of God would need to surface before I considered religion. And which one? No religion makes much sense to me. They are all mythological stories as far as I can see. None has a realistic claim to truth. Those who take religious texts litterally are the most deluded.

Just my two cents. Sorry if it pisses of the religious amongst us.

Nick
 
I'm pretty sure it's an exclusively Catholic doctrine.

Mary's sinlessness is supposed to depend upon Christ's sacrifice. That is, the benefits of Christ's atonement are applied to Mary retroactively, or in advance, depending on how you look at it. (This raises interesting questions about Christ's freedom in choosing to make that sacrifice later on, which we will pass over.) So she isn't just born sinless by divine fiat - it still depends upon Christ making his sacrifice later on.

I have also wondered why this means God couldn't do the same thing for everyone and have them born sinless by applying the benefits of the atonement to them in the same way. If there is a reason why he couldn't, I don't know what it is. Although I'm not sure what purpose it would serve anyway, since everyone would commit sins of their own later on anyway, nullifying the effect.

Didn't Jesus basically make our salvation dependent on our behavior, like in the Lord's Prayer - forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us? And wasn't a bunch of this talk about "sin" etc really about the rules of cleanliness for the Jewish priesthood? I read somewhere Jesus claim to the House of David was challenged and that his conception did not occur during the right time of year. He did seem to focus a lot of his scorn on the upholders of such laws.
 
ask you kiwitt what motivated you to spend 20 years trying to believe in God?
I saw a lot of what I thought, intelligent people and political leaders believing in it, so thought I might as well find out about it as there must be something to it, and learn and see if I discover what make them believe.

I soon realized that many had joined churches because it was the "proper" thing to do and it was a central part of the community they were part of, and that did not require "evidence" of God, but simply "belief" and "faith" in God. Most church communities are friendly and welcoming and who would not want to be a part of it. When I understood this, the search for evidence was over and realized there would be none coming, no matter what I did.

I now prefer to live a simply "good life", love my wife and enjoy it. No God required to tell me how to live, simply abide by a central theme in all religions - "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you".
 
My minister contends that 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 is actually a mistranslation that should read 'young woman'. Is this so?
 
the original "virgin" was Inanna and she was (the zodiacal) "maiden". Her sign was followed by Leo the Lion, Cancer and the Twins (Mayan myth is heavy into twin mythology even though their calendar round began 3114 BC in the age of Taurus.

edit: nm ;)
 
I am inclined to accept this position. Is atheism a belief ? - No

I'd definitely agree with that, too. It's an abvious point, but one that often needs to be made. The likelyhood of God (or Unicorns) existing, based on the available evidence is, in my opinion, so small that I can safely assume that neither exists at least until some evidence is found. This is not a specific belief. This is just the way in which I assess if anything is true or not. Is there any evidence? No... well it probably doesn't exist.
 
I am inclined to accept this position. Is atheism a belief ? - No
I realize I'm hijacking a bit, but --

The key problem is this tidbit:

If atheists say, "I don't believe in God," religious people will reply, "See? Atheism is a belief!" (Overlooking the fact that "Not believing in X" isn't the same as "Believing in Not X.")

Atheism cannot be a matter of "Not believing in X," because then anything could be said to be an atheist -- chairs, stars, pebbles, whatever -- because those things do not have positive beliefs that God exists (Or that anything exists, as far as we can tell -- the ultimate skeptics!). It's obviously absurd to say that my chair is an atheist, yet it is also obviously true that my chair does not believe in God. It seems far more reasonable to say that only things capable of having beliefs can be meaningfully said to be atheists. (If you don't think that's so, please find me an example of a thing that cannot hold a belief that may be an atheist, or can hold a belief and logically cannot be an atheist) From there, it seems to make imminent sense to simply relabel an atheist as a being, capable of holding a belief, who believes that God does not exist. (Which would be of the form "believing in Not X," instead of "Not believing in X.") The exact same argument could be made for unicorns or a round earth or aliens or whatever you like.

Argue how you will about whether atheism is a "religion," or an example of "faith," but it is certainly a belief that you hold about the world. I honestly don't see how you can argue otherwise.


To bring this back on topic: Plotinus, do you know what the traditional Christian standard of drunkenness was? There's no clear Scriptural condemnation of drinking alcoholic beverages (Several likely endorsements, actually), but drunkenness has pretty much always been seen as a sin. Is it just some sort of "results" standard -- If a monk throws up in church, he's on bread and water for forty days! -- or was there any sort of "this much is too much for anyone" idea? How much thought was this given in the early Church, and onward until the medieval?
 
In the example given X = any supernatural god ;), as atheism is described in that context. i.e. in reference to God or gods.
 
In the example given X = any supernatural god ;), as atheism is described in that context. i.e. in reference to God or gods.
:confused: I'm quite aware of that. That doesn't contradict anything at all in my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom