Ask A Catholic II
- Thread starter civ_king
- Start date
- Status
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
There's a very big difference. Abraham was stopped from sacrificing his son, and rewarded for his obedience. It was never intended that he actually kill him.
A more accurate question would be "what's the difference between Abraham and a psychopath who was told to travel here and there, with occasional promises of him being made a father of many nations. But in reality it's nearly impossible to draw a correlation between Abraham and any modern psychopath who thinks God is talking to him.
de Maistre
Comte
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 289
Have you read Fear and Trembling?
No, it looks interesting tho. Also, I am not an atheist...This question has been bothering me for awhile. I know that it was more of a test than anything but Abraham didn't know that God would intervene. I know its called faith for a reason but I wouldn't come anywhere near doing it..But I feel that I cant defend Abraham anymore than I can defend "psychos"
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
psychosis generally comes with additional sets of irrationality and discord within the person. As far as we can tell from his actions in scripture, aside from the "voices" as one would call them in regards to an actual schizophreniac (not really in abrahams case as we know) Abraham had no other symptoms of a mental illness or psychotic condition which would justify a claim that he was mentally disturbed.
On the contrary in every other act he acts in accordance with the culture of his time. Indeed in that day human sacrifice was acceptable in that region amongst the pagan cultures (in later eras the carthaginians, descendants of canaanite phoenicians were frowned upon for continuing the practice) and so the act itself was although a little strange since it was his only legitimate child, hardly out of the ordinary.
In this sense the prevention of human sacrifice by the Lord serves to delineate the living God from the false gods of the time as a God of mercy, justice and love.
On the contrary in every other act he acts in accordance with the culture of his time. Indeed in that day human sacrifice was acceptable in that region amongst the pagan cultures (in later eras the carthaginians, descendants of canaanite phoenicians were frowned upon for continuing the practice) and so the act itself was although a little strange since it was his only legitimate child, hardly out of the ordinary.
In this sense the prevention of human sacrifice by the Lord serves to delineate the living God from the false gods of the time as a God of mercy, justice and love.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
To interject though, Abraham was told that he and Sarah would have a son. He failed the first test, and we received Ishmael. Abraham passed the second test, and Isaac's life was spared. Isaac was the promise, but Abraham, also knew that God would have to provide another Isaac, if this one was killed. That is the test of Faith. We can get things wrong the first time, but we better be real sure the next time.
GhostWriter16
Deity
To any Catholics here: When do you think the Bible starts telling history, instead of fable? And when do most Catholics tend to think the Bible starts talking about real history?
Is it even possible to pick and choose parts that are fake and parts that are real? That seems kind of...cheap..for lack of a better word that I cannot think of right now.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I believe all the way from Gen 1:1, but I'm not Catholic either.
I could theorize on ways that it could not be "Cheap" but I think a Catholic who actually holds these positions would do better.
GhostWriter16
Deity
But seriously, care to tackle the question? I'd be interested in a few different answers on this from different people. I'm kinda curious how this differs between more liberal Catholics and more conservative ones, and also how people justify picking a point.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
Faith without reason is incorrect, when something despite all contradictory evidence from reason is upheld, it becomes mere superstition. Its the equivalent of believing that hebrews settled in the americas and founded great cities despite the total lack of any archaeological evidence.
So when all reason and rational knowledge imply the impossibility of a certain act then a metaphorical reading is the correct one. This in no way invalidates the scripture it simply is an interpretation beyond the literal. To cite an example I would hazard a guess that as a protestant you believe that Christ doesn;t literally mean that the bread of the last supper is his body despite it being clearly stated in scripture (although having the infallible authority of the Church and the universal belief of the faithful for 1500 years before protestantism we know that assertion to be incorrect). According to the logic of your own argument you must believe that this is true because it is clearly written and yet you do not, thus to say that metaphorical reason is impossible is thus hypocritical on your part because it directly contradicts your own argument in this area. (Although of course the specific example is literal to orthodox Christianity)
-
Tithe
but we have the collection as a substitution for that now I suppose.
So when all reason and rational knowledge imply the impossibility of a certain act then a metaphorical reading is the correct one. This in no way invalidates the scripture it simply is an interpretation beyond the literal. To cite an example I would hazard a guess that as a protestant you believe that Christ doesn;t literally mean that the bread of the last supper is his body despite it being clearly stated in scripture (although having the infallible authority of the Church and the universal belief of the faithful for 1500 years before protestantism we know that assertion to be incorrect). According to the logic of your own argument you must believe that this is true because it is clearly written and yet you do not, thus to say that metaphorical reason is impossible is thus hypocritical on your part because it directly contradicts your own argument in this area. (Although of course the specific example is literal to orthodox Christianity)
-
Tithe
but we have the collection as a substitution for that now I suppose.GhostWriter16
Deity
What I meant was: At what point do the histories of the Bible stop being fable and start being history?
You mean the Catholic Church believes this, and you believe it has been believed for 1500 years (I would argue it was added later, but I'm not sure how much later.)
You mean the Catholic Church believes this, and you believe it has been believed for 1500 years (I would argue it was added later, but I'm not sure how much later.)
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
And so we go to the early Church fathers and the earliest non-biblical sources for Christianity to discern what the Church in the early centuries believed. Lets have a look at what they say. (naturally I am not putting biblical quotes here such as John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 down because you protestants always have your erroneous interpretations 
) Oh and I mean precisely what I said, It was believed universally until the advent of the protestant heresy created a denial of the real presence of Christ. Anyways onto the writings of the fathers.
-
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” - St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
-
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes…so too, as we have been taught the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” - St. Justin Martyr 150 AD
-
Thus to say the early Church believed contrary to what the Catholic Church continues to teach to this very day is fallacious. You would be holding to a belief regarding what people thousands of years ago believed without any rational basis for that belief and contrary to all literary and substantial evidence and christian testimony from that era, St Ignatius himself was a student of St John the apostle and he speaks precisely of the real presence. Furthermore considering the universal belief in the real presence in the millenia after the early centuries before the advent of protestantism one would have to deny history itself to even consider that this wasn't a universal belief in the early Church. Although I suppose it is as John Henry Newman says
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant."
and for good measure here is the story of an evangelical convert I was reading just before http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/...cal/item/55-evangelical-convert-pam-forrester
-
As to when, where and what is metaphor who am I to define that, the Magisterium? I highly doubt the Church has seen fit to define what is metaphorical and what is not.
) Oh and I mean precisely what I said, It was believed universally until the advent of the protestant heresy created a denial of the real presence of Christ. Anyways onto the writings of the fathers.-
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” - St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
-
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes…so too, as we have been taught the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” - St. Justin Martyr 150 AD
-
Thus to say the early Church believed contrary to what the Catholic Church continues to teach to this very day is fallacious. You would be holding to a belief regarding what people thousands of years ago believed without any rational basis for that belief and contrary to all literary and substantial evidence and christian testimony from that era, St Ignatius himself was a student of St John the apostle and he speaks precisely of the real presence. Furthermore considering the universal belief in the real presence in the millenia after the early centuries before the advent of protestantism one would have to deny history itself to even consider that this wasn't a universal belief in the early Church. Although I suppose it is as John Henry Newman says
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant."
and for good measure here is the story of an evangelical convert I was reading just before http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/...cal/item/55-evangelical-convert-pam-forrester
-
As to when, where and what is metaphor who am I to define that, the Magisterium? I highly doubt the Church has seen fit to define what is metaphorical and what is not.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I was asking about individual opinions, not Church doctrine...
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
The individual is but a fallible and sinful creature. What authority does the individual have to pronounce on the sacred scriptures? Only the Church, divinely guided by the holy spirit has valid, authoritative authority to interpret sacred scripture for no mortal man on his own power can pridefully presume himself arbiter of unchangeable divine truth for man alone is ignorant and fallible, as the wild diversity of contradictory protestant sects shows.
Incidentally you may wish to address my other points in the last post which you perhaps forgot to address.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I have school tomorrow so I'll address them tomorrow (I'm in NYS and its past midnight) so I'll just leave with a question:
Does the literal precense only, in your view, exist when communion is taken in a Catholic Church, or in any church?
If the former, do we eat and drink judgment on ourselves by taking communion outside a Catholic Church?
Oh, and BTW, the post above you is probably a spambot.
Does the literal precense only, in your view, exist when communion is taken in a Catholic Church, or in any church?
If the former, do we eat and drink judgment on ourselves by taking communion outside a Catholic Church?
Oh, and BTW, the post above you is probably a spambot.
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK good, no more spamcrap on here. Good night, I'll be back tomorrow to address your points
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
