Ratzinger's fundamentalism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/jesus-of-nazareth-pope-benedict-book_n_...

When I came across this story, I thought of you. :-)

I draw your attention to this bit here:

Mary's virginity is a "test" and a "fundamental element" of the Christian faith.

And I wonder if he shares with us his opinions on the question of Mary's age at the time she is claimed to have been impregnated without the opportunity of giving, or denying, her consent. I suppose that (biblico-)technically, because she presumably didn't scream, she wasn't actually raped?

Subtle is the Lord.

I wonder if he shares with us his opinions on the question of Mary's age at the time she is claimed to have been impregnated without the opportunity of giving, or denying, her consent. I suppose that (biblico-)technically, because she presumably didn't scream, she wasn't actually raped?

I believe Godard has answered this question definitively.

>1 DiogenesOfSinope: I haven't read the book and don't know what Benedict said in what context, but according to the bible, Mary did give her consent: "be it unto me according to thy word" or "let it happen to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38).

As to her age, in the absence of any other suggestions one assumes it was the age at which young women in that culture and that era would normally marry and have children.

>4 John5918: Consent AFTER the fact??? Are you...

John picks up my sandwich, takes a bite, "May I have your sandwich please?"

Diogenes: "Suuuuuure..."

________________

"young women in that culture and that era would normally marry and have children"

Evasive much?

12, 13, 14 seems to be a common answer.

So what you're saying is that what is acceptable to "god" is what happens to be acceptable to the "culture and era"?
Non-consensual impregnation of twelve year olds 2000 years ago.
Condoms, gay marriage, female bishops... no, wait... I detect some form of inconsistency here. What could it possibly be I wonder?

Oh. Right.

I have to admit that I understood neither #2 nor #3. :-(

And I also forgot to mention my disappointment at John's not answering the question of Ratzingal fundamentalism, though I'm sure he remembers that we tried to engage on that topic (more broadly admittedly) elsewhere?

When an authority determines that such a particular belief is requisite, what happens to believers who do not hold that particular?

You must believe this, or... what?

Jesus With Issues @JesusWithIssues
Atheists, can we at least agree that if there is a God, he would probably have a virgin lady give birth to his son so he could kill it?

Further to #4:

they for example thought that slavery was perfectly fine...absolutely okay, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says 'oh well we couldn't know better because nobody else did'?

- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry

And what is the point of the bible?

And what is the point of god?

And what is the point of any of the religious f***ery?

Less effort wasted on something that does not (beneficially) inform our decisions will give us more opportunity to work out how to accomplish what we ourselves deem good.

~9

Perhaps no point. Would you suggest an alternative "scientific ethics?" If so, please proceed to elaborate. Waiting, waiting, waiting..........

Or maybe you would advocate the scientific ethics of Naziism or the "scientific socialism" of Stalin? No? Give us an alternative. A real existing alternative, not just dreams.......

>10 lawecon: As I understand it, "ethics" refers to a society's thriving.

Murder, theft, claiming to speak for god when you're not: these are verifiably unhelpful toward societal thriving.

Less poverty (more condoms), better medicine, greater personal [the word escapes me, own-feet-standability?]: these are verifiably contributory toward societal thriving.

"Blut und Ehre" (Nazism) is scientific?!? The one thing I know about what Stalin got up to was to set himself up as a ... wait for it... a pseudo-god, and his party as a religious organisation.

You want real countries that are doing away more and more with religion, and doing better and better than countries that aren't doing away with religion? Check out the Scandinavian countries. Among the most atheistic you can find. And verifiably societally thriving.

(Though I think you already know much of what I'm saying here, and are just trying to stir.)

It is a serious question though - the ethics of God.

Is God OK with contemporary moralities - whatever they may be at that time? Is an absolute moral truth a concern of God?

The examples include the issue over women church leaders, slavery, treatment of children and wives.

Is there a moral absolute that is evident in the OT and NT scriptures, and in other scriptures (Bhagavad Gita, the Dhamapada, others?), that is counter to contemporary cultural demands and standards?

The Analects perhaps is an ethically directed scripture.

~11

Well, fairly opaque and obscure (haven't really heard anything like that since Aristotle), but if you prefer such terminology, then "ethics" refers to the rules of conduct compatible with a society's thrivng.

Now if one wants to make an ethical argument it is not helpful to start out with an obiter dictum. You may think, for instance, that "claiming to speak for god" is not ethical, but such is the sort of thing that one needs to demonstrate in an argument, not just state as a given.

"Less poverty (more condoms), better medicine, greater personal the word escapes me, own-feet-standability?: these are verifiably contributory toward societal thriving."

Those would appear to be comparative characteristics of a society (without even stating specifically what is being compared), not ethical principles.

""Blut und Ehre" (Nazism) is scientific?!? The one thing I know about what Stalin got up to was to set himself up as a ... wait for it... a pseudo-god, and his party as a religious organization."

Well, as I've said several times now in several threads, you don't appear to really have the background for these discussions. If I were to argue that the principal source of ethics for the past 2,500 years needed replacing, I'd familiarize myself with the principal alternatives offered over the past 150 years. Apparently you wouldn't, or haven't.

Naziism had a well developed ethical position based on a type of Darwinism Hitler's Ethics The Nazi Conscience Indeed, a sizable proportion of the most educated Philosophers in pre-Nazi Germany who were not eliminated for "racial" or "political" reasons became SA and SS members. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2010/12/nazi-philosophers.html

Stalin's variant of Marxist Leninism is a bit difficult to summarize or characterize for those not familiar with the underpinnings of such views in Marx, Engels and Lenin, but you might start with anti-Duhring and despite the questionable credentials of the author, this is not a bad overview http://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxist-ethics.htm

Now other than Aristotle, what are your ethical alternatives to the traditions contained in Judaism and Christianity? Please be specific and don't just rant on yet again.

"(Though I think you already know much of what I'm saying here, and are just trying to stir.)"

Yes, you're right, I'm just trying to stir some rational and critical thought here, buy you aren't making it easy.

In Hildegard of Bingen: A Saint for Our Times, Matthew Fox writes:

"Is there anything close to justice happening in the Catholic Church today, as it covers up pedophile abuse and lashes out at SNAP, an organization to protect pedophile victims that was created by a man and a woman who were themselves abused by priests as young people? As it covers up for hierarchy, who in turn covered up for pedophile clergy? As it welcomes holocaust-denying bishops into the fold, while silencing and hounding liberation theology bishops— including the saintly Oscar Romero? And as it welcomes Anglican clergy— even married ones— provided they can prove their bona fides with sexist and homophobic credentials? What would Hildegard say to the present pope? And the one before him on whose watch all these scandals were exposed, while he stood by and did nothing about it, yet during this time prosecuted a “purge” of all thinking theologians— a purge that continues to this day?"

Fox, Matthew (2012-09-03). Hildegard of Bingen: A Saint for Our Times (Kindle Locations 2197-2203). Namaste Publishing Inc. Kindle Edition.

And I wonder if he shares with us his opinions on the question of Mary's age at the time she is claimed to have been impregnated without the opportunity of giving, or denying, her consent. I suppose that (biblico-)technically, because she presumably didn't scream, she wasn't actually raped?

>4 John5918: Consent AFTER the fact??? Are you...

Read the text. It's before the fact. Also, dial down the hate dial when the ignorance dial is at 11.

For the record (KJV, Luke 1:26-38):

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Notice in verse 38 Mary accepts the child; "be it unto me according to thy word."

And the future tense of verse 35.

17: That too.

To return to the original topic, the Pope isn't being a "fundamentialist" here; I don't know of a single mainstream religious group that considers itself "Christian" without believing in the virgin birth.

Some liberal Christians would regard it as theologically true, but biologically not necessarily so ( eg., http://books.google.com/books?id=S0yN0eBwaCcC&lpg=PA101&ots=SmybBPpuxR&a... )

Catholics and Orthodox go somewhat further and believe in Mary as "ever virgin" (aeiparthenos), a very old tradition in the church. Some Catholic theologians—I don't know about Orthodox—would see THIS as theological rather than literal—allowing Mary to lose her hymen during childbirth, for example, and to have children later—but many would not. Unfortunately, the Biblical evidence there is not very friendly, as Jesus is said on a number of occasions to have had brothers and sisters, in the Bible and in Josephus as well. The Eastern Church solved this by deciding they were half-brothers from a prior marriage of Joseph's—going along with their depiction of him as an old man generally. The western has mostly followed Jerome in asserting they were really cousins, an argument that is to my mind about three inches away from risible.

19: From my perspective, it's not an important piece of my faith as to whether Mary was an "ever virgin" or not.

I'm unclear why Diogenes hasn't reappeared to beg pardon for getting his order of events wrong, especially as this trivial ignorance was the occasion for so much hatred.

I'm not sure I buy the tenses make it a consensual sexual act. A God, a being recorded to have destroyed a number of humans who displeased him, comes in and says you're going to have my baby, who is going to say no? Even generously, it has at least all the problems that parent-child sex does; power-differential, trust betrayals, etc.

Well, it's not a sex act; we're not talking Leda and the swan here. That said, I'd agree there is a troublingly problematic lack of full, true consent going on here.

“We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.”
Aleister Crowley

> 23 we're not talking Leda and the swan here.

I don't see why not. For all of the Judaean stage-trappings, it was written in Greek.

ETA: How about Danäe and the Shower of Gold?

Unless one is lawecon, then God doesn't have a physical body with which to have sex. A shame, really; if God was going to use Mary to bear Her Begotten One, then really the least She could do is give the poor girl an orgasm.

Testing the Virgin http://wtfarthistory.com/post/38715457863/testing-marys-virginity

I'm not RC or even much of a Christian but I have read the book referred to in #1 and also his previous 2 books on this area of the gospels. I find Benedict to be a very clear and sincere writer. In the book referred to he discusses the passage quoted by stevenhoj (#16) and I found it quite illuminating. Off topic I look at his Twitter feed and find it rather distressing to see the abuse he gets but I suppose that's the norm for people in the public eye.

> 28. find it rather distressing to see the abuse he gets...

Don't worry too much. He's doing OK.

>26 cjbanning:
Unless one is lawecon, then God doesn't have a physical body with which to have sex. A shame, really; if God was going to use Mary to bear Her Begotten One, then really the least She could do is give the poor girl an orgasm.

========
Lawecon is not by himself here. However, archaeologists have uncovered Hebrew settlements where the goddesses Asherah and Astarte-Anath were routinely worshipped. It seems that for about 3,000 years, the Hebrews worshipped female deities such as Asherah, the Shekinah, consort and beloved of Yahweh, which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood. Modern Kabbalah goes into this fascinating aspect of Hebrew studies in detail.

See: Kabbalah and Eros by Moshe Idel ,
Did God Have a Wife?: Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Isreal by William G. Dever,
The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein, or
The Cosmic Shekinah: A History of the Goddess of the Old Testament and Qabalah - Her Origins in Ancient Pagan Culture and modern manifestations. by d'Este, Sorita and Rankine, David.

> 26

My god's carnal rather than ethereal. But rather than the Socratic approach that has served lawecon so poorly, I prefer to simply expose myself as an outlier in that respect, rather than try to convince anyone about it. That is, if I'm not leaving it tacit in knowledge of the inevitability that I will be misunderstood.

Going back to the comparison, though: Why should the generative theophanies of Zeus be considered "physical bodies" rather than visions? The shower of gold that came upon Danäe and the lightning striking Semele don't seem very fleshly. If Leda saw and felt a swan when ravished by the godhead, it's as good as a pigeon in the ear, as far as I'm concerned.

It only serves me poorly because most of the respondents are so narrow and dogmatic that they can't even conceive of alternatives outside their present belief systems. They know what they know, and that's the end of it.

> 32. It only serves me poorly because most of the respondents are so narrow and dogmatic ...

So Socrates was so successful because he had a superior set of interlocutors?

I don't know about superior, but many of them seemed to realize when they had talked themselves into a ridiculous position. You apparently never do that if you think in bumperstickers and have no mirrors.