Possible Debate

[Dreamweaver]

I believe that green is superior to red. Look at how God has adorned the trees, grasses, prairies, and bushes of the world! Clothed in remarkable green leaves. Even the ponds full of pond scum are a deep green color. Adam and Eve, realizing their nakedness, chose to cover themselves with green.

[Aloysius]

since not everyone has green eyes, and some have blue or brown, and since every man is of equal dignity, this in fact places green as equal to blue and brown but in no way shows it as superior to red.

dreamweaver, two points of rebuttal

first, man is the climax of creation created in the image of God, trees are only there for the sake of man, therefore colors God chose to use on man must be better than colors He chose for others.

second, they didn't cover themselves in green until after the fall. therefore this green is shame and deficiency in nature.

next I will advance another argument

in ancient mysticism and throughout much of the bible, veils are seen as something to protect something inherently good and sacred. the redness of blood can be said to be veiled by the layer of flesh skin, as such this redness is better.

green things in creation, like flesh things, are exposed out in the open. God did not protect them as sacred only to be spilled in the most serious event of injury or death. God let them out to be subject to the view of any passer by and to all the elements of storms and weather et cetera.

[journeyman]

Even with all those conditions, you're a better man than I, Gunga Din

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:14 PM']As a material heretic, I will debate you on something if the following conditions are met:


[right][snapback]722161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Just ask for an internet citation to the books with which you are not familiar - most of the Catholic Bibles are on line full text


[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:14 PM']5. If texts of the Catholic Bible not occurring in the Protestant version of the Bible are used it is only for minimal use as that does put me at something of a disadvantage being myself unfamiliar with them.

6. Significant Scripture references deal more in the New Testament than the Old.


[right][snapback]722161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 04:51 PM']When God created the world He looked at it and saw that it was good, that all creation is good.

Man is the greatest of all of God's creation.  He is made in the imagio dei, the image of God.  He alone amongst all creatures has the capacity for reason, self reflection, and he alone has as his ultimate destiny to know, love, and serve almighty God experiencing Him through the beatific vision and being infused with grace and ultimately deified by partaking in Christ's body and blood.

Man is not created with any green substance of his own nature (other than certain boogers that pop up here and there, not enough to make a point).  Nor was the Greatest Man who ever lived, Jesus Christ.  Man has red blood flowing through his viens.  Jesus Christ had red blood flowing through His veins.  And though some old liturgical books allowed for white wine, most wine that is transubstantiated into Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity, including the very wine Christ Himself used at the last supper, has been red wine.



Moreover, Jesus Christ being the absolute perfect man, probably never even got green boogers.

Therefore it is obvious, red must be better.  God chose it for the lifeblood of His greatest creation.  When He incarnated Himself he allowed the color red to flow through Him in the most intimate relationship any color ever had with the creator.  And ultimately, He chose something of the color red to use in the redemtpion of the Human race.
[right][snapback]722097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Blood is not really red until it has been shed, which isn't really a good thing. And as hierochloe said what of green eyes. This doesn't even begin to concider that green is obviously the Fathers favorite color almost all life is dependent on it.

[Aloysius]

What of my other points? I already rebutted the green eye argument

[colore=red]red[/color] blood cells are the main blood cells in the body. as such it can still be said to be basically red tgo its essence.

as to green, see my other post about the veil and sacredness and how green is so out-in-the-open

lol

[Guest JeffCR07]

I will debate Anselm's formulation of the Ontological Argument with you...no one seems to really be debating it in the "no proof of God" thread - which is strange with so many self-proclaimed Thomists here (you would think they would come to the defense of their master : : )

Anyways, I'll take on Al any day of the week

[quote]since not everyone has green eyes, and some have blue or brown, and since every man is of equal dignity, this in fact places green as equal to blue and brown but in no way shows it as superior to red.[/quote]

This argument commits a fallacy of equivocation. Namely, you equivocate between the greatness of a thing as-a-color and the dignity of a person as-a-person. It does not follow from the fact that all humans are of equal dignity that all eye colors are "equal."

Rather, it only follows that a physical quality such as eye-color has no bearing on the dignity of the human person.

Thus, green could very well be a greater color than, say, brown, and it would follow from this that a person with green eyes would have "prettier" or "greater" eyes than a person with brown eyes. This however, would have no bearing on their dignity as a human person.

[quote]in ancient mysticism and throughout much of the bible, veils are seen as something to protect something inherently good and sacred. the redness of blood can be said to be veiled by the layer of flesh skin, as such this redness is better.[/quote]

Reply to Objection 1:

But we hear from the Apostle that, "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away." Therefore, it is not the case that all good things should be veiled.


So put that in your pipe and smoke it :

[White Knight]

For Comedy why not debate which came first the Chicken or the Egg lol.

[Aloysius]

either way the eye argument proves nothing about green in relation to red, but anyway the entire point of discussing the colors of human beings was to determine God's view of color. therefore, what God places in the highest and most prominant part of creation, i.e. the lifeblood of His greatest creation, should be considered the color God most prefers out of all the colors He created.

since God created green eyes on one person and blue eyes on another, there are two things we could deduce. Either
1) God prefers the color green and thus prefered the person he gave green eyes over the person he gave blue eyes giving him the better eyes. (or someone might argue vice-versa)
or
2) God considers both colors equally and both people equally

The color God most highly values cannot be something that is different in two equally dignified creatures, or we would have a God who chose favorites.

veils continue to be a symbol of sacredness and we see that reflected throughout creation. noteable are certain viewpoints of the theology of the body but even moreso St. Paul's arguments in favor of women veiling their heads and why they have hair naturally that veils their heads.

not to mention the numerous other arguments.

in any case, the entire eye argument is inconsequential as it does not bear at all on the relationship between the color green and red, but rather the color green and many other colors.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:14 PM']11. You are to propose an idea which I would be willing to debate and which is a matter of significance or interest.
[right][snapback]722161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here are some possible topics:

1. The Assumption of Mary (hehe, I'm copying LittleLes)
2. The nature of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
3. Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate (essentially Mary's spiritual maternity)
4. The moral status of artificial contraception
5. The nature of the Church that Christ established (visibilty, authority, hierarchy, infallibility, etc.)

(please pick one or none.If you pick none, I will create a new list of choices, but in this case you must pick something from the second list)

After you pick a general topic, I will begin the debate by presenting a more specific object of debate in the form of a thesis and introductory statement.

[White Knight]

We could actually discuss what Christ might have looked like, outside what the paintings and art work that has been presenting Him as for the last 900 years.

[Aloysius]

that would inevitably be a debate first and foremost on the authenticity of the shroud of turin. if the shroud of turin is valid (which I believe it to be) then the artwork is valid. if it is not valid, then all the artwork could potentially be wrong. then then there really is not much of a reference point.

[Anastasia13]

Hard to say, can you please clarify?

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:23 PM']
Here are some possible topics:

1. The Assumption of Mary (hehe, I'm copying LittleLes)
[i]What is the Assupmtion of Mary?[/i]

2. The nature of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
[i]The Eucharist is interesting, but what do you mean the Sacrifice of the Mass?[/i]

3. Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate (essentially Mary's spiritual maternity)
[i]I don't know what that means.[/i]

4. The moral status of artificial contraception

[i]If by artificial you mean methods outside of nfp, then I find that somewhat absurd. With regards to contraception in general, even if through means of nfp for the sake of not having children, if you are willing to assume that certain individuals should then for the sake of not having children sacrifice marriage, or that several years is not too long for a husband and wife to not have sex, I will not be able to debate that.[/i]

5. The nature of the Church that Christ established (visibilty, authority, hierarchy, infallibility, etc.)
[i]What would we debate on that?[/i]

(please pick one or none.If you pick none, I will create a new list of choices, but in this case you must pick something from the second list)

[White Knight]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 11:33 PM']that would inevitably be a debate first and foremost on the authenticity of the shroud of turin.  if the shroud of turin is valid (which I believe it to be) then the artwork is valid. if it is not valid, then all the artwork could potentially be wrong.  then then there really is not much of a reference point.
[right][snapback]722568[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well haven't you noticed that people can't seem to agree on what Christ looked like?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Sep 13 2005, 11:35 PM']Hard to say, can you please clarify?

1. The Assumption of Mary (hehe, I'm copying LittleLes)
[i]What is the Assupmtion of Mary?[/i]
[/quote]
In the words of Pope Pius XII:
"...The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory"
In other words Mary was taken up into heaven at the end of her life.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:23 PM']2. The nature of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
[i]The Eucharist is interesting, but what do you mean the Sacrifice of the Mass?[/i]
[/quote]
Essentially that the Eucharist in the Mass is the re-presentation of Christ's once and for all Sacrifice on Calvary. The Mass is a Sacrifice, not a mere ceremony in which we "remember" what Christ did, rather we encounter and are drawn into that very same Sacrifice of Calvary which is truly made present in the Mass.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:23 PM']3. Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate (essentially Mary's spiritual maternity)
[i]I don't know what that means.[/i]
[/quote]
A brief introduction:
[quote]When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

Secondly, Mary is invoked in the Church under the title Mediatrix of all grace. All the graces which flow from the redemption of Jesus Christ are granted to the human family through the motherly intercession of Mary. Mary mediated Jesus Christ, the Author of all graces, to the world when she agreed to be the human mother of God made man (cf. Lk 1:38). And from the cross at Calvary (Jn 19:26) and as the final gift to humanity, Jesus gives Mary as a spiritual mother to us all: "Son, behold your mother" (cf. Jn 19:26). For this reason, Vatican II refers to Mary as a "mother to us in the order of grace " (Lumen Gentium, n. 62) and several twentieth century popes have officially taught the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, quoting the words of St Bernard: "It is the will of God that we obtain all favours through Mary." The Mediatrix performs this task in intimate union with the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, with whom she began the drama of our Lord's Redemption at the Annunciation (cf. Lk. 1:35).

Thirdly, Mary is our Advocate for people of God, in that she takes the petitions of her earthly children, especially in times of difficulties, and brings them through her maternal intercession before her Son and our Lord Jesus.[/quote]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:23 PM']4. The moral status of artificial contraception
[i]If by artificial you mean methods outside of nfp, then I find that somewhat absurd.  With regards to contraception in general, even if through means of nfp for the sake of not having children, if you are willing to assume that certain individuals should then for the sake of not having children sacrifice marriage, or that several years is not too long for a husband and wife to not have sex, I will not be able to debate that.[/i]
[/quote]
Seems like you are already debating it. I haven't stated my position, but it is the same as the Church's teachings. And I'd say NFP is categorically different from artificial contraception and ought not be called contraception at all; this would likely be part of the debate.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:23 PM']5. The nature of the Church that Christ established (visibilty, authority, hierarchy, infallibility, etc.)
[i]What would we debate on that?[/i]
[/quote]
I was thinking basically Protestant Ecclesiology vs. Catholic.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:43 PM']Well haven't you noticed that people can't seem to agree on what Christ looked like?
[right][snapback]722587[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
He looked like a Middle Easterner. He mother was Hebrew. He probably looked like a Jew, maybe a slight hook nose(?) that some Middle Easterners have, tan skin, dark possibly somewhat coarse hair. What is there to discuss?

Edited September 14, 2005 by Light and Truth