Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You, as a self-professed atheist, are in a similar path, why do you suppose Catholics will automatically hate you because you’ve dicided to go on it alone, no God, no Salvation, just your own m mortality?
I didn’t suppose that all Catholics will automatically think any particular thing about me. I just mentioned, as an example, that SOME individuals here might take my revelation of being an agnostic atheist as something to use against my arguments. That would be ad hominem, yes, but it does seem to come up quite often on forums like this, especially when those discussing the issues are unfamiliar with the common logical fallacies. Like I said, ignorance breeds intolerance. But no, I have a lot of respect for the debating, writing, and critical thinking abilities of a good number of members on this forum, so it wasn’t some broad sweeping attack or anything.
Hi!

…so you are saying that those pulling the trigers and killing other kids in their schools are Catholics bent on destroying the world because the Church’s religious morality was forced down their throats? …would that be ditto for the people who purposefully contaminated the blood bank with AIDS in the mid eighties?..

Do you also propose that wars are a product of Christian religion?
Nope, I’m not. Those are not examples that I am aware of that have anything to do with Catholicism. The first thing that came to mind when you mentioned the school shooters is was that you were referring to the Columbine kids in the above pertaining example, but I don’t know enough about their backgrounds to make any kind of judgment like that. From what I know, it wasn’t the major, if any, influence.

Wars being a product of Christian religion is way too general a statement to make. There have been conflicts in the past (the Crusades) with the clash of religion being the touted reason for the conflict, but I have also read that there were huge political motivations involved. I will not make such a black and white claim that “Christianity is the cause of wars” at all.
 
Mulligan65,

(1) Limbo is a concept that may have outlived its theological usefulness. No one seriously believes the horrific idea that unbaptized babies spend eternity separated from their parents in a state of perfect natural – but never supernatural – happiness!

I wanted first to respond thoughtfully to the longer post of earlier…and I want to get back to it. But quickly, the necessity of Baptism is an infallible dogmatic definition and as such is irreformable. The Pope does not have the protection of the Holy Ghost if he attempts to invent new or change previously defined truth. And this is logically cogent, such that one would not even have to accept Catholicism, but merely be able to think in hypotheticals, to follow the argument. On a "human’ level, I’m sympathetic to your case. I used to think that way, But if we are to be Catholics, we have to simply trust in God’s justice. As the Lord said, His ways are not our ways. We are to understand that it may be an operation of Divine Mercy, if God takes a soul unbaptized but free of actual sin, because He knows that the soul would ultimately reject the Grace and suffer a far worse fate.

(2) Our interpretation of the Bible is not inerrant, and interpretation is what every reading of the Bible is.

Of course our interprtation of the Bible is not inerrant, that is the big problems the Protestants have and why denominations proliferate. But I didn’t say we were inerrant, I said it was the inerrant word of God, and we have the Church to interpret it. But only once, not over and over again.

Petrus
 
What do you teach them about people who are aware of the Catholic Church and still refuse to enter?

You did not state whether you agree with my statement.
No, I do not agree with that statement.
 
drpmjhess, you seem to have much clarity of thought on these issues, especially by your ability to put yourself in the shoes of others. You are right on the money with 1 and 3, and your perspectives on the others aren’t flawed, either, but I do have some comments to make about them.
(2) However, I have no problem bringin my boys up in the Catholic faith, having htem baptized, go to confession and communion, etc. I don’t agree that it is irresponsible not to bring children up in a faith rather than in no faith until they are of an age toi deice for themselves.
I was raised Catholic, and I definitely don’t think it harmed me permanently or anything, but then it is important to note that my parents also weren’t so dogmatic or irrationally devout about their faith, besides their making sure I went to church with them once a week. We didn’t study the bible in our home, but I went all the way through the traditional path of the sacraments, including Confirmation. I never really had much of a thorough knowledge of much of the theology until I studied it for myself in college later in the game. I probably have studied the scripture and philosophy behind Catholicism more than my parents have ever done so.

It is important to note that my immediate family is about half Catholic and half Protestant (my father was raised Baptist, but converted to Catholicism recently, and he had always gone to church with my mother and me, anyway).

To be honest with you, I don’t think I ever truly believed in God in a rational sense, and I definitely never felt the presence of God in the spiritual or emotional sense. It was all just an extended episode of something like believing in Santa Claus as a child, where I was following the tradition of my parents and what I had been exposed to and told by adults, and by not questioning authority, (I had gotten the impression that that was sinful.) In a sense, I was told that I should believe in God, and so I believed in the belief in God, you might say, as something I was supposed to do. (the philosopher Daniel Dennett likes to talk about this “belief in believing” phenomenon when he is interviewed on these matters)

I wasn’t really exposed to any other religions in depth in my childhood, nor was I taught about atheism, or any kind of secular moral systems, as those were either foreign to my parents, thought of as “weird” cults to not participate in, or not taught to me in school. Funny how only one’s own religion that one is raised in is the non-weird one, isn’t it?
The key is to teach critical thinking. My twelve year old has been asking tough questions since he was five: how do we know God actually exists? What are there contradictions in the Bible? How do we know whether Christianity or Islam (or either) is the one true religion? Why should we take Genesis seriously since it ignores the dinosaurs? I have welcomed and encouraged his questioning,a nd I daresay his Cathiolicism is the stornger for it.
To me, the thing that I think would involve the most critical thinking, would be to have kids study comparative religions, really. I mean, what harm could it do? Without the familial pressure to practice one religion, a lot of these artificial pressures and limitations for unbiased thinking just fall away.

I would have kids research into answering the question, “What makes their family’s religion the clear, inarguable, ultimate truth above all other world religions and systems of morality?”

Now, I am not talking about them coming up with some personal, subjective opinion, like they get to pick one because they “like it the most”, but an in depth, factual study of human philosophy, psychology, behavior, world religions, ethics, and morality. I guess this isn’t such child’s play! To me, if one doesn’t seek to get to the bottom of this question, then he has simply allowed himself to compartmentalize his brain, by never working out the most basic, unstated major assumptions of his beliefs.

That very question is usually is the one that humbles me. I have heard some people take some shots from the Christian perspective, by defining Jesus’ uniqueness, and from the general perspective of the Christian moral system being the best one, but I have never been won over by these arguments. They still assume way too much.

I remind myself that if I had been born in India I would likely have been raised Hindu and be on a Hinduism forum right now, discussing these matters, and if I had been born in Saudi Arabia, I would be a Muslim, and would be on an Islamic forum. I would be thinking about things from THOSE religion’s perspective, and how they would have been taught to me in my childhood as being the ultimate truth would have a profound effect on my world view.
 
(4) It’s curious to me that books on atheism are in four digits on Amazon.com’s sales rank, wheras my own book on Catholicms and Science ranks 811,123 (admittedly, its only in hardabck at $65.00). People are curious about God, atheism, and related subjects.
Yeah, atheism is all the controversy and rage right now, isn’t it? They say that if one’s faith is true, then those atheistic arguments can only make one’s faith stronger, right? Well, it didn’t work out that way for me, as I was won over by their arguments. I don’t think it was for selfish reasons, either, but for intellectual matters regarding the simplicity and rationality of their arguments.

As far as some books I can recommend, while I have read excerpts from a number of them, my knowledge has actually not come primarily from books, but has been gradually built up by viewing extensive documentaries and interviews of atheist scientists and philosophers (I have watched as many as I could find online).

See if you can find some video excerpts from the documentary “Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief” by Jonathan Miller, and his “Atheism Tapes” interviews.

Also an essential, extensive viewing that played a role in my current thinking was the Beyond Belief 2006 conference, completely freely available at this link: thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/
 
…you are in a Catholic site discussing “truth,” what “truth” do you suppose should be the final “truth?”



…so which truth are you seeking? …who is intolerant or bigoted in the U. S. A.?
I don’t have an ultimate answer for you on that one. But anyway, the question is a trap. It isn’t something that one can safely or easily propose without having an extensive, systematic, non-contradicting answer. If you slip up in how you state it in the environment of a forum like this, people will start using the greatly possible lack of total coherency in your post against you. I’m not going to take myself down that path right now, as it’d be digging more holes than I can fill at the moment.

Edit: I will say that I find great wisdom in being agnostic about certain matters. An example of such would be the fourteen unanswerable questions from Buddhism, (not that I necessarily subscribe to them.)
 
To me, the thing that I think would involve the most critical thinking, would be to have kids study comparative religions, really. I mean, what harm could it do? Without the familial pressure to practice one religion, a lot of these artificial pressures and limitations for unbiased thinking just fall away.

I would have kids research into answering the question, “What makes their family’s religion the clear, inarguable, ultimate truth above all other world religions and systems of morality?”

Now, I am not talking about them coming up with some personal, subjective opinion, like they get to pick one because they “like it the most”, but an in depth, factual study of human philosophy, psychology, behavior, world religions, ethics, and morality. I guess this isn’t such child’s play! To me, if one doesn’t seek to get to the bottom of this question, then he has simply allowed himself to compartmentalize his brain, by never working out the most basic, unstated major assumptions of his beliefs.

That very question is usually is the one that humbles me. I have heard some people take some shots from the Christian perspective, by defining Jesus’ uniqueness, and from the general perspective of the Christian moral system being the best one, but I have never been won over by these arguments. They still assume way too much.

I remind myself that if I had been born in India I would likely have been raised Hindu and be on a Hinduism forum right now, discussing these matters, and if I had been born in Saudi Arabia, I would be a Muslim, and would be on an Islamic forum. I would be thinking about things from THOSE religion’s perspective, and how they would have been taught to me in my childhood as being the ultimate truth would have a profound effect on my world view.

Ithink it an impossible burden on kids to expect them to study comparative religion and by that means to come to Truth.
Compararive religion treats religions as closed systems, each with its own reason. Yet at the same time, it imposes the standards of positive science on them, and its canons are what probably will determine their decisions, in large part because they are unlikely to be unaware they are applying them. Your atheism is–it seems–really just a rejection of the transcendent, an insistence on looking at the world with the spectacles of the scientific method. But that limits the questions your children can ask. They cannot ask the questions important to Mohammed or to Gautama, for instance.
 
Which point am I kidding you about? Regarding the “guilt”

A. Kidding that “guilt” is somehow bad. If we sin, we should feel guilty. Shame serves a purpose, not only for the betterment of the individual soul but as a positive driver of “civility”, a characteristic of civilazation. It beats the alternative into which we are fast descending.

One example that springs to mind of religion making people do bad things

A. False religions make people do bad things. If we are Catholics, then we are to beleive that our religion is true. It we don’t what’s the point, go be Shriner or something. But good luck making heaven on earth, been tried many times with bad results. One of the greatest and most damaging errors of modernism is the notion that “religion is good”. No, the Catholic Church is good. The others are false and destructive of good.

Now as for the “tolerance” part, I have heard many conservative Catholics say that they think they have “too much tolerance”

A. I can only speak for myself, but what I mean is toelration of error. We tolerate all kinds of things in the name of social harmony or something. Of course in the end we don;t even get the harmony. If we fail to make judgments we die. We must judge daily on hundreds of frontiers, from do I have time and space to pull into the traffic lane to how should I advise my child about a social dilemma. All choices, all life styles all opinions are not equally valid. Some are fruitfull some are destructive. Yet we must love everybody. If you love someone in a sinful life style,
do you counsil him to amendment, or do you affirm his choice? If the stakes or Heaven or Hell, it should be obvious. But tolerance today means “just don’t offend him”.

Just as Catholics have, other people have the right to believe what they want

A. I guess the answer here is see above. If you think about it, you have the attitude of Cain (am I my brother’s keeper?).

My question for you is: What would be the purpose for your wanting to be more intolerant towards others?

A. Here’s an example, perhaps an extreme one, but I think it makes the point. It used to be that the Church denied a Catholic burial to those who commited suicide. I think that in your parlance (and the general zeitgeist), this was “intolerant”, perhaps even “unenlightened”. As a sentimental, soft hearted human being I understand that. Afterall how driven to desperation must the soul have been to take so drastic an action? But because suicide is a mortal sin, and to die in mortal sin damns one to Hell, the Church made a judgment. This judgment was based on the tenant of faith that it was pointless, indeed proscribed to pray for one beyond help. However the Church never said “this person is surely in Hell”. Only God can ultimately judge a soul. It is possible, perhaps unlikely, but possible that the soul had perfect contrition at the moment of death or was otherwise inculpable for his action. The Church’s rationale was basically thus: as men we cannot read hearts and are bound therefore to judge based on the outward manifestations. If we ultimately judge wrongly, we do the soul no harm as the lack of a funeral Mass does not affect his judgment before God. But either way, we do not scandalize the faithful still living. We do not in any way condone or show sympathy for the act. In this way people were given an unambiguous message. We did not appear to second guess or snub God’s law.
Now there are few absolutes, and those things which are ostensibly “absolutes”, like say abortion, are really not emphasized. Pro-abortion Bill Clinton got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than of the populaiton at large. The fruit of ambiguity and treating suicide just like cancer.

Christ never said to do a lot of things. He never said to drink Coca-Cola, for instance. That doesn’t mean you can’t do it, just because he never mentioned it.

A. I am grateful that the use of alcohol (not drunkeness) and tobacco were never proscribed by the Church. I try to avoid the big sins, and since I began to take Catholicism seriously, pray the Rosary and such, this actually has become easy. But I am well acquainted with the attractions of certain sins and I am sympathetic to those in their grasp. Things (sins) that I used to think were so hard as to be impossible to avoid (I was actually quite good at obtaining certain pleasures / favors, glorified in popular culture, I’m not like a “dweebie guy”) I just now believe that they must be beaten and can be beaten. Not because they offend me or any person, but because they offend God.

I guess the question becomes, that for people who think they personally know what is ‘true for everyone’, can they avoid becoming intolerant and bigoted? This goes along the lines of “If there is no real truth, then there is no reason for me to be tolerant”

A. I quite disagree here (BTW what is “true” IS true for everyone) and this part I don;t understand. I think maybe you mistyped. “If there is no real truth, then there is no reason for me to be tolerant” makes no sense, I don;t know who would say that, and I don;t think you are saying it either. But if there IS real truth and if you don’t believe that there is, then frankly you really aren’t a Catholic, but think about it, if there is, then we cannot tolerate error. I mean we might have to accept it in the name of civil order, but it is our duty to oppose it by legitmate means for the salvation of souls, the only thing that ultimately matters. And here’s another rub. Catholicism (the popular VII variety) today has become sort of a feel good universal salvation club. But this is not the Church of tradition. As Saint Paul said, work out your salvaton with fear and trembling.
 
Ithink it an impossible burden on kids to expect them to study comparative religion and by that means to come to Truth.
Compararive religion treats religions as closed systems, each with its own reason. Yet at the same time, it imposes the standards of positive science on them, and its canons are what probably will determine their decisions, in large part because they are unlikely to be unaware they are applying them.
That was an indirect point that I was making. If you don’t think they can handle the juggling of comparative religion at that age, why should you take advantage of that by teaching them just one religion? It seems manipulative to me, because you are the authority figure, and they have no context to question you about it, just as they have no context to analyze and compare multiple religions at that point.
Your atheism is–it seems–really just a rejection of the transcendent, an insistence on looking at the world with the spectacles of the scientific method.
Yes, that seems to be more or less the case.
But that limits the questions your children can ask. They cannot ask the questions important to Mohammed or to Gautama, for instance.
One can ask many questions without having empirical tests for determining the answers to them. But why must one assume that there exists definitive answers to these questions here on Earth? And who says that atheists can’t be philosophers and explore the questions you refer to, though? No, they probably wouldn’t go about it in the same way that Mohammed or Gautama Buddha, but that doesn’t mean similar topics can’t be explored and considered. It doesn’t have to be attached to theism to investigate the concepts involved in metaphysics.
 
A. Kidding that “guilt” is somehow bad. If we sin, we should feel guilty. Shame serves a purpose, not only for the betterment of the individual soul but as a positive driver of “civility”, a characteristic of civilazation. It beats the alternative into which we are fast descending.
Guilt can be bad if felt for the wrong reasons, built upon the wrong premises. It isn’t always bad, though. I mean, it is a human emotion, and has its purposes or uses at the right times.
A. False religions make people do bad things. If we are Catholics, then we are to beleive that our religion is true. It we don’t what’s the point, go be Shriner or something. But good luck making heaven on earth, been tried many times with bad results. One of the greatest and most damaging errors of modernism is the notion that “religion is good”. No, the Catholic Church is good. The others are false and destructive of good.
I’m glad you are able to definitively know that the other religions are false, and that yours isn’t. I cannot find it in me to be so presumptuous. As for your suggestion to go ahead and try to make heaven on Earth, I will try to make my stay comfortable, but remember that just because one can imagine a perfect paradise in one’s mind does not imply that one is waiting for us when we die.
A. I can only speak for myself, but what I mean is toelration of error. We tolerate all kinds of things in the name of social harmony or something. Of course in the end we don;t even get the harmony.
Again, you base your definition of error on what the Catholic Church says. Not that I don’t expect you to, but I think it is an arbitrary basis. I also think that what you see as social harmony or the lack thereof depends on the color of lenses you are looking through. When I was looking at things through the Catholic perspective, different things were error than what I think are now.
If we fail to make judgments we die. We must judge daily on hundreds of frontiers, from do I have time and space to pull into the traffic lane to how should I advise my child about a social dilemma. All choices, all life styles all opinions are not equally valid. Some are fruitfull some are destructive. Yet we must love everybody. If you love someone in a sinful life style,
do you counsil him to amendment, or do you affirm his choice? If the stakes or Heaven or Hell, it should be obvious. But tolerance today means “just don’t offend him”.
Yes, if the stakes are Heaven or Hell, one’s perspective does change, however, tolerance, to me, is not “love everybody” or to affirm whatever destructive choice and individual makes. There are other gauges for what is moral outside the bounds of religion.
A. I guess the answer here is see above. If you think about it, you have the attitude of Cain (am I my brother’s keeper?).
Am I?
A. Here’s an example, perhaps an extreme one, but I think it makes the point. It used to be that the Church denied a Catholic burial to those who commited suicide. I think that in your parlance (and the general zeitgeist), this was “intolerant”, perhaps even “unenlightened”. As a sentimental, soft hearted human being I understand that. Afterall how driven to desperation must the soul have been to take so drastic an action? But because suicide is a mortal sin, and to die in mortal sin damns one to Hell, the Church made a judgment. This judgment was based on the tenant of faith that it was pointless, indeed proscribed to pray for one beyond help. However the Church never said “this person is surely in Hell”. Only God can ultimately judge a soul. It is possible, perhaps unlikely, but possible that the soul had perfect contrition at the moment of death or was otherwise inculpable for his action. The Church’s rationale was basically thus: as men we cannot read hearts and are bound therefore to judge based on the outward manifestations. If we ultimately judge wrongly, we do the soul no harm as the lack of a funeral Mass does not affect his judgment before God. But either way, we do not scandalize the faithful still living. We do not in any way condone or show sympathy for the act. In this way people were given an unambiguous message. We did not appear to second guess or snub God’s law.
Well, if I was dead, I don’t think I would care what happened to my body, but, besides that part, don’t forget the psychological state of the individual at the time he took his life. The Church should be very careful in how they treat suicide, with the knowledge of psychology that we have now. Now, I personally think that it is a person’s right to be able to take his or her own life. As far as a moral judgment of the matter coming from an atheist, I guess it would be considered how it would harm those who depend on him or her, more than it would his salvation, right?
Now there are few absolutes, and those things which are ostensibly “absolutes”, like say abortion, are really not emphasized. Pro-abortion Bill Clinton got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than of the populaiton at large. The fruit of ambiguity and treating suicide just like cancer.
I am not even going to get into a discussion about abortion, for the sake of this thread’s coherency and sanity of its readers!
 
A. I am grateful that the use of alcohol (not drunkeness) and tobacco were never proscribed by the Church. I try to avoid the big sins, and since I began to take Catholicism seriously, pray the Rosary and such, this actually has become easy. But I am well acquainted with the attractions of certain sins and I am sympathetic to those in their grasp. Things (sins) that I used to think were so hard as to be impossible to avoid (I was actually quite good at obtaining certain pleasures / favors, glorified in popular culture, I’m not like a “dweebie guy”) I just now believe that they must be beaten and can be beaten. Not because they offend me or any person, but because they offend God.
The obvious assumption here is that there is this specifically Christian God in existence that one can know how to offend. Sorry if I am being pedantic.
A. I quite disagree here (BTW what is “true” IS true for everyone) and this part I don;t understand. I think maybe you mistyped. “If there is no real truth, then there is no reason for me to be tolerant” makes no sense, I don;t know who would say that, and I don;t think you are saying it either.
Yes, if something is true, it is true for everyone. What I was describing was people who think they know something is true, as if they have some esoteric knowledge, when it is something that logically cannot be proven to be definitively truth at all. The part of what I said that you thought made no sense was simply a standard description of relativism, e.g. That everything is okay, so no reason to be tolerant. I guess you could also argue that if everything is okay, that there is every reason to be tolerant. It would depend on how you personally would feel like treating people. 😉 Don’t get me wrong, I am not subscribed to this view.
But if there IS real truth and if you don’t believe that there is, then frankly you really aren’t a Catholic, but think about it, if there is, then we cannot tolerate error. I mean we might have to accept it in the name of civil order, but it is our duty to oppose it by legitmate means for the salvation of souls, the only thing that ultimately matters.
Well, besides the scenario where that real truth might be unknowable, yes, from the Catholic perspective, you are right.
And here’s another rub. Catholicism (the popular VII variety) today has become sort of a feel good universal salvation club. But this is not the Church of tradition. As Saint Paul said, work out your salvaton with fear and trembling.
I don’t think this is true of Catholicism at all, but I’ll leave it to the Catholic members here to explain that to you. Are you a Sedevacantist?
 
I do not agree with you about “a sense of apostasy regarding the value of other religions.” The more one learns about other faiths the more one comes to respect both the universality of God’s revelation to human beings, and the particularity of God’s revelation in Christ. I have spent the last twenty years participating in international and interfaith conferences, and I never cease to marvel at the sincerity with which Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can engage each other in fruitful dialogue. No less a devout Catholic than Thomas Merton was deeply and spiritually engaged in Buddhist Christian dialogue.

The point of greatest concern for me in your position is that of biblical literalism, which has never been our Catholic way. You say, “Well if the Bible is wrong here, well how can I believe any of it?” What do you mean by “wrong”? Why does a passage that cannot be read literally have to be “wrong” in your view? Isn’t that a bit unilateral of you to demand literalness, when Catholic theologians in the Middle Ages were careful to distinguish between literal, allegorical, topological and analogical meanings? Luke and Matthew contradict each other in their genealogies of Jesus, but rather than saying that one or both is wrong, theologians ask what literary purpose these two evangelists had in mind in elaborating genealogies in the first place.

Please let me know your thoughts on these questions.
Prayerfully yours,.
Petrus

Dear Doctor Peter,

You’re keeping up too late. But how can I leave this alone?
I deleted the parts on which we agree, but I thank you for sharing your perspective and experience re your priest (whom you like)and some of the bad things you’ve seen,

On apostasy: It is simply an exercise in basic logic, that other religions, say Hindus, though they may seem (or even be, we cannot judge hearts) sincere, deny Christ. It is a basic tenant of Christianity (from the words of Christ), that Christ is the only way.
We should strive to convert them, out of Charity, true Charity (a very misunderstood notion today all wrapped up in tolerance), but we cannot merely “admire thier sincerity”. I sincerely beleive that evolution is a crock, a trick of the Devil, but you don’t admire me for it, because you have faith in evolution. Well if you have faith in Christ don’t admire them either. Christ, and His Church, at least for the first 1933 years on this point were emphatic. And the Church was so emphatic to good purpose; for the confusion so prevalent today, on which you say you generally agree with me, I think is largely due to the sense of relativism, or worse, indifferentism, incullcated by all of this “dialogue”:. Extra Eccelsium Nulla Salus, which I think you took exception to in another post, is a dogma, To deny a dogma makes you a word which I have already learned cannot be annunciated on this site, but it begins with an “H”. And it is logically consistent with the notion of truth, unless you feel as Pilate, cynical towards such absolutes.

Regarding the Bible, and its literal interpretation; Your point of “greatest concern”: I understand that some parts are obviously allegorical. Christ used allegory. The point I was making was to illustrate how the unsophisticated (as I was as a teenager when my Catholic grammer school education was virtually “undone” in Catholic High School) can have their faith destroyed by being taught evolution (which obviously displaces Genisis). I said it was the “smallest of nutshells” in explaining the problem, It is consistent with the scientific method if you think about it, I didn;t mean to imply that the entire Bible was literal. I keep expecting the obvious to me dots to be connected but I guess they’re not so obvious. However, I take exception to your premise that Luke and Matthew are contradictory. I know I’ve heard this explained and I think that one of the geneologies was Joseph’s and one was Mary’s, I think is has to do with Old Testament types and would have been understood by contemporaries of the second century. If you’re intererested, and let me know if you are for it will take some effort, I will get the explanation for you.

If you want to continue this dialogue, perhaps we should go to another thread as we are straying off topic here, but you know the protocols of this site better than I, I am new. We can even do it privately if there is a way to exchange information. I will post mine if it is allowed and if you are interested.

Sincerely,

Bill Mulligan
 
Again, you base your definition of error on what the Catholic Church says. Not that I don’t expect you to, but I think it is an arbitrary basis. I also think that what you see as social harmony or the lack thereof depends on the color of lenses you are looking through. When I was looking at things through the Catholic perspective, different things were error than what I think are now.

A. I’m sorry, I thought I was arguing with someone who atleast thought of himself as a Catholic. I guess my naivette’ is showing,
But look, don’t you think that something must be true? If not there is little basis for discussion. And I have to go to bed,

Yes, if the stakes are Heaven or Hell, one’s perspective does change, however, tolerance, to me, is not “love everybody” or to affirm whatever destructive choice and individual makes. There are other gauges for what is moral outside the bounds of religion.

A. And what could those gauges be? Without God, then doesn’t it devolve into might make right? Who is to decide?

Am I?

(My brother’s keeper) Yes, According to the Church, we must love one another, This means we must have concern for their souls, To me, the thought of anyone losing Heaven is an unspeakable tragedy. I think we are admonished to enjoin them three times, and then if they remain obstinate, shake the dust …

Well, if I was dead, I don’t think I would care what happened to my body, but, besides that part, don’t forget the psychological state of the individual at the time he took his life. The Church should be very careful in how they treat suicide, with the knowledge of psychology that we have now. Now, I personally think that it is a person’s right to be able to take his or her own life. As far as a moral judgment of the matter coming from an atheist, I guess it would be considered how it would harm those who depend on him or her, more than it would his salvation, right?

A. First for the Doctor and Spirit Meadow, The correct formulation is “If I were dead”. You’re speaking in the subjunctive. Good grammer is a building block of civilization. Yes, an “atheist” would perhaps consider the wellfare of his dependants. But only because God had written it on his heart. From where else would such a concern arise?

I am not even going to get into a discussion about abortion, for the sake of this thread’s coherency and sanity of its readers!

A. The most heinous crime imaginable. Worse than killing your mother…
 
The correct formulation is “If I were dead”. You’re speaking in the subjunctive. Good grammer is a building block of civilization. Yes, an “atheist” would perhaps consider the wellfare of his dependants. But only because God had written it on his heart. From where else would such a concern arise? ]
Thanks for defending the subjunctive, Mulligan – I have thought of joining the Society of the Preservation of the Subjunctive! But how did we get from evolution to the burial (or not) of suicides in consecrated ground? I was planting my vegetable garden when all those posts came through. I was cogitating not on the merits of theological arguments but on the relative potency of steer and chicken manure for nourishing tomato plants.

Petrus

PS – the steer manure comment should not be read as a covert metaphor for BS.
 
The obvious assumption here is that there is this specifically Christian God in existence that one can know how to offend. Sorry if I am being pedantic.

Yes, if something is true, it is true for everyone. What I was describing was people who think they know something is true, as if they have some esoteric knowledge, when it is something that logically cannot be proven to be definitively truth at all. The part of what I said that you thought made no sense was simply a standard description of relativism, e.g. That everything is okay, so no reason to be tolerant. I guess you could also argue that if everything is okay, that there is every reason to be tolerant. It would depend on how you personally would feel like treating people. 😉 Don’t get me wrong, I am not subscribed to this view.

A. Yes, my knee jerk sympathy would be with the second view, “if everything is OK, there is every reason to BE tolerant”. I think we understand each other here.

Well, besides the scenario where that real truth might be unknowable, yes, from the Catholic perspective, you are right.

I don’t think this is true of Catholicism at all, but I’ll leave it to the Catholic members here to explain that to you. Are you a Sedevacantist?
What isn’t true? My characterization of the current “pop-Catholicism” or my representation of tradition?

Yes, I think so. But it is a banned topic and I’ve tried not to got there. I don’t think it is critical to the issues per-se’. But it is easily demonstrated that many Vatican II documents contradict almost word for word prior dogmatic formulas.
 
Thanks for defending the subjunctive, Mulligan – I have thought of joining the Society of the Preservation of the Subjunctive! But how did we get from evolution to the burial (or not) of suicides in consecrated ground? I was planting my vegetable garden when all those posts came through. I was cogitating not on the merits of theological arguments but on the relative potency of steer and chicken manure for nourishing tomato plants.

Petrus

PS – the steer manure comment should not be read as a covert metaphor for BS.
Thanks for the that clarification Dr. Quite clever. What time do you garden anyway… I’m still trying to get over last night’s writing with beers session.
 
No, I do not agree with that statement.
Your answer as you well know is heretical. It is clear and consistent teaching that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and since the Church is HIs body through it. This says nothing as to the mystery of how God accomplishes it to those who are invincibly ignorant.
 
Your answer as you well know is heretical. It is clear and consistent teaching that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and since the Church is HIs body through it. This says nothing as to the mystery of how God accomplishes it to those who are invincibly ignorant.
It sure is. That’s a chance I’m willing to take.
 
Thanks for the that clarification Dr. Quite clever. What time do you garden anyway… I’m still trying to get over last night’s writing with beers session.
Night gardening – the only time I have after work, dish-washing and child demands. But writing with beers (or wine) can be productive, if it’s moderate. I wish I had all the answers, but I’m afraid life won’t allow that.
 
If you want to continue this dialogue, perhaps we should go to another thread as we are straying off topic here, but you know the protocols of this site better than I, I am new. We can even do it privately if there is a way to exchange information. I will post mine if it is allowed and if you are interested.

Sincerely,
Bill Mulligan
Bill, I find these topics interesting, but I’d better try to get my regular work done as well. We’re in a busy patch, and I start teaching a new graduate seminar next week, for which my preparation is incomplete.

Peter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top