S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
lol…ya forgot me…and guess what? I ain’t going nowhere. I’m an aging retired wife and I can be here every day. Nobody is hyjacking my church! So Ed where to now?
- Status
D
Donald45
Guest
Well, Ed, I can’t say I blame you for retreating from this discussion, since you’ve shown that you simply have no defense for your rather odd position, one which certainly differs dramatically from that of the Church, as I and others have clearly demonstrated.
In Post #66 above, you made two related claims:
[1] "…the Church combines science and theology all the time…"
[2] "…the Church…teaches the faithful about scientific issues…"
I asked for examples of both of these, and you referred me to your previous posts, the arguments of which have already been repeatedly addressed and refuted by myself and others. In fact, the very quotation from Church documents that you offered in support of your position was shown to teach the exact opposite of what you’ve claimed. It’s more than clear that your particular view----which you wish to pass off as “the Church’s teaching”----is simply indefensible and contrary to the stated views of the Catholic Church. Yet, you continue to stubbornly cling to your preferred opinion. You’re free to do so, I suppose.
As for your claims quoted above:
~ concerning #1, the Church may occasionally speak about both science and theology in the same conversation, but this does not equate to the Church “combining science and theology.” Indeed, the Church is always careful to distinguish between her authoritative theological statements and those regarding science, which is beyond her authority to pronounce upon.
~ as for #2, as repeatedly shown, the Church does not----cannot----“teach about scientific issues.” Rather, she distinguishes the non-scientific (theological) statements of some scientists from their properly scientific comments. The Church differentiates the scientists’ theological statements from their scientific ones. This is appropriate and right. However, this does not equate to the Church “teaching scientific issues.”
In the end, it seems that you’re either unwilling or unable to grasp these facts, and insist instead on maintaining your current opinions, however untenable. In light of this, I must agree with you that further dialogue is likely pointless.
Blessings,
Don
+T+
E
edwest2
Guest
Nobody is hijacking your church? I didn’t know you owned it.
The Bible clearly points out how Christians should live. We are in the world but not of the world. This world is not as important as the one to come. However, we are commanded by Christ Himself to do certain things while we are here.
For the record, I do not hate anyone. I do get angry at times, and I do hunger and thirst for righteousness. That said, the combination of naturalism and Darwinist materialism compels people to get it all now, because, to their thinking, once death comes, nothing. This means the acquisition of money is among their top three things to do. Christians who live modest and peaceful lives are less likely to help them reach that goal. When life here is all there is, encouraging others to embrace materialism and reject Christian living is a tangible way to increase profits. Darwinist materialism contributes to that sort of thinking.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Nobody is hijacking your church? I didn’t know you owned it.
**I sure do own it, as much as you do. And I will not stand by when some would make her appear backward and lacking in common sense and intelligence just so a personal belief can be pursued. you"re simply my penance Ed. **
The Bible clearly points out how Christians should live. We are in the world but not of the world. This world is not as important as the one to come. However, we are commanded by Christ Himself to do certain things while we are here.
**Actually Bultmann and Hermann had a great deal to say about how we cannot split from the world and know God apart, but no matter, what you say is true but you have made no point. **
For the record, I do not hate anyone. I do get angry at times, and I do hunger and thirst for righteousness.
**Don’t we all. **
That said, the combination of naturalism and Darwinist materialism compels people to get it all now, because, to their thinking, once death comes, nothing.
**Assuredly some may come to that conclusion but the science compels no such notion. Again how an individual interprets science either as a scientist or lay person is no evidence against the science or use of it. The fault lies with people speaking on issues to which they admittedly have no expertise. **
This means the acquisition of money is among their top three things to do.
**This conclusion comes out of nowhere. You make it sound like a syllogistic given. There are plenty of atheists no doubt who do not place any great priority on money. And again what has this to do with science? **
Christians who live modest and peaceful lives are less likely to help them reach that goal. When life here is all there is, encouraging others to embrace materialism and reject Christian living is a tangible way to increase profits. Darwinist materialism contributes to that sort of thinking.
**I am baffled by this new twist that now its all about economics. We have shifted from godless atheistic scientists to somebody you have not yet named who is trying to reap money off evolution? What you mean to say, is that corporate america is turning this country into a super consumer haven. You claim that those who promote Darwinism as proof there is no God join with the corps I guess …What exactly is in it for the Corps? Ed…find a better new argument, this one is simply flimsy. **
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Sadly, you miss the obvious implications of Darwinist-materialism. This is all there is - only the tangible and whatever can be experienced by the five senses exist. This simply means something tangible becomes the focus. Something tangible is desired for itself. Which includes, but is not limited to, money. Jesus Christ said, “Your life is not your possessions.”
I invite you to visit any atheist forum to see what they are talking about. Perhaps I should point out ahead of time that they are remarkably consistent.
I also suggest you pick up a copy of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. When men consider themselves to be “just animals” don’t be surprised when the technocrats continue to promote that view. The atheists fear a Theocracy but welcome the Technocracy. Darwinist-materialism contains the justifications they need.
You’re obviously heavily influenced by politics, including the politics of labeling (YEC, OEC, etc.) which I have made it a point to avoid for myself and others as much as possible. I treat people as individuals not demographic packages and monolithic groups.
Merry Christmas,
Ed
I invite you to visit any atheist forum to see what they are talking about. Perhaps I should point out ahead of time that they are remarkably consistent.
I also suggest you pick up a copy of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. When men consider themselves to be “just animals” don’t be surprised when the technocrats continue to promote that view. The atheists fear a Theocracy but welcome the Technocracy. Darwinist-materialism contains the justifications they need.
You’re obviously heavily influenced by politics, including the politics of labeling (YEC, OEC, etc.) which I have made it a point to avoid for myself and others as much as possible. I treat people as individuals not demographic packages and monolithic groups.
Merry Christmas,
Ed
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I can’t speak for Ed, but there have been times when the Church has taught the faithful regarding science. The Church does combine science and theology all the time. And the Church does teach the faithful about scientific issues too.
Sometimes this is not a good thing– such as the heliocentric/heliocentric debates long aog. During this time we definitely did speak on scientific matters– even if it was speaking incorrectly so and out of our ‘domain’ so to speak.
Even so, some of the reports of the heliocentric/heliocentric debate were overblown. Some were accurate. And some were tragically real.
Sometimes this is a good thing and not a good thing at the same time.
So for example, because St. Thomas’ thoughts on reconciling the wisdom of the Greeks (the classical science along with other philosophies) this may have caused a minor difficulty reconciling the sinlessness of Mary with the biological knowledge of his day.
(it was, after all, the subtle doctor Scotus who was able to resolve the issue with more clarity, even if St. Thomas provided much of the groundwork).
Many anti-catholics seem to severely exagerate St. Thomas’ minor difficulties reconciling the sinlessness of Mary with the biological knowledge of his day. And for that false claim against Catholicism and St. Thomas, we can look here to examine the issue further.
St. Thomas did indeed believe in the sinlessness of Mary. His only difficulty was, apparently, about the idea of “when” her sinlessness occured…and we’re talking a mere “instant” and not “prolonged times” by any stretch of the anti-catholic imagination.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains…
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
In short, how one defined “conception” also dramatically affected how this dogma worked-- something which, now, with much more scientific insight, we can definitely place at a specific time and are not so in the dark about. In other words, science has enhanced our dogma and doctines in this manner– something which was even more pronounced a long time ago.
For example, St. Augustine, in On Exodus (21, 80) and St. Jerome, in Epistle (121, 4) seemed to have had some different views on when the soul came into being than some of the earlier fathers may have had, opinions significantly different from Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian for example.
If I’m understanding this correctly, both St. Augustine and St. Jerome seemed to have held more to an Aristolean view of the soul kind of gradually developing-- which, if this is actually what they thought, was wrong. Both St. Augustine and St. Jerome did believe that abortion was murder-- they just seemed to differ from others as to “when” it was actually considered a living being within the womb, when they were properly “conceived”.
Nontheless, with the advent of scientific research which has now been able to pin-point the moment of “conception”, the Catholic Church can now say with much more clarity when murder really does occur by p(name removed by moderator)ointing when life begins.
I will note that the Catholic faith has always been against abortion even if those who confused the “biological nature” of the child in the womb with the “development of a soul” were in error. I’m only noting that science has indeed informed and strengthened our stance for life (and our stance against abortion) as we were able to peer more clearly into the womb and understand the nature of “conception” more clearly.
In short, Ed is 100% correct when he says…
Sometimes this is for the good and sometimes this is for the bad. However, any Catholic who seriously examines the devopment and clarifications of Church dogma over the last 2000 years should be well aware of these two points. That any fellow Catholic would be giving Ed a hard time with these two statements above is very puzzling to me.
R
reggieM
Guest
Exactly right. Darwinist-materialism is built on an erroneous philosophical foundation.
I’ll suggest that the Darwinists (or defenders of such) here have nothing of substance to offer in opposition to atheist belief. All of the structure is already present in the embrace of materialism. I would hesitate to invite those Catholics to atheist forums only because I’d fear that they’d simply join them without much consideration at all. But as a wake-up call, if their faith could survive, then yes, they should try debating some atheists. I’ll suggest that the results would be embarrassing at best.
R
reggieM
Guest
SpiritMeadow
History, archeology, mathematics, forensics, logic … among many of the sciences.
Perhaps I’m not reading it correctly, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Perhaps I’m not reading this correctly either, but I don’t understand your point or how it follows on what I said.
Again, I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say or why you’re trying to say it.
Who have you identified as the “messenger” here that I’m “killing”?
I understand “LOL” means that you found something funny here. After that, however, again – I don’t know what this is supposed to mean and how it has any logical connection with what I posted.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I’ll second these suggestions.
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting reference. I’d wonder if those are primary sources for your theological foundation.
Bultmann, of course, was a liberal Evangelical Protestant (Lutheran).
"Bultmann employed historical criticism seemingly to the almost total elimination of the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, leaving as a residue not much more than that the man Jesus of Nazareth did exist, was indeed probably crucified, and did quite possibly enunciate a few identifiable sayings that are attributed to him in the Synoptic Gospels …
The Catholic believer needs to react strongly against a threat of this kind, in which is implied the negation of everything that his faith stands for. The existential “self-understanding” of Bultmann destroys belief in the whole world-picture of Sacred Scripture, in all of the supernatural events recounted therein, in the presence of God as He has revealed Himself to be, in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the Redemption of mankind, in the existence of Heaven and of Hell, in life after death, in sanctifying grace, in the seven sacraments, in the efficacy of prayer. In Bultmann’s interpretation there is no objectively existing God or Jesus Christ or Virgin Mary, or any saint to whom the believer might effectively pray, for that whole objective world has been deleted as mythological imagery."
rtforum.org/lt/lt112.html
Needless to say, Bultmann was a false teacher offering ideas that are extremely dangerous to the faith of any Catholics.
At the same time, I can see how he would be quoted favorably in support of Darwinist theory. Or in this case, how he might be the guiding light behind a fervent defense of materialist philosophy.
R
reggieM
Guest
SpiritMeadow replies: “Assuredly some may come to that conclusion.”
It’s good that you admit that “some” arrive at that conclusion.
But what other conclusions could a person reach from that philosophical basis (scientific positivism)?
E
edwest2
Guest
I think it is easier for some to limit their practice of faith to one day a week. That way, their time spent in church for an hour or so is neatly tied up. Then back into the world for the rest of the day and week.
Our’s is not a building for rituals and lighting a few candles. The true God and true man existed physically and spoke to us directly and acted toward us and to us directly. There was no filter between HIS Word and men. He approached them.
In the ecstasy of scientific progress and the advances expected, where is the ecstacy of faith which must include works? As the explanations continue that genes have been found for this behavior or that (not a bad thing in itself I might add, if proven), then man moves further and further away from his true identity as flesh and spirit to flesh only, to part flesh and part mechanism, and finally, to complete mechanism. A complete transfer of mind into a mechanical shell that is immortal, or, at least, replaceable if need be.
Man seeks to abolish himself, To destroy what makes him truly human. Just ask Ray Kurzweil. singularity.com
If we believe that He is and is to come. We will see Him face to face, true God and true man. But the force of wickedness seeks a means to distract us, to deceive us, to make us believe that once we become like gods, our problems will be over, when all that might be over is our connection to God. Religion, as you might have noticed, is the newly repackaged evil in the world. The major religions, of course, being the major problem. Time to give the Technocrats a go, the religionists, they think, have mucked things up quite badly and what are they doing with their time? Cetainly not enough to satisfy the hunger for the novel, the technological and the sensual.
Like it or not, for Catholics, the world’s science goes through the Teaching Authority of the Church, and the faithful apprised of its findings. Why are Catholics sitting on bio-ethics committees? Anyone?
God bless,
Ed
Our’s is not a building for rituals and lighting a few candles. The true God and true man existed physically and spoke to us directly and acted toward us and to us directly. There was no filter between HIS Word and men. He approached them.
In the ecstasy of scientific progress and the advances expected, where is the ecstacy of faith which must include works? As the explanations continue that genes have been found for this behavior or that (not a bad thing in itself I might add, if proven), then man moves further and further away from his true identity as flesh and spirit to flesh only, to part flesh and part mechanism, and finally, to complete mechanism. A complete transfer of mind into a mechanical shell that is immortal, or, at least, replaceable if need be.
Man seeks to abolish himself, To destroy what makes him truly human. Just ask Ray Kurzweil. singularity.com
If we believe that He is and is to come. We will see Him face to face, true God and true man. But the force of wickedness seeks a means to distract us, to deceive us, to make us believe that once we become like gods, our problems will be over, when all that might be over is our connection to God. Religion, as you might have noticed, is the newly repackaged evil in the world. The major religions, of course, being the major problem. Time to give the Technocrats a go, the religionists, they think, have mucked things up quite badly and what are they doing with their time? Cetainly not enough to satisfy the hunger for the novel, the technological and the sensual.
Like it or not, for Catholics, the world’s science goes through the Teaching Authority of the Church, and the faithful apprised of its findings. Why are Catholics sitting on bio-ethics committees? Anyone?
God bless,
Ed
D
Donald45
Guest
From my Post #82 above:
~ concerning #1, the Church may occasionally speak about both science and theology in the same conversation, but this does not equate to the Church “combining science and theology.” Indeed, the Church is always careful to distinguish between her authoritative theological statements and those regarding science, which is beyond her authority to pronounce upon.
~ as for #2, as repeatedly shown, the Church does not----cannot----“teach about scientific issues.” Rather, she distinguishes the non-scientific (theological) statements of some scientists from their properly scientific comments. The Church differentiates the scientists’ theological statements from their scientific ones. This is appropriate and right. However, this does not equate to the Church "teaching scientific issues."
Blessings,
Don
+T+
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I spend a good amount of time on such boards. I do reasonably well. Most atheists, when they find that I don’t think they are any more evil than most Christians, treat me with respect, in spite of our disagreements. The few who don’t haven’t had a pleasant experience. My handle comes from one such encounter, when an atheist termed me and my Christian faith “barbaric.”
But at least one was intrigued enough by my demonstration that faith is not contrary to reality, that he began to investigate Catholicism. Last I heard, he was still agnostic, but seeking.
And another became a Christian during my stay, although I would not claim I “converted” him.
Know your faith; know your science, and there is nothing in atheism to fear.
E
edwest2
Guest
I’m not saying debate. What I was referring to was getting direct, unfiltered, views from atheists about the issues of the day and how they look at them.
I should have, and do now, caution anyone who is weak or not led to do so, to stay away. And even those who do to realize that these people are lost.
God bless,
Ed
I should have, and do now, caution anyone who is weak or not led to do so, to stay away. And even those who do to realize that these people are lost.
God bless,
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
WEll I went back and my answers seem reasonably attuned to your statements so that must mean that You mean something entirely different than I read. So i guess we are at a logger heads. Guess we will just have to drop this post and catch back up later.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I am not reading Moltmann in the context of darwinism. I am not defending neo-darwinism or any darwinism wherein someone has attached theological statements to darwins work which have no business being there.
E
edwest2
Guest
Theological statements were attached to neo-Darwinism in “Human Persons Created in the Image of God.”
May I respectfully point out that, relatively speaking, not everyone has the same amount of knowledge about certain subjects as you do. I find this to be a common situation on all forums I visit.
God bless,
Ed
May I respectfully point out that, relatively speaking, not everyone has the same amount of knowledge about certain subjects as you do. I find this to be a common situation on all forums I visit.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Generally, that’s required for a debate with atheists.
Not yet, they aren’t. And many of them are, I think, invincibly ignorant, and may yet be saved. At any rate, I have very little to fear from them, since most of their arguments against God assume the fundamentalist Protestant sort of theology, which makes them completely ineffective.
- Status