Does it matter who is more HOLY?

[josie_L]

gee wiz … you’re revisionist apology for the CC’s silly behavior during the Galileo affair is over the top. First, I never said they tortured the man, they merely imprisoned him. Second, who cares whether or not Galileo was able to prove his theory or not (we all know he didn’t, in fact it was Kepler who finally proved that the earth rotates around the sun). I’m not saying the CC’s treatment of Galileo was tantamount to tossing Jews in the gas chamber … obviously it wasn’t anything close.

Have you been made aware of the fact that the CC apologized for their behaviour, and that they were deeply sorry for what had happened. Gee wiz. . . you know I only offered to share what I did because there have been many misconceptions about many events in history. I did not know whether or not you fell into this category. And secondly, did you take the time to read the whole article, that you should call it a “revisionist apology” on my part.

The fact remains that the man was imprisoned for a theory (something that no matter how you try and frame it was not a high point in Catholic history). However, there’s a much more profound issue here that everyone seems to overlook (that doesn’t really have anything to do with suppressing science). During that time the CC took a very literal view of scripture. They interpreted the bible as saying the earth was both the center of the universe and did not move. Well, they were wrong (or as those with common sense would say … they are FALLIBLE).

They are fallible only when they speak of things not based on faith and morals.

Religion will always oppose science, even though in some cases (such as here in the west) it’s very subtle. In Galileo’s day it was more overt. The church didn’t like what the man had to say so they tossed him in jail to shut him up. These days we would call that tyranny or at least something akin to totalitarianism. Sadly, the church hasn’t changed much from those days. You said above that fetuses should never be discarded (because you and your church believe them to be life). Well, they’re not life, they’re just an embryo. In fact the reason they exist in a fertilization clinic in the first place is because a couple would like to produce a life.

Faith and reason are not opposed to each other, in fact the late Pope John Paul II was quoted as saying that faith and reason are like the wings of a bird if one or the other is missing the bird cannot take flight. Truth consists of both. And they cannot oppose each other as their very source is God.

Fetuses are developing humans if you don’t believe that you are going against all logic.

Adoption is the best choice for a sterile couple as we should not being playing God.

Now what would you propose these clinics do with the embryo’s? They obviously can’t keep them on ice forever. Would you have them reinsert them in the pregnant mother to be? I mean gee wiz … have you given any real thought to this whole thing? You guys frame it like your protecting the poor little frozen embryo from the big bad clinic technician who has to throw the thing away, when in fact that clinic is in the business of producing life (a wonderful service for couples desperate to have a child but who are unfortunately unable to produce one naturally).

Would we even have to be dealing with the ethical problem of frozen embryos if IVF didn’t exist?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

That is such a non-starter for any discourse … I mean why even bother?? The validity and authority of the church is not the subject at issue in this thread. You can’t simply respond by saying the CC is right because it’s the one and only true church of Christ – because Protestants don’t agree with that statement & hence it will derail the thread. You need to provide distinct reasoning specifically addressing the holiness question … or if you don’t understand how the RCC approaches holiness then simply say so (and I’m sure knowledgeable Catholics here will be glad to provide more clarity).

If I say the sky is blue, and protestestants don`t agree with my statment does that make the sky any less blue?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Would we even have to be dealing with the ethical problem of frozen embryos if IVF didn’t exist?

Josie:

Why do you box your responses (it makes a point by point response difficult). Anyway, there were two points you made that stuck out. First, the CC apologized for it’s behavior (though I can’t imagine to whom, since Galileo is long dead & buried). Sure, it’s great that they apologized, which logically only goes to further my point. It was a blunder (even they admit it … so why the Catholic laity continue to make excuses for the affair is beyond me).

This is what happens in apologetics, one side uses any error they can find with the other side as a reaming sword to try and impeach the credibility of their opponent (and consequently each side winds up entrenched into untenable positions). Remember though I’m not protestant (nor do I have any plans to convert to any religion). So I’m not really interested in making the CC look bad; rather I’m just rehashing a historic event to show that religion is generally hostile towards science.

As with any general rule there’s always the exception. Still the same though as a general rule, historically, religion has served to obstruct science. You might say it tempers science and prevents horrific possibilities … but that’s an argument with no factual basis. No can say that if religion disappeared tomorrow scientists would suddenly run out and begin conducting dangerous human experiments; and please don’t pull the Nazi rabbit out of your hat either. This country has a longstanding tradition, ingrained in our fiber at this point, of respecting human rights. Many of our founders took very liberal positions on religion (some of the biggest names among them weren’t even religious at all … though some others were deeply religious). The point of all this is that we don’t need religion to temper barbarism.

As far as the infallibility question goes. This is an issue I really should avoid (since it doesn’t concern me). I don’t want to debate this with any force. However, I do understand the concept of infallibility (as it applies to the CC) only pertains to faith and morals. The question is how can you distinguish scriptural interpretation from the idea of faith (within the context of the infallibility question)?

Are you saying the Catholic Churches rendering of scripture isn’t infallible?

That would be a surprise to me (in all my years as a devout Catholic I’ve always learned the opposite is true). In fact the single biggest point of dispute between Catholics & Protestants is scriptural interpretation. If you’re going to now say that the CC isn’t infallible with regard to scripture, then what’s to say Calvin or Luther weren’t more right than Aquinas?

 

[josie_L]

Josie:

Why do you box your responses (it makes a point by point response difficult). Anyway, there were two points you made that stuck out. First, the CC apologized for it’s behavior (though I can’t imagine to whom, since Galileo is long dead & buried). Sure, it’s great that they apologized, which logically only goes to further my point. It was a blunder (even they admit it … so why the Catholic laity continue to make excuses for the affair is beyond me).

I am not trying to make excuses, I just wasn’t sure how much of the truth concerning the Galileo affair you were made aware of. There are many people who claim to know things when they don’t. Just take for example the remarks made by others on Pope Benedict’s statement concerning condoms.

This is what happens in apologetics, one side uses any error they can find with the other side as a reaming sword to try and impeach the credibility of their opponent (and consequently each side winds up entrenched into untenable positions). Remember though I’m not protestant (nor do I have any plans to convert to any religion). So I’m not really interested in making the CC look bad; rather I’m just rehashing a historic event to show that religion is generally hostile towards science.

And my point is that the CC is not generally hostile towards science. The Galileo affair is but one instance wherein the CC erred. They have had however a great influential impact on science the likes of which I have already to some degree posted in a response directed at you.

As with any general rule there’s always the exception. Still the same though as a general rule, historically, religion has served to obstruct science. You might say it tempers science and prevents horrific possibilities … but that’s an argument with no factual basis. No can say that if religion disappeared tomorrow scientists would suddenly run out and begin conducting dangerous human experiments; and please don’t pull the Nazi rabbit out of your hat either. This country has a longstanding tradition, ingrained in our fiber at this point, of respecting human rights. Many of our founders took very liberal positions on religion (some of the biggest names among them weren’t even religious at all … though some others were deeply religious). The point of all this is that we don’t need religion to temper barbarism.

Exactly, as a general rule the Church has been very involved with Science and yet there is this misconception that she is antagonistic towards the sciences, she is not. The Galileo affair has been blown out of proportion, and I am tired of hearing about it.

Science cannot teach morality and that is a fact. I choose to enrich my life by incorporating the truths found within Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) and within science and reason.

As far as the infallibility question goes. This is an issue I really should avoid (since it doesn’t concern me). I don’t want to debate this with any force. However, I do understand the concept of infallibility (as it applies to the CC) only pertains to faith and morals. The question is how can you distinguish scriptural interpretation from the idea of faith (within the context of the infallibility question)?

I found this for you, I hope it helps:

OBJECTOR: But Catholics say that the Church is infallible, that it cannot err. Yet you yourself have said that the Church recognizes its error. Isn’t the Galileo case a clear contradiction to the principle of the infallibility of the Church?

CATHOLIC: The infallibility of the Church is a big subject, too big for now, but I can say this much. The infallibility of the Church attaches to its officially proclaimed dogmas, such as Christ’s two natures or Mary’s Immaculate Conception. These are matters of the highest authority. The Church cannot be wrong in these matters. But in matters of empirical science or anything that is not what is called de fide, the Church can and has made many reversals. The decisions in the Galileo case were disciplinary or procedural, not doctrinal matters at all, even though some individuals in the Church at the time thought they were. If these had been matters of dogma, the Church could not have reversed itself.

OBJECTOR: So, you as a Catholic, what lessons do you think we can learn from the Galileo trial?

CATHOLIC: That the pursuit of knowledge is always a humbling process. And that is good, because humility is one of the greatest virtues.

Are you saying the Catholic Churches rendering of scripture isn’t infallible?

That would be a surprise to me (in all my years as a devout Catholic I’ve always learned the opposite is true). In fact the single biggest point of dispute between Catholics & Protestants is scriptural interpretation. If you’re going to now say that the CC isn’t infallible with regard to scripture, then what’s to say Calvin or Luther weren’t more right than Aquinas?

The CC is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. The article if you had read it in its entirety would have given you the answers to the questions you are now submitting to me.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You neglected to mention a few “objections” I would have made. For instance:

Objector: the CC claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, yet they continue to redefine the meaning of faith and morals each time they are proven wrong.

Catholic: uhhh … let me get back to you on that one.

Objector: You mean the church has to convene a council to come up with a really long philosophical explanation (along the lines of the Clintonesc “what is the meaning of is”). The explanation will be too convoluted to logically pin them down on any particular position (and of course it won’t really address the issue) & they will always leave room for plausible deniability later (when they’re inevitably proven wrong again).

Catholic: urrr … how dare you question the pillar of fire and beacon of truth.

Objector: is the pillar made out of wood?

Catholic: no, the CC is never wrong on faith and morals

Objector: what do you mean by faith and morals?

Catholic: I mean faith and morals, like the virgin birth or how we reconciled the Nestorian controversy (or heresy)

Objector: well, weren’t they ecumenical councils held by the broader CC, when they were united with the east?

Catholic: Sure, but what’s your point?

Objector: well, what about dogma today. Does the Catholic Church err occasionally with regard to scriptural interpretation?

Catholic: we’re right on scriptural interpretation and the protestants are wrong.

Objector: well, what about Galileo?

Catholic: we were wrong then, but we admitted it?

Objector: so you admitted your rendering of scripture isn’t infallible, in other words some protestants might be right and the CC wrong?

Catholic: No, we’re never wrong and where protestants disagree with us they’re wrong.

Objector: but you just said?

Catholic: I have this really long release from the Catholic Church, it explains it well.

Objector: what’s to explain. You were either wrong in the past about an interpretation of scripture or you weren’t. If you were then you’re not infallible with regards to interpreting scripture.

Catholic: that’s too easy … it’s much more complicated then that.

Objector: back to the “what is the meaning of is” argument huh?

Catholic: no, we’re always upfront and intellectually honest.

Objector: objectively speaking, at one time you guys believed certain biblical passages revealed an immovable earth at the center of the universe. Now you’ve reversed that interpretation. So at a minimum you forfeit infallibility with regard to some of scripture? How do you delineate what parts of scripture fall under the purview of faith and morals and which do not? Isn’t your standard subjective & hence designed so you can change the rules as you go along?

Catholic: hold on, you’re too darn smart. Maybe religion really isn’t for you.

Objector: ahhh, we agree on something

 

[neweyes]

This same God founded One Church, breathed the Holy Spirit into it, and promised to remain with it, to guide and protect it until the end of time. You’d think people would be glad of that.
Instead we get this strange ‘slap in Gods face’, as if we were doing something wrong, as if God was wrong founding a Church.

God was not wrong, but it does grieve His heart to hear His children quibbling about which of them is better/closer/stronger/holier than the other.

 

[josie_L]

You neglected to mention a few “objections” I would have made. For instance:

Objector: the CC claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, yet they continue to redefine the meaning of faith and morals each time they are proven wrong.

Catholic: uhhh … let me get back to you on that one.

Objector: You mean the church has to convene a council to come up with a really long philosophical explanation (along the lines of the Clintonesc “what is the meaning of is”). The explanation will be too convoluted to logically pin them down on any particular position (and of course it won’t really address the issue) & they will always leave room for plausible deniability later (when they’re inevitably proven wrong again).

Catholic: urrr … how dare you question the pillar of fire and beacon of truth.

Objector: is the pillar made out of wood?

Catholic: no, the CC is never wrong on faith and morals

Objector: what do you mean by faith and morals?

Catholic: I mean faith and morals, like the virgin birth or how we reconciled the Nestorian controversy (or heresy)

Objector: well, weren’t they ecumenical councils held by the broader CC, when they were united with the east?

Catholic: Sure, but what’s your point?

Objector: well, what about dogma today. Does the Catholic Church err occasionally with regard to scriptural interpretation?

Catholic: we’re right on scriptural interpretation and the protestants are wrong.

Objector: well, what about Galileo?

Catholic: we were wrong then, but we admitted it?

Objector: so you admitted your rendering of scripture isn’t infallible, in other words some protestants might be right and the CC wrong?

Catholic: No, we’re never wrong and where protestants disagree with us they’re wrong.

Objector: but you just said?

Catholic: I have this really long release from the Catholic Church, it explains it well.

Objector: what’s to explain. You were either wrong in the past about an interpretation of scripture or you weren’t. If you were then you’re not infallible with regards to interpreting scripture.

Catholic: that’s too easy … it’s much more complicated then that.

Objector: back to the “what is the meaning of is” argument huh?

Catholic: no, we’re always upfront and intellectually honest.

Objector: objectively speaking, at one time you guys believed certain biblical passages revealed an immovable earth at the center of the universe. Now you’ve reversed that interpretation. So at a minimum you forfeit infallibility with regard to some of scripture? How do you delineate what parts of scripture fall under the purview of faith and morals and which do not? Isn’t your standard subjective & hence designed so you can change the rules as you go along?

Catholic: hold on, you’re too darn smart. Maybe religion really isn’t for you.

Objector: ahhh, we agree on something

C’mon, you purposely made him lose; you might as well have dubbed the “Catholic” an “idiot”.

The Bible is not a science book, Humble. The other thing you must remember is that quite a bit of scripture has yet to be interpreted dogmatically (especially those verses in Genesis wherein matters of the Universe’s beginnings are described). The situation with Galileo was that the Church had yet to know what was and wasn’t true. It was Galileo who insisted on something as factual before he had the proof to prove it as such.

Here’s another passage for you:

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church’s Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn’t it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

God bless.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

C’mon, you purposely made him lose; you might as well have dubbed the “Catholic” an “idiot”.

The Bible is not a science book, Humble. The other thing you must remember is that quite a bit of scripture has yet to be interpreted dogmatically (especially those verses in Genesis wherein matters of the World’s beginning are described). The situation with Galileo was that the Church had yet to know what was and wasn’t true. It was Galileo who insisted on something as factual before he had the proof to prove it as such.

Your statement isn’t exactly accurate. Galileo didn’t have the sort of proof Kepler had (direct observation). However, he did gather enormous amounts of data, and made substantial calculations. No, not the same degree of proof as compared with looking through a telescope and observing the solar system; but decent evidence all the same.

Here’s another passage for you:

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

So a global church institution allowed a small group of men to exact petty revenge on an intellectual adversary (who they judged a little too arrogant for their taste)? Have you ever met a doctor or scientist who wasn’t at least a little arrogant (there’s a few out there I hope, I just never met one personally )?

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

that’s just post hoc apologetics.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

heliocentrism was a view held long before Galileo. As I pointed out earlier it was the view of Copernicus (but even he wasn’t the first to come up with it). For all intents and purposes the churches official interpretation of scripture held that it revealed an earth at the center of the universe (and a stationary earth that didn’t rotate or move at all).

In other words the CC interpreted scripture as fundamental protestant literalists do today (i.e. the young earth creationist types).

All this would be fine if the CC never became bent on the idea of infallibility, but they did so they leave themselves open to this sort of critique. Moreover, this critique received by the church isn’t some sort of grand conspiracy against the CC by protestants or others, but rather it’s their own fault. It’s the natural consequence of their fallacious claim to infallibility.

If you or I were to proclaim that we’re perfect in some particular area, we would be judged harshly in anything we said or did that concerning that subject (as it should be).

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church’s Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn’t it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

God bless.

yet in the end the church imprisoned Galileo. Again, they apologized for it (I guess the apology was directed to the scientific community).

I don’t deny that the CC has been involved in science (and even made some contributions to it). However, it’s the science that pushes to the edge (which is the most exciting and revolutionary science) that the church always challenges and obstructs. However, today the CC is far from the worse offender in this realm; and actually the CC has wisely changed course quite a bit. Let me provide a contemporary example, which is very similar to what happened with Galileo.

Intelligent design theorists would say that a multi-dimensional universe (beyond just four dimensions) is impossible (basically refuting string, super-string, and M-theory). The problem is we have pretty good data showing that a multi-dimensional universe is quite probable (however, we don’t have a smoking gun yet proving any of these theories).

Here we see fundamental protestants acting the way the CC used to act. They’re basing their view of scripture on a scientific theory. They say the big bang shows that the universe had a definite starting point. Following the general law of causation, everything action has a preceding cause. Therefore, if we follow the temporal string of causation back, it must be that the big bang had a cause. If the universe collapses into nothing, then there must be some sort of invisible cause (i.e. god).

Of course a muti-dimensional universe tosses all that out the window; and the possibilities become endless. All of the old notions of physics are being rewritten as we speak. No longer is it true, for example, that if we went back in time and changed something would we alter the future. Rather it would fork into a new dimension of time; and the dimension of time we reside in would remain unaltered.

Of course once physicists prove one of these theories true (and finally come up with a unified theory of physics) those fundamentalists will look like idiots. So they’re setting themselves up for inevitable failure. The CC was able to survive that same sort of failure, but arguably they did so because they built a huge institution that became a quasi-government (and I might add the most influential force in Europe during that period; and for several centuries beyond).

So is there a divine force that has ensured the survival of your church throughout the ages? Of course not … what there has been is men throughout time who have built the church and made it a formidable institution with staying power.

 

[josie_L]

Your statement isn’t exactly accurate. Galileo didn’t have the sort of proof Kepler had (direct observation). However, he did gather enormous amounts of data, and made substantial calculations. No, not the same degree of proof as compared with looking through a telescope and observing the solar system; but decent evidence all the same.

So a global church institution allowed a small group of men to exact petty revenge on an intellectual adversary (who they judged a little too arrogant for their taste)? Have you ever met a doctor or scientist who wasn’t at least a little arrogant (there’s a few out there I hope, I just never met one personally )?

that’s just post hoc apologetics.

heliocentrism was a view held long before Galileo. As I pointed out earlier it was the view of Copernicus (but even he wasn’t the first to come up with it). For all intents and purposes the churches official interpretation of scripture held that it revealed an earth at the center of the universe (and a stationary earth that didn’t rotate or move at all).

In other words the CC interpreted scripture as fundamental protestant literalists do today (i.e. the young earth creationist types).

All this would be fine if the CC never became bent on the idea of infallibility, but they did so they leave themselves open to this sort of critique. Moreover, this critique received by the church isn’t some sort of grand conspiracy against the CC by protestants or others, but rather it’s their own fault. It’s the natural consequence of their fallacious claim to infallibility.

If you or I were to proclaim that we’re perfect in some particular area, we would be judged harshly in anything we said or did that concerning that subject (as it should be).

yet in the end the church imprisoned Galileo. Again, they apologized for it (I guess the apology was directed to the scientific community).

I don’t deny that the CC has been involved in science (and even made some contributions to it). However, it’s the science that pushes to the edge (which is the most exciting and revolutionary science) that the church always challenges and obstructs. However, today the CC is far from the worse offender in this realm; and actually the CC has wisely changed course quite a bit. Let me provide a contemporary example, which is very similar to what happened with Galileo.

Intelligent design theorists would say that a multi-dimensional universe (beyond just four dimensions) is impossible (basically refuting string, super-string, and M-theory). The problem is we have pretty good data showing that a multi-dimensional universe is quite probable (however, we don’t have a smoking gun yet proving any of these theories).

Here we see fundamental protestants acting the way the CC used to act. They’re basing their view of scripture on a scientific theory. They say the big bang shows that the universe had a definite starting point. Following the general law of causation, everything action has a preceding cause. Therefore, if we follow the temporal string of causation back, it must be that the big bang had a cause. If the universe collapses into nothing, then there must be some sort of invisible cause (i.e. god).

Of course a muti-dimensional universe tosses all that out the window; and the possibilities become endless. All of the old notions of physics are being rewritten as we speak. No longer is it true, for example, that if we went back in time and changed something would we alter the future. Rather it would fork into a new dimension of time; and the dimension of time we reside in would remain unaltered.

Of course once physicists prove one of these theories true (and finally come up with a unified theory of physics) those fundamentalists will look like idiots. So they’re setting themselves up for inevitable failure. The CC was able to survive that same sort of failure, but arguably they did so because they built a huge institution that became a quasi-government (and I might add the most influential force in Europe during that period; and for several centuries beyond).

So is there a divine force that has ensured the survival of your church throughout the ages? Of course not … what there has been is men throughout time who have built the church and made it a formidable institution with staying power.

There is no pleasing you, Humble. If you will not believe what I have posted then I would suggest that you look into the matter yourself and see whether or not the CC held a dogmatic position concerning Geocentrism. You may want to read Neuman’s “Essays on Developing Doctrine.” As for the rest, I have only one question for the scientific community, how did life begin on Earth?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

There is no pleasing you, Humble. If you will not believe what I have posted then I would suggest that you look into the matter yourself and see whether or not the CC held a dogmatic position concerning Geocentrism. You may want to read Neuman’s “Essays on Developing Doctrine.” As for the rest, I have only one question for the scientific community, how did life begin on Earth?

It’s not that there’s no pleasing me, there’s just no way to con me (there’s a big difference ).

I’m not really saying you’re pulling a con job, but I do think your church is with regard to this issue (and the idea of infallibility); and you simply have to much invested in being Catholic to ever retreat from your faith (which is fine … there’s many worse things to be than Catholic that’s for sure). The fact is though they’re not infallible & I believe the evidence proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as how did life begin here on earth … do you think my lack of a conclusive answer somehow proves god exists? Think about the logic of that idea.

 

[josie_L]

It’s not that there’s no pleasing me, there’s just no way to con me (there’s a big difference ).

I’m not really saying you’re pulling a con job, but I do think your church is with regard to this issue (and the idea of infallibility); and you simply have to much invested in being Catholic to ever retreat from your faith (which is fine … there’s many worse things to be than Catholic that’s for sure). The fact is though they’re not infallible & I believe the evidence proves it beyond a reasonable doubt

As far as how did life begin here on earth … do you think my lack of a conclusive answer somehow proves god exists? Think about the logic of that idea.

What evidence are you refering to, your own biased opinion?

It’s funny how Darwin wrote a book entitled “The Origins of Life”, and yet that was not the case at all. “Think about the logic of that idea.”

Also, science cannot dis/prove God’s existence. What I am stating is that Science has not even been able to answer the most decisive question of all - the origins of life. I don’t think it ever will.

P.S. Would you please tell me how old you are? Just answer in the negative if you do not wish to answer my question.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I don’t base my disbelief of religion on science, but rather logic. Obviously claims of miracles that occurred in the distant past (where no reliable record of events exist) cannot be proven or disproved. What I do say is this. The god of Abrahamic religions (the one I’m most familiar with) has only shown himself to mankind in the distant past. There has never been what can be described as a miracle (that has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny) in recorded history. Rather, we must rely on the veracity of reports from the ancients.

During ancient times, according to the scriptures of most world religions, god showed himself to mankind both frequently and in profound ways. He destroyed cities, flooded the earth, sent a manifestation of himself to earth who raised men from the dead, healed the sick, and so on. Yet for some reason all of this divine activity ceased. Coincidentally it ceased just as mankind became intelligent. When we began to explain the physical word with science (and not mythology), suddenly god shut his holy mouth and left us to our own devices. Every religion has a profound reason why this god refuses to show himself to modern man. Even though our ancient predecessors apparently had constant access to this god, we’re left with only a collection of ancient stories.

Logic dictates these stories simply reflect the vivid imaginations, high level of superstition, and primitive intellect of our ancient predecessors.

If we are to have any hope it should only be in ourselves. You might say this humanistic standpoint is arrogant or self-centered or whatever. However, you only say these things because you judge them by a fallacious standard (ancient myths invented by men of primitive intellect). If we want to live forever, we need science to push the envelope and figure out how to master our biology. If we want to reach back in the past and resurrect our long gone predecessors, we need to figure out how to travel back in time and retrieve them.

As far fetched as all of this sounds, these are things scientists are studying as we speak. Do you know we can already create an immortal cell, teleport a particle, and physicists are even working on a time machine to move back in time. This is what I have hope in, not the mythology of primitive ancient men who thought the earth was flat. I understand you disagree, but this is my view.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t base my disbelief of religion on science, but rather logic. Obviously claims of miracles that occurred in the distant past (where no reliable record of events exist) cannot be proven or disproved. What I do say is this. The god of Abrahamic religions (the one I’m most familiar with) has only shown himself to mankind in the distant past. There has not ever been what can be described as a miracle (that has withstood rigorous scrutiny) in recorded history. Rather, we must rely on the veracity of reports from the ancients.

Have you verified the Lanciano miracle (and other eucharistic miracles) and how about the Miracle of the Sun witnessed by tens of thousands of spectators, what about the healings at Lourdes, the uncorrupted saints, the miracles of Padre Pio and his stigmata, the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Gaudelupe, the apparitions of Mary and her comments leading up to WW II, you probably think me very naive in believing this, but taken together they provide a veritable landscape of God’s presence in this world.

During ancient times, according to the scriptures of most world religions, god showed himself to mankind both frequently and in profound ways. He destroyed cities, flooded the earth, sent a manifestation of himself to earth who raised men from the dead, healed the sick, and so on. Yet for some reason all of this divine activity ceased. Coincidentally it ceased just as mankind became intelligent. When we began to explain the physical word with science (and not mythology), suddenly god shut his holy mouth and left us to our own devices. Every religion has a profound reason why this god refuses to show himself to modern man. Even though our ancient predecessors were apparently had constant access to this god, we’re left with only a collection of ancient stories.

God is not dead, and he has shown himself, it is you who refuse to see him. By the by did you read my post to you about “answered prayers” in the “Evangelicals will be extinct in ten years” thread.

Logic dictates these stories simply reflect the vivid imaginations, high level of superstition, and primitive intellect of our ancient predecessors.

Ahhh, yes logic, is it logical to assume then, that men (the apostles) would make up a fictional character/event (the resurrection of Jesus) and then die willingly (in a torturous manner) rather than recant their fictitious story?

If we are to have any hope it should only be in ourselves. You might say this humanistic standpoint is arrogant or self-centered or whatever. However, you only say these things because you judge them by a fallacious standard (ancient myths invented by men of primitive intellect). If we want to live forever, we need science to push the envelope and figure out how to master our biology. If we want to reach back in the past and resurrect our long gone predecessors, we need to figure out how to travel back in time and retrieve them.

It is arrogant and self-centered, not to mention dangerous to think that we could time travel and/or master our biology, heck, we still can’t find a cure for the common cold.

I won’t even try to comprehend what ethical issues will arise from this?

As far fetched as all of this sounds, these are things scientists are studying as we speak. Do you know we can already create an immortal cell, we can already teleport a particle, and physicists are even working on a time machine to move back in time. This is what I have hope in, not the mythology of primitive ancient men who thought the earth was flat.

Yes, we are much smarter than ancient primitive man, but are we wiser?

Why won’t you tell me how old you are?

 

[bbarrick8383]

My logic tells me that logic can not be used in understanding God.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Why won’t you tell me how old you are, or at least tell me your name?

why do want to date me or something (I’d insert a wink smiley; but I think you’re a dude … LOL)?? I’ll tell you this … I’m not a kid (but I’m not a senior citizen either). You can’t be too young with a couple masters degrees can you (not bragging, but I did mention my education level previously).

 

[josie_L]

My logic tells me that logic can not be used in understanding God.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

My logic tells me that logic can not be used in understanding God.

well, there’s something we can agree on (I guess so much is obvious right).

The Christian will usually say god gave me faith (though some will say god imputes grace to everyone & we get to make the choice for ourselves). Well … what you call grace I call intellectual assent (and hence purely psychological).

 

[josie_L]

why do want to date me or something?? I’ll tell you this … I’m not a kid (but I’m not a senior citizen either). You can’t be too young with a couple masters degrees can you (not bragging, but I did mention my education level previously).

I ask because you made a comment that made me think you might be rather young.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I ask because you made a comment that made me think you might be rather young.

sadly I’m not too young. However, it might be natural to want to think I’m young (and my objection is merely a youthful indiscretion & of course dilute my credibility). My beliefs are made with full understanding (so I guess according to the Christian I’m on the highway to hell).

Just kidding around in my last post (golly now you guys got me softening my blows … ouch, I gotta find a heathen site ).

 

[josie_L]

why do want to date me or something (I’d insert a wink smiley; **but I think you’re a dude **… LOL)?? I’ll tell you this … I’m not a kid (but I’m not a senior citizen either). You can’t be too young with a couple masters degrees can you (not bragging, but I did mention my education level previously).

What guy has “Josie” (short for Josephine) has a name? And you claim to have a couple of masters degrees. . .