S
StAnastasia
Guest
I do – every day! I argue for intelligent Catholicism, not for superstition and ignorance.It would be nice if you argued for Catholicism here too.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
tmj190, it’s odd that although my spouse and I both had tonsilectomies in childhood, our children were born with tonsils. How can that be?
L
liquidpele
Guest
Yes, that is my viewpoint as I’ve never seen evidence for anything that would make me think otherwise. However, that is not relevant to my original post, which I perhaps botched the delivery on, intended to point out that many who see zygote to human development as physical for some reason then reject evolution of species even though the two are very similar in the complexity of physical processes. It’s hardly the only example of course. It just irks me that some people seem to take so many things for granted that are natural (eg electricity) that were once “magic” and then turn and look at evolution as if it’s some kind of impossible conspiracy. … end rant. Sorry, I’ve had too many cokes today.
L
liquidpele
Guest
More appropriately, you don’t appear to set a false dichotomy that you must choose from.
B
buffalo
Guest
of the scientism flavor?
Your view is the constant teaching and understanding of the Church is based on superstition and ignorance and now we finally know the truth. The Holy Spirit was sleeping and science is on the job.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
As usual, you’re trying to buffalo me. You have the theological finesse of a sledgehammer used to install a thumbtack in the wall.
Theology that is sealed in immutable doctrinal statements is static, moribund, dead in the water, and useless to the Church. To the contrary, theology is a living, dynamic discussion, an enduring hermeneutical enterprise across time, geography, and cultural evolution. Theology is the task of translating the meaning of religious experience from thousands of years ago into language intelligible to the Church and her members today.
Just as today – pace the Sungenites – the Church does not champion geocentrism against the perspective of Galileo and his followers, the Church does not champion a 6,000 year-old eath with immutable species being saved in a leaky tub from some global flood 25 feet deeper than 29,035 Mt. Everest.
The Holy Spirit is alive an well, and still teaching – through the Church, through Galileo and Newton, Darwin and Einstein, Teilhard de Chardin and Mother Teresa, Karl Rahner and Pope Benedict.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Your karma just ran over my dogma.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are suffering from an acute case of modernism. The symptons include change, change and more change, plus an outbreak of novelty. The established teachings of the Church don’t seem to interest you. Science appears to be the only way of knowing while, to you, belief is not a way of knowing. I have less and less respect for science today. The reason is lack of trust. The other reason is dogmatic pronouncements made here and elsewhere coupled with a desperate campaign to get Catholics who are rightly skeptical of evolution to just "say yes to evolution’ and get it over with. The tide is turning away from man being just another animal. Science cannot answer the really important questions. As a Catholic, you should know that.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, actually I’m more of a post-modernist.
I’m glad you recognize that science cannot answer all the important questions.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
like this…
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
…The Modernist notion that all truth is eventually available through natural sources, and the Postmodernist notion that reality is ultimately unknowable, leaves no place for a protected, ancient, unchanged Revelation. Scientism and Modernism promote error. The errors they officially concretize form the bases for other errors to be built upon them. The errors of modernism are both of the world, and of the kingdom. And they are huge.
…Modernism and Postmodernism both allow the reintroduction of the errors of all previous heresies, as well as any false teaching that suits the whim of the teacher. Modernism and Postmodernism are especially dangerous because their advocates often phrase their beliefs in orthodox or nearly orthodox terminology.
One common ploy used by many of them is to insist that they are giving the orthodox Catholic interpretation. The error is often expressed by some new symbolic interpretation. For example: Christ may not have physically risen from the dead, but the story of his resurrection yields an important truth.This is absolutely not orthodox Catholic teaching; but it sounds good, doesn’t it? Modernism is very smooth.
John Paul the Great described this Post-Modern movement as follows: “Our age has been termed by some thinkers the age of “postmodernity”. Often used in very different contexts, the term designates the emergence of a complex of new factors which, widespread and powerful as they are, have shown themselves able to produce important and lasting changes. The term was first used with reference to aesthetic, social and technological phenomena. It was then transposed into the philosophical field, but has remained somewhat ambiguous, both because judgment on what is called “postmodern” is sometimes positive and sometimes negative, and because there is as yet no consensus on the delicate question of the demarcation of the different historical periods. One thing however is certain: the currents of thought which claim to be postmodern merit appropriate attention. According to some of them, the time of certainties is irrevocably past, and the human being must now learn to live in a horizon of total absence of meaning, where everything is provisional and ephemeral. In their destructive critique of every certitude, several authors have failed to make crucial distinctions and have called into question the certitudes of faith. This nihilism has been justified in a sense by the terrible experience of evil which has marked our age. Such a dramatic experience has ensured the collapse of rationalist optimism, which viewed history as the triumphant progress of reason, the source of all happiness and freedom; and now, at the end of this century, one of our greatest threats is the temptation to despair.
Even so, it remains true that a certain positivist cast of mind continues to nurture the illusion that, thanks to scientific and technical progress, man and woman may live as a demiurge, single-handedly and completely taking charge of their destiny.”
and
…
Modernism portrays ideology as science
All the major axioms and all the givens so rigidly embraced by today’s intelligentsia are false, but still embraced, and used as a foundation to build upon. For no reason other than that other people held in high esteem hold to these same axioms.
Today, a clear majority among all of TTRSTF really believe that Darwin’s theory regarding the origin of species, the evolution of species and even the origin of life is true, despite the fact that no part of any of it has ever been proved by anyone, and none of them can prove any part of it. It remains axiomatic.
B
buffalo
Guest
Finally, it is about time you just came out and stated it instead of working around the edges post after post.
Notice: :bigyikes: StA admits to being a post-modernist and not in line with Catholic teaching.
Notice: :bigyikes: StA admits to being a post-modernist and not in line with Catholic teaching.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I have always spoken plainly and openly in the marketplace, as in the church or the classroom. My theology has been no secret: the thirteenth century is over and done with!
T
tjm190
Guest
Magic. There’s a so called “scientific explanation”, but that’s more atheist propaganda.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
You’d have to multiply all the improbabilities in the afore-quoted essay. 10 to the power of 40,000, I think I’ve seen somewhere - wasn’t there a team of a mathematicians who calculated it, or something?
Thing is, if I remember rightly, the incredible unlikelihood of life coming into existence was virtually celebrated by mainstream scientists in the 1990’s, almost as a retort to the popularity of the idea of life on other planets, which was big at the time.
Funnily enough, I also recall that not long after the idea of intelligent design turned up, the possibility of life on other planets was periodically referred to as “possibly more likely than was previously thought”, although I’ve not seen any explanation as to why this may be. Call me cynical, but could it possibly be that the idea of something at least theoretically within the bounds of science as life on other planets being more likely may just appeal more to scientists (being conceivably natural, and therefore less of a threat to scientific authority) than the idea of a conceivably science trumping God a) existing and b) possibly being willing to stick his wholly scientifically incalculable oar in?
Coincidences? I don’t theenk sooo!
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Actually, remembering the biologists I knew back at University… mind you, they were nothing compared to the Doctors and nurses!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
These are not equivalent.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Is post-modernism actually ‘proper’ heresy??? What, like Aryanism?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - history will label this as a true heresy. Its effects have brought great shame to the Church. As our creed answers heresies perhaps a line or two will be added to squelch it as in the past.Is post-modernism actually ‘proper’ heresy??? What, like Aryanism?
- Status