C
- Status
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
To: Phooney
Re: Limbo
Good one! And uncomfortably close to what I was asking for. Close enough that, in the interest of honesty, I’ll have to cough up some of my personal dislike for the doctrine of papal infallability. I offer this in the hopes that someone can explain to me why I’m off-base.
First, let me say why it’s close but no cigar. Limbo was never an official teaching. It was a theological speculation. Even if you have a quote from a Pope saying he believes in it, you certainly don’t have an ex cathedra teaching on the matter, which is required for a Papal statement to be infallible.
As I understand it, there are two ways that a teaching can be held to be infallible, and obviously therefore incorruptible. First, a proclamation from a church council (meeting of the bishops). These are the things that gave us stuff like the Nicene creed, for example. These are relatively easy to spot.
Then there’s statements by the Pope - if certain conditions are met. He has to be speaking ex cathedra, which means he’s speaking in his capacity as leader of the church. And, the statement must be regarding faith or morals.
Here we get to my problem. No two catholics seem to agree on what really constitutes an ex cathedra statement. Everyone agrees on two:
So, what are you left with, as far as meeting my challenge? Pretty much church councils. If you can find a council statement that clearly refutes an earlier council statement… then I’ll have a problem, and I’ll have to do some serious homework. I don’t think you can. I hope you can’t.
I hope that doesn’t look like I’m sliding the goalposts. I might have been too ambiguous in my earlier challenge. Sorry about that.
Re: Limbo
Good one! And uncomfortably close to what I was asking for. Close enough that, in the interest of honesty, I’ll have to cough up some of my personal dislike for the doctrine of papal infallability. I offer this in the hopes that someone can explain to me why I’m off-base.
First, let me say why it’s close but no cigar. Limbo was never an official teaching. It was a theological speculation. Even if you have a quote from a Pope saying he believes in it, you certainly don’t have an ex cathedra teaching on the matter, which is required for a Papal statement to be infallible.
As I understand it, there are two ways that a teaching can be held to be infallible, and obviously therefore incorruptible. First, a proclamation from a church council (meeting of the bishops). These are the things that gave us stuff like the Nicene creed, for example. These are relatively easy to spot.
Then there’s statements by the Pope - if certain conditions are met. He has to be speaking ex cathedra, which means he’s speaking in his capacity as leader of the church. And, the statement must be regarding faith or morals.
Here we get to my problem. No two catholics seem to agree on what really constitutes an ex cathedra statement. Everyone agrees on two:
- Perpetual virginity of Mary
- Assumption of Mary
Beyond that, all bets are off. Priests and bishops and theologians all have different notions of which Papal statements throughout history are ex cathedra.
So, what are you left with, as far as meeting my challenge? Pretty much church councils. If you can find a council statement that clearly refutes an earlier council statement… then I’ll have a problem, and I’ll have to do some serious homework. I don’t think you can. I hope you can’t.
I hope that doesn’t look like I’m sliding the goalposts. I might have been too ambiguous in my earlier challenge. Sorry about that.
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
To: Phooney
Re: CS Lewis
Real quick, then I gotta sleep.
The book you described earlier is The Screwtape Letters (written correspondence between an elder and junior devil). I have looked through it, and it’s interesting, but it never really tripped my trigger.
I loved The Great Divorce. A Christian friend of mine loaned it to me, back in my atheist days, in response to my objections about hell (which were very similar to A’s objections). A, you might want to check it out, it’s a real quick read. It’s a great help in understanding the catholic teaching on hell.
I’m also starting on Mere Christianity. I’m not far in yet, but remind me in a few days and I’ll let you know how it’s going.
Re: CS Lewis
Real quick, then I gotta sleep.
The book you described earlier is The Screwtape Letters (written correspondence between an elder and junior devil). I have looked through it, and it’s interesting, but it never really tripped my trigger.
I loved The Great Divorce. A Christian friend of mine loaned it to me, back in my atheist days, in response to my objections about hell (which were very similar to A’s objections). A, you might want to check it out, it’s a real quick read. It’s a great help in understanding the catholic teaching on hell.
I’m also starting on Mere Christianity. I’m not far in yet, but remind me in a few days and I’ll let you know how it’s going.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Folks, what we have here is a person who REALLY doesn’t understand why God simply makes the concept of “gods” nonsensical!
A wonderous find! These are relatively rare. They are SO steeped in relativism that they have no concept of how the overarching UNITY simply makes any non-unity, which MUST be within the one unity, not possible!
The “God of the Catholics” is the only God qua God, and is not selectable as a “god” from the selection of gods that exist on this planet, or in this universe.
Please. The ONLY way you’re going to show your sincerity in continuing this conversation is if you are interested in understanding how God is unique by nature, and not merely by what phonemes we use to identify Him!
If you are NOT interested in clarifying this issue, then you are simply being petulent and actively hostile simply to BE hostile toward those who want to learn something from these fori, and I’ll lobby for your immediate banning.
OK, well maybe that’s a bit extreme, but any further discussion with the likes of such a dim mind is a complete waste of time, and no one should have anything further to do with you.
A
_A
Guest
I would not suggest it. You will get yes and no answers, but how would you have any idea who was telling the truth? I think you might do better to watch how the people around you act, and decide their beliefs based on their actions, which I have heard speak louder than words.
A
_A
Guest
Isn’t that your belief? I am just looking at your beliefs with a rational eye. Is that a problem?
A
_A
Guest
Perhaps that the one you worship is in no way gentle, loving or kind.
At least as far as I understand those words.
A
_A
Guest
I know that you took the word god and use it as a name for your god. This is just like a pompous nurse saying ‘Doctor will see you in a few minutes’ instead of ‘the Doctor will see you …’. It is a way of trying to imply that there is only one. We all already know that this god of yours is just one of the recent characters wearing this title.
Do you call your car ‘Car’? If you do, would you expect others to?
Your god is no different than any other god, to an unbeliever. Zeus is the god of all gods, so in some opinions, he is using Yahweh as a puppet (as I think someone earlier mentioned as a possibility)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Sorry for not responding until now. We were talking about how scientific experiment has never been able to produce functioning DNA from the base chemicals adenosine, cytosine, guanosine, and thymidine. This is not for want of trying, as many attempts have been made by geneticists and chemists over many years.
Yes i agree that, just as there is no scientific grounds for believing DNA being created by natural processes, there is also no scientific grounds for believing human beings can create functioning DNA.
If neither natural processes nor human beings can create working genetic code, then what possibilities are left you and i to consider, A?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Phooney:And yet my multi-quote, forced-multi-post comments get surprisingly little response. It’s a funny old internet! A is obviously doing something better than I am
Try clicking on the Quote button. It makes it easier for people to spot your replies to them in a crowded room like this!
Never mind, i see you have already begun doing that.
A
_A
Guest
Not a death knell, just showing that you may be reluctant to learn something other than your beliefs (about soul being inserted) dictate. I made it as gentle an example as I could think of.No, play nice.
But I don’t think anyone said that “ensoulment” can only occur at conception, merely that that is the normal time. Not exactly the death knell to the claim that A made it out to be.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I find it interesting that 2,500 years ago, there was evidence that atoms existed. The Greek philosopher Leucippus first developed the idea, and is the originator of ancient Atomist philosophy. According to a Stanford University Web site:
These ancient atomists theorized that the two fundamental and oppositely characterized constituents of the natural world are indivisible bodies—atoms—and void. The latter is described simply as nothing, or the negation of body. Atoms are by their nature intrinsically unchangeable; they can only move about in the void and combine into different clusters. Since the atoms are separated by void, they cannot fuse, but must rather bounce off one another when they collide. Because all macroscopic objects are in fact combinations of atoms, everything in the macroscopic world is subject to change, as their constituent atoms shift or move away. Thus, while the atoms themselves persist through all time, everything in the world of our experience is transitory and subject to dissolution.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/Leucippus, like Einstein, was a genius at using simple ideas to express profound truths. Leucippus made this argument for the existence of atoms:
Lets say you and i were at a certain distance from one another, and we began to walk toward one another. We would never meet. Why? Because as we approached each other, we would cut the distance in half. As we continued to walk toward one another, the distance will be halved again. This would continue until we clasped hands, and yet we would still not meet, for the distance between us, although divided, would never be zero. This is certainly the case, for if you and i shake hands, NE, the atoms in my hand will never touch those in your hand. In fact, the atoms in your own hand never touch each other.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
Actually, your “knowing”, while yours, is not everyone’s knowing.
How could that which made all make another thing which can make all? The made thing can’t make the maker, and therefore can’t claim (truthfully) to have made everything, which makes the made thing a non-all-maker, which is the defintion of God qua God.
There can be only one ONE, as a plural ONE is not a ONE.
Well, actually I do call my car “car”, but since the bits of cars are creations of God, there certainly can’t be an OMNIPOTENT car, which makes calling any car Car a description of nothing more than an impossibility.
This is (one place) where you’re wrong! One needn’t believe in God to understand what God means as a concept.
All one needs to do to understand the concept is to logically imagine a being who is omnipotent. One need not BELIEVE that such a thing exists, but that is not a preventative for understanding the concept.
I’m not prohibited from understanding what a polytheistic god is because I don’t believe in them as polytheists believe in them.
(( In fact, I do believe in “the gods” as demons, creatures created by the Creator. So while I see how polytheists can misinterpret reality to claim the reality of their “gods”, and agree with them that they DO exist, I don’t need to believe in them as they aren’t but only as they are. ))
Can you actually say that understanding a thing as a concept is contingent on believing in it?
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
That’s cool and all, but the philosophical a-toms (to use Asimov’s parlance) that the Greeks described have very little to do with atoms in modern atomic theory, which is what I was talking about.I find it interesting that 2,500 years ago, there was evidence that atoms existed. The Greek philosopher Leucippus first developed the idea, and is the originator of ancient Atomist philosophy. According to a Stanford University Web site:
These ancient atomists theorized that the two fundamental and oppositely characterized constituents of the natural world are indivisible bodies—atoms—and void. The latter is described simply as nothing, or the negation of body. Atoms are by their nature intrinsically unchangeable; they can only move about in the void and combine into different clusters. Since the atoms are separated by void, they cannot fuse, but must rather bounce off one another when they collide. Because all macroscopic objects are in fact combinations of atoms, everything in the macroscopic world is subject to change, as their constituent atoms shift or move away. Thus, while the atoms themselves persist through all time, everything in the world of our experience is transitory and subject to dissolution.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/Leucippus, like Einstein, was a genius at using simple ideas to express profound truths. Leucippus made this argument for the existence of atoms:
Lets say you and i were at a certain distance from one another, and we began to walk toward one another. We would never meet. Why? Because as we approached each other, we would cut the distance in half. As we continued to walk toward one another, the distance will be halved again. This would continue until we clasped hands, and yet we would still not meet, for the distance between us, although divided, would never be zero. This is certainly the case, for if you and i shake hands, NE, the atoms in my hand will never touch those in your hand. In fact, the atoms in your own hand never touch each other.
Anyway, the whole point was not the specific dates of different discoveries. The point was that just because scientists haven’t discovered a natural means of creating DNA yet, it does not follow that no such natural means exists.
C
CalmDownWisWins
Guest
What you see as “a” thing which splits into “more-than-a” things is incorrect.
It was always meant to become two people (assuming a “twin” split) and each of those people, because they are people, each have a soul.
The fact that you saw a single thing where there existed more than a single thing only means that you weren’t observant enough to discern what was really happening.
N
NaturalEnquirer
Guest
To: phooney
Re: improbable events
Sorry I haven’t respond to you in greater detail yet. I don’t have time for much right now, but I remembered you asked for the most improbable event I can think of. Just in case you’re waiting for my response:
It’s kind of tricky, like saying “Give me the biggest number you can think of.” Well, I can always add one more and get a bigger number. So, for the sake of argument, let’s stick with lkddav’s moonbloom. That would certainly be pretty darn improbable.
Why? Because everything we know about the moon precludes the event from happening. Its mass would have to increase enough to support an atmosphere, that atmosphere would have to congeal, and then life would have to develop very quickly. None of these are normal things, so the sum total is a very improbable event.
Please proceed to step 2. I’ll try and write more on your evolutionary morality later.
Maybe one question for you before I sign off. Can you give me a small subset of actions that you think are naturally selected for in this moral evolution? You mentioned common morality across a surprising number of cultures – which moral principles are you referring to?
Re: improbable events
Sorry I haven’t respond to you in greater detail yet. I don’t have time for much right now, but I remembered you asked for the most improbable event I can think of. Just in case you’re waiting for my response:
It’s kind of tricky, like saying “Give me the biggest number you can think of.” Well, I can always add one more and get a bigger number.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s stick with lkddav’s moonbloom. That would certainly be pretty darn improbable.Why? Because everything we know about the moon precludes the event from happening. Its mass would have to increase enough to support an atmosphere, that atmosphere would have to congeal, and then life would have to develop very quickly. None of these are normal things, so the sum total is a very improbable event.
Please proceed to step 2.
I’ll try and write more on your evolutionary morality later.Maybe one question for you before I sign off. Can you give me a small subset of actions that you think are naturally selected for in this moral evolution? You mentioned common morality across a surprising number of cultures – which moral principles are you referring to?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, and i think it is wise for me to not believe anything until there is good evidence to support it. Where scientific evidence is lacking, i have historical and rational evidence on which to rely. This evidence tells me there is a God who created all.
When you think about it, you cannot say it is a scientific certainty that life could begin without a God to create it. The best you can do is to say you hope life could begin without a God. You cannot use scientific evidence that does not exist to prove there is no God. So, if that is your goal, you must rely on other evidence to prove He is not.
Science cannot help either of us come to the truth about whether or not God exists. She washes her hands of the whole business and tells us to ask someone else to settle the matter. Though we beg her with tears and call her Mother, she turns her back on us and says, “Away from me, go find another!”
To what, then, would you suggest we turn to assist us in deciding this important question?
- Status