Protecting your H.S., College children from scientific gibberish

[Linusthe2nd]

How do you know that?

Start a thread if you want, that is off topic. Thank you. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks everyone for co-operating. Linus2nd

 

[Farsight001]

For the last time, Catholics AREN’T required to be Young-Earth Creationists. Evolution and the Big Bang are just fine to believe

I know. I think you completely misread my post.

Oh, so when my colleagues say, “Let’s reproduce this person’s data-set to see how we can extend their model.” they really do not mean I have to make it happen again?

Depends on the specific data set ad method by which it was arrived at.

So all those science articles I’ve been reading where other scientists are waiting to reproduce another scientist’s findings don’t count? It DOES mean someone better make it happen or it’s not accepted by the scientific community.

Once again, Ed, you only express your complete ad utter lack of comprehension of science and its methodology. There’s laboratory experiments. But there is also natural experiments, and other ways to test a hypothesis without an actual experiment (data collection for example).

Nope. It cannot be verified. We can’t haul generations of humans into the laboratory. The mechanical process is like building a car by throwing random parts into a pile and hoping self-assembly occurs. Undirected means undirected.

Once again, Ed, it has been verified thousands upon thousands of times. That the experiments don’t take place in a laboratory is irrelevant and your post, once again, only provides for us clear evidence that you have absolutely, positively no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[aprilfloyd]

April, please don’t hijack this thread.

Not trying to, just answering questions - is that hijacking?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m trying to say that critical thinking is not enough. That is why Our Lord instituted his Church. The Peter Principle is the idea that persons get promoted until they reach their final position for which they are, alas, finally unqualified. Yet Our Lord instituted the Peter as the foundational Rock of our church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the infallibility factor). So you can take all the intelligent, educated, brilliant people to look at a problem, even with all the facts before them, and they will often still get it wrong. Take Humanae Vitae for instance. Pope Paul VI made that decision despite the consensus of all the best critical thinking in the church, and many couldn’t believe his response … so much so that many bishops actually stated they wouldn’t comply with the decision (Winnipeg Conference / Canada?). Yet, look how prophetic it looks in retrospect.

I’m saying that despite all, critical thinking is not enough in the final analysis, regardless of how brilliant & educated with all the fact before you.

First of all, how does this apply to Fr. Spitzer?
Secondly, I was specifically interested in the meaning and source of this comment :

"… has a piece that explores the “poured out for many / all” question of salvation, and comes up with the conclusion of “all”, to the contradiction of the change in Mass liturgy to “many” as a correction to “all”.

Linusthe2nd

 

[wynnejj]

First of all, how does this apply to Fr. Spitzer?
Secondly, I was specifically interested in the meaning and source of this comment :

"… has a piece that explores the “poured out for many / all” question of salvation, and comes up with the conclusion of “all”, to the contradiction of the change in Mass liturgy to “many” as a correction to “all”.

Linusthe2nd

It is from the MCRF’s website Encyclopedia section on the historicity of Jesus.
There’s a direct link in my original post to the text on the treatise which I repeat here …
==> “Poured Out For Many”

Here’s a link to the table of contents ==> Why Believe in Jesus?

Section 2.11 is about … Is God Unconditional Love? - The Eucharist
Section 2.11.8 is about … For many or for all? Jeremias exegesis.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is from the MCRF’s website Encyclopedia section on the historicity of Jesus.
There’s a direct link in my original post to the text on the treatise which I repeat here …
==> “Poured Out For Many”

Here’s a link to the table of contents ==> Why Believe in Jesus?

Section 2.11 is about … Is God Unconditional Love? - The Eucharist
Section 2.11.8 is about … For many or for all? Jeremias exegesis.

O.K., when I went there at first it put me right in the middle and I thought something was wrong. Linus2nd

 

[Razanir]

Have you read my posts ? The authorities I have used are not ordinary authorities, they are established Professionals, devout Catholics, even three Popes ! And I have given you web sites to explore, which can be a source of needed materials. Critical thinking, by all means. But that alone will not be enough. Linus2nd

Those popes also agree that proper science is not bad. Also, this is most certainly an appeal to authority. Linusthe2nd, I’m growing increasingly interested in just what experiences your nephew had.

Evolution and Atheism. So please don’t discuss them, it is not necessary. The O.P. can be discussed without reference to them. If you need an example, there are many others to choose from ( for example, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, in vetro fertilization, contraception, God created the universe in time out of nothing, God acts most intimately in his creation, maintaining its existence and guiding it to its proper end, man has a spiritual soul which will live eternally and this must be taken into account in sciences like sociology and psychology and psychiatry, etc.).

The bolded topics cannot properly be discussed in this context without bringing in evolution. It’d be like debating only one side of an argument

Thanks everyone for co-operating. Linus2nd

Again, if the mods think this thread is overstepping boundaries, they would probably have closed it by now. Also, please stop with the giant text. We get the point. You think any and all mentions of EVOLUTION are automatically breaking rules. I’ve noticed that you even refer to EVOLUTION as the E word sometimes. But if you wish to keep telling us to stay away from even mentioning the words, at least use regular-sized text. The giant text sounds condescending. (Kinda like how italics sound sarcastic and all-caps sounds like yelling)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Interesting that Father Spitzer who has unbelievable academic credentials earned at magnum cum laude levels has a piece that explores the “poured out for many / all” question of salvation, and comes up with the conclusion of “all”, to the contradiction of the change in Mass liturgy to “many” as a correction to “all”.

I think you have missread the article and some how concluded that because the Liturgy uses " many " rather than " all " implies some kind of irregularity in Fr. Spitzer’s orthodoxy.
That would be incorrect. The article clearly explains the meanings the Hebrew has for the word " polloi. " The article shows that it is meant to be " inclusive, " but can also have a less universal meaning, that it can mean " all " or also less than all. So, translated as " many, " it can mean all or fewer than all, depending on the total context. So, now the new Missal " polloi " uses " many. " However, the meaning is clearly " inclusive. " It means " all. " Jesus’ sacrifice is for all whether " polli " is translated as " many " or " all. "

From the conclusion of the article: " This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).

Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges. His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind. He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations. His gift of Himself is total and universal. His love is unconditional. "

Poured Out For Many

It is a perfect example of the need for an infallible Pope with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A critical thinker would say that it is an obvious example of the Pope’s fallibility in the face of the critical thinking of Fr. Spitzer. It’s all a matter of perspective. I take the word of Jesus that puts the chair of Peter on a Rock solid basis, despite the fact that Peter has met his Peter Principle.

I think you conclusion here is overdrawn. No one would think that, I certainly wouldn’t. Fr. Spitzer, is merely showing that " many " is intended to be " inclusive " as the Hebrew text clearly implies. You need to read the entire article.

Now the question is why do we have new readings in the Missal? It is not because the old Missal was incorrect. And I am not qualified to explain why but I’m sure this is explained at the USCCB web site. I know they had an explanation at one time. I think , if I remember correctly, it was to make the Missal conform more closely to the new translation of the NABRE ( New American Bible Revised ) and to get back to a more literal translation. It had nothing to do with anyone thinking the Pope was fallible ( certainly not Fr. Spitzer at least) or infallible.

This is why I questioned you so closely. There is no reason at all that the article on Fr. Spitzer’s web site could be interpreted as implying something unorthodox in Fr. Spitzer. One must be super cautious in making judgments of that kind.

And to imply that the " Peter Principle " can be applied to Fr. Spitzer is grossly unjust and absolutely unfounded - and I should add very uncharitable.
Linus2nd

 

[wynnejj]

Linus, I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I question Fr. Spitzer’s orthodoxy. To do so would be to question the orthodoxy of the Mass liturgy prior to our most recent revision. Nor do I arrive at a different conclusion than his from the information as he laid it out. Yet, “poured out for many” in English is significantly different than “poured out for all”. A more literal translation has a profoundly different meaning. Another example of going back to a more literal translation would be where we bow our heads to say that Jesus was incarnate and became man, as opposed to Jesus was born and became man … a significant meaning for the Pro-Life cause as to when human life becomes the least of our brethren. A lot of critical thinking went into the previous Mass liturgy and a lot of critical re-thinking went into the revised Mass liturgy. My real point which relates to honest scientific, as well as theological, endeavors is that the best attempts of honest, diligent men sometimes falls short of the mark … which is why Our Lord ordained Peter guided inerrantly by the Holy Spirit … on the important matters … to cut through the gibberish.

 

[dixieagle]

I am saying that the Church tells us that all creatures came into being because God decided to create them. Science tells us that He chose evolution as the method for that creation. The Church then tells us the one exception which is the human soul, which did not evolve but was directly created by God.

In a nutshell!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those popes also agree that proper science is not bad. Also, this is most certainly an appeal to authority. Linusthe2nd, I’m growing increasingly interested in just what experiences your nephew had.

He is pursuing a course in dependency counseling. He has been running into it in several classes, not all. All of his instructors claim to be atheist. Did you know that in State sponsored Rehibilitation Clinics, you cannot refer to God or a " higher being.? "

The bolded topics cannot properly be discussed in this context without bringing in evolution. It’d be like debating only one side of an argument

There is absolutely no need to mention them at all. See my posts, I have several that show you how the O.P. can be discussed without mentioning banned topics at all…

Again, if the mods think this thread is overstepping boundaries, they would probably have closed it by now. Also, please stop with the giant text. We get the point. You think any and all mentions of EVOLUTION are automatically breaking rules. I’ve noticed that you even refer to EVOLUTION as the E word sometimes. But if you wish to keep telling us to stay away from even mentioning the words, at least use regular-sized text. The giant text sounds condescending. (Kinda like how italics sound sarcastic and all-caps sounds like yelling)

True, but the idea is not to see how close we can get. So let’s just stop it.

Very sorry you feel the need to jump to conclusions. Larg type was used only to draw attention to a general post. And italics are commonly used for imphasis, I have never heard before that they were " sarcastic. " Neither do all caps indicate yelling. Where did you get all this " scientific " information? Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I question Fr. Spitzer’s orthodoxy. To do so would be to question the orthodoxy of the Mass liturgy prior to our most recent revision. Nor do I arrive at a different conclusion than his from the information as he laid it out. Yet, “poured out for many” in English is significantly different than “poured out for all”. A more literal translation has a profoundly different meaning. Another example of going back to a more literal translation would be where we bow our heads to say that Jesus was incarnate and became man, as opposed to Jesus was born and became man … a significant meaning for the Pro-Life cause as to when human life becomes the least of our brethren. A lot of critical thinking went into the previous Mass liturgy and a lot of critical re-thinking went into the revised Mass liturgy. My real point which relates to honest scientific, as well as theological, endeavors is that the best attempts of honest, diligent men sometimes falls short of the mark … which is why Our Lord ordained Peter guided inerrantly by the Holy Spirit … on the important matters … to cut through the gibberish.

I’m sorry that I missunderstood your comment and to know Fr. Spitzer’s orthodoxy is not in doubt and that the " Peter Principle " does not apply to him. Linus2nd

 

[wynnejj]

And to imply that the " Peter Principle " can be applied to Fr. Spitzer is grossly unjust and absolutely unfounded - and I should add very uncharitable.

Actually I was referring to the person of the Pope. My view of a pope is like a little child being put on a big horse (our church) too big for any man to ride, with a helping hand holding in place of the Holy Spirit leading the horse. People act like there’s a puff of white smoke from the Vatican and SHAZAM … Captain Marvel. The “infallibility factor” is the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The case is far from closed. Very far.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

The more I read dogmatic statements like this, the more obvious that the discussion does not concern science but an ideology.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I want you to know that I just grabbed my face and slowly slid my palm down it, applying a heavy amount of pressure while doing so. I then let out a huge sigh.

There are threads on CAF discussing psychics, ouija, ghosts, etc., all assuming them to be scientifically valid in some way. If you’re such a defender of science, why don’t I see you in any of those threads trying to help me correct these ignorant, superstitious beliefs?

Yet you waste your time denying the scientific facts supporting evolution??? Really???

 

[shelby_sun]

From the original post the OP mentioned sending children into college, actually they are young adults and should already be very familiar with all the scientific teachings that might go against their faith and why any cause for evolution should come back to God.

I sacrifice a lot to send my kids to Catholic school K=12 where they teach different evolutionary theories but the onset of all of them is God. With their education and numerous discussion with us as parents, their faith will not be affected by what some atheist professor might say. My husband is a scientist and believes his college class only strengthened his faith and belief in God.

 

[Ion]

…Yet you waste your time denying the scientific facts supporting evolution??? Really???

What do you mean by scientific facts? The E. theory has problems and creates problems…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Speaking as a current college student, I can honestly say that when your kid is in college, or even in high school, there is little you can actively do to “protect” them. Any overt attempts to do so will be met with resistance.

I think the best thing you can do is to make sure they are capable of defending their faith before they go off. Not only in things such as theology and Church teaching, but also in scientific fields. Science, when it is conducted fairly and without bias, can be viewed as truth, and truth is from God. It should not be feared. Train your kid to have a rational and logical mind that can discern truth from garbage. Also encourage them to have an active and frequent prayer life.

Thank you. The Magis Center and Dr. Benjamin Wiker’s web sites offer cheap and excellent resources which will certainly be a great help. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually I was referring to the person of the Pope. My view of a pope is like a little child being put on a big horse (our church) too big for any man to ride, with a helping hand holding in place of the Holy Spirit leading the horse. People act like there’s a puff of white smoke from the Vatican and SHAZAM … Captain Marvel. The “infallibility factor” is the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, that is the deeper reality of the spiritual life. The Pope is God’s spoksman whom God has promised to teach the truth for all people. Even non-Catholics can rely on his leadership. The Pope is God’s gift to His Church. I understand where you are coming from. Linus2nd

 

[Farsight001]

What do you mean by scientific facts? The E. theory has problems and creates problems…

Different subject that we can’t get into detail about here, but no, it really doesn’t have a ton of problems, nor does it create problems. And it’s not a dirty word. Just say it. Evolution. Evolution. Eeevvvvooollluuutttiiiooonnn.