Religion and Science!

[StAnastasia]

Does Jesus have the power to teach in His own way?

Certainly.

In the Catholic Church, the message of Jesus is what is important. In John, Chapter six, Jesus explains His Real Presence in the Catholic Eucharist. In Catholic terminology Jesus is teaching transubstantiation without using that precise word. So what?

Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation, any more than he was teaching gravity theory when speaking of the sparrow falling to the ground. You have to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words, and not doggedly insist that he was using philosophical terminology which in fact he was not.

Listen to all the words of Jesus from the beginning of Chapter 6, the Gospel of John.

I love teaching that chapter!

 

[StAnastasia]

Your bishop? Maybe you had better check again.

I check frequently. He’s in frequent contact with the theology faculty.

Theology students? - you are in a position of authority and they believe you are teaching truth. Thus you have the highest responsibility to get it right.

Indeed. Buffalo, I think you would have a heart attack if you came with me to the American Academy of Religion meeting this weekend. You would think, “Wow, compared to these people, StAnastasia is really an antiquated conservative.”

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Given the cost of millstones in the first century, I always thought that style of execution was rather cost-ineffective!

 

[buffalo]

I check frequently. He’s in frequent contact with the theology faculty.

Indeed. Buffalo, I think you would have a heart attack if you came with me to the American Academy of Religion meeting this weekend. You would think, “Wow, compared to these people, StAnastasia is really an antiquated conservative.”

Given the cost of millstones in the first century, I always thought that style of execution was rather cost-ineffective!

The salient question is - are you orthodox or heterodox?

Is the Academy approved of by the Catholic Church? Any Bishops on the board?

I cannot imagine the gobbledegook that is going on at these conferences.

 

[grannymh]

Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation, any more than he was teaching gravity theory when speaking of the sparrow falling to the ground. You have to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words, and not doggedly insist that he was using philosophical terminology which in fact he was not.

If Jesus was not teaching the message of transubstantiation --------I wonder what He was teaching ---------

At least, I can trust the Catholic Church in its teachings about Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist. Those teachings are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Praise God!

 

[buffalo]

StAnastasia;8590236:

Jesus was not teaching transubstantiation, any more than he was teaching gravity theory when speaking of the sparrow falling to the ground. You have to listen to the real meaning of Jesus’ words, and not doggedly insist that he was using philosophical terminology which in fact he was not.

I did not insist that Jesus was using philosophical terminology I insist that He was, in essence, teaching transubstantiation. Transubstantiation does not need philosophical terminology; it needs the word of God.

If Jesus was not teaching the message of transubstantiation --------I wonder what He was teaching ---------

By the way, the Presence of God is a tad different from the sparrow falling to the ground.

The manner in which StA is expressing herself would teach the student that transubstantiation is a human idea and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is symbolic.

This is Protestant teaching, not Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

If Jesus was not teaching the message of transubstantiation --------I wonder what He was teaching ---------

At least, I can trust the Catholic Church in its teachings about Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist. Those teachings are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Praise God!

 

[StAnastasia]

The salient question is - are you orthodox or heterodox?

Buffalo, it’s been quite a morning. You question my orthodoxy, and then I get an email from an atheist attacking for for believing in God. I wish I could get the two of you together.

Is the Academy approved of by the Catholic Church?

I don’t know. Is the American Philosophical Association approved of by the Catholic Church? Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science approved of by the Catholic Church?

Any Bishops on the board?

I don’t know. Should there be?

I cannot imagine the gobbledegook that is going on at these conferences.

It’s not gobbledegook – these are educated people!

 

[StAnastasia]

The manner in which StA is expressing herself would teach the student that transubstantiation is a human idea and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is symbolic. This is Protestant teaching, not Catholic.

False, buffalo - you need a course in critical thinking. Please don’t deliberately misrepresent what I say. That’s both bad manners and contrary to the eighth commandment – bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[buffalo]

False, buffalo - you need a course in critical thinking. Please don’t deliberately misrepresent what I say. That’s both bad manners and contrary to the eighth commandment – bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Then please clarify your statements better. I would not want to bear false witness. :nope:

Your own statements are what I and other posters measure.

 

[StAnastasia]

Then please clarify your statements better. I would not want to bear false witness.

Buffalo, you are admirably concerned about theology, but worrisomely willing to lie if that’s what it takes to smear another person’s character. Making up false statements that you attribute to me, so that you can imply that I’m a Protestant, is despicable. I don’t know why you don’t take lying as seriously as you probably take the other commandments.

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

Tonrey, I leave today for the American Academy of Religion meeting in San Francisco. I may be online only intermittently after midday, depending on connectivity.

Don’t worry. We seem to be in agreement about evil and suffering.
*

*

***

Then science cannot explain the spiritual aspect of persons on this planet?

---

                             I don't see how science would explain it.* Do you think it may be possible for science to explain it?**No more than it is possible for science to explain God.**Bravo!

I believe God intervenes more often than meets the eye… Wouldn’t you?

Perhaps, but that would be impossible to determine. When there is a plane crash in which someone missed the flight, the person sometimes says, “God was watching out for me.” I find this repugnant – as if God was not watching out for all those who were on time for the flight – and impossible to verify. I understand the human reaction, but not the theology.

Yet we cannot dismiss outright the possibility that God did and does intervene. Perhaps that is an area where we disagree. An infinitely loving Father must do the utmost to help His children. Otherwise the scope of Providence is negligible.

Hick’s argument founders on the shoal of the sheer enormity of suffering. As one critic said, did it really take the death of six million Jews in the “Holocaust” to teach humanity compassion? Might two million victims have sufficed? Or 500,000?

That is where the reality of free will comes into its own. What would be the point of giving it with one hand and taking it away with the other? And without free will God would be directly responsible for human activity.

Much as I respect John Hick’s argument I believe it is absurd to regard all suffering as essential for moral and spiritual development.

Hick’s argument founders on the shoal of the sheer enormity of suffering. As one critic said, did it really take the death of six million Jews in the “Holocaust” to teach humantiy compassion? Might two million victims have sufficed? Or 500,000?

The best explanation is not development but the hideous reality of diabolical evil that delights in destruction.

The plain fact is that a lot of suffering is pointless, meaningless and destructive - as Hick himself pointed out.

True.

Which is evidence that chance alone is the cause.

In an immensely complex universe it is inevitable that there are dysteleological coincidences. Accidents and disasters are bound to occur. It is also absurd to believe there can be no conflict when there are an immense number of individuals pursuing different goals. Physical evil is the price of finitude, multiplicity, variety, sentience and development.

I agree.

Further evidence that chance is the key factor!

It is not impossible to reconcile those evils with our Christian faith.

I favor the theodicy of mystery, as that seems to be the theodicy of the cross and resurrection, the central kerygma of the Christian faith…

We obviously cannot hope to understand why God permits each individual instance of suffering but I believe choice and chance are the fundamental explanation of moral and physical evil respectively. I also believe there are good reasons why Jesus chose to allow Himself to be tortured and executed. Love is the dominant one…

 

[StAnastasia]

Don’t worry. We seem to be in agreement about evil and suffering.

Good!

**Bravo!Yet we cannot dismiss outright the possibility that God did and does intervene. Perhaps that is an area where we disagree. An infinitely loving Father must do the utmost to help His children. Otherwise the scope of Providence is negligible.

I agree.

That is where the reality of free will comes into its own. What would be the point of giving it with one hand and taking it away with the other? And without free will God would be directly responsible for human activity.

Quite true.

The best explanation is not development but the hideous reality of diabolical evil that delights in destruction. Which is evidence that chance alone is the cause. Further evidence that chance is the key factor!

I don’t think chance was the cause of the “Holocaust” in the same way that it is the cause of earthquakes. Human choices of an enormous number of people had a lot to do with this.

We obviously cannot hope to understand why God permits each individual instance of suffering but I believe choice and chance are the fundamental explanation of moral and physical evil respectively. I also believe there are good reasons why Jesus chose to allow Himself to be tortured and executed. Love is the dominant one…

I agree completely!

 

[tonyrey]

			*

Don’t worry. We seem to be in agreement about evil and suffering.

Bravo!Yet we cannot dismiss outright the possibility that God did and does intervene. Perhaps that is an area where we disagree. An infinitely loving Father must do the utmost to help His children. Otherwise the scope of Providence is negligible.

I agree.

That is where the reality of free will comes into its own. What would be the point of giving it with one hand and taking it away with the other? And without free will God would be directly responsible for human activity.

Quite true.

The best explanation is not development but the hideous reality of diabolical evil that delights in destruction. Which is evidence that chance alone is the cause. Further evidence that chance is the key factor!

I don’t think chance was the cause of the “Holocaust” in the same way that it is the cause of earthquakes. Human choices of an enormous number of people had a lot to do with this.

I meant that chance is the main cause of physical evil.

We obviously cannot hope to understand why God permits each individual instance of suffering but I believe choice and chance are the fundamental explanation of moral and physical evil respectively. I also believe there are good reasons why Jesus chose to allow Himself to be tortured and executed. Love is the dominant one…

I agree completely!

My goodness!

Now there’s just the question of how our souls came to exist… After all we have to disagree on something.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is the Academy approved of by the Catholic Church?
I cannot imagine the gobbledegook that is going on at these conferences.

Addressing all readers here:

Academic groups with the title “religion” or even “thelogy” in them do not signify approval by the Roman Church necessarily, nor do they confer authority over Roman Catholic doctrine, regardless of the “conclusions” of presenters. The AAR is a globally-oriented ecumenical group which explores the intersection of various contemporary issues/topics, and re-examines some traditional topics.

Samplings of discussion topics (not necessarily the most radical ones) at this weekend’s American Academy of Religion convocation:

Jain Studies
Queer Studies
Contemporary Pagan Studies (including Dianic Wicca)
Womanist Studies
Feminist Earth Studies
“Salmon is Our Sacrament”
Druidry as a Religion
AIDS at 30 in a Queer San Francisco Chuch
Dancing with the Goddess: Singing for Ourselves
Hip-Hop as Religious Commodity

More details on some of the papers:

~The Apostle Paul’s Queer Politics:

• This paper will conclude by exploring the implications of Paul’s messianic/queer sociality for a contemporary queer politics by connecting Saint Paul, Michel Foucault, Leo Bersani, and San Francisco bathhouses.
  :bigyikes:

~“That They Might Have Joy”: Toward a Postheteronormative, Gay Mormon Heremeneutic

~How Bron Taylor’s Dark Green Religion [DGR] will contribute/is contributing to the rise of
a global, planetary religion

~Hoop Spiritualities: The Hula-Hoop and Embodied Spiritual Practice
**“Hooping is my church,” **an anonymous survey participant explained. “Hooping is where I commune with God.” This quote is not unique among hula hoopers (called “hoopers”). Most hoopers describe an experience of unexpected transformation (mental, emotional, and physical) while hooping, often invoking established religious language or creating new religious language to describe their hoop experience.

~Breast-feeding Jesus: Incarnation, the Mothering Body, and the Queering of Christ
Jeannine Hill Fletcher, Fordham University, and Michele Saracino, Manhattan College
In an era described as ‘post-feminist’ and a North American climate of public Christian conservatism, when theologies that conflate ‘mother’ and ‘female’ continue to gain a wide hearing, the feminist theologian wonders what possibilities Christology holds for challenging gendered roles and heteronormativity in the Christian community. This paper suggests multiple avenues for considering breast-feeding Jesus as a visual image that provides a platform for beginning a much-needed transformation. Theorizing motherhood as embodiment that leaks provides content for witnessing incarnation as divine leakage into the human condition and the human body as leakage that sustains divinity. The medieval image of the lactating Christ transposes this leakage in ways that might disrupt of the intersecting misogyny and homophobia of the contemporary Church. This constructive theology offers an alternative metaphor of maternity rooted in breast-feeding Jesus to suggest a dynamic relationship between human and divine embedded in the Chalcedonian formula.

aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Current_Meeting/Program_Book/2011Abstracts.pdf

(Some things to chew on over your Thanksgiving Dinner. )

 

[StAnastasia]

I meant that chance is the main cause of physical evil.

Not to be picky Tonrey, but human choice has a lot to do with physical evil. Earthquake faults are morally neutral and rarely cause suffering until humans build on top of them. Humans make stupid choices settling in zones of tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. Much suffering could be avoided if humans chose their geography more wisely.

My goodness! Now there’s just the question of how our souls came to exist… After all we have to disagree on something.

We wouldn’t have universities, or churches, or politics, or sports, or comedy, if we didn’t disagree on some things!

 

[buffalo]

Addressing all readers here:

Academic groups with the title “religion” or even “thelogy” in them do not signify approval by the Roman Church necessarily, nor do they confer authority over Roman Catholic doctrine, regardless of the “conclusions” of presenters. The AAR is a globally-oriented ecumenical group which explores the intersection of various contemporary issues/topics, and re-examines some traditional topics.

Samplings of discussion topics (not necessarily the most radical ones) at this weekend’s American Academy of Religion convocation:

Jain Studies
Queer Studies
Contemporary Pagan Studies (including Dianic Wicca)
Womanist Studies
Feminist Earth Studies
“Salmon is Our Sacrament”
Druidry as a Religion
AIDS at 30 in a Queer San Francisco Chuch
Dancing with the Goddess: Singing for Ourselves
Hip-Hop as Religious Commodity

More details on some of the papers:

~The Apostle Paul’s Queer Politics:

• This paper will conclude by exploring the implications of Paul’s messianic/queer sociality for a contemporary queer politics by connecting Saint Paul, Michel Foucault, Leo Bersani, and San Francisco bathhouses.
  :bigyikes:

~“That They Might Have Joy”: Toward a Postheteronormative, Gay Mormon Heremeneutic

~How Bron Taylor’s Dark Green Religion [DGR] will contribute/is contributing to the rise of
a global, planetary religion

~Hoop Spiritualities: The Hula-Hoop and Embodied Spiritual Practice
**“Hooping is my church,” **an anonymous survey participant explained. “Hooping is where I commune with God.” This quote is not unique among hula hoopers (called “hoopers”). Most hoopers describe an experience of unexpected transformation (mental, emotional, and physical) while hooping, often invoking established religious language or creating new religious language to describe their hoop experience.

~Breast-feeding Jesus: Incarnation, the Mothering Body, and the Queering of Christ
Jeannine Hill Fletcher, Fordham University, and Michele Saracino, Manhattan College
In an era described as ‘post-feminist’ and a North American climate of public Christian conservatism, when theologies that conflate ‘mother’ and ‘female’ continue to gain a wide hearing, the feminist theologian wonders what possibilities Christology holds for challenging gendered roles and heteronormativity in the Christian community. This paper suggests multiple avenues for considering breast-feeding Jesus as a visual image that provides a platform for beginning a much-needed transformation. Theorizing motherhood as embodiment that leaks provides content for witnessing incarnation as divine leakage into the human condition and the human body as leakage that sustains divinity. The medieval image of the lactating Christ transposes this leakage in ways that might disrupt of the intersecting misogyny and homophobia of the contemporary Church. This constructive theology offers an alternative metaphor of maternity rooted in breast-feeding Jesus to suggest a dynamic relationship between human and divine embedded in the Chalcedonian formula.

aarweb.org/Meetings/Annual_Meeting/Current_Meeting/Program_Book/2011Abstracts.pdf

(Some things to chew on over your Thanksgiving Dinner. )

Which now makes me wonder why the 'orthodox" StA would even want to go there. Unless…

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, it’s been quite a morning. You question my orthodoxy, and then I get an email from an atheist attacking for for believing in God. I wish I could get the two of you together.

Tough day indeed. The best course of action is to be in total conformance and submission to the Magisterium. There can be no freedom living in the space you are occupying.

I don’t know. Is the American Philosophical Association approved of by the Catholic Church? Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science approved of by the Catholic Church? Yes - it would help greatly to be illuminated by the truth.

I don’t know. Should there be? Yes, but then looking at the goings on there it would scare me. So no.

It’s not gobbledegook – these are educated people! Now this got me laughing. What does educated people mean? I could put a couple of attributes on these educated ones.

 

[StAnastasia]

Which now makes me wonder why the 'orthodox" StA would even want to go there. Unless…

To avoid evil buffalo herds.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you are admirably concerned about theology, but worrisomely willing to lie if that’s what it takes to smear another person’s character. Making up false statements that you attribute to me, so that you can imply that I’m a Protestant, is despicable. I don’t know why you don’t take lying as seriously as you probably take the other commandments.

StAnastasia

No lies - your own posts condemn you. As i previously posted perhaps it would be better to clarify your posts because they are very cleverly worded.

The idea that transubstantiation is symbolic is Protestant theology. I did not say you were Protestant. You could be confused. or ignorant . But don’t worry there are plenty of orthodox CAF members willing to help you out.

I am trying to stay out of the ban trap.

 

[buffalo]

To avoid evil buffalo herds.

Buffalo tramples heresy where found.