Religion and Science!

[inocente]

Suppose a scientific theory (eg TOE) purports to explain the universe and human existence as non-rational, purposeless events?

Science doesn’t do metaphysics. The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not. God’s creation is what it is, whatever meaning you take from the science is up to you. Truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know what you mean by “frivolous nonsense on which you all agree”. Catholics have been sharply divided on serious issues like the origin of the soul.

So I say again, logically you now admit that in post #17 and on pages 4 and 5 of this thread you and the other posters concerned were not just “passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense”, and have therefore withdrawn your challenge.

 

[inocente]

I stated an indisputable fact about the multiplicity of Protestant sects which adds to the confusion of what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science. If that’s not on topic I don’t know what is!

You wanted to discuss that, so discuss it. I say again:

1. I don’t call myself a Protestant, that’s a label which others give me.
2. I believe that if we ever catch ourselves thinking of someone as a label instead of a sacred person then we’re no longer following Christ.
3. See post #136 for some Baptist principles – soul freedom, Bible freedom, church freedom, freedom of religion. You’ll see that we join local churches. For reasons best known to themselves the accountants of this world count every one of these churches as a separate denomination. But we preach Christ crucified, to us Christ came to set us free, freedom is at the heart of Christ, so you’ll see that I’ve no sympathy whatsoever with bean-counters who would place neatness before freedom.
4. Physician heal thyself – in project management terms you first get your own house in order before taking on the rest of the world. So first get everyone in your church to visibly agree on “what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science”. But given that science depends on freedom of thought, and for me freedom is at the heart of Christ, I’m wondering how Christianity could be inconsistent with science anyway unless we contrive to make it so?

I think anyone with an ideology, Christian or atheist, needs be extremely careful not to be misread: “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.” “Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.” – 1984, George Orwell

 

[tonyrey]

1. I don’t call myself a Protestant, that’s a label which others give me.

 

[inocente]

I agree.

The dissension between Christians is a stumbling block for non-Christians.

The great thing about the four freedoms is that in essence they rule out any doctrines beyond any you agree within your own group, and so dissension is impossible. Well I think that’s great, you’re free to think it’s terrible of course. It’s not a stumbling block though, I was an atheist once and found the freedom attractive.

I have answered that question in another post.

Can you point me at it?

 

[grannymh]

I sent you a private message to say how upset this post has made me, with the cleverly polished economy of words that make me out to say something I didn’t. You were in advertizing, right?

Cleverly done. I was asking you about what you said, nothing at all to do with the Catechism, but who would ever believe me now?

As if free speech isn’t dead in the water when the speaker’s words are manipulated. The quiet malice of “a gun to the head” was magnificent.

Or am I over-reacting? I was the target of a witch hunt in the past (the ring leader got himself suspended a short while after) and am possibly hypersensitive, but I don’t know how else to read that post.

First, I did correct my error regarding “difference” in post 167.

I normally say that my background is in public relations/development which is a general description for a number of jobs . As far as CAF, I do not normally include my brief employment in an advertising/sales promotion office per se because at that period, the office was in turmoil. However, occasionally, I do talk about my various learning experiences there. Some of which were actually helpful in subsequent jobs.

As for free speech, apparently I approach it from a different viewpoint. As a former writer, editor, journalist researcher, etc., etc, I look at free speech as the written word rather than a verbal exchange.

As for the general topic of “faith *verses *science”, when I first landed on CAF, there were a number of threads exploring that category. It is very gratifying to see the change to “religion *and *science.”

Does this post clear the air?

As a further note, most of my employers were extremely careful not only about using proper descriptive words, but also making sure that that the “words” were a fit with the particular reading audience. When it comes to Catholicism, one needs to be careful that “words” are a fit with its doctrines more so than being modern and appealing to the contemporary reading audience. This is an important distinction.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey
**
The dissension between Christians is a stumbling block for non-Christians.**

And also for Christians.

We are all Americans in this country. But we are not all the same. Many Americans oppose aspects of the Constitution, and believe they can change them to suit their purpose. Even the Supreme Court was un-American when it decided Roe v Wade, since it took away from future citizens in-the-making the right “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

There are many splinter groups in this country who Protest the traditional sacred values of America that made America great. To the degree that they have succeed politically, America is diminished. To the same degree, when what Christ taught is opposed by any splinter group, Christianity is diminished. Some would exult in this. It’s as if some have turned the old military precept on its head. Whereas they used to say, “United we stand, divided we fall,” they now say, “Divided we stand, united we fall.”

Protestants exult in, celebrate, and regularly advance the splintering of Christianity. So do atheists. And so do some truly misguided Catholics.

 

[inocente]

Does this post clear the air?

No. I think you have implied I called Catholicism frivolous nonsense. If you want to clear the air then all you need to do is either agree I never said it and I shouldn’t be so fragile and sensitive, or else tell me how you got that impression so we can clear up the misunderstanding. No need for anecdotes about your career or anything, just straight talking.

 

[inocente]

There are many splinter groups in this country who Protest the traditional sacred values of America that made America great.

I’m not in the US and so can’t comment, but noticed that you capitalized Protest, as in Protestant. Of cause it may just have been a slip, but if not kudos, delicious, beautifully spun. :bowdown2: :bowdown2: :bowdown2:

Incidentally, the Catholic Encyclopedia says another word for Protestant is Reformer. Now I wonder why that didn’t catch on?

 

[grannymh]

No. I think you have implied I called Catholicism frivolous nonsense. If you want to clear the air then all you need to do is either agree I never said it and I shouldn’t be so fragile and sensitive, or else tell me how you got that impression so we can clear up the misunderstanding. No need for anecdotes about your career or anything, just straight talking.

I agree that you never said that you personally called Catholicism frivolous nonsense.

Here is the text from post 163.

" I already reminded you in post #155 that I responded in post #135 (first para).

On this thread alone see, for instance, post #17 and the whole of pages 4 and 5. If you and the other posters concerned agree that you were just passing time making smalltalk about frivolous nonsense on which you all agree anyway then I’ll withdraw the claim, but I remind you I already said “I could point out some posts just a few pages back, but let’s not go there as it seemed tempers were raised”.

Anything to say that’s on-topic? "

---

What you call anecdotes is the explanation of my position which is apparently, but not necessarily implied, quite different from what I perceive, but not necessarily know for certain, as your position regarding free speech.

This was in response to “You were in advertizing, right?” in post 173.

I pointed out that the reading audience does count when free speech is in the written form. I also suggested that in regard to Catholic doctrine, free speech, in a sense, cannot be creative to suit a reading audience because it should respectfully represent Catholic doctrine.

As a further note, or anecdote from another perspective, not necessarily anyone’s in particular, most of my employers were extremely careful not only about using proper descriptive words, but also making sure that that the “words” were a fit with the particular reading audience.

When it comes to Catholicism, one needs to be careful that “words” are a fit with its doctrines more so than being modern and appealing to the contemporary reading audience. This is an important distinction.

In fact, my perception, from reading CAF, is that the above distinction is readily seen at the intersection between some, not all, scientific theories and some, not all, Catholic doctrines. Of course, I realize that my professional background, being different from other backgrounds, leans more to an analytical style that is different, which does not automatically imply a good-bad, either-or judgment. In addition, “other backgrounds” does not automatically imply either current or past backgrounds.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
**
The dissension between Christians is a stumbling block for non-Christians.**

And also for Christians.

We are all Americans in this country. But we are not all the same. Many Americans oppose aspects of the Constitution, and believe they can change them to suit their purpose. Even the Supreme Court was un-American when it decided Roe v Wade, since it took away from future citizens in-the-making the right “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

There are many splinter groups in this country who Protest the traditional sacred values of America that made America great. To the degree that they have succeed politically, America is diminished. To the same degree, when what Christ taught is opposed by any splinter group, Christianity is diminished. Some would exult in this. It’s as if some have turned the old military precept on its head. Whereas they used to say, “United we stand, divided we fall,” they now say, “Divided we stand, united we fall.”

Protestants exult in, celebrate, and regularly advance the splintering of Christianity. So do atheists. And so do some truly misguided Catholics.

Thank you for pointing that out. I tend to focus my attention on those who are antagonistic to Christianity and unwisely take it for granted that Christians will remain steadfast…

 

[tonyrey]

The great thing about the four freedoms is that in essence they rule out any doctrines beyond any you agree within your own group, and so dissension is impossible. Well I think that’s great, you’re free to think it’s terrible of course. It’s not a stumbling block though, I was an atheist once and found the freedom attractive.

The paradox of freedom is that you become a slave to yourself if you reject God!

4. Physician heal thyself – in project management terms you first get your own house in order before taking on the rest of the world. So first get everyone in your church to visibly agree on “what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science”. But given that science depends on freedom of thought, and for me freedom is at the heart of Christ, I’m wondering how Christianity could be inconsistent with science anyway unless we contrive to make it so?

I have answered that question in another post.Can you point me at it?

Do I detect the influence of Spanish in that question or is it my imagination?
I am answering that question in another post which is an answer to a subsequent question of yours!

 

[tonyrey]

Suppose a scientific theory (eg TOE) purports to explain the universe and human existence as non-rational, purposeless events?

Some scientists think it can!

The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not. God’s creation is what it is, whatever meaning you take from the science is up to you.

If science purports to conclude that the universe is self-explanatory there is only one meaning you can take from it - that God is redundant.

Truth cannot contradict truth.

That is undoubtedly true…

 

[grannymh]

My apology to whomever wrote this statement: "So first get everyone in your church to visibly agree on “what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science”.
I have no clue as to its context; however, I do have one comment – sorry, but that is not how Catholicism works.

 

[tonyrey]

My apology to whomever wrote this statement: "So first get everyone in your church to visibly agree on “what Christianity is and how it is consistent with science”.
I have no clue as to its context; however, I do have one comment – sorry, but that is not how Catholicism works.

inocente made the valid point that:

The great thing about the four freedoms is that in essence they rule out any doctrines beyond any you agree within your own group, and so dissension is impossible.

There must be a basic consensus of doctrines if a church is to be a church!

 

[grannymh]

There must be a basic consensus of doctrines if a church is to be a church!

Please explain what, how, who, when in regard to a basic consensus as in the statement: “There must be a basic consensus of doctrines if a church is to be a church.”

The answers to who, how, what, when, where, and why will distinguish the Catholic Church from other churches which consider consensus as part of their democratic freedom to interpret Scripture. I am concerned that the freedom of consensus by vote may leave out the role of the Holy Spirit to protect Divine Revelation. Whereas, consensus by vote in a major Catholic Church council is not solely in the hands of the voters.

What I am personally finding out from CAF is that there is the assumption that people, Catholics and others, know how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth. This assumption is an exaggeration.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

I am concerned that the freedom of consensus by vote may leave out the role of the Holy Spirit to protect Divine Revelation.

Sometimes it is not even possible to get consensus by vote, never mind the role of the Holy Spirit…

*How Protestantism Divides Itself:

Two tiny Protestant communities in a small town in Canada were getting on quite fine. They were of different sects, but they communicated well together and shared certain charitable chores in the town.

Eventually they decided to look into things, see if they could unite and form one church. They went back to the Bible, to see what that said. They studied the fathers, to see what they had to say. They prayed and held services in the hopes of achieving unity. Eventually they acted on their conclusions.

There are now three Protestant communities in that small Canadian town!*

 

[SGWessells]

I’m baaaack! Only 7 more pages to go and I’m caught up. Five more if I skip Tonyrey

God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
God through His providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De fide.)

1. Except, I guess, for the 99% of all species that ever existed which are now extinct.
2. Including the wasp that lays its eggs in a caterpillar so that when they hatch, they eat it alive from the inside? Wow. That’s protection and guidance for the wasp, I guess.
3. See #1.

 

[SGWessells]

grannymh;8590273:

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.

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.

I think she was teaching (correct me if I am wrong) that Jesus taught the fact that the bread and wine were changed into his body and blood, while transubstantiation describes the method, which Jesus did not specify, by which this was accomplished. Does that clarify things?

 

[SGWessells]

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. )

Just as I always said: it is impossible to satirize modern reality more than it satirizes itself. Thank you for posting this; I haven’t laughed so hard all day. “Lactating Christ” is priceless!