Are people very anti religious where you work? I would think it’s important to be proud of who you are. If your Catholicism is such a fundamental part of who you are, why would you keep this secret? No need to reply if those questions are too personal for a public forum, I’ve just been struck by what you said.
It is hardly conspiracy theories. Anyone who works in the capital market knows how investments are decided and how funds are allocated. Projects do not get financing resources purely because the science is fantastic. It is hardly the primary consideration.
Scientists EXPECT us to believe that the Big Bang arose spontaneously, naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) from absolutely nothing. There is no science to support this belief, yet that’s what they want us to believe, in the name of science. And they insinuate that anyone who does not believe this belief which is not supported by science, is a fool. There will never be a way for science to reconcile their claim of a non-supernatural leap from absolute-nothing-to-something. The only alternative is a continuous existence of the cosmos with NO beginning (infinite existence). Of course, this explanation also leaves scientists scratching their heads, because it’s only logical that there should be an explanation for the existence of the cosmos, but under this scenario, there isn’t, by definition.
to conduct a conversation with out getting personal, or abusive, or insulting, or having to listen to some gloat, that one can safely put those St. Paul refers to as resounding gongs and clanging cymbols on ignore, and just talk with the adults
if they didn’t believe in their Deity, they would murder, rape and pillage all the day longTheir faith is the only thing stopping them.
Her self-blindness is utterly astonishing.
At the risk of derailing the thread further, no, people are not anti-religious where I work. And no, I don’t need to be proud at anything because there is nothing to be bragged about in this world. I enrolled RCIA in secret because I was ambivalent that time as there were still many unanswered questions. Even prior to the rite of election, during the rite of scrutiny, I was still questioning the priest about this and that but he patiently answered my every question. I kept my RCIA journey low profile because I wanted to figure this thing out on my own without any biased opinions from the already practicing catholic. Also I felt a bit embarrassed to share about my conversion because I used to debate with my colleagues about the corruption of the Church and I criticized the Church a lot. I was basically condescending towards the Church and even towards Jesus and God. Well, it turned out that the misunderstanding arose due to ignorance and arrogance on my part.Are people very anti religious where you work? I would think it’s important to be proud of who you are. If your Catholicism is such a fundamental part of who you are, why would you keep this secret? No need to reply if those questions are too personal for a public forum, I’ve just been struck by what you said.
Sarah x
Sometimes when one is trying to make a point, being right or on message isn’t enough. Once must exercise some respectful prudence in dialog with another. In retrospect, I do not think I personally crossed the line into being uncharitable. Several posters in this thread have likewise posted their concern with regards to her view. In reality, it is now a matter of an individual being intolerant and hypersensitive about when they are called on their comments. Most reasonable individuals would at least reevaluate their position in light of such consternation.
Totally disagree, this statement only makes sense if you assume that morality must be judged against some “objective” standard. But of course if you do that you have already assumed the conclusion. Thus you have gained no ground.*It’s even more awesome when reality doesn’t bear that assertion out though.*By that very perspective, the idea of morality is derailed. To quote Greg Koukl, “When morality is reduced to patterns of behavior chosen by natural selection for its survival value, then morality is not explained; it’s denied.”
Not at all, improving our understanding of ourselves is a great step forward, and it’ll never suddenly switch off people’s ability to feel empathy. If anything (and the history of our species bears this out) improved understanding of ourselves and other life improves our ability to make moral judgements.*
This seems to directly contradict human history. People’s health is improving steadily and moral standards continue to rise decade by decade. Just look back a hundred years and think of the atrocities which were considered morally acceptable back then. Look back further and it’s even more extreme. I bet that in a hundred years from now people will look back on the horrors of our world (the millions starving, the discrimination, the destruction of the natural environment etc) and struggle to believe we considered it morally acceptable from their more advanced viewpoint.*
Incorrect. My original statement was explanatory, it starts from the ground and builds upwards logically. The statement you made above starts from a conclusion and then builds downwards by simply saying “we can’t prove it didn’t happen this way”.
Ok, makes sense. I understand better now.
There are a huge array of different reasons why science gets funded, probably as many reasons as there are branches of scientific research. As I said, the great thing with science is that it doesn’t matter who funds it or why, because it’s a self correcting process and it’s results are cumulative.*
So you are arguing that the people who are very powerful positions in capitalism should be less good at it and therefore lose those positions , thus inevitably get replaced by other people who are as good at it as the current set are. Surely you can see that this is futile?
As I said, if you have a better system available then by all means set to work getting it going.*
I’m aware of the veneration of Mary and the special status Catholics and Orthodox hold Her in.
I would have expected the Church to be leading the way in the moral right of women to vote and fully participate in political life, not reflect in a half-washed way the thinking of the time about the status of women.
It’s because she thinks you’ll go on a crime spree if you ever lost your faith.
You obviously are not referring to the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion here , so your definition of charity is either selective or flawed. It’s where we speak loudest as Catholics , and it definitely isn’t a *selling point *- unless one happens to be selling unpopularity.DeepBlueSea:
As I said, if you have a better system available then by all means set to work getting it going.*
Er, no. I was referring to the charitable work that the church does such as feeding the poor, providing shelter to the homeless etc. I don’t know of any anti-abortion charity work. I’m not even sure how the catholic churches political position of being anti-abortion could be connected to charity, unless you consider protest and political lobbying to be charitable activities? Surely nobody’s definition of charity is THAT unselective?*
I would have expected the Church to be leading the way in the moral right of women to vote and fully participate in political life, not reflect in a half-washed way the thinking of the time about the status of women.
Had the Catholic church been screaming about the injustice and immorality of more than half the population being excluded from the legislature and the right to fully participate in society, that would have been impressive. But it seems the Catholic church, while writing tons on the special place of women, and the special role of women, and the equality of women before God, simply reflected the conventions of the time.
Sarah x
. . . it was intended as an insidious provocation ; in which case we might recognize the cleverness without approving of it.And from an analytical perspective, utterly inflammatory, in ,my limited opinion.atheistgirl:
atheistgirl:
atheistgirl:
. . . utterly astonishing.
Perhaps just a little bit facetious ?Nope.
In that case, I might think the sacking of Beziers by the holy cruisaders, on a mission from their God, and the 20,000 deaths that followed, of men, women and children, might be a good thing.
Sarah x
Church is never supposed to be interfering with the politics. (Really? Do you want me to go into the separation of Church and State? This is high school stuff…:doh2I would have expected the Church to be leading the way in the moral right of women to vote and fully participate in political life, not reflect in a half-washed way the thinking of the time about the status of women.
Had the Catholic church been screaming about the injustice and immorality of more than half the population being excluded from the legislature and the right to fully participate in society, that would have been impressive. But it seems the Catholic church, while writing tons on the special place of women, and the special role of women, and the equality of women before God, simply reflected the conventions of the time.
Sarah x
Church is not in that civil position to interfere as that is the responsibility of the State. Politics is not how the Church defines its role in relation to the society. The Church has always made it clear that its roles are proclaiming the gospels, celebrating the sacraments, and exercising the ministry of charity. These are the roles prescribed by Christ. As to why Church is not interfering with the politics, do people want the Church to be involved in politics? My comment, to believe it or not, is not ‘‘extremist’’.
I should have said ‘‘some’’ posters of faith because I don’t, in fact, extrapolate out from the comments of a few, that is how many, or most, would behave.
