S
SGWessells
Guest
This is not reasoning, it is tautology. An almighty Creator is unlimited in the above way by definition, not by syllogism.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
SGW
**Maybe you haven’t read enough of my posts to know this, but I’ve already met God. Several times, in fact. I spent 16 years as a devout, prayerful, churchgoing Christian, both Catholic and Protestant (about half and half), so you can be pardoned for thinking I know nothing about relating to God, feeling called, glorifying and serving him. But now it is just too incredible to believe. I suspect that you are so sure that your faith is true that you can’t imagine anyone who shares it ever deserting it for the “fleshpots of Egypt”, or trading his birthright for a mess of porridge, but it happens. **
You’re right. It’s difficult for anyone who has met God to believe you ever met God. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you met Him. But if you had really met God, you would never have have betrayed Him as you have.
**Maybe you haven’t read enough of my posts to know this, but I’ve already met God. Several times, in fact. I spent 16 years as a devout, prayerful, churchgoing Christian, both Catholic and Protestant (about half and half), so you can be pardoned for thinking I know nothing about relating to God, feeling called, glorifying and serving him. But now it is just too incredible to believe. I suspect that you are so sure that your faith is true that you can’t imagine anyone who shares it ever deserting it for the “fleshpots of Egypt”, or trading his birthright for a mess of porridge, but it happens. **
You’re right. It’s difficult for anyone who has met God to believe you ever met God. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you met Him. But if you had really met God, you would never have have betrayed Him as you have.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Also the Scandinavians, who were converted by King Olaf in the 11th century through armed force. The pagans who colonized Iceland were mostly fleeing from him.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Because, Granny, as you yourself have insisted, science can say nothing about the spiritual, right? And God, being spirit, is outside scientific investigation. So science can say nothing about any alleged spiritual nature of God or man, okay? So please stop expecting it to, or criticizing it for not doing so
.
T
ThereWasADream
Guest
I must admit that I’m coming into this in the middle of a debate, but it may be helpful for me to add that the Catholic Church (at least) does not promote a literal reading of every book of the bible. The Bible is not a book, it’s a library…there are multiple genres within it. Genesis, we say, is not meant to be scientific in the same sense as Harry Potter isn’t meant to be historical. The story of Adam and Eve relates a spiritual reality, not a biological/physical one.
As a side note, I actually was having a chat with an agnostic today who told me that homo sapiens was, in fact, descended from one man and one woman. I wasn’t sure if I believed him, and he admitted it was still controversial, but I thought it was an interesting thing to add.
I hope that doesn’t make too much of an interruption…
As a side note, I actually was having a chat with an agnostic today who told me that homo sapiens was, in fact, descended from one man and one woman. I wasn’t sure if I believed him, and he admitted it was still controversial, but I thought it was an interesting thing to add.
I hope that doesn’t make too much of an interruption…
S
SGWessells
Guest
Very quietly…the scientific consensus is still about 4.5 billion years.
Why do people criticize the changes in scientific knowledge as if they are somehow a weakness instead of evidence that science is adding to the sum of human knowledge, unlike a stagnant faith that never changes? Perhaps because believers tend to think of truth as unalterably absolute and handed down from infallible authority, so when science changes its mind about something, faith interprets it as a weakness or abandonment of eternal truth. But it is not, because science recognizes no eternal or unchanging truth, and for that reason it can grow in knowledge. No one in science will ever say, “it is forbidden for science to believe X because God has revealed it.” As soon as someone accepts that, he will never know the truth about X, because he is not allowed to investigate. All he can do is assert and bluster and twist opposing evidence to fit his preconceived theories.
S
SGWessells
Guest
To its credit, this is correct. I wish all Christian churches did the same.
This can be a little misleading. There is disagreement among biologists about the mechanism of evolution, but not about the *fact *of evolution, so depending on whether the word “model” refers to mechanism or overall theory, your statement is either true or false. I personally don’t see how any of the different mechanisms explaining how natural selection works to cull out mutations has any bearing on whether humanity comes from one or many original pairs.
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not use the phrase “you should know that”. I do use the phrase “for your information” because that is exactly what I mean.
My point about leprechauns etc. is that it is an useless comparison. And I will not accept it as meaningful. “Possible leprechauns, etc” is not some win-all-arguments technique. Actually, it clouds serious discussion. In my old neighborhood, the leprechaun hammer would be called “bait and switch” which was also applied to some old advertising practices. Old because in some areas the essential “bait and switch” can be considered illegal.
And in case you are wondering, this granny is very cranky (feminine for snarky) tonight.
G
grannymh
Guest
It is my statement which serves my purpose. And you may call it whatever you wish.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Lui was referring to the development of the universe as a matter of speculation, not the existence of God. But you tend to make people say what you want them to have said, not what they did say.
G
grannymh
Guest
I would like to see the quote in which I expected science to investigate the spiritual so that I can correct it in the future.Because, Granny, as you yourself have insisted, science can say nothing about the spiritual, right? And God, being spirit, is outside scientific investigation. So science can say nothing about any alleged spiritual nature of God or man, okay? So please stop expecting it to, or criticizing it for not doing so
Saying that science is limited to the physical world is not in any way, shape, or form “criticizing”. But if you think that stating an obvious fact is criticizing, you are welcome to do so.
Actually, science can say something about the non-material aspects of human nature in an attempt to demonstrate that they are an epiphenomenon.
S
SGWessells
Guest
Regarding Buffalo’s posts 1213 and 1214, thank you for documenting the Church teaching on taking Genesis literally. I got laughed at awhile ago for suggesting it. However, it is equally obvious that the church does not have the same attitude toward evolution now that it did before. For one thing, none of the quotes before 1860 addressed the scientific theory of evolution at all, since it was not firmly established before Darwin published the Origin in 1859. For another, the current Pope and the one previous were a lot more convinced of the scientific support for evolution than previous Popes. So that leaves Buffalo in a quandary; does he accept the church of the past or the church of the present? It seems pretty plain what his choice is.
G
grannymh
Guest
Maybe why we are passing each other like two ships in the night is that we have different definitions for a human being. We also have a different concept of the role of the Catholic Church – at least it seems that way to me.Because, Granny, as you yourself have insisted, science can say nothing about the spiritual, right? And God, being spirit, is outside scientific investigation. So science can say nothing about any alleged spiritual nature of God or man, okay? So please stop expecting it to, or criticizing it for not doing so
As for science saying nothing about the spiritual, please see the last sentence in my post 1308. That sentence comes from reading recent research and reading about recent research. Notice that I switched from spiritual to non-material.
One more thing about limitations. Empirical science is properly limited to its domain. But the human mind is not limited to the science domain. In order to grasp the full meaning of what I am saying, the reader needs to let go of the either-or mentality.
G
grannymh
Guest
It is my observation that in the 21st century, there is no longer a “The Evolutionary Theory”.
There are now a variety of applications of the “evolution model.” Because of this, one has to read the complete context when it comes to quotes about this or that Pope supporting evolution. These prime time sound bites do not indicate what a Pope is really talking about.
G
grannymh
Guest
That either-or can mess up an intellectual stimulating conversation.
When talking about evolution theory applying to humanity, one needs to adopt a both-and perspective because human nature itself is both material and spiritual (non-material). The population theory involves different generations procreating over many centuries. his works fine for non-human species because non-human species have material anatomies. We also have material anatomies which could follow evolutionary theories Nonetheless, humans are both-and . Catholicism teaches that the spiritual soul does not evolve. Thus, humans can be viewed as both evolutionary and non-evolutionary. Personally, I would like to know if you can accept the possibility of a both-and situation about human nature.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Newcomers are always **very welcome **to give their point of view!
E
epiphany08
Guest
I find your saying intriguing, especially the part about God saying to go west and you immediately turn east. I’m not judging you by any standard, that would be too ignorant. I did not know about your previous experience with God and therefore was simply trying to help you understand. You don’t have your views towards him for no reason, your past experiences shape your current attitude. Understanding God personally and understanding Him according to mainstream religion are two totally different things. I did not grow up religious and even now don’t accept everything the church preaches. Actually, I’ve only gone to church 1 time in my life seeking to find more answers but came to the conclusion that I could find the answer only through myself. To acknowledge God and His power is one thing, to agree with His ways is entirely different. I can’t expect any man to agree with His way unless that man has been given the understanding to do so. Once again, if you truly desire to know Him, simply ask with the upmost sincerety. Nothing is hidden to God, your deepest desires and intentions are laid out naked before Him, even if you are blinded by it. Best thing to do is to admit you are fallible, and ask for Him to make you better.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No amount of equivocation can alter this fact if one is an orthodox Christian. The science of the soul is love…
G
grannymh
Guest
No amount of equivocation can delete anyone’s soul, period.
Being an orthodox Christian or an atheist has nothing to do with the existence of the spiritual soul. One’s spiritual soul comes with being human, period. This is why the spiritual soul does not evolve,
but rather is part of the whole package known as human nature.
G
grannymh
Guest
–snip–Thank you for bringing up my post. My reasoning needs to be challenged.
Since there are no comments about post 1296, I will continue.
The above is another way of understanding empirical as in the empirical method used in science. To make it easier for readers, this is the definition of empirical from the American Heritage College Dictionary. “1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment and b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.”
Another way of explaining empirical is that conclusions flow from evidence in hand.
From post 1296 – “Since I am proposing something which is a tad unusual for CAF, I will stop here so I can listen to your comments. Ooops, maybe what I am proposing is common on CAF since I have not been on every thread to find it.”
There is “something a tad unusual” is the hypothesis.
“So I can listen to your comments” is the search or call for evidence.
“Ooops, maybe what I am proposing is common on CAF since I have not been on every thread to find it.” is the scientific realization as to what really is involved in order to verify or falsify that what I was proposing is a tad unusual.
To be continued.
- Status