S
Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
This implies that you do not believe that there is such thing as objective truth when it comes to faith and morals. However, I do not want to ascribe those beliefs to you without asking. So, with that in mind, are the teachings of the Catholic Church based on objective, rather than subjective truth?
A
Aussie_ukie
Guest
I believe what I believe to be true, but I do not believe in pushing them on people who don’t share the same faith. why should I afterall? it’s not my job to make windows into men’s souls, nor is it governments. The government’s job is make sure it’s people are equal under the law, not to push any spiritual ideology unto them.
what the church is doing here will fail, as it has failed all through history when it uses tries to impose itself on people who don’t share the same beliefs…you may win in the short term but in the long term you get alot of people who would otherwise don’t care about the catholic faith and turn them very quickly into anti-Catholics. in the long term the church wont win, cause homosexuals are here to stay, and the more of them that come out, the more family members support them, the more allies they get etc.
Catholics think they are going to win this ‘culture war’ with rhetoric like they did with Arianism, Nestorism etc…but the problem is homosexuality is not a philosophical stand point like all the others…it affects real people, its in families, church groups, ethnic groups its not limited by race, creed or culture…the truth is the Catholic church is just going on and on about “natural law” and “moral law”…nobody really cares, cause most parents just want their gay kids to be happy, not to be gay-bashed, have the same oppurtunites as anyone else. the church will not win with rhetoric that sadly has been the foundation of the ‘gay-bashing’ culture.
The church has lost, is loosing and will loose again over the issue of gay rights.
and it saddens me to see the church of the future asking forgiveness of gay people the same way it asked the Jews for forgiveness…and yes I know u say it will never happen, well 1000 years ago the same would have been said about the papacy asking the Jews for forgiveness, but it happened! and it will happen again!
J
jwinch2
Guest
Interesting, but not at all what I asked. Do you believe in objective truth as taught by the Church?
F
fix
Guest
Relativism, again.
F
fix
Guest
Who is your God?
F
fix
Guest
You are confused on several issues.
A
Aussie_ukie
Guest
Well one could say that b4 Copernicus the church believed it was objective truth that the sun revolved around the earth, or that prior to Darwin it was objective truth that the earth was created in 6 days or that Adam and Eve were real historical figures or that the early is like 6000 yrs old.
what the church defines as objective truth seems to be always on shaky ground.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Faith and morals. Faith and morals. Do you believe that there is objective truth on faith and morals?
Its really a very simple question.
F
fix
Guest
Indeed I do and your posts show it.if you say so
C
curlycool89
Guest
You have no understanding of the history of science, do you?
The actual truth is that Copernicus heliocentric system was no better than the widely accepted Ptolemaic geocentric system. It was just as complicated and both systems had to resort to epicycles to reconcile their system with observations. It was not until Johannes Kepler came along that the Copernicus system was really vindicated (and Kepler preferred to try and figure out why there were 6 planets instead of 7 or 5 (there were only 6 discovered at the time) because God is a mathematician and created a mathematically elegant universe, so let’s not pretend that scientists weren’t a little crazy either).
As for Darwin, do you know who had the greatest criticism of Darwinism? Lord Kelvin, who helped to discover thermodynamics (the unit Kelvin, or absolute temperature, is named after him). He calculated that the age of the earth (calculated using thermodynamics) couldn’t be old enough to allow for Darwin’s natural selection. Darwin was later vindicated by the discovery of radioactive decay, which Kelvin couldn’t take into account because it wasn’t discovered yet.
Also, the 6000 year old earth was calculated by an Anglican bishop.
Learn some history before you go shooting your mouth off.
A
Aussie_ukie
Guest
actually I do know my history
Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle-Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[18][19][20] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to September 1, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[21][22] Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus (“On Time”) (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.[23] After the Masoretic text however was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support.[24] Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century - 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (April 27, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Sørensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC).[17][20][25][26][26][27]
perhaps an Anglican did…but not before a Catholic did
and as for the rest…well I know it thank u, but I wasnt going to go in that much dept to show you how rediculious you are (indeed you’ve done that yourself without my help)
now as for the objective truth…I believe that the church has chopped and changed her mind what is objective truth so many time that I doubt any catholic really knows what objective truth is anymore.
the church has had a tenacity to revise what is truth when it suits its fancy but not before excommunicating, or even murdering those advocate change. an example is nicholas copernicus, who was too afraid of the church to publish his works…thats right AFRAID of the church. no he believed that the churches objective truth was was going to be challenged by his findings.
I respect the church, but Im not one to blindly follow something when I know it is wrong.
…and what the church is doing is wrong, but I shall never abandon her, I shall wait for her to clean up her act!
A
Aussie_ukie
Guest
anyhow off to bed now. sleep tight my little theocrats! 
F
fix
Guest
:whacky:
G
gus
Guest
Your knowledge of what the church. define as truths is limited to what you see on TV.
Why don’t read the church fathers on creation.
As for the earth revolution it was a secular and scientific belief prior to Kepler.Copernicus was counter lociical given the science of the day. In fact don’t we still say sunrise and sunset today.
P
pnewton
Guest
They are complying. The Church has every right to speak out against sin and try and prevent evil from being allowed by law. There will no more be an apology for being critical of homosexual permissiveness that there will an apology for those who live in adultery or polygamy, pedophiles, or those that wish to marry sheep.
C
curlycool89
Guest
Well, you must hate academics then, because I got all of this from my (likely) agnostic Philosophy professor who is an expert in the area of Philosophy of Science.
You seem to be going into great extents to ignore actual scientific history in favour of your own view. Nothing I’ve said is false, it is what actually happened and the issues that these scientists dealt with.
Well, that’s one way of justifying yourself, making up a revisionist history. The Church has never changed what is objective truth, and if you’d like to offer up some “evidence” then do it.
Copernicus was a priest. I’m guessing you omit that because it doesn’t help your case.
Copernicus could never prove his system was correct within his lifetime because the physics of his time did allow him to. I bet you didn’t know that at that time everyone still followed Aristotelian Mechanics (you know; earth, water, air, fire and all that). Within the system of Aristotelian mechanics, there was no way to explain why people couldn’t feel the earth’s movement (not until Newton, who was far more interested in alchemy and had to be convinced to publish his studies in calculus and physics). Nor could Copernicus ever explain why observers of the stars did not experience parallax (not until Galileo pointed a telescope at the sky did this get solved, and Galileo still had to contend with the Aristotelian system saying that the sub-luna and super-luna spheres had different properties, something that was widely accepted in what would have been the equivalent of the scientific community).
Also, his system made no more sense then Ptolemy’s system. At the time, Tycho Brahe even proposed a hybrid geocentric/kind of heliocentric system (the moon and the sun orbited the earth, but everything else orbited the sun … which orbited the earth), and given the science of the day it was just as likely as the other 2, and had the advantage of having a better explanation of retrograde motion. Brahe actually had the best planetary observations up to that time, which were used by Kepler to formulate his laws.
Some people are just ignorant of history. People like to treat scientist as if they’re infallible and think that any disagreements at the time must have been irrational and suppressive. The truth is that some scientists proposed theories that weren’t compatible with the accepted science of the time (eg. germ theory), so of course they were rejected.
People also like to live in their little bubble and pretend that all science is logical. The truth is that we can’t explain science with any logic given the history of science. That’s the main argument of Philosopher Paul Feyerabend: Given any proposed method M of the “proper” way of doing science, there will be a case from history where M was violated and the proponent of M agrees it was good science.
Feyerabend advocated an anarchist view of science and said that you can pick any scientific paradigm you want and it’s just as good as any other paradigm (Paradigm is something from Thomas Kuhn, and earlier philosopher and historian of science). He further argued that any science should be able to access scientific grants, even if it seems bogus because there’s nothing to say your science is better then my science.
And you know what? There’s absolutely nothing you can do to refute that unless you appeal to a scientific authority (what’s the difference between appealing to a scientific authority and a Church authority? Nothing) or arguing utility.
There’s no point in appealing to science as an authority, because philosophers have been trying for over 100 years to try and find a logical basis for science and they can’t find one. People accept science because they believe in it. Even statistics can only give an inductive basis for science (Bayesianism for example), which is not proof, just an argument of good correlation.
Yes, I know what I’m talking about and I have taken a class in Philosophy of Science. If you want to debate about it, learn something about it first.
A
Aussie_ukie
Guest
Copernicus was not a priest. he was a canon. but he was never ordained to the priesthood. get ur fact str8 b4 spew ur venom eveywhere.
nor did I say he was correct about everything, but he knew his theories would put his life at risk.
sad when one is afraid for their lives because of their own religion. very sad indeed.
nor do I believe science is infallible but it’s a hell more reliable than the bible’s and the Sacred Tradition’s idea of creation and the earth’s place in the universe, as well as evolution, sexual identity etc
The church like it did in the past is going to have to come to grips with the fact the bible is not always correct and neither is the sacred tradition. of your u will say that she never will…and maybe she won’t but dont expect the rest of society to be held back by her anymore.
The church has lost this battle and is loosing the war! I just dont understand why you Catholics can’t just accept that aqnd do your own thing and let the rest of us do ours?
afterall your never going to stop gays, they are everywhere.
say the church does win…it would be an empty victory cause you havent actually won, youve just imposed your beliefs on others in the public arena…provatly gay people will still have sex, still hold hand whilst walking down street, many children will still grow up and be gay, the same way that other children will grow up and be str8.
all you will do is succeed creating an environment of extreme anti-Catholicism, which will come back to bite you on the arse!
but I wont worry about that happening. cause frankly the church is on the retreat!
P
pnewton
Guest
Why would we accept rhetoric? The devil will always try to deceive people with lies of defeat. We have the promises of God and it is His faithfulness that we rely on. You must think the faith of people here is shallow if you think you can cuss and insult your way through an argument and somehow shake a faith grounded an almighty God and eternal truth.
- Status