I don’t see any “obsessing” in this case. I was responding to a post from someone else who was discussing your on-line personality so I didn’t even raise the topic.
It just seems odd that when we start getting down to the evidence, you want to change the subject to the terrible Barbarian. It looks bad, that’s all.
Barbarian suggests:
Wouldn’t it be great if we spent a little less time focusing on those motes in the eyes of others? Just a suggestion.
There is a time and place for fraternal correction or just simple interest in the welfare of the other person.
And here, I was thinking you were just trying to change the subject. And you were thinking only of my welfare…
Barbarian on inquisition about his spiritual life:
Yes. I go to a rather small parish, and we aren’t all that sophisticated as to have personal spiritual trainers. He’s my priest, and my friend. Will that meet your requirements?
In any case, you used a somewhat depreciating term “personal spiritual trainers” to make it sound like this is an extravagance or an unnecessary thing.
Let’s just say that the parish priest has been the source of guidance for generations of my family, and we never thought he was less than adequate for that purpose.
Barbarian on his critics:
I guess it would be only fair to mention that it’s folks who object to the church’s teaching on the acceptability of evolution, one of whom is promoting Krishna Consciousness “science” as an alternative to evolution. Do you think that would be an important thing to add?
Yes, I do. It’s important to try to find out if the people who are compaining are the ones who are wrong or if you are (or perhaps both are). This can be hard to do by yourself, and that’s where a confessor or director will help. I’m not a neutral observer so you’ll probably dismiss what I will say, but I agree with some others here about your attitude. Again, you will probably disagree but I really do not think this has anything to do with your scientific ideas or philosophical views. Like Ricmat, I’ve disagreed and argued with many people on a variety of subjects including this one and I’d just characterize your attitude as condescending and having contempt for the people you oppose.
Telling me that I should follow Krishna’s “science” is personally offensive to me. Go figure. I don’t care if you are personally arrogant or not. I’d like to keep this argument on the evidence.
Barbarian observes:
That I’m not inclined to go with “Krishna consciousness” for one thing.
This is a good example. It’s a very defensive reply with a touch of anger and attack.
Notice that Wolseley repeatedly refused to tell us about it, but wanted us to “buy the book.” It’s hardly surprising that I mentioned it, when I found out from where his ideas came.
Why would it be surprising to get some criticism for pushing that kind of thing on a Catholic board?
But more importantly, I wouldn’t say that the first thing your posts tell me is that you’re not inclined to go for Krishna consciousness. I actually see no indication that you’re interested in that topic, for or against. You don’t write much of anything about your faith that I can see.
Then you haven’t been listening. But perhaps you’re only interested in one thing here.
You’ve actually used a ridiculing term for the concept of spiritual direction.
As I said, I come from people who always thought the local priest was for spiritual direction. We’re simple folk.
So again, I wouldn’t say that you’re primarily about being opposed to New Age theology.
It’s not “new age”; it’s quite old. And it’s wrong. And you should avoid it, too.
As I see it, you’re primarily about “your science”, whatever that is. You’ve put that in a Catholic context and that’s good – but science is really your passion and first interest (nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn’t replace God). But then after that, your posts say very loudly that you have anger and contempt for “creationists”.
Nonsense. I’ve praised a number of them, like Harold Coffin and Kurt Wise, for their faith and integrity. I have contempt for those who lie and hide their true motives behind “ID.”
Barbarian observes:
For another, that I accept the Church’s teachings on science.
Ok, that’s fine but it’s not really a distinguishing characteristic as I see it. It’s like someone saying that they accept the Church’s teaching on mathematics.
I wasn’t aware that there was a teaching on mathematics. There is St. Tom’s argument that God can’t make a non-Eucilidian triangle, but that’s obviously not true.
You have written quite often about the Church’s teaching on science, but I don’t think you’ve every really put those teachings in context of binding authority or theological status. Some of what the Church says about science is not given at the level of doctrine. Some is merely given as opinion which can change.
Maybe so. But criticism of the Church’s position here, goes beyond the limits for Catholics.
Barbarian asks:
What do you think your rather obsessive interest in my personal life says about you?
Well, you’ve used the word “obsessive” twice in this post so I think you believe that my interest in your spiritual life is more than I should have. I don’t know if anyone else thinks that because this is really the first time I’ve asked these questions of you.
It seems odd, since it appears out of the blue, and off-topic.
