Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Peter_Plato]

Just read what’s written and leave aside my ham-fisted attempt to explain.

The only online Catholic commentary I know of is Haydock, who is too dry for me, but he says things like:

*Ver. 18. For the word of the cross. That is, the preaching that the Son of God, both God and man, died nailed to an infamous cross, is folly, is looked upon as ridiculous and incredible, by all obstinate unbelievers that perish: but it is received as the work of God, and an effect of his divine power, by such as are saved. (Witham)

Ver. 19-20. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will confound the false and mistaken wisdom of the great and wise philosophers, of the learned doctors or scribes, of the curious searchers of the secrets of nature.*

Surely you can see Paul’s point here, it’s not rocket science?

Well good, do it.

I remember catching a mucous-laden northern pike that was not as slippery as you are in your posts. This might also explain why you think Haydock is too dry; your first line of defense preferences being decidedly more gelatinous

 

[inocente]

I remember catching a mucous-laden northern pike that was not as slippery as you are in your posts. This might also explain why you think Haydock is too dry; your first line of defense preferences being decidedly more gelatinous

That’s a shame, you had the opportunity to post charitably but instead gave into your ego again to make yourself look good. Peter, you’ll now need to work out whether you’ve been weighed on the scales (by the fisher of men) and found wanting.

 

[Portofino]

I remember catching a mucous-laden northern pike that was not as slippery as you are in your posts. This might also explain why you think Haydock is too dry; your first line of defense preferences being decidedly more gelatinous

I’ve not read any of the recent posts in this thread, so I am ignorant of the context, but I do like your metaphors and analogies, Peter Plato

Small coincidence – a haddock is a kind of fish, so that makes the name “Haydock” itself a kind of pun Haydock may be dry though I’m not sure if haddock is too dry, unless we’re talking about dried haddock. (“Haddock is a very popular food fish, sold fresh, smoked, frozen, dried, or to a small extent canned.”–wikipedia).

 

[Peter_Plato]

When you read Romans, you’ll find that Paul has answers for anyone who tries to frighten you with authority figures or makes you doubt whether you really received the Spirit.

You don’t appear to know what the phrase means. Quoting verses is standard (and scholarly) practice, as a reminder of what an author said. On the other hand, quote mining refers to taking verses out of context and using them in contradiction to the author’s intention.

There are a couple of other posters who have said that, and I’ve asked where is this fabulous stuff which interprets scripture and only Catholics get to see, but then other posters said it doesn’t exist.

And be careful about not letting the Spirit guide you - back to Romans: “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God”.

Where did I say I have contempt for thinking? Did I quote CCC 137 contrary to the authors’ intentions? How?

First you jump threads on me, now you accuse me of dishonesty, please try to keep your male ego in check, all I’m doing is arguing that philosophy is a poor substitute for modern science.

There is no inconsistency, as I’ve said many, many times now, you’ve not answered my objection that “if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that”.

I guess it’s a compliment that all you’ve got left is ad hominem.

I’m game…

What could Paul’s intention possibly be here in Romans except to categorically proscribe homosexuality:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:18-32)

Let’s take Paul’s intent as an author seriously here. What could he possibly have meant except what he actually said? There is no possible rendering of this text that could entail he was condoning homosexuality as something honorable. Since he clearly states that these individuals have been “given up” to their dishonorable passions as a result of their futile thinking, it would seem possible that your condoning of dishonorable passions might be problematic and to use Paul’s words, an example of “futile thinking.”

Since you condone in other threads what Paul is condemning here. Perhaps that is a strong indicator that your thinking regarding Paul might border on being problematically futile. Clearly, you are not faithful to Paul’s intention when dismissing the above passage when you form your thoughts on homosexuality. That places your verbal spillage regarding “reading all of Paul” into the category of “et tu?”

There is nothing in any of Paul’s other writings that would be contrary to a crystal clear rendering of what is meant here. In fact I can cite a number of other passages that support a very literal and clear interpretation. Let’s hear you rescind your views on homosexuality before you can be taken seriously with regard to your ostensibly complete treatment of Paul’s writings.

 

[inocente]

That’s a shame, you had the opportunity to post charitably but instead gave into your ego again to make yourself look good. Peter, you’ll now need to work out whether you’ve been weighed on the scales (by the Fisher of Men) and found wanting.

 

[inocente]

I’m game…

What could Paul’s intention possibly be here in Romans except to categorically proscribe homosexuality:

Let’s take Paul’s intent as an author seriously here. What could he possibly have meant except what he actually said? There is no possible rendering of this text that could entail he was condoning homosexuality as something honorable. Since he clearly states that these individuals have been “given up” to their dishonorable passions as a result of their futile thinking, it would seem possible that your condoning of dishonorable passions might be problematic and to use Paul’s words, an example of “futile thinking.”

Since you condone in other threads what Paul is condemning here. Perhaps that is a strong indicator that your thinking regarding Paul might border on being problematically futile. Clearly, you are not faithful to Paul’s intention when dismissing the above passage when you form your thoughts on homosexuality. That places your verbal spillage regarding “reading all of Paul” into the category of “et tu?”

There is nothing in any of Paul’s other writings that would be contrary to a crystal clear rendering of what is meant here. In fact I can cite a number of other passages that support a very literal and clear interpretation. Let’s hear you rescind your views on homosexuality before you can be taken seriously with regard to your ostensibly complete treatment of Paul’s writings.

You’ll need to promise to debate the subject and behave yourself first, I’ve had a belly full of your ego.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve not read any of the recent posts in this thread, so I am ignorant of the context, but I do like your metaphors and analogies, Peter Plato

Small coincidence – a haddock is a kind of fish, so that makes the name “Haydock” itself a kind of pun Haydock may be dry though I’m not sure if haddock is too dry, unless we’re talking about dried haddock. (“Haddock is a very popular food fish, sold fresh, smoked, frozen, dried, or to a small extent canned.”–wikipedia).

Given that Innocente is doing his best to call me a blowfish regarding Paul, I am con(sole)d that at least you don’t think I’m a tube snout or wrymouth. Thanks for taking the time to notice!

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ll need to promise to debate the subject and behave yourself first, I’ve had a belly full of your spite.

Fair enough!

 

[inocente]

Fair enough!

So is that a promise?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s a shame, you had the opportunity to post charitably but instead gave into your ego again to make yourself look good. Peter, you’ll now need to work out whether you’ve been weighed on the scales (by the fisher of men) and found wanting.

Nice comeback! I love the allusion.

For the record, I’ve already been found wanting.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So is that a promise?

I love repartee too much and my advisor suggests that I not make rash promises, especially those I would have difficulty living up to.

I suggest you put me on your ignore list if you have a sensitive constitution.

 

[inocente]

I love repartee too much and my advisor suggests that I not make rash promises, especially those I would have difficulty living up to.

I suggest you put me on your ignore list if you have a sensitive constitution.

There’s only one on my ignore list, and you’re not in the same league, not by a long way, much as you love your ego.

 

[inocente]

I’m game…

What could Paul’s intention possibly be here in Romans except to categorically proscribe homosexuality:

Let’s take Paul’s intent as an author seriously here. What could he possibly have meant except what he actually said? There is no possible rendering of this text that could entail he was condoning homosexuality as something honorable. Since he clearly states that these individuals have been “given up” to their dishonorable passions as a result of their futile thinking, it would seem possible that your condoning of dishonorable passions might be problematic and to use Paul’s words, an example of “futile thinking.”

Since you condone in other threads what Paul is condemning here. Perhaps that is a strong indicator t-]hat your thinking regarding Paul might border on being problematically futile/-]. Clearly, you are not faithful to Paul’s intention when dismissing the above passage when you form your thoughts on homosexuality. That places-] your verbal spillage/-] regarding “reading all of Paul” into the category of “et tu?”

There is nothing in any of Paul’s other writings that would be contrary to a crystal clear rendering of what is meant here. In fact I can cite a number of other passages that support a very literal and clear interpretation. Let’s hear you rescind your views on homosexuality before you can be taken seriously with regard to your ostensibly complete treatment of Paul’s writings.

Why you think this has anything to do with the thread escapes me, but let’s say we’re going to read Paul scientifically just to pretend it’s on topic, although as I’ve said before it is against forum rules for you to jump threads like this.

I’ve asked you many times to read the entire epistle, and you did not. So, tomorrow in Mass sit next to a lesbian Catholic and tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he wrote “they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God** for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles**.”

Then tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he said they “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.”

And that’s without even going on to chapter two. So according to you, Paul thought lesbian Catholics worship idols and are full of murder.

And according to you he blurted that out at the start of the long argument in the epistle which has nothing to do with lesbians whatsoever.

Now that’s as far off-topic as I’m willing to go, if you want to resurrect that topic then start a thread and I may join in.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s only one on my ignore list, and you’re not in the same league, not by a long way, much as you love your ego.

I love it! You can dish it out as well as take it.

Still, your points about philosophy are dead wrong.

Which brings up another issue. Why would you put someone of quality on your ignore list and continue to mess about with triflers like me? That says something about you, you do understand…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve asked you many times to read the entire epistle, and you did not.

And you know that, how? Perhaps because I didn’t agree with your interpretation?

Well, that was then, but now…

So, tomorrow in Mass sit next to a lesbian Catholic and tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he wrote “they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God** for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles**.”

Then tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he said they “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.”

Until reading your poignant appeal it had not dawned on me what you were getting at.

As a lukewarm, self-absorbed, but non-professing Christian it has now become clear that I should not be concerned with the eternal welfare of others. That ought not be any concern of mine. Just like when I see a drug addict or alcoholic I should not concern myself with the state of their health. The perilous state that others place themselves in regarding their eternal condition should not be of concern for me. I should mind my business and concern myself with mowing my lawn, having coffee and other important things in life. What others choose to do with their moral and spiritual lives is really none of my concern. When a drug addict sits beside me in Church, I should, in keeping with this proper concern not to offend others, reassure her or him that the heroin s/he freebases is really not an issue for me, despite the fact that it might have some nasty side affects for her/him. Of course, engaging in disordered sexual behaviour does not have those kinds of merely temporal consequences, so this is even less of a problem for me than the heroin junkie indulging him or her self.

Why concern myself with what God thinks when I ought to deeply be troubled with what others will think of me. After all, God is merciful and will forgive anything I do, but my human comrades are merciless. Better not offend them, I will place myself in great peril. God should cause me no great fear or trembling, but people, they are another story altogether. Being labelled a homophobe is not nice and that stigma lasts forever, but God is love and forgives anything, right?

You see how reasonable I can be Innocente? It must do your heart good to have converted another soul to one who cares so deeply about what others think that I can overcome the troubling thought that they are setting themselves up for great sorrow. But at least I do care about what others think of me and that I have not caused them offense, which, of course, matters more than their eternal state.

And that’s without even going on to chapter two. So according to you, Paul thought lesbian Catholics worship idols and are full of murder.

And according to you he blurted that out at the start of the long argument in the epistle which has nothing to do with lesbians whatsoever.

Now that’s as far off-topic as I’m willing to go, if you want to resurrect that topic then start a thread and I may join in.

Paul’s message does seem to have something to do with the far reaching consequences of being unfaithful to God but let’s not go there. That is a disturbing topic, with all that talk of evil and the repercussions of sin and such. No, you are absolutely right. We should be much more concerned with not offending others than with what is good and right in God’s eyes.

Phew! That is such load off my mind. I thought I was going to have to change my shallow niceness into actual concern for the eternal welfare of others. I am deeply grateful to you for ridding me of that bizarre inclination.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Small coincidence – a haddock is a kind of fish, so that makes the name “Haydock” itself a kind of pun Haydock may be dry though I’m not sure if haddock is too dry, unless we’re talking about dried haddock. (“Haddock is a very popular food fish, sold fresh, smoked, frozen, dried, or to a small extent canned.”–wikipedia).

Great covert attempt to bring this thread back onto the topic of science. I missed that the first time.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank the Lord you finally saw the light.

I certainly did - like others on this thread…

 

[inocente]

I certainly did - like others on this thread…

I was being hopeful, but it seems I was right all along and you cannot back up your claims. Still, glad you found an easy way out by hiding behind the class bully.

 

[inocente]

I love it! You can dish it out as well as take it.

Still, your points about philosophy are dead wrong.

Which brings up another issue. Why would you put someone of quality on your ignore list and continue to mess about with triflers like me? That says something about you, you do understand…

Agreed. I had to sit in yesterday with nothing else to do, but otherwise your lack of ability to think logically combined with your bad behavior mean I’ve had enough of you for the moment.

 

[inocente]

As a lukewarm, self-absorbed, but non-professing Christian it has now become clear that I should not be concerned with the eternal welfare of others. That ought not be any concern of mine. Just like when I see a drug addict or alcoholic I should not concern myself with the state of their health. The perilous state that others place themselves in regarding their eternal condition should not be of concern for me. I should mind my business and concern myself with mowing my lawn, having coffee and other important things in life. What others choose to do with their moral and spiritual lives is really none of my concern. When a drug addict sits beside me in Church, I should, in keeping with this proper concern not to offend others, reassure her or him that the heroin s/he freebases is really not an issue for me, despite the fact that it might have some nasty side affects for her/him. Of course, engaging in disordered sexual behaviour does not have those kinds of merely temporal consequences, so this is even less of a problem for me than the heroin junkie indulging him or her self.

You asked me “What could Paul’s intention possibly be here in Romans except to categorically proscribe homosexuality” and I told you. Once again you’ve unable to give any relevant response and chose instead to stroke your ego. Though you certain hit the nail on the head with your assessment of yourself - “self-absorbed”.