Halicarnassus wrote:Yes and you know fine well that Dawkins et al and all the other pop atheists, mean Natural Sciences when they bring so called evidence to answer non Scientific questions. The popular fad in our epoch is evolutionary biology. It will have it's day then we will be on to something else.
Unlike religion knowledge evolves through being constantly refined, and so yes the the understanding of evolution will evolve, though presumably at an increasingly slow pace now that the core structures of it are accepted. Do you see evolutionary biology in future being proved false and a return to creationism? What kind of proof would be required, the Second Coming for a start I imagine.
Halicarnassus wrote:Hard to know where to start on this one... First of all what 'Church' are you talking about? Darwinian theories of evolution have never been deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Darwin was never deemed a heretic as by the very fact of being a protestant, so he is de facto heretical anyway.
Haha, you've got to love religion, Catholics don't brand Darwin a heretic for his iconoclastic works themselves but because he belonged to another flavour of Christianity?'Q. When did the church accept evolution?
A. The church first brought evolution into the fold in 1950 with the work of Pope Pius XII, writes io9. “At the same time, Catholics take no issue with the Big Bang theory, along with cosmological, geological, and biological axioms touted by science.”'
You might think it took a century after Darwin for them to accept the inevitable tide of progress and knowledge. You might jest that even Moses himself couldn't have resisted it any longer.
Halicarnassus wrote:Like other ignorant pop atheists you (like Dawkins) sensationalise wacky young earth creationists who think that the earth is 6000 yrs old (not 2000 as you err) and stereotype all Christian denominations as so. It is the most cowardly illogical demagogical device to suggest that one groups errors are shared by all. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm not familiar with Dawkins work though know his name; your dismissive tone suggests he contradicts your beliefs. This is something I have come to learn especially living out here in a god-fearing country, when you question the beliefs of a religionist you are challenging his core identity. The response might vary from throwing up a cloud of chaff-like bluster, to publicly throwing you to your death off a roof-top. Why do you believe the Catholic belief of the creation of the world is more valid than the creation beliefs of other religions?
I wouldn't consider myself any form of 'pop atheist'. I have studied [at uni] genetics, evolution, the philosophy of science and religion; Popper's falsificationism, perhaps you've studied this Fellow of the Royal Society's works and had the greater knowledge to dismiss them.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Halicarnassus wrote:I think you need to do some research before you waste any more time ranting against the Church.
Transubstantiation is not scientific in any sense it is the reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary. It encompasses Jesus Christ's exact prescription of turning bread and wine into his body and blood. I couldn't care less if you don't believe, that is your problem not mine.
I'm not 'ranting against the church', just requesting some evidence that an average person in the modern day might consider reasonable to determine that there is some truth in it: But I don't see any. I don't quite follow what this transubstantiation is, so at communion do you consider the Sacrament to be wine and rice paper, a kind of metaphor perhaps, or do you believe it is literally his flesh and blood?
Halicarnassus wrote:As far as face value and scripture, the Church has had for two thousand years the most intelligent of men who ever lived like St Thomas Aquinas who studied scripture their whole life.
Perhaps that title is bestowed upon those who are most useful to the Church's power? But with so few people being committed Christians these days I can't see their view's relevance to the majority.
Halicarnassus wrote: The language of the scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was well understood and written in such a way for the people of those ages.
Written largely for the illiterate and uneducated. Perhaps it should be updated to cater to the more educated and informed modern mind; that might make it more compelling? Perhaps difficult when it has been declared the word of God.
Halicarnassus wrote: They understood for instance parables as stories that held essential truths, not facts. Today the likes of you and your pop atheists would want to see evidence to see if the man in the parable really existed. If he didn't really exist you would through the whole thing out, missing the point.
No, not at all. But I'd like to understand things like why they believe space was found on the Ark, miniscule for it's stated purpose, for things like the deadly diseases.
Minor edit: Clariman