PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi and Biden tick off TWO Archbishops


mlyonsd
08-26-2008, 02:31 PM
By Bill Sammon

Irked by pro-choice Democrats who tout their Catholicism, the archbishop of Washington is chiding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for misstating church history and the archbishop of Denver is warning vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden not to take Communion.

The unusual public rebukes come as both Pelosi and Biden are talking up their faith in a bid for swing voters as Democrats stage their national convention in Denver. In an interview Sunday, Pelosi claimed to be an expert on the church’s abortion stance.

“As an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time,” Pelosi told NBC’s Tom Brokaw, who had asked her when life begins. “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.”

When Brokaw pointed out that the Catholic church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said: “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

In an interview with FOX News on Tuesday, Archbishop Donald Wuerl said people need to reflect more before they start talking about church doctrine. He also issued a statement calling Pelosi’s explanation of the church’s abortion stance “incorrect.”

“The current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago,” Wuerl noted. “From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.”

Wuerl cited a passage from the church’s catechism that condemns abortion as “gravely contrary to moral law.”

“Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism states. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Biden disagreed, as evidenced by a 2006 interview he gave to C-SPAN, which asked him about abortion.

“That debate in our church has not morphed, but changed over a thousand years,” Biden said. “It always is viewed by the church as something that is wrong, but there’s been gradations of whether it was wrong. You know, from venial or mortal sin, as we Catholics say, and versions of it.”

But Biden added that since Pope Pius IX’s reign (1846-1878), “it’s been pretty clear that’s been automatic — moment of conception.”
Over the weekend, Biden’s pro-choice views raised the ire of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput.

“I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion, if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion,” Chaput told The Associated Press.

As for Pelosi, Chaput called her “a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.”
Chaput added that abortion “is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it.”

During that 2004 presidential campaign, Chaput and a dozen other bishops called on Democratic nominee John Kerry to refrain from taking Communion. The church has also objected to former GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani taking Communion.

“I think some of it is regional,” said Pelosi, whose district encompasses San Francisco, in a recent interview with C-SPAN. “It depends on the bishop of a certain region and, fortunately for me, Communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular Communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

On Saturday, when Obama introduced Biden as his running mate, both men made a point of mentioning Biden’s Catholicism. Obama has struggled to win over Catholics, 52 percent of whom voted for President Bush in 2004.

Bill Sammon is Washington Deputy Managing Editor for the FOX News Channel.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/archbishop-of-washington-chides-pelosi-denver-archbishop-warns-biden-to-skip-communion/

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 02:36 PM
I am very glad these Bishops are being vocal about this. They are two great examples of defenders of Catholic teaching and authority.

HolmeZz
08-26-2008, 02:43 PM
So what exactly did Biden do?

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 02:44 PM
More Bishops throwing down the gauntlet:

http://www.usccb.org/

Bishops respond to House Speaker Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Church teaching against abortion

WASHINGTON--Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church".

KC Dan
08-26-2008, 02:45 PM
So what exactly did Biden do?
He's pro-choice, catholic and said this as put in original post:

“That debate in our church has not morphed, but changed over a thousand years,” Biden said. “It always is viewed by the church as something that is wrong, but there’s been gradations of whether it was wrong. You know, from venial or mortal sin, as we Catholics say, and versions of it.”


The Catholic church said it hasn't changed and has been consistent. That is the issue to the church.

Donger
08-26-2008, 02:47 PM
I love Cafeteria Catholics.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 02:48 PM
So what exactly did Biden do?

Biden is so strange or wishy-washy when it comes to this issue. He believes life beings at conception, but is pro-abortion. He is also against partial-birth abortion. He's also opposed to public funding of abortions.

Last year, he got a 36% from NARAL. The year before that, it was 100%.

On Meet the Press in 2007, Biden said this:

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith.

HolmeZz
08-26-2008, 02:51 PM
He's pro-choice, catholic and said this as put in original post:

“That debate in our church has not morphed, but changed over a thousand years,” Biden said. “It always is viewed by the church as something that is wrong, but there’s been gradations of whether it was wrong. You know, from venial or mortal sin, as we Catholics say, and versions of it.”


The Catholic church said it hasn't changed and has been consistent. That is the issue to the church.

Of course they're going to claim their positions have never wavered. If you admit they have, you admit that humans have gradually altered morals that God wants you to live by(and of course they have).

Their basic issue is that Biden is pro-choice. They should get over it.

KC Dan
08-26-2008, 02:53 PM
I really dislike this lack of social morality displayed by people especially politicians. How on God's green earth can you have integrity when you believe life begins at conception but are pro-choice? If that is your stance then one can easily surmise that you believe that abortion is murder but it's ok because the mother can choose to murder her child??? Just don't get it...

Donger
08-26-2008, 02:54 PM
Their basic issue is that Biden is pro-choice. They should get over it.

Wow.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 02:55 PM
I believe this came up when Kerry ran too. It's automatic exommunication and I think that was the issue at hand. There'd need be no formal announcement of an excommunication.

HolmeZz
08-26-2008, 02:55 PM
I really dislike this lack of social morality displayed by people especially politicians. How on God's green earth can you have integrity when you believe life begins at conception but are pro-choice? If that is your stance then one can easily surmise that you believe that abortion is murder but it's ok because the mother can choose to murder her child??? Just don't get it...

There's definitely some hypocrisy to it. Not unsimiliar to McCain believing life begins at conception and still favoring embryonic stem cell research.

mlyonsd
08-26-2008, 02:56 PM
Of course they're going to claim their positions have never wavered. If you admit they have, you admit that humans have gradually altered morals that God wants you to live by(and of course they have).

Their basic issue is that Biden is pro-choice. They should get over it.


I think the church is warning the democrats to not publicize as a political statement Biden is Catholic when he doesn't adhere to one of their core principles. They did the same to Rudy.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 02:57 PM
Their basic issue is that Biden is pro-choice. They should get over it.

Freedom of religion means they can control and chastise their members the way they want by excommunicating if need be. If they don't follow the faith then leave.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 02:59 PM
I believe this came up when Kerry ran too. It's automatic exommunication and I think that was the issue at hand. There'd need be no formal announcement of an excommunication.

There's been talk about it from mostly a small amount of "trads" and it seems the demand is getting stronger as politicians try harder to flaunt their Catholic backgrounds for the large Catholic vote.

Archbishop Burke from St. Louis was basically the leader of the charge in talking not about excommunication but the denial of Communion.

KC Dan
08-26-2008, 03:00 PM
There's definitely some hypocrisy to it. Not unsimiliar to McCain believing life begins at conception and still favoring embryonic stem cell research.
agreed

HolmeZz
08-26-2008, 03:02 PM
I think the church is warning the democrats to not publicize as a political statement Biden is Catholic when he doesn't adhere to one of their core principles.

The Catholic Church doesn't even adhere to the core priniciples of the Catholic Church.

Freedom of religion means they can control and chastise their members the way they want by excommunicating if need be. If they don't follow the faith then leave.

Freedom of speech also means he can refer to himself as Catholic as much as he'd friggin' like, and I say that as someone who comes from a family of pro-choice Roman Catholics, most who aren't regular church-goers.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2008, 03:05 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't even adhere to the core priniciples of the Catholic Church.
Whoa! I won't touch this one. Not that I am up on it all.



Freedom of speech also means he can refer to himself as Catholic as much as he'd friggin' like, and I say that as someone who comes from a family of pro-choice Roman Catholics, most who aren't regular church-goers.

Freedom of speech means the govt can't restrict his speech. The Constitution is primarily about what the govt can do here, not a private group. Sure, he can do this, but they can excommunicate him for violating the tenets of their faith which is their right too.

I know all about Cafeteria Catholics but there are rules for not attending Chruch too or what will happen to one's soul if they don't.

I was raised RC myself.

mlyonsd
08-26-2008, 03:07 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't even adhere to the core priniciples of the Catholic Church.


You won't get an argument out of me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-26-2008, 03:13 PM
Considering these Archbishops are members of one of the most historically corrupt and violent organizations in the history of mankind, I'll take their considerations under advisement.

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 06:20 PM
Whoo! Go Biden. You have my support again!

Pelosi still has a long way to go.

Jenson71
08-26-2008, 11:41 PM
The Archbishop of San Francisco is supposedly going to release a statement on September 5. Some Catholics are wondering why it will be so long of a wait for the Archbishop to respond.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Pelosi issues a statement using more Augustine rhetoric to wildly distort Catholic teaching on the issue of abortion. Unbelievable. She is putting herself in a position of debate against Catholic priests and teachers who have forgotten more theology in the past 5 minutes then she has ever known.

HonestChieffan
08-27-2008, 12:21 AM
Obama can pretty well forget the Catholic vote and he never had any of the christian vote. This is a huge major driver issue for many and Obama's pro-abortion stand cannot win any of those over.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 12:31 AM
The Archbishop of San Francisco is supposedly going to release a statement on September 5. Some Catholics are wondering why it will be so long of a wait for the Archbishop to respond.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Pelosi issues a statement using more Augustine rhetoric to wildly distort Catholic teaching on the issue of abortion. Unbelievable. She is putting herself in a position of debate against Catholic priests and teachers who have forgotten more theology in the past 5 minutes then she has ever known.

I'm sorry but I have to chuckle when I hear someone claim someone else is distorting Catholic teaching on any issue. It's hilarious.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 12:55 AM
...“I presume that his (Sen. Biden's) integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion, if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion,” Chaput told The Associated Press.

As for Pelosi, Chaput called her “a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.”...

Nicely said.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 01:05 AM
The Archbishop of San Francisco is supposedly going to release a statement on September 5. Some Catholics are wondering why it will be so long of a wait for the Archbishop to respond.

I would hope that the Church would allow Rep. Pelosi a reasonable period to decide how to correct herself before the Church takes any action against her.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Pelosi issues a statement using more Augustine rhetoric to wildly distort Catholic teaching on the issue of abortion. Unbelievable. She is putting herself in a position of debate against Catholic priests and teachers who have forgotten more theology in the past 5 minutes then she has ever known.

I hope that she eventually will do that which is best.

She cannot win this argument from a theological perspective.

Mecca
08-27-2008, 01:20 AM
The Catholic church, abortion is bad just go molest some kids!

Guru
08-27-2008, 01:22 AM
The Catholic church, abortion is bad just go molest some kids!
The way those priests have cast such a horrible light on the church frustrates me greatly.

Mecca
08-27-2008, 01:25 AM
That's why they hate abortion less kids to you know...

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 02:41 AM
The way those priests have cast such a horrible light on the church frustrates me greatly.

Well, there's always the Inquisition, flagellants, the Holocaust, Anabaptists, and the money whoring nature of the Church to go around as well.

Guru
08-27-2008, 02:44 AM
Well, there's always the Inquisition, flagellants, the Holocaust, Anabaptists, and the money whoring nature of the Church to go around as well.:shake::rolleyes:

Guess it time to hibernate again.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 02:46 AM
:shake::rolleyes:

Guess it time to hibernate again.

You've gotta admit, the Catholic Church has made itself a pretty big punching bag over the years.

Guru
08-27-2008, 02:48 AM
You've gotta admit, the Catholic Church has made itself a pretty big punching bag over the years.
All religions have. That doesn't make the primary message wrong though. I have my issues with the church as well but I try to base my views with my local church rather than the world church. I like what I see in my local faith community.

Mecca
08-27-2008, 02:53 AM
I think this thread makes me happy to not be religious.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 02:55 AM
I think this thread makes me happy to not be religious.

Religion and faith are separate ideas.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 02:56 AM
All religions have. That doesn't make the primary message wrong though. I have my issues with the church as well but I try to base my views with my local church rather than the world church. I like what I see in my local faith community.

How does one go about being excommunicated? I've always wanted to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Obviously, I'd have to join and be confirmed, but after that, what could I do that is legally innocuous, but could lead to my excommunication?

Guru
08-27-2008, 02:58 AM
How does one go about being excommunicated? I've always wanted to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Obviously, I'd have to join and be confirmed, but after that, what could I do that is legally innocuous, but could lead to my excommunication?
ASk Slag that. I don't know the first thing about that subject. I have no doubt Slag will give you a five page response. heh

Guess you could ask John Kerry iirc.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 02:59 AM
How does one go about being excommunicated? I've always wanted to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Obviously, I'd have to join and be confirmed, but after that, what could I do that is legally innocuous, but could lead to my excommunication?

You could try marrying your brother's former wife. Just trying to help...

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 02:59 AM
You could try marrying your brother's former wife. Just trying to help...

Only child.

Mecca
08-27-2008, 03:00 AM
ASk Slag that. I don't know the first thing about that subject. I have no doubt Slag will give you a five page response. heh

Guess you could ask John Kerry iirc.

I would rather listen to Slag talk about the ills of anal sex and TV...

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2008, 03:14 AM
Only child.

There's a shocker.

Guru
08-27-2008, 03:24 AM
I would rather listen to Slag talk about the ills of anal sex and TV...
ROFL

Saggysack
08-27-2008, 03:42 AM
Just TWO!?! Just TWO!?!

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 05:34 AM
How does one go about being excommunicated? I've always wanted to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Obviously, I'd have to join and be confirmed, but after that, what could I do that is legally innocuous, but could lead to my excommunication?

The easiest way is to join the Church, then declare yourself a bishop or priest and appoint priests and hold some "Catholic services" at your local Unitarian Universalist building.

This is seriously what some women do who want to be wymynpriests, and they really do get excommunicated.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 05:45 AM
I'm sorry but I have to chuckle when I hear someone claim someone else is distorting Catholic teaching on any issue. It's hilarious.

Why? It's not like it's impossible to figure out Catholic teaching. Read Canon Law and the Catechism and even some Papal Encyclicals.

When Ben Stein's evolution film was coming out, you spent time claiming someone else was distorting scientific teaching. That's what people do when they are students of a subject and come across ignorance about the subject.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 05:48 AM
Just TWO!?! Just TWO!?!

No, there have been more now making statements, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Cardinal Edward Egan.

Saggysack
08-27-2008, 06:34 AM
No, there have been more now making statements, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Cardinal Edward Egan.

Scary.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 07:49 AM
Scary.

Oh yeah. Blood will flow in the streets.

Saggysack
08-27-2008, 08:31 AM
Oh yeah. Blood will flow in the streets.

You know what makes the grass green and the buds big?

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 09:36 AM
Why? It's not like it's impossible to figure out Catholic teaching. Read Canon Law and the Catechism and even some Papal Encyclicals.

When Ben Stein's evolution film was coming out, you spent time claiming someone else was distorting scientific teaching. That's what people do when they are students of a subject and come across ignorance about the subject.

Theology is a joke. You can twist theology to say anything you want it to say. The best part is everyone says that only theologians know what they're talking about.

For example, Catholics believe that after Transubstantiation the bread and wine is literally his body and blood. There is no denying that. That's what the teachings say. How is that not cannibalism?

At that point, you'll encounter a lot of wiggling, twisting, etc. Most of the time you'll need to use The Courtier's Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php).

Another example: how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% divine. It's an inherent paradox. But, as always, theologians will explain it away.


By the way, there's a slight difference between distorting scientific claims and distorting theological claims. The slight difference has to do with, ahem how do I say this, truth.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 11:14 AM
For example, Catholics believe that after Transubstantiation the bread and wine is literally his body and blood. There is no denying that. That's what the teachings say.

One second you say you can twist theology around to say anything. The next you're saying there's no denying what Catholic theology says about transubstatiation.

You (I mean, people) can be wrong in arguing theological ideas and beliefs of a group. It doesn't have to be about biology.

Don't blame us for theology. That's the Greeks' fault.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 12:58 PM
One second you say you can twist theology around to say anything. The next you're saying there's no denying what Catholic theology says about transubstatiation.

What I failed to convey was the fact that when confronted with the accusation of cannibalism, is that they'll deny that and start twisting things.


You (I mean, people) can be wrong in arguing theological ideas and beliefs of a group. It doesn't have to be about biology.

Don't blame us for theology. That's the Greeks' fault.

So you agree that a lot of theology is merely a cop out or a rationalization.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2008, 02:06 PM
Theology is a joke. You can twist theology to say anything you want it to say. The best part is everyone says that only theologians know what they're talking about.

For example, Catholics believe that after Transubstantiation the bread and wine is literally his body and blood. There is no denying that. That's what the teachings say. How is that not cannibalism?

At that point, you'll encounter a lot of wiggling, twisting, etc. Most of the time you'll need to use The Courtier's Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php).

Another example: how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% divine. It's an inherent paradox. But, as always, theologians will explain it away.

By the way, there's a slight difference between distorting scientific claims and distorting theological claims. The slight difference has to do with, ahem how do I say this, truth.

Science is not, by default, truth. Certainly it is the pursuit of understanding the nature of things and in that pursuit truth may be found but to assert that science=truth is fallacy.

I simply point you to Ptolemy's geocentric model, a system of complex mathematics and calculations that correctly predicted the orbits of the known solar system at the time. While the orbits were erratic under his system the mathematics worked and accurately predicted positions of orbiting planets. For all intents and purposes Ptolemy's system was truth. It was true that his system predicted movement and planetary position. However, his system was false and therefor his results were false as well. But that didn't come to light until Kepler. Sure others mounted challenges to the geocentric model, but Kepler's was the first serious challenge...and that came some 1,500 years AFTER Ptolemy.

Accepting scientific results that "work" as truth is dangerous and anathema to the nature of science. One of my main grievances against the climate change crowd is their vitriolic response to serious scientific scrutiny of their models, methods, and results. To disagree with them is heresy and science does not operate that way. When you can no longer question science it becomes religion and matters of faith.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Science is not, by default, truth. Certainly it is the pursuit of understanding the nature of things and in that pursuit truth may be found but to assert that science=truth is fallacy.

I didn't assert science as truth. I merely remarked the fact that science is based somewhat in reality whereas theology is not. In other words, it is more down the "truth" scale than theology ever will be.


I simply point you to Ptolemy's geocentric model, a system of complex mathematics and calculations that correctly predicted the orbits of the known solar system at the time. While the orbits were erratic under his system the mathematics worked and accurately predicted positions of orbiting planets. For all intents and purposes Ptolemy's system was truth. It was true that his system predicted movement and planetary position. However, his system was false and therefor his results were false as well. But that didn't come to light until Kepler. Sure others mounted challenges to the geocentric model, but Kepler's was the first serious challenge...and that came some 1,500 years AFTER Ptolemy.

Accepting scientific results that "work" as truth is dangerous and anathema to the nature of science. One of my main grievances against the climate change crowd is their vitriolic response to serious scientific scrutiny of their models, methods, and results. To disagree with them is heresy and science does not operate that way. When you can no longer question science it becomes religion and matters of faith.

You sound like me. I have argued this for years on this bulletin board. Science is based on evidence and reason. Those are closer to truth than anything theology or religion can come up with.

I might also add that the reason you get "heresy" when climate change is invoked is the same reason they get mad when evolution is questioned. It's because both are questioned for nonscientific reasons. Evolution is questioned by religious people. More times than not they don't know what the definition of theory, with respect to science, is. Key fundamentals that aren't taken into account are the reason science seems hostile.

Mr. Laz
08-27-2008, 03:35 PM
and the pussification of the archdiocese continues

RaiderH8r
08-27-2008, 04:01 PM
I didn't assert science as truth. I merely remarked the fact that science is based somewhat in reality whereas theology is not. In other words, it is more down the "truth" scale than theology ever will be.



You sound like me. I have argued this for years on this bulletin board. Science is based on evidence and reason. Those are closer to truth than anything theology or religion can come up with.

I might also add that the reason you get "heresy" when climate change is invoked is the same reason they get mad when evolution is questioned. It's because both are questioned for nonscientific reasons. Evolution is questioned by religious people. More times than not they don't know what the definition of theory, with respect to science, is. Key fundamentals that aren't taken into account are the reason science seems hostile.

I simply suggest that currently climate models are extraordinarily complex and even simple models are difficult to get right. That there are a multitude of factors, bordering on infinite, effecting climate, from magnetism to solar activity to human emissions to water vapor to God knows what. I have a problem with the certainty with which the results and statements of people, particularly public officials, who boldly preach the gloom and doom of climate change when my point is, quite simply, we know relatively little about the earth and its cycles. I suggest perhaps a more moderated and qualified statement of effect may be in order. I get "Heretic!" and it bothers me.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 04:58 PM
What I failed to convey was the fact that when confronted with the accusation of cannibalism, is that they'll deny that and start twisting things..

They have an explanation for it. Either way, you can claim the explanation is something else, and that would be wrong. That's the point.

So you agree that a lot of theology is merely a cop out or a rationalization

I have no idea where you think I seemed to suggest that I would agree with that.

science is based somewhat in reality whereas theology is not. In other words, it is more down the "truth" scale than theology ever will be.


Evolution is questioned by religious people. More times than not they don't know what the definition of theory, with respect to science, is.

Could you think in any simpler terms?

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 05:03 PM
They have an explanation for it. Either way, you can claim the explanation is something else, and that would be wrong. That's the point.

You can explain anything. You can explain why leprechauns exist but that doesn't mean they do.



I have no idea where you think I seemed to suggest that I would agree with that.


You said blame the Greeks for theology, which means you must have a beef against it at some level.



Could you think in any simpler terms?

Does it have to be any more complex than that? Occams Razor works nicely when applied to religion, I might add.

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 05:38 PM
You can explain anything. You can explain why leprechauns exist but that doesn't mean they do.

Yeah, that's not the point. I understand you can be a parrot all day, but we were talking about being wrong about Catholic teaching (which you thought was absurd or hilarious).


You said blame the Greeks for theology, which means you must have a beef against it at some level.

I'm just acknowledging the Greek philosophical thought on God (theology), which Catholicism adapted.

Does it have to be any more complex than that? Occams Razor works nicely when applied to religion, I might add.

It doesn't "have to be" - it is more complex than that. You use some insane generalizations - like "religious people question evolution," which I could go on a lot more about.

You also have a "truth" scale, which I'd like to see you try to explain that, and then you say science is based somewhat on reality, and your only idea of reality is what you can see, hear, taste, smell or touch.

And then you randomly throw in some other "theorem" that you probably just found cycling through wikipedia or the "More Truth Blogs" one day.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 05:49 PM
Yeah, that's not the point. I understand you can be a parrot all day, but we were talking about being wrong about Catholic teaching (which you thought was absurd or hilarious).

It's hard not to be a parrot when the arguments have remained the same for centuries. Likewise, you would be a parrot of Catholic teachings.

I thought it was hilarious because of the irony. The irony that religion has that there is "one, true interpretation." That's why you always get the One True Scottsman fallacy.


I'm just acknowledging the Greek philosophical thought on God (theology), which Catholicism adapted.

The story of Christianity is adapted from several sources. I've heard your metaphysical argument about how it's based in Aristotle or whatever. I find it as convincing as the argument for ID.


It doesn't "have to be" - it is more complex than that. You use some insane generalizations - like "religious people question evolution," which I could go on a lot more about.

Do they not question evolution?

I'm willing to be a lot of money that most of those people do not know what theory means with respect to science.


You also have a "truth" scale, which I'd like to see you try to explain that, and then you say science is based somewhat on reality, and your only idea of reality is what you can see, hear, taste, smell or touch.

Truth scale is simple. Truth lies at the end of a linear line. We are in search of it. Science advances slowly towards that end. Religion makes stuff up in order to jump to the end. Basically, it cuts in line.

The path to truth requires reason, evidence, and scrutiny. Religion encompasses very little, if any, of that.

I'd like to hear your pitch as to how else one can really know the world? Are there likely exceptions? Probably. I would like to hear your thoughts there.



And then you randomly throw in some other "theorem" that you probably just found cycling through wikipedia or the "More Truth Blogs" one day.

For someone who is "Christian" it doesn't sound like it. Moreover, you assume an awful lot. What theorem?

You like to talk down to people, it would seem.

***SPRAYER
08-27-2008, 06:07 PM
Considering these Archbishops are members of one of the most historically corrupt and violent organizations in the history of mankind, I'll take their considerations under advisement.


ROFL

Jenson71
08-27-2008, 08:11 PM
I thought it was hilarious because of the irony. The irony that religion has that there is "one, true interpretation." That's why you always get the One True Scottsman fallacy.

If that's why you thought it was hilarious, then why didn't you say that in the first place? Instead, you implied no one has a right to claim someone else is distorting Catholic teaching.

The story of Christianity is adapted from several sources. I've heard your metaphysical argument about how it's based in Aristotle or whatever. I find it as convincing as the argument for ID.

The story of Christianity is its own story. Elements of Christianity are adapted from previous thoughts and beliefs, because it was born in a pre-existing culture (Greco-Roman), not in some vacuum of empty space. Philosophy, though you seem to value none of it, is deeply a part of Christianity. The philosophy, especially ethics as I argued before, of most of the early, middle, and current Christianity branched from philosophical principles laid down in Aristotle, Plato, etc., etc. If you don't find my argument convincing, I urge you to 1.) read ANY book about the period or 2.) take a Humanities I class.


Do they not question evolution?

I'm willing to be a lot of money that most of those people do not know what theory means with respect to science.

First off, "they" and "those people" tell me nothing except that you speak in large generalities that don't amount to anything.

Secondly, as the poster-child of postmodernism with your truth scale, I'm surprised you don't follow the "QUESTION EVERYTHING!" crowd. You probably do, when it's convenient. Like when some guy says this: "Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet."

Oh yeah! That got em! Question philosophy, question authority, question morals, question feelings, question emotions, but do not question evolution. Accept now! Hey, I see evolution as something as real as the sun, but aren't even biologists, who can only understand their role through evolution, questioning elements of evolution everyday?

Truth scale is simple. Truth lies at the end of a linear line. We are in search of it. Science advances slowly towards that end. Religion makes stuff up in order to jump to the end. Basically, it cuts in line.

What the **** is a scale to you?

The path to truth requires reason, evidence, and scrutiny. Religion encompasses very little, if any, of that.

I'd like to hear your pitch as to how else one can really know the world? Are there likely exceptions? Probably. I would like to hear your thoughts there.

I have found reason, evidence and scrutiny in Catholicism. Not total truth. Not scientific truth. Just philosophical, moral, and spiritual truth. Just those truths that humans have been discussing for at least 4000 years or so now. Just the most important truths.

For someone who is "Christian" it doesn't sound like it. Moreover, you assume an awful lot. What theorem?

You like to talk down to people, it would seem.

What does a Christian sound like to you? You want Christians to not even exist, and if they have to exist, you would prefer that they stay as silent as possible.

By theorem, I was referring to your usually random fallacies and arguments you pull out of a hat that mostly have nothing to do with what the argument is.

I talk down to people? You spend most of your time here trying to help Christians see the light of postmodernism and the new atheism. And by "trying to help" I mean tearing down people's spiritual beliefs because you think they are not as intelligent as you - the most enlightened man wikipedia ever invented.

Religious people are morons, uneducated peasants who have not caught up to speed with you in the modern age and are constantly in denial and must be comforted from death and a hard life by talking of superstitious magical figures in the sky who love us like our mothers.

I talk down to people? You ask people your innocent questions, just waiting for a response so you can attack them and their (il)logical thinking, according to you and your truth scale. Anyone who has spent more than a month here understands your motives for asking your "I'm just curious!" moments. It's so you can show us your supreme intellect from several books and hundreds of wikipedia articles.

Throughout this conversation, you have included phrases such as (heavily paraphrased) "Right now, you are postulating the theory of XYZ, which is wrong because of this and this and this...." and "this leads to your thinking that ABC is correct, which it is not because of DEF." Oh yeah, you're so ahead of me, irish. I am too unsophisticated and unintelligent - all I have is XYZ and ABC. Oh yeah, it's definitely me that talks down to people.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:12 PM
If that's why you thought it was hilarious, then why didn't you say that in the first place? Instead, you implied no one has a right to claim someone else is distorting Catholic teaching.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.


The story of Christianity is its own story. Elements of Christianity are adapted from previous thoughts and beliefs, because it was born in a pre-existing culture (Greco-Roman), not in some vacuum of empty space. Philosophy, though you seem to value none of it, is deeply a part of Christianity. The philosophy, especially ethics as I argued before, of most of the early, middle, and current Christianity branched from philosophical principles laid down in Aristotle, Plato, etc., etc. If you don't find my argument convincing, I urge you to 1.) read ANY book about the period or 2.) take a Humanities I class.

I have. It's clear that it, at it's fundamental level, is a plagiaristic text. It borrows liberally from all sorts of sources. Again, have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh yet?

I do value philosophy. Unfortunately, Christianity has very little of it. Moreover, lots of the old philosophy you refer to has been "debunked" for the lack of a better word. For example, consciousness explains more of the metaphysical than Aristotle could. Science has closed the gaps in a lot of the older philosophies.


First off, "they" and "those people" tell me nothing except that you speak in large generalities that don't amount to anything.

How else would you like me to phrase it?

Secondly, as the poster-child of postmodernism with your truth scale, I'm surprised you don't follow the "QUESTION EVERYTHING!" crowd. You probably do, when it's convenient. Like when some guy says this: "Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet."

Oh yeah! That got em! Question philosophy, question authority, question morals, question feelings, question emotions, but do not question evolution. Accept now! Hey, I see evolution as something as real as the sun, but aren't even biologists, who can only understand their role through evolution, questioning elements of evolution everyday?

I chose my words wrongly. I apologize. Question is clearly the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one. By questioning, I don't mean scientifically. I mean they question the validity of it in light of mounds and mounds of evidence. They don't question parts of it, they question the whole thing. They don't assert an argument with questions, they supplant it with Intelligent design. In other words, they aren't questioning it, they're dismissing it entirely. Perhaps dismissing is the better word. :shrug:

The point is religious people write off evolution without understanding it. ID isn't science. Yet, they want to "teach the controversy". I am not oblivious to the fact that biologists right this minute are questioning tenants of evolution. That's the point of science. I am questioning the "questioning" of believers with respect to ID vs evolution.

Does that make sense?


What the **** is a scale to you?

Perhaps scale is the wrong word as well. You got the idea, however.


I have found reason, evidence and scrutiny in Catholicism. Not total truth. Not scientific truth. Just philosophical, moral, and spiritual truth. Just those truths that humans have been discussing for at least 4000 years or so now. Just the most important truths.

It was also a truth that the earth was flat. It was also a truth that the solar system was geocentric. Both have turned out false. There are plenty of "truths" man kind has held that have turned out to be false.

Christianity fails on some very basic tenets. First and foremost is the belief that there is a god. There is no evidence for this claim. Period.


What does a Christian sound like to you? You want Christians to not even exist, and if they have to exist, you would prefer that they stay as silent as possible.

Well, of course, I'm going off of Christian teaching. You were assuming a hell of a lot and you were also talking down to people. That's not very "Christ" like, now is it?

By theorem, I was referring to your usually random fallacies and arguments you pull out of a hat that mostly have nothing to do with what the argument is.

Like what? The One True Scotsman fallacy? It definitely applies. Occams Razor? It definitely applies too.

I talk down to people? You spend most of your time here trying to help Christians see the light of postmodernism and the new atheism. And by "trying to help" I mean tearing down people's spiritual beliefs because you think they are not as intelligent as you - the most enlightened man wikipedia ever invented.

Again, same thing. Wikipedia this, wikipedia that. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM. I call bullshit on it.

I have never stated that I am more intelligent than anyone else. There have been plenty of deists/theists before me that were hell of a lot smarter than me. That doesn't mean they were 100% wrong when it comes to god's existence.

You don't like it when people tear down your argument. Why don't you back it up? The fact is, you can't. You can explain away to yourself how your belief stacks up, but if you were to take a step outside, you'd see it's utter nonsense.

Hell, I was Catholic for 14 years. Went to church every effing Sunday. Still know the mass like the back of my hand. But then I took a step back and realized it was a bunch of shit.

Religious people are morons, uneducated peasants who have not caught up to speed with you in the modern age and are constantly in denial and must be comforted from death and a hard life by talking of superstitious magical figures in the sky who love us like our mothers.

Historically, you are accurate. The elites were less likely to be religious than the peasants. And not without good reason. Education definitely plays a role, though, as always, there are exceptions.

Moreover, there is no doubt that a supernatural being is a primitive belief brought about by man's trying to understand the world around him with his new found consciousness. As time progressed and technology got better, science chipped away at what was believed at certain times. The Roman Gods died out. The Greek Gods died out. Tons and tons of gods have died out. Facts of life changed (world is flat, geocentric). New things dispelled old notions (germ theory).

There is also no denying that a belief in a supernatural eases one's own view of death. It gives them a hope of an afterlife. Does that mean they are weak? No. Hope is not stupid. But one cannot deny the fact that men have killed to attain said afterlife. What does that say about the belief?

A central moral figure is central to controlling people. It's kind of a basic thing to understand. Moreover, there have been many postulations as to why the need for a being more powerful and perfect than ourselves arose. Freud said it was because we need someone like our mother and father after they have passed. Many people have postulated that it is a survival mechanism. Whatever it is, it doesn't mean it's true.



I talk down to people? You ask people your innocent questions, just waiting for a response so you can attack them and their (il)logical thinking, according to you and your truth scale. Anyone who has spent more than a month here understands your motives for asking your "I'm just curious!" moments. It's so you can show us your supreme intellect from several books and hundreds of wikipedia articles.

Where did I say I'm curious? Once again, you mention wikipedia. Does anyone that disagrees with you automatically become a wikipedia man? You just sound childish when you say things like that.


Throughout this conversation, you have included phrases such as (heavily paraphrased) "Right now, you are postulating the theory of XYZ, which is wrong because of this and this and this...." and "this leads to your thinking that ABC is correct, which it is not because of DEF." Oh yeah, you're so ahead of me, irish. I am too unsophisticated and unintelligent - all I have is XYZ and ABC. Oh yeah, it's definitely me that talks down to people.

No, I merely pointed out how the conversations usually go. Usually, in an argument, you present what the other side will say BEFORE THEY DO and shoot it down. That's the mark of a good argument. You know what they're going to say and you outline why it is illogical/needs dismissal.

I don't understand why you think that's something abnormal.