- This topic has 93 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Grimes,
Jesus did not give in to temptation, but nor would an Athiest, Jew or Muslim give in to temptation. We all have within us a basic knowledge of what is right and wrong. We might consider it gratifying if we take the wrong path, but we instinctively know what’s right, without the aid of religon. Unless religious doctrine is used (like Hitler, Stalin and Bin Ladden) fort heir their own selfish interests. If religon did not exist, our own morals will show us the way.
Our nearest relative, the Chimpanze knows if he is kind to all, he’s going to be well liked and get on in life. He has no religon.
I don’t “rely on the laws of the land for providing enlightened standards”. Keeping to my own morals which are often “stronger” than a Catholic’s. I can not say “bless me father for I have sinned”, and be forgiven. As I do not forgive myself and need to live within my morals.
Whatever our beliefs we should all live within the laws of the country we live in. I believe in euthanasia for anyone with a terminal illness who gets to a stage they want to end it all. However, I still have to keep within the law of Britain. If I went to Saudi Arabia, I would keep to their laws, no alcoholic drinks etc.Things you read in the papers might not have been imaginable at the end of the 50’s. One reason for that is because things were covered up. Take the abuse of some Catholic priests. Some of that was going on in the late 50’s, early 60’s. Yet deliberately hushed up, and when children did come forward they weren’t believed in those days. There’s also the babies of unmarried mothers stolen away from them, hushed up. Was their treatment given out by parents and the Catholic Church justified? Social stigma of many things made people hush them up, they did happen in those days, you just did not hear about it. You might think what is available on the internet, sex, sex and more sex is dreadful, much of it may well be. But the oldest profession has been around for eternity and will always exist. Is pornography any worse?
What is meant by “priori” and deductive truth”
Science has not got all the answers yet. We don’t know quite how the first living animal started, but it is beyond reasonable doubt evolution happened.
Religious groups should be allowed to say homosexuality is (in their opinion) wrong. But not to preach hatred or prejudice. “Abnormal”, may be, the word is far too vague to be worth court action. Could mean “different to 50% of the population”, every man, every Catholic or Athiest is “abnormal”. Could mean those belonging to a group of less than 10% of the population. Every disabled person could be said “abnormal”, should they be discriminated against like they used to be in the 50’s? What about gingers? Don’t answer that. My own thinking on homosexuality is that they might have something in their brain that is slightly different to the rest of us. However, don’t see anything “wrong” with any loving relationship. It makes no difference to me if any of my friends or relations are gay, as long as they realise I am not. Though, to be honest if my son or daughter said they were, I’d be a bit disappointed.
I don’t like how media and entertainment TV seems to believe “gay” is fashionable.Evolution is the Atheist QED. A Catholic / Christian can not believe in evolution, as it goes against the Adam and Eve concept. God created man, God took a rib from man to make woman. No he didn’t. Why does this make a difference? Because “sin” was said to have started with Adam and Eve, without them there is no “original sin”. Jesus died to save us from sin, therefore he died for nothing. If Adam and Eve is wrong, then what about the rest of the Bible?
Value Is EverythingSorry, Ginge, but your first paragraph was enough for me to know you’re talking complete tosh.
When a person’s most basic assumptions are clearly ‘off the wall’, according to your own canons of good sense, it’s simply futile, exhausting toil to even try to argue. Which is not to say I don’t wish you well in your quest. Of course, I do. Also, good luck.
You mean to say you’re refusing to tell me where I am wrong Grimes?
Bit too convenient me thinks, otherwise you’d disect what I said and show it was "tosh".
How are my assumptions "off the wall"?
Could it be refusing to enter a debate when you have no answer on the evolution question?
Value Is EverythingIs it because you have Ginger hair that makes you wonder where you came from Ginge? I bet a pound to a penny your eyes are Green too!
As a practising Catholic myself it’s a dream come true to have him visit our shores.
Ffs a Manage et Troi with You the Pope and Frankel! Dont tell me you have kissed his ring?
Is it because you have Ginger hair that makes you wonder where you came from Ginge? I bet a pound to a penny your eyes are Green too!
I don’t "wonder where I came from", does not matter to me. There is no "meaning of life".
You’ve just lost another bet TAPK.
Value Is EverythingWit wrote:
"Catholicism has no defined dogma regarding the specifics of how the earth and the human body were created. Catholics are free to be evolutionists or creationists – its not an issue that Jesus addressed and not one the church thinks has to be pinned down.
And as a matter of fact the pope believes in an old earth:
http://www.davidmacd.com/downloads/RATZINGER.pdfGinger replies:
A Catholic / Christian can not believe in evolution, as it goes against the Adam and Eve concept. …
Hence Ginger knows better than the pope what catholics can believe in.
Then Grimes wrote:
"This failure to recognise the arbitrary, autonomous nature of ‘a priori’ truths, alone, is a deficiency that is nothing less than catastrophic for our society…"
Ginger replies:
"What is meant by “priori” "
Ginger, there in a couple of nutshells is why its futile trying to have a discussion with you.
So I too wish you best of luck on your roundabout, but it also is not for me anymore.
Grimes,
interesting article, thank you, and agree with a lot of your comments about the degradation of social consideration/ responsibility under moral relativism.
on "economic justice" though, i think it gets very risky to get much past the basics of individual voluntary action promoted in the gospels.
for me the liberation theologists focus on this world in a marxist class-struggle way, which is not what i think "when you do this to the least of my children…" was about.
separately, i think we both know its not at all unusual for catholics to leave the teachings on quitting school, maybe for much of a lifetime.
but i also reckon the teachings never quite leave us and can come back quite out of left field.
best regards
wit
Ginge, rather than my struggling to define the term ‘a priori’, have a look here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ … dictionary
Oddly enough the least relevant to the context is probably the first definition: ‘From a general law to a particular instance.’ Even so ‘a priori’ or ‘inductive’ reasoning is interesting in itself, as the opposite of deductive reasoning, whereby Sherlock Holmes, for example, went from making minute observations to building up a gerneal picture of what had happened and who was the culprit.
But the other definitions explain what I meant, particularly point 2, maybe.
The thing is that our arguments are seldom, if ever up for debate. Our assumptions are our life’s work, so we don’t modify them immediately if we find them challenged. We are much more likely to meditate on it and try to see if indeed it can fit into our own world-view – if it really does make sene to us.
So, if you consider that the basic assumptions of the person you are arguing with make no sense to you at all, it’s best not to argue, at least in those areas. We all have to find our own way, eventually – particularly in abstruse areas such as belief in God and the spiritual dimension.
Hi wit,
I know you’ve got the Pope on your side, but here’s my reasoning on the matter.
To put money in the poor-box, rather than try to change the economic structures of society whereby the greed of some causes grinding poverty and an early death to millions, is, to quote Christ in his diatrbes against the scribes and Pharisees, to ‘strain at a gnat, only to swallow a camel.’
In fact the Psalms are full of divine commands to go the help of the poor, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, to protect them from the evil man, ‘set them free from the hand of the wicked,’ as he says he will, himself, do conclusively eventually. And he obviously wasn’t advocating a division of labour.
When I have time I’ll find some examples and send you the url of a blog I have with Democratic Undergound, in which I comment on the parable of Lazarus.
It is actually a quite vast subject, and perhaps better conducted via messaging or email. I don’t know
If we ignore the most effective way of helping the poor, in the same way that we try to be as effective as possible in other areas of our life, in favour of a narrower personal piety, we’ll rightly end up tending to pat ourselves on the back for our generosity. The beauty of reasonably fair taxation is that we can’t do that – letting our left hand know what our right is doing. It’s both more rational and a greater aid to purity of motive.
There may be other points, I’d intended to make now, but it’s so late I’ll disturb the neighbours in the other flats with my tapping at the keys.
Ginger,
Wikipedia has a good article on the terms
a priori
and
a posteriori
. Essentially, if too simplistically, they’re applicable to knowledge gained from rational and empirical evidence respectively i.e belief versus proof
Interesting debate this, but doomed to end with the participants bickering and leaving by the same door as that they entered, so sure are they that their way is the right way.
Save for me who waves you all adieu; and remains, turns out the lights, paces the floor for all eternity and squints sporadically at the shafts of light emanating from behind two doors barely ajar. Between which is a big black ‘ole. Where goes the man who chooses that fall? who knows, who will ever know
Eternity in Paradise, Limbo or Hell or a few conscious seconds here and now in this Eden that is Earth?
Beautiful prose Grimes
Ta all
Well, your own poetic flight of fancy was pretty striking, too Drone.
Yes, one of the simplest illustrations I ever came across of an ‘a priori’ truth is that you can’t have two mountains without a valley in between.
To believe otherwise would be an offence against logic, in terms of the very meaning of the word, ‘mountain’
That’s right grimes. You can’t have two mountains without a valley in between.
But can you have the mountains of Adam, Eve and Sin with
Evolution
in between?
How can a Catholic / Christian believe in evolution (as we know it), as it goes against the Adam and Eve concept? God created man, God took a rib from man to make woman. Did he? No he didn’t, man came from apes.
Why does Adam and Eve matter so much? Because “sin” was said to have started with Adam and Eve, without them there is no “original sin”. Jesus died to save us from sin, therefore he died for nothing.
Wit and Grimes silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Can anyone else explain how Adam and Eve fits in with evolution?
Value Is EverythingAn interesting read …
Not being a Catholic myself or having an opinion either way really, I have been a bit suprised at the amount of hatred levelled against his Holiness. I watched the interview with Dawkins and grew more and more comfortable the longer it went on. He might be a really nice person but he comes across as a horrible pig of a man, not as bad as the other full time protester peter tatchell though.
I suppose atheism, environmentalism and material gain for the sake of it are the new religions. They give us something to believe in while the smart folk are robbing us blind.
Have you ever read the blog of an American called Joe Bageant, Dave? If not, look up his site. There’s an awful lot of reading there, and perhaps, taken all in all, the profoundest insights into our Western ‘civilisation’ I’ve come across. Ever.
Dave,
Do you have an opinion on:
– whether you have a soul – an essence or spirit by which you think, feel, will, are animated?
– whether its distinct from your body?
– whether it might live on after your body dies?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.