Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
#61
(08-18-2012, 07:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: :LOL:

Wow Jayne. 

What jpii meant by "may St john the baptist protect Islam," a noncatholic religion, was doctrinally sound. 

There's nothing to say but "wow."

I did not say it was an acceptable statement.  I don't think it was.  I said that, for all I knew, what he meant by it was doctrinally sound.  He could have just been expressing himself badly.  It happens.

Yes. Sure. It happens............seems like it happens most exclusively to the conciliar popes. . . . . . . . . . Darned old misinterpreted doctrinally sound mistakes can really getcha in the butt!

Ya think they'll ever have a slip up like that and actually do something Catholic by mistake too?
Reply
#62
ROFL
Reply
#63
(08-18-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: :LOL:

Wow Jayne. 

What jpii meant by "may St john the baptist protect Islam," a noncatholic religion, was doctrinally sound. 

There's nothing to say but "wow."

I did not say it was an acceptable statement.  I don't think it was.  I said that, for all I knew, what he meant by it was doctrinally sound.  He could have just been expressing himself badly.  It happens.

Would you give me the same benefit of the doubt if I blasphemed?  How about if I said "Jesus Christ was not divine but a mere man"?  Would you go on and on in infinity claiming that it's uncharitable for us to assume that I really meant that Jesus Christ was a mere man?  Would it still be impossible for us to know what I meant by my words?

This is post-Modernism and Deconstructionism.  Words don't have any real meaning anymore.  I wonder, as Derrida did, why you'd think anyone should write or say anything in the first place.

We have no real idea what the Council said.  When the Pope speaks we can't really know if he meant what he said (unless, of course, it complies with what we want him to say, then it's ok).

Selective Deconstructionism.  Beautiful.
Reply
#64
See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.
Reply
#65
(08-18-2012, 09:21 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: :LOL:

Wow Jayne. 

What jpii meant by "may St john the baptist protect Islam," a noncatholic religion, was doctrinally sound. 

There's nothing to say but "wow."

I did not say it was an acceptable statement.  I don't think it was.  I said that, for all I knew, what he meant by it was doctrinally sound.  He could have just been expressing himself badly.  It happens.

Would you give me the same benefit of the doubt if I blasphemed?  How about if I said "Jesus Christ was not divine but a mere man"?  Would you go on and on in infinity claiming that it's uncharitable for us to assume that I really meant that Jesus Christ was a mere man?  Would it still be impossible for us to know what I meant by my words?

This is post-Modernism and Deconstructionism.  Words don't have any real meaning anymore.  I wonder, as Derrida did, why you'd think anyone should write or say anything in the first place.

We have no real idea what the Council said.  When the Pope speaks we can't really know if he meant what he said (unless, of course, it complies with what we want him to say, then it's ok).

Selective Deconstructionism.  Beautiful.
Quite convenient.
Reply
#66
(08-18-2012, 09:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.

When you compare fields like mathematics and natural science to modern theology you begin to see the absurdity.  The nature of truth isn't different between these disciplines.  How ridiculous would it be if we argued that 30 mLs was essentially 28 mLs, or that even though the scale says we have 12.4 grams of Vitamin C we can't really know how much Vitamin C is actually there.

This is why +Williamson always quotes Orwell in saying "2+2=5".
Reply
#67
(08-18-2012, 09:35 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.

When you compare fields like mathematics and natural science to modern theology you begin to see the absurdity.  The nature of truth isn't different between these disciplines.  How ridiculous would it be if we argued that 30 mLs was essentially 28 mLs, or that even though the scale says we have 12.4 grams of Vitamin C we can't really know how much Vitamin C is actually there.

This is why +Williamson always quotes Orwell in saying "2+2=5".

Indeed.  If we begin with the idea that the world is created by a Creator, and there was/is a Jesus Christ Who died for our sins, and truth is Truth, modern theology/philosophy/thought is bunk.
Reply
#68
Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.
Reply
#69
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one said that they were the preeminent way of discovering truth.  What is said is that the universe and its Creator are intelligible and that we can come to an objective truth which exists outside of us, independent of us, via our reason and our sense perception (Thomistic Realism).
Reply
#70
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one is saying the natural sciences are a way of discovering truth. 

I'm saying truth is truth and words have concrete meanings.  Frank can't say "That wall is black" while the wall is white and then have Jim try to rationalize Frank's statement away saying "No, that wall is actually white but we can't know the definite meaning of what Frank meant for sure."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)