Originally posted by FabianFnasFor the record, there are several issues where Ratzinger's opinions make my skin crawl, just that this not one of them.
Well, he thinks so. There are openings for other thoughts as well.
But anyway, I'm the scientific kind of guy, I don't care if it's about faith or not. It's up to everyone of us (or not) to decide what is within his/hers faith or not.
Lately, I've been defending him so much here that I don't want to give the wrong impression. 🙂
Originally posted by PalynkaI've never heard of this juy. He must be good? Perhaps I should google him some...
For the record, there are several issues where Ratzinger's opinions make my skin crawl, just that this not one of them.
Lately, I've been defending him so much here that I don't want to give the wrong impression. 🙂
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe has said words to that effect. Though I believe he tends to keep the clause that God might have influenced things to some extent. I guess you cant really be a Christian and not keep that clause.
Well, I would like to hear the words of the Pope himself, saying: "Today, all scientific obserations show the force of evolution, so being a modern chruch we also believe in evolution, as a part of gods devine creation." That would mean a lot.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is, where, rationally, Spinoza's solution is so elegant: the nature of the Universe is the expression of the nature of God; no need for God to intervene once the ball has started rolling.
He has said words to that effect. Though I believe he tends to keep the clause that God might have influenced things to some extent. I guess you cant really be a Christian and not keep that clause.
The question is not whether this is the best of all possible worlds but whether God be the best of all possible God.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaAlways, I have to explain the joke.
I don't understand how you get to this. Care to elaborate?
You know Voltaire used to mock Leibniz, alias Dr Pangloss, for saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, come what may? Well, if the natural order -- the world -- is an expression of the nature of God, some might exult and say, Leibniz was right! But that only follows if God is good, which is mere presumption.
Alternatively, Leibniz was right -- this is the best of all possible worlds -- the alternatives being much worse.
(Leibniz's views are contained in 'Le mythe de Sextus' -- disponible ici:
http://www.litteratureaudio.com/index.php/2008/07/02/leibniz-gottfried-wilhelm-von-mythe-de-sextus/)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHa! But that only follows if God is omnipotent! 😉
Always, I have to explain the joke.
You know Voltaire used to mock Leibniz, alias Dr Pangloss, for saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, come what may? Well, if the natural order -- the world -- is an expression of the nature of God, some might exult and say, Leibniz was right! But that only follows if God is good, which is mere pres ...[text shortened]... www.litteratureaudio.com/index.php/2008/07/02/leibniz-gottfried-wilhelm-von-mythe-de-sextus/)
Originally posted by twhiteheadConservative Catholics like Ratzinger, LH and Conrau don't seem to want admit that ANYTHING was done wrong in 1633; how in the world do you expect them to critically gauge the Church's positions now?
Well the question then is whether or not the current Roman Catholic Church should be held responsible for the actions of its past members or its past actions as an institution.
Further, since most denominations are in some way descended from the Roman Catholic Church (despite the protestations of some), are they also responsible for actions committed bef ...[text shortened]... on consecrated ground is probably seperate, as it was probably within the rights of the Church.
Institutions don't have "rights". It was within the Church's raw power to refuse to allow Galileo to be buried with his father and other ancestors in the family tomb in a church, but it was a cruel, mean spirited and petty thing to do. Surely that can be admitted after 366 years?
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI remember Henry Morris telling me that the creator liked to deceive people by layering fossils of species that never existed into the earth just to mislead humans who would come along much later with the sinful hubris to look, observe, and think.
I'll gladly be counted with "the rest".
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you really believe that every single Pope has to formally apologize for this? The Church has officially done so and I never seen Ratzinger question it. It is disingenuous to claim he doesn't want to admit anything was wrong.
Conservative Catholics like Ratzinger, [...] don't seem to want admit that ANYTHING was done wrong in 1633
Originally posted by no1marauderI see nothing terribly wrong with a Church refusing burial to on their land to someone. I think if your child wanted to have you buried in the grounds of a Mosque, the request would be denied and rightly so. Mean spirited? maybe to Galileo, but surely if the action would have offended the other members of the Church then to allow the burial would be mean spirited to them? Petty? I don't think thats the right word - they all took burial locations very seriously.
Institutions don't have "rights". It was within the Church's raw power to refuse to allow Galileo to be buried with his father and other ancestors in the family tomb in a church, but it was a cruel, mean spirited and petty thing to do. Surely that can be admitted after 366 years?