As I pointed out before, I wrote the following on page three (!) as an adaptation of, a translation of, or an addition to the thread's title:
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose to go on bickering about it for a couple of pages. Now you accept it, after Dr.Scribbles has "interpreted" your observations. Do you still wonder why I don't understand what you were driving at ?
Why didn't you accept the above mentioned redescription of the thread's title ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How about it Nemesio ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe1. Masturbation is healthy, with a variety of salubrious traits.
As I pointed out before, I wrote the following on page three (!) as an adaptation of, a translation of, or an addition to the thread's title:
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose t ...[text shortened]... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How about it Nemesio ?
2. Masturbation, in moderation, has no negative psychological traits.
3. The Church opposes masturbation as sin as per 'NML.'
4. The Church opposes a physically and mentally healthy practice as a means to damn one's soul.
This does not strike me as logical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't know why I bother with Ivanhoe when you can provide more helpful information
No - that's not what the Pope is trying to say. His point becomes much more clear when you read his encyclical on faith & reason (Fides et Ratio). In FR, the Pope (who is an accomplished philosopher in his own right) asserts that any philosophical system which is not self-destructive (e.g. skepticism) and which has a full metaphysical range (m ...[text shortened]... or instance, limits its metaphysics to the physical) will be consistent with the Catholic faith.
in two sentences than he has in 8 pages of posts.
Can you give a link for Fides et Ratio?
Nemesio
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThe are quite similar and even comparable, but, like apples and oranges, they are quite different and seperate. Faith can be a reason, but faith cannot be reason. Let's not get confused--or, better yet, let's get un-confused.
Now, this passage sounds very smart, but it makes some serious jumps. First, it makes a big deal about something being greater than the sum of its parts. This is true for any working machine--heck, it's true for jigsaw puzzles, too, for if you just throw the pieces in a pile you have no picture so clearly the picture, when it is formed, is greater th ...[text shortened]... n, but faith cannot be reason. Let's not get confused--or, better yet, let's get un-confused.
Lets not get confused, but...
You think that faith and reason are separate, always completely
separate, or sometimes do they are going hand in hand, or do
they always go hand in hand?
When you walk across the ground are you acting on?
1. Just faith
2. Just reason
3. A mixture of both
4. Neither it requires none of them to walk across the ground.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioText of the encyclical:
I don't know why I bother with Ivanhoe when you can provide more helpful information
in two sentences than he has in 8 pages of posts.
Can you give a link for Fides et Ratio?
Nemesio
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Some useful notes and key points:
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/fides-et-ratio-notes.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhen I said "How about it Nemesio ?" I was referring to the following in my previous post:
1. Masturbation is healthy, with a variety of salubrious traits.
2. Masturbation, in moderation, has no negative psychological traits.
3. The Church opposes masturbation as sin as per 'NML.'
4. The Church opposes a physically and mentally healthy practice as a means to damn one's soul.
This does not strike me as logical.
Nemesio
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose to go on bickering about it for a couple of pages. Now you accept it, after Dr.Scribbles has "interpreted" your observations. Do you still wonder why I don't understand what you were driving at ?
Why didn't you accept the above mentioned redescription of the thread's title ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeFrom a Letter to Elia Diodati, July 25, 1634
When I said "How about it Nemesio ?" I was referring to the following in my previous post:
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose to go on bickering about it for a couple of pages. ...[text shortened]... iving at ?
Why didn't you accept the above mentioned redescription of the thread's title ?
19 I have said, my Lord, that I hope for no alleviation, and this is because I have committed no wrong. If I had erred I might hope to obtain grace and pardon, since the transgressions of the subject are the means by which the prince finds occasion for the exercise of mercy and indulgence. Wherefore, when a man is wrongly condemned to punishment, it becomes necessary for his judges to use the greater severity in order to cover their own misapplication of the law . . .
Could all the frauds, the calumnies, the stratagems, the deceits, which were made use of at Rome eighteen years ago for the purpose of imposing on the supreme authority—could all these, I say, be brought to light, their only effect would be to enhance the purity and uprightness of my intentions.
But you, having read my works, will have seen how they justify my assertion of sincerity, and you will have understood the true cause for which, under the mask of religion, I have been persecuted, and which now continually assails me and crosses my path, so that no help can come to me from without; nor can I undertake my own defense, all the Inquisitors having received express orders neither to allow the reprinting of my published works, nor to grant a license for any fresh work I may wish to publish. Thus I am not only reduced to silence towards those who strive to distort my opinions, and so to make my ignorance (as they call it) manifest, but I must also bear the insults, the contempt; and the bitter taunts of men more ignorant than myself, without being able to utter a word in my own defense.
....Galileo
Originally posted by frogstompDid you read the article introduced in this thread's first post ?
From a Letter to Elia Diodati, July 25, 1634
19 I have said, my Lord, that I hope for no alleviation, and this is because I have committed no wrong. If I had erred I might hope to obtain grace and pardon, since the transgressions of the subject are the means by which the prince finds occasion for the exercise of mercy and indulgence. Wherefore, when ...[text shortened]... n more ignorant than myself, without being able to utter a word in my own defense.
....Galileo
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeBTW from your article, a pope wrote this "erroneous" passage
Did you read the article introduced in this thread's first post ?
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"In Galileo's time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them. "
Bruno had in fact concieved it:
In his book De la Causa, principio et uno, On Cause, Principle, and Unity we find prophetic phrases:
"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
Originally posted by frogstompI do not notice any contradictions here. Do you ?
BTW from your article, a pope wrote this "erroneous" passage
"In Galileo's time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the su ...[text shortened]... hange in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
Originally posted by lucifershammer..."will be consistent with the Catholic faith.
...
No - that's not what the Pope is trying to say. His point becomes much more clear when you read his encyclical on faith & reason (Fides et Ratio). In FR, the Pope (who is an accomplished philosopher in his own right) asserts that any philosophical system which is not self-destructive (e.g. skepticism) and which has a full metaphysical ran ...[text shortened]... or instance, limits its metaphysics to the physical) will be consistent with the Catholic faith.
This is very interesting. One school of apologetics (associated with the reformed Protestant religion) has it that "only" the Christian world view provides the preconditions for intelligibility. The implication of this school is that any world-view that is "not self-destructive" and "which has a full metaphysical range" would have to be (by default and definition) the Christian world-view.
This seems to sound like the Pope is saying the Catholic faith conforms to any comprehensive and rational philosophic system (world-view). But if one can present a comprehensive and rational world-view that contradicts the teaching of the Catholic church, then the Pope would be wrong. So either these other systems are separate from Catholicisms (categorical separate beasts) or there other systems ARE Catholicism.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI thought by tackling the issue you would understand the implicit
When I said "How about it Nemesio ?" I was referring to the following in my previous post:
"The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any principal way."
You chose not to accept this as a reasonable translation of your objections to the thread's title. Instead you chose to go on bickering about it for a couple of pages. ...[text shortened]... iving at ?
Why didn't you accept the above mentioned redescription of the thread's title ?
acceptence of the re-titling of the thread. Sorry that this wasn't clear.
---
Fine, the new title of the thread is:
The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any
principal way.
Care to tackle my topic now?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ColettiGood question, Coletti.
This seems to sound like the Pope is saying the Catholic faith conforms to any comprehensive and rational philosophic system (world-view). But if one can present a comprehensive and rational world-view that contradicts the teaching of the Catholic church, then the Pope would be wrong. So either these other systems are separate from Catholicisms (categorical separate beasts) or there other systems ARE Catholicism.
I expect that if one presents a view which contradicts the teaching
of the Catholic Church, it would be 'irrational' by definition (as far
as the Church is concerned).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Sorry that this wasn't clear."
I thought by tackling the issue you would understand the implicit
acceptence of the re-titling of the thread. Sorry that this wasn't clear.
---
Fine, the new title of the thread is:
The Roman-Catholic religion does not contradict logic or reason in any
principal way.
Care to tackle my topic now?
Nemesio
Accepted.
Nemesio: "Care to tackle my topic now?"
As I said earlier: If you have serious scientific evidence proving NOT performing masturbation has serious negative health consequenses you have a point.