20 Jun '10 10:55>1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelBbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
"Yes, indeed there is."
Bbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
"the Church is the infallible teacher of reality." Really? How so? By contsantly refferring to one little piece of 'reality', (ie. JC's visit to Earth), and ignorring virtually all the rest of that which is real. Reality. Hmmm?
Yes. That reminds me of one very famous Catholic theologian, Bernard Lonergan, who described mortal sin as 'radical unintellibility'. His argument was that when someone knowingly and deliberately commits an act of evil which subverts their relationship with God, that decision cannot be understood; it is a grossly irrational act.
"the Church is the infallible teacher of reality." Really? How so? By contsantly refferring to one little piece of 'reality', (ie. JC's visit to Earth), and ignorring virtually all the rest of that which is real. Reality. Hmmm?
I am not advancing my own views; I am merely paraphrasing the argument of the author of this book. Of course, no Christian would ever characterise Jesus as "a little piece of reality". In orthodox Christianity, Jesus is the logos of all creation, its alpha and omega, or as St Bonaventure called him, "the hidden centre of the universe". Anyway, this does not reflect my own beliefs. I am simply illustrating how in religious debates, debaters will pathologise their opponents.