Originally posted by Bosse de Nage¡Qué milagro!
Oh, me too. Lorca, San Juan de la Cruz...Borges...Just starting out...
A favourite Ibanez rendition is Gongora's 'Dejame en paz, amor tirano':
Pues amarga la verdad quiero echarla de la boca
y si al alma su hiel toca esconderla es necedad
spase pues libertad a engendrado en mi pereza
La pobreza
Quin hace al ciego galn y prudente al sinconse ...[text shortened]... esconderla es necedad
spase pues libertad a engendrado en mi pereza
La pobreza
La pobreza
Thanks: I saved that piece. It’ll be awhile before I can converse en español, pero mi esposa y yo estamos estudiando.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnReligion which seeks truth in an honest way. Religion which puts the dignity of all human persons and the respect for the human person as number one priority in the center of its thinking. Religion which preaches that God is Love, Justice, Peace, Truth and Life. Religion which acknowledges the role of true science ( .... and true philosophy) in its thinking.
How would you define "True religion" ??
Originally posted by ivanhoeWow... let me know when you find one, because I don't think any of them out there today fit all of those requirements.
Religion which seeks truth in an honest way. Religion which puts the dignity of all human persons and the respect for the human person as number one priority in the center of its thinking. Religion which preaches that God is Love, Justice, Peace, Truth and Life. Religion which acknowledges the role of true science ( .... and true philosophy) in its thinking.
I guess there isn't a true scottsman after all 🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeDoes anything besides Catholicism meet these criteria?
Religion which seeks truth in an honest way. Religion which puts the dignity of all human persons and the respect for the human person as number one priority in the center of its thinking. Religion which preaches that God is Love, Justice, Peace, Truth and Life. Religion which acknowledges the role of true science ( .... and true philosophy) in its thinking.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe problem lies partly in what the English language regards as "science". In the notion "Ratio", as the human ability to discern the truth is called, the "science" of philosophy is also included. True religion goes to the lab also, if necessary .... but always with the fact in the back of the head that we humans have a limited horizon concerning our ability to detect things.
I agree with this, it's predictive. I don't like the follow-on because has 'should' in it. I'll stick with this one. Now, why will religion without science lead us astray? Surely the moral law is sufficient without having to go to the lab?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe trouble is that these redefinitions aren't agreed by anyone outside of your circle and you then use these redefinitions to argue against the general terms as accepted by the rest of us. That's just a form of equivocation.
The problem lies partly in what the English language regards as "science". In the notion "Ratio", as the human ability to discern the truth is called, the "science" of philosophy is also included. True religion goes to the lab also, if necessary .... but always with the fact in the back of the head that we humans have a limited horizon concerning our ability to detect things.
Originally posted by StarrmanBut to Ivanhoe, it is not a redefinition at all. The Catholic Church terms theology as "the sacred science", for example. If anything, Ivanhoe uses a more authentic definition derived from the Latin scientia, to mean "knowledge."
The trouble is that these redefinitions aren't agreed by anyone outside of your circle and you then use these redefinitions to argue against the general terms as accepted by the rest of us. That's just a form of equivocation.
Originally posted by Conrau KThere is not such thing as 'authentic' definitions. But I think you missed the point that starmann was making.
But to Ivanhoe, it is not a redefinition at all. The Catholic Church terms theology as "the sacred science", for example. If anything, Ivanhoe uses a more authentic definition derived from the Latin scientia, to mean "knowledge."
It is quite common amongst theists including Catholics to use definitions to make claims, which is simply bad logic. For example a popular one is to define "God is Love" and then proceed to claim that God is therefore loving.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMengele followed a particular set of ethics, so to judge him 'unethical' requires the assumption that a particular set of ethics is true.
OK...This thread can be salvaged...
Science without ethics--Joseph Mengele. Ethics without science--???? You tell me.
In that sense, no human action is without ethics. Not even breathing. Take an extreme example. If you follow a set of ethics that requires you to sacrifice your life at a point in time then breathing after that point is unethical. The corollary is that you need to be allowed breathing under any set of beliefs.
Sitenote: These sets need not be static.