Posted on 07/22/2009 10:39:38 PM PDT by bdeaner
bdeaner,
What you’re doing is extremely dangerous. You are accusing me of heresy based upon the fact that I understand science well enough to know that something that happened before man existed (creation), or the absolute origins of man cannot be with absolute certainty known or discerned by science. That is simply a fact.
You are, thus, accusing me of heresy because I said something in the scientific realm (NOTE THAT: the scientific realm) is “by definition unprovable”? You think that makes me guilty of heresy? What Christian belief did I violate? What truth of the faith did I deny?
None.
“I interpret this highlighted statement, in the context of your statement as a whole, to be rejecting the role of science and reason in understanding the Lord’s Creation.”
Then you neither understand my statement nor do you understand the role of science in understanding the Lord’s Creation. You also clearly do not understand heresy. Again, what Christian truth did I deny? What Christian belief did I violate?
None.
I, in now way, denied God’s creative power or product. I, in no way, denied the role or science or reason in understanding of anything. I pointed out a simple fact: science is limited. It always will be. By definition it has to be.
There is no heresy whatsoever in anything I have said. I think you are slandering me by claiming there is.
“To say that, if that is what you are saying, is heretical.”
So, to say science is limited is heresy? You’ve got to be kidding. Seriously, have you EVER heard a Catholic in authority say otherwise? To point out that something is by definition unprovable is merely to point out that science is limited. Period. There is no heresy involved. All this does is prove that you have taken this to a dogmatic level while you deny that you have. When someone disgrees with you, you accuse them of heresy. You’re the dogmatic one here.
“I have already told you on numerous occasions now that I am not dogmatically committed to theistic evolution.”
Again, you are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How can you turn around and say you are not being dogmatic? Do you even see your own hypocrisy here?
“But you insist on saying I am. Why, I don’t know. I am however very persuaded by the evidence that evolution — understood and evaluated in ways that are consonant with the infallible teachings of the Church — is a valid theory worth serious consideration. Pope John Paul II agrees. See post #94.”
Again, it is not about being “persuaded” by evidence. You are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. That’s very dogmatic.
“But I am concerned that your statement violates the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which asserted, “all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from the natural principles by a well-trained mind.” So it seems ironic that you are accusing me of heresy.”
Your hypocrisy is deepening:
1) You accused ME of heresy for disagreeing with you.
2) By accusing me of heresy for merely disagreeing with by holding a position you say the Church allows me to hold, you are YOURSELF violating Church teaching.
3) I am not violating Church teaching in any way.
4) Nothing I have said violates Vatican I or Vatican II or any Church council EVER.
5) You seem to be getting desparate. I have no idea why you are so scared of this argument, but if you’re willing to falsely accuse fellow Catholics of heresy for merely disagreeing with you, then you are indeed holding dogmatically to your evolutionary beliefs.
bdeaner,
What you’re doing is extremely dangerous. You are accusing me of heresy based upon the fact that I understand science well enough to know that something that happened before man existed (creation), or the absolute origins of man cannot be with absolute certainty known or discerned by science. That is simply a fact.
You are, thus, accusing me of heresy because I said something in the scientific realm (NOTE THAT: the scientific realm) is “by definition unprovable”? You think that makes me guilty of heresy? What Christian belief did I violate? What truth of the faith did I deny?
None.
“I interpret this highlighted statement, in the context of your statement as a whole, to be rejecting the role of science and reason in understanding the Lord’s Creation.”
Then you neither understand my statement nor do you understand the role of science in understanding the Lord’s Creation. You also clearly do not understand heresy. Again, what Christian truth did I deny? What Christian belief did I violate?
None.
I, in now way, denied God’s creative power or product. I, in no way, denied the role or science or reason in understanding of anything. I pointed out a simple fact: science is limited. It always will be. By definition it has to be.
There is no heresy whatsoever in anything I have said. I think you are slandering me by claiming there is.
“To say that, if that is what you are saying, is heretical.”
So, to say science is limited is heresy? You’ve got to be kidding. Seriously, have you EVER heard a Catholic in authority say otherwise? To point out that something is by definition unprovable is merely to point out that science is limited. Period. There is no heresy involved. All this does is prove that you have taken this to a dogmatic level while you deny that you have. When someone disgrees with you, you accuse them of heresy. You’re the dogmatic one here.
“I have already told you on numerous occasions now that I am not dogmatically committed to theistic evolution.”
Again, you are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How can you turn around and say you are not being dogmatic? Do you even see your own hypocrisy here?
“But you insist on saying I am. Why, I don’t know. I am however very persuaded by the evidence that evolution — understood and evaluated in ways that are consonant with the infallible teachings of the Church — is a valid theory worth serious consideration. Pope John Paul II agrees. See post #94.”
Again, it is not about being “persuaded” by evidence. You are accusing me of heresy for disagreeing with you. That’s very dogmatic.
“But I am concerned that your statement violates the infallible teaching of Vatican I, which asserted, “all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from the natural principles by a well-trained mind.” So it seems ironic that you are accusing me of heresy.”
Your hypocrisy is deepening:
1) You accused ME of heresy for disagreeing with you.
2) By accusing me of heresy for merely disagreeing with by holding a position you say the Church allows me to hold, you are YOURSELF violating Church teaching.
3) I am not violating Church teaching in any way.
4) Nothing I have said violates Vatican I or Vatican II or any Church council EVER.
5) You seem to be getting desparate. I have no idea why you are so scared of this argument, but if you’re willing to falsely accuse fellow Catholics of heresy for merely disagreeing with you, then you are indeed holding dogmatically to your evolutionary beliefs.
You can dish it out but you can’t take it. I am ending this conversation. I do not believe you are capable of reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations. Have a nice life.
You wrote:
“You can dish it out but you can’t take it.”
You, that’s YOU, accused me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How exactly could I not take it? Aren’t you the one who struggled to take it? After all, I didn’t throw a ridiculous charge of heresy at you for merely disagreeing with me.
“I am ending this conversation. I do not believe you are capable of reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations.”
Again, you accused me of heresy for disagreeing with you. How exactly does your accusation of heresy mean I am incapable of “reasonable conversation without flinging irrational and unfounded accusations”? Isn’t your accusation of heresy what is unfounded?
“Have a nice life.”
I’ll do my best. I hope you do as well.
I don’t care who started it. Both of you, STOP making it personal.
bdeaner,
I am not going to belabor this point since I don’t wish to anger the Moderator. You, however, wrote:
“For the record, you accused me of heresy. I replied back that it seemed you were more in danger of heresy than I, but I never accused you of heresy.”
Please see post #98 where you wrote this: “Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, which is possible, I completely reject this premise, and so does the Church. Your statement seems heretical to me, unless I am reading it incorrectly. See post #94. Your statement is not compatible with those statements by the Magisterium. Seems to me my soul is not the one in danger, but yours is. Nothing I have said is heretical, but your statement sure seems to be.”
I didn’t bring up heresy first. You did. I later brought it up in a vastly different way than you did.
Now that the record has been definitely set straight, this conversation is over.
Done. Thanks for your patience.
Just imagine the embarrassment if Irving's Law came into effect.
Haha. Yeah, that too!
Interesting chart. Ping to research later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.