Skip to comments.Heated debate between Cardinal Pell and Professor Dawkins
Posted on 04/11/2012 6:51:30 AM PDT by NYer
Screenshot from The Sydney Morning Herald --- Frustration and something bordering on barely concealed mutual disdain boiled over more than once during the ABC's Q&A television show Monday evening, in the hour-long debate between Cardinal George Pell and Professor Richard Dawkins, reports The Sydney Morning Herald. Charles Darwin was claimed as a theist by the Cardinal, because Darwin ''couldn't believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity'' - a claim disputed by Professor Dawkins as ''just not true''. Cardinal Pell won applause when he shot back: ''It's on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.'' The clergyman remained unmoved on gay marriage and climate change, but he said evolution was ''probably'' right, and that atheists could ''certainly'' get into heaven. Professor Dawkins declared he was ''trying to be charitable'' by suggesting there was no way Cardinal Pell meant the body would literally be resurrected. The clergyman's view that people would return after death in some kind of physical form earlier had been dismissed by Professor Dawkins. ''The brain is going to rot, that's all there is to it,'' he said. Cardinal Pell said: ''Mr Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean". ''I believe it because I believe the man who told us that was also the son of God. He said, 'This is my body, this is my blood'. And I'd much prefer to listen to Him and take his word than yours.'' FULL STORY Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate
Screenshot from The Sydney Morning Herald
Frustration and something bordering on barely concealed mutual disdain boiled over more than once during the ABC's Q&A television show Monday evening, in the hour-long debate between Cardinal George Pell and Professor Richard Dawkins, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.
Charles Darwin was claimed as a theist by the Cardinal, because Darwin ''couldn't believe that the immense cosmos and all the beautiful things in the world came about either by chance or out of necessity'' - a claim disputed by Professor Dawkins as ''just not true''.
Cardinal Pell won applause when he shot back: ''It's on page 92 of his autobiography. Go and have a look.''
The clergyman remained unmoved on gay marriage and climate change, but he said evolution was ''probably'' right, and that atheists could ''certainly'' get into heaven.
Professor Dawkins declared he was ''trying to be charitable'' by suggesting there was no way Cardinal Pell meant the body would literally be resurrected.
The clergyman's view that people would return after death in some kind of physical form earlier had been dismissed by Professor Dawkins. ''The brain is going to rot, that's all there is to it,'' he said.
Cardinal Pell said: ''Mr Dawkins, I don't say things I don't mean".
''I believe it because I believe the man who told us that was also the son of God. He said, 'This is my body, this is my blood'. And I'd much prefer to listen to Him and take his word than yours.''
Dawkins and Pell battle it out in one hell of a debate
The full hour video is at:
There are live people whose brains have rotted!
What do "gay marriage" and climate change have to do with atheism? Climate change - causes and outcomes, useful responses to - is purely a matter of scientific fact, with no element of belief involved. Observation and experiment prove the facts, or they don't.
Did Mr. Dawkins have the intellectual consistency to say that an obession with non-reproductive genital activity is an example of natural selection's eliminating from the gene pool certain elements which are obviously defective?
Absolutely amazing. These “scientists” can believe that a seed from a dead plant can produce an entirely new growth, but they can’t believe that the soul of a far superior creation can be rejoined or renewed with a body after death. Only seeing is believing. Plato’s shadows on the cave wall.
Please tell me how an atheist can get into heaven?
Once you assume the existence of an omnipotent God, who can suspend or reverse natural laws and modify reality as He pleases, then nothing is "impossible".
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act and its opposition to God's law. It also requires a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Ignorance, through no fault of the individual (referred to as invincible ignorance by the Church), can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.
We are all born into sin a fallen state that needs redeption and that redeption only comes from Christ.
Amen to that, FRiend. However, an atheist's ignorance doesn't in any way negate Christ's existence or the capacity of His mercy.
There is a difference between being an atheist and being agnostic. The atheist says there is no God and the agnostic is not certain. The bible also says that the liar and the thief will not see heaven. So if the atheist or the agnostic is a liar or a thief then they still have three strikes against them.
Many atheists also say they don’t know. Agnosticism isn’t saying “I don’t know”, it is saying that such a question in unknowable.
The atheist want to take God out of the pledge of alliance and off the dollar bill. The atheist one day will bow their knee to Jesus. God know His sheep and the sheep know their masters voice. Many will come to grips with their disregard to the prompting of the HS once they stand before the white throne of judgment. Hell is a real place and will be filled with hard headed people who hardened their hearts to the HS and will spend eternity knowing that fact. Agnosticism is a stance that they have taken inspite of all the evidence in nature and the universe that says there is a God.
What a wretched job the cardinal did in such an open forum with the self aggrandized Dawkins. Dawkins looked booked up and rational while the cardinal reached for comfortable stories mixed with Time magazine science (Neanderthal — really?).
The cardinal did not push on morality (why should I not shoot you here and now). He did not push on nothingness (pleased with his applause line, he let Dawkins redefine nothingness to “not much”). His treatment of evolution had even the shots of his supporters in the audience looking befuddled.
The tweets captioned during the show showed just how little was needed to answer the questions. A first year Sunday School teacher for the 9-11 age would have done a better job.
My point was that your definitions of atheist vs. agnostic was incorrect.
And my original question is how is a authority in the church giving false hope that atheist are going to heaven and saying that Adam and Eve are just a bed time story? To me this statement about atheist’s going to heaven sounds like universalism where everyone will get to be in heaven even the devil and his angles. And he undoubly does not believe that the word of God is true and valid in all it says other wise he would of said of course the Adam and Eve is a factual account. My question to Pell would be if the Adam and Eve is just a story what else is just a story? Was Moses just a story? Maybe Jesus is just a story since there is no historical evidence that He ever did live. May be it is just a racket that someone thought up to control people and to get money from.
Cardinal Pell was asked "CAN" an atheist go to heaven, not "WILL" a specific atheist go to heaven. As I pointed out in post #10 it is possible. The Cardinal was correct.
Don't be so sure. God is a god of love and infinite mercy who alone can judge the hearts of all. His mercy will save those who never had an opportunity to know Christ such as the millions who lived good lives according to the Natural Law in places and times where the Gospel was not yet introduced like pre-Colombian America, like Sub-Saharan Africa, like Europe, Asia and the islands of the Pacific before the arrival of the missionaries. So too those who lived in Muslim, or Communist countries where the Word was prohibited or distorted by the authorities. So too those who lack the mental capacity to know and accept God such as the mentally retarded. I daily say a prayer for the repose of the souls of the many children who die in infancy, or those unfortunate souls who are denied life due to abortion and miscarriage. They will see the kingdom of God before any of us do.
What is the natural law? And where is it spoken of in the bible.
Are you saying even the Moslem's who kill and enslave will go to heaven and the pre-columbian's who had human sacrifices those will go to heaven too?
Who or what is your measurement of good? Your reasoning has no biblical foundation.
The Natural Law is best defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you read the Scriptures within the context of the whole you will find it is woven throughout the bible.
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved on the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error." The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
"Are you saying even the Moslem's who kill and enslave will go to heaven and the pre-columbian's who had human sacrifices those will go to heaven too?"
Please do not put words into my mouth or otherwise attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument. I clearly said "those who had lived good lives according to the Natural Law". In the context of the above quotes that clearly did not include Aztec priests.
I am not asking that you embrace Catholicism, only that you do not mischaracterize it in these discussions.
Catholics would disagree. We believe first and foremost in the hope and promise of Salvation and in God's infinite mercy. We believe that although we are indeed wounded by original sin, we maintain a free will because we are created in the image of God and that through the grace of the Sacraments of baptism we can overcome original sin. The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will we find the truth and happiness we never stop yearning for.
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. (Mark 3:29, Mark 12:10)
"No where in the bible is baptism equated with salvation."
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" - Mark 16:16.
"As a mater of fact Paul said he did not come to baptize but to preach the crucified and risen Lord. If salvation came by baptism would not Paul of eagerly baptized everyone he could?"
A single out of context citation of 1 Corinthians 1:17 does not negate the command be baptized and to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 St. Paul is only saying that he did not baptize in his own name (or Apollos or Cephas) but in the same of Jesus Christ. He also states that he baptized the household of Stephanas.
It would be well to remember that St. Paul was a servant of Jesus, not the other way around. He was not sent to change, redact or overwrite the Gospels, he was sent to preach, explain and defend them.
Peace be to you.
Baptism is not just symbolic. It is salvific and was commanded by Jesus and His Apostles. You are free to your opinion, but please do not further poison the minds of the innocent with your thoughts.
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:21
"Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." - Acts 22:16 (note:Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin.)
There are many more references, but I pray you get the message.
So is Paul here telling them that if it was up to him he would not of baptized any of them? Was Paul wanting to withhold salvation from them? No because salvation does not come by baptism. One must first become convicted of ones sins by the Holy Spirit then one can confess, repent and then be baptized. Sprinkling babies and getting children wet does not produce salvation.
One really can't take a bumper sticker approach to Scripture and cite a single sentence that completely out of context substantiates ones position. When we read all of 1 Corinthians 1 we will see that St. Paul is addressing the divisions arising within the Church of Corinth and admonishing the congregation because some claim that because they were baptized by Paul himself they were somehow better or different than those baptized by Cephas or Apollos or others.
St. Paul never said not to baptize or be baptized. He was very clearly saying he was glad that he had not personally baptized more so that no one could claim to be baptized in the name of Paul, but rather in the name of Jesus.