Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist
Vox Nova ^ | May 14,2 010 | Henry Karlson

Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer

Holy Scripture, despite all appearances, will not always be easy to interpret. We can be lulled into thinking our “common sense” and “by the letter” interpretation of a text is what God intends us to get out of it. However, if this is the case, there would be little to no debates about its meaning; there would be little confusion as to its purpose and how it applies to us today. St. Peter would not have needed to tell us that no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted privately, because all interpretations of Scripture would end up the same. We need to understand and heed the warning of St. Mark the Ascetic: “Do not let your heart become conceited about your interpretations of Scripture, lest your intellect fall afoul for the spirit of blasphemy.” [1] Why would he be warning us of this? Because Scripture, in its most external, simplistic level, could easily lead people to a perverted understanding of God and the Christian faith.

For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct), it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church. If God is love, this must be manifest from one’s understanding of Scripture. If one’s interpretation of a text would lead to God doing or commanding something which runs against the law of love, the law by which God himself acts, then one has indeed committed blasphemy. If one really believes God commands some intrinsic evil, such as genocide, one has abandoned the God who is love, and has at least committed unintentional blasphemy by something evil about him. One cannot get out of this by saying, “whatever God wills, is now good,” or that “the very nature of right and wrong has changed through time,” because both would contradict not only the fundamental character of love, but also the fact God has provided us a positive means by which we can understand something of him via analogy; we know what love is, we know what the good is, and therefore we know something about God when we see he is love or that he is good. While we must understand our concepts are limited in relation to God, it is not because God is less than our concepts, but more and their foundation. Thus, Pope Benedict wisely says:

In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[2]

Christianity affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. The second allows us to say something positive and true about God, while the first reminds us that positive assertions are limited, that they are at best analogous pointers to something beyond the statements themselves. Our teachings truly say something about God. They must be used as the guideline by which we read Scripture. Moreover, as the Church makes abundantly clear, Scripture is itself an ecclesial document, to be interpreted in and by the Church. It must be interpreted in such a way that dogmatic teachings about God (such as his unchanging goodness) are in accord with our understanding of Scriptural text. If reason suggests a disconnect between an interpretation and dogma, we must follow dogma and dismiss the interpretation. Richard Gaillardetz explains this well:

The apostolic witness would be preserved both in the canonical Scriptures and in the ongoing paradosis or handing on of the apostolic faith in the Christian community. The unity of Scripture and tradition is grounded then in the one word whose presence in human history comes to its unsurpassable actualization in Jesus Christ. Scripture and tradition must be viewed as interrelated witnesses to that word. Furthermore, neither Scripture nor tradition can be separated from the Church. The unity of Scripture, tradition and the living communion of the Church itself is fundamental.[3]

Revelation, therefore, is centered upon Jesus Christ – and through Christ, the whole of the Holy Trinity:

The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy.[4]

If the vision of God that one gets out of Scripture is not one which reveals his justice and mercy, the reader of the text has missed something about the text itself. Perhaps the mistake lies in their interpretive scheme, where they assume the text follows the contours of modern historical writings. This is not the case; indeed Christians since the beginning of Church history have understood a very different scheme for the Biblical text: one which presents a kind of history but uses that history to present a deeper, more fundamental understanding of the world. Texts which are seen as impossible, if interpreted as history, nonetheless must be accepted, not because they are historical, but because they reveal something theological. St. Neilos the Ascetic, for example, takes 2 Samuel 4:5-8[5] as being historically absurd. This, he thinks, should be obvious. But if this is the case, does it make the text meaningless? By no means:

It is clear that this story in Scripture should not be taken literally. For how could a king have a woman as door-keeper, when he ought properly to be guarded by a troop of soldiers, and to have round him a large body of attendants? Or how could he be so poor as to use her to winnow the wheat? But improbable details are often included in a story because of the deeper truths they signify. Thus the intellect in each of us resides within like a king, while the reason acts as door-keeper of the senses. When the reason occupies itself with bodily things – and to winnow wheat is something bodily – he enemy without difficulty slips past unnoticed and slays the intellect.[6]

This scheme was in accord with what Origen taught. Indeed, he believed that the writers were inspired to put in statements which were absurd so as to remind us not to take the text so simply, but to look for the deeper, spiritual nourishment we can get from them, even for those texts which also have a real historical basis:

But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence and beauty of the history, were universally evident of itself, we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offenses, and impossibili­ties, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive na­ture of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learn­ing nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to announce the spiritual connection in those things that are done, and that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in the narrative of the develop­ment of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the history (the account of) some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their literal acceptation, and sometimes a larger number.[7]

Scripture, of course, was written by various people. While they were inspired by God to write what they wrote, and God inspired the Church to collect the texts it did, in the form it did, we must also understand that the people behind the texts are not mere puppets being forced by God to write as they did. Thus, when patristic authors, or the Church, asserts God as the author of the text, we must not take this as fundamentalists do, but rather recognize that God works with authors based upon their ability and through their cooperation with his intended purposes: “The fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the single work of a single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce the human authors to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite capable, also, of according to a particular book its own specific purpose.”[8] Indeed, God can inspires people to reveal something about him without their knowing of it, or knowing the meaning behind their words, as St Edith Stein masterfully explains:

Must the inspired person who is the instrument of a divine revelation be aware of the fact? Must he know that he has been illuminated, must he himself have received a revelation? We may well imagine cases where none of this is true. It is not impossible that someone utter a revelation without realizing it, without having received a revelation from God, without even being aware that he is speaking in God’s name or feeling supported by God’s Spirit in what he says and how he says it. He may think he is only voicing his own insight and in the words of his choosing.

Thus Caiphas says in the Sanhedrin : ‘You know nothing and do not consider that it is better for you that one man die for the people and not the whole people parish.’ And John adds: ‘but his he said not of himself but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the people…’ Hence Caiphas spoke in God’s name and followed divine instructions without either knowing it or wishing to do so. John, however, knows that Caiphas was speaking God’s word and perhaps that he was himself enlightened by God as he wrote this. Does John know the prophetic meaning of Caiphas’ words through a revelation accorded him? Quite possibly. But it may also be that the fulfillment of those words in the death of Jesus and John’s view of the overall work of salvation made him realize their prophetic nature.[9]

Now this is not to say it is the norm, nor common, but, as we see, a person inspired by God does not have to understand the meaning of their words, nor that they are actually saying something that will be collected together as being inspired by God. The intention of God as the inspired author of Scripture does not have to be one with the intended meaning of the human author, and indeed, could be one which runs contrary to what such a human might have thought (as, for example, we find in the case of Jonah).

Thus, it is important to discuss inspiration, but as the Pontifical Biblical Commission warns us, we must not follow the simplistic interpretation found within fundamentalism:

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.[10]

And, it is especially when people take the Bible as history where this becomes the problem. “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”[11] It creates a false, blasphemous view of God through its simplistic understanding of the text, and demand adherence to that simplistic view, with the explanation that if one denies this scheme, one must reject Scripture itself. There is no basis by which one can understand the deeper, spiritual value of revelation. And it is for this reason it ends up creating an evil-looking God, and promotes the acceptance of intrinsic evils such as racism or genocide as being good if and when God commanded them. “Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.”[12] While simple, it is this simplicity which leads to a letter that kills, because it requires a denial of reason when engaging the faith, and leading to “intellectual suicide”:

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.[13]

No wonder St Mark the Ascetic warned us to be careful when we interpreted Scripture. He understood how people would confuse the human side of Scripture with its divine meaning, and how that would end up creating a false, humanly constructed, image of God. A God presented in the image of fallen humanity can only be a monster, the monster which we see proclaimed by fundamentalists the world over.

Footnotes

[1] Mark the Monk, “On the Spiritual Law” in Counsels on the Spiritual Life. Trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 93.

[2] Pope Benedict, Regensburg Lecture, Sept 12, 2006.

[3] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 84.

[4] Dei Verbum 15 (Vatican Translation).

[5]“ Now the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, set out, and about the heat of the day they came to the house of Ishbosheth, as he was taking his noonday rest. And behold, the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in. When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, ‘Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring’” (2 Sam 4:5-8 RSV).

[6] St Neilos the Ascetic, “Ascetic Discourse” in The Philokalia. Volume I. Trans. And ed. By G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 210.

[7] Origen, “On First Principles” in ANF(4), 364.

[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (March 18, 1994), III-B.2

[9] St Edith Stein, “Ways to know God” in Knowledge and Faith. Trans. Walter Redmond (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 103.

[10] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, I-F.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; bible; catholic; fundamentalist; religiousleft; religiousright; scripture; seminary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 2,221-2,227 next last
To: MarkBsnr; Iscool
"Really? Where can I find that claim? Can you direct me to a website?"

It isn't in the bible, the Catechism, the Canon Law or any other catholic document. That assertion is merely a Protestant "tradition".

701 posted on 05/18/2010 5:40:08 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Even when spoken by Christ himself.

Yes, he also said, "Ye are the salt of the earth" So if one wishes to niggle over words, there is vast opportunity for that endeavor in the Bible. We each have to come to grips with God and the teachings of the Bible. There is ample evidence that some "Christians" go far afield in "interpretation" to justify their proclivities and lusts. This is not something new, it has been going on for about 2000 years and has been prophesized. So conditions of allegory and parable are, to me, things that should not be stumblingblocks. After all, the disciples did not understand the allegory about the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But "abomination" is a fairly clear word.

702 posted on 05/18/2010 5:43:16 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Aussie rules football.

I've seen it. What are the referees pointing at when the ball goes thru the uprights? Hot babes in the stands?

703 posted on 05/18/2010 5:43:40 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
It isn't in the bible, the Catechism, the Canon Law or any other catholic document. That assertion is merely a Protestant "tradition".

You bet. And we must always remember that the Protestants are not protesting for; they are protesting against. The children of the Reformation are rebelling against the adults of Christianity.

704 posted on 05/18/2010 5:52:45 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
I've seen it. What are the referees pointing at when the ball goes thru the uprights? Hot babes in the stands?

Certainly. I'd post one, but the RM has indicated that I've posted one too many babe pics.

705 posted on 05/18/2010 5:53:48 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: metmom

//It’s not so different these days either//

It never changes does it?


706 posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:35 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: metmom
//While we must understand our concepts are limited in relation to God, it is not because God is less than our concepts//

The atheist/evolutionists dont seem to get this part do they?

707 posted on 05/18/2010 6:04:18 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

//I mean, if God’s truth doesn’t do it for you, then what does//

Man that is one he** of a question and I see the implications in it. I wonder if all do though.

You da best!!


708 posted on 05/18/2010 6:16:06 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Are you actually attempting to argue that Christ saying "Do this in remembrance of me" is a justification for the doctrine of transubstantiation?

This I gotta read. Type away!

709 posted on 05/18/2010 6:25:16 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

When did the Church think it WAS flat? Seriously. I think most of the intelligentsia around the Med knew it was round.


710 posted on 05/18/2010 6:25:41 PM PDT by Mad Dawg ("Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle" -- St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Natural Family Planning means, for that time that the woman is fertile, the couple do not have sex.

The woman takes her temperature every day and charts it. She also notes bodily changes. Over time, she can begin to see a pattern and knows the signs of fertility. When those signs begin, she and her husband do not have intercourse.

To refrain is not sinful; to deliberately engage in the pleasure of sex without allowing God’s will to be part of the process is the sinful part.

Also, it gets more terrible than that because the pill and other forms of contraception are actually allowing you to conceive but flushing the embryo out of your system. So people who use those forms of contraception are actually, usually without knowing it, repeatedly aborting their babies.

The Church will never condone this aptly named “birth control.” It is not conception control. It’s genocide.


711 posted on 05/18/2010 6:35:07 PM PDT by Melian (The two most common elements in the world are hydrogen and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It wasn’t until Hubble’s observations on red shift confirmed Einstein’s equations that Einstein was forced to remove the cosmologic constant and admit that the universe did indeed have a beginning, just s the Bible has stated all along.

Something doesn't add up.

Einstein died in 1955. Hubble's 'first light' wasn't until 1990.

712 posted on 05/18/2010 7:04:46 PM PDT by annie laurie (All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: annie laurie

Not the Hubble telescope, Edwin Hubble’s observations in 1929 associated with Hubble’s law.


713 posted on 05/18/2010 7:10:28 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: annie laurie; metmom; editor-surveyor

Metmom, upon re-reading your post I just realized that you were probably speaking of Edwin Hubble himself, not the Hubble Space Telescope, as I first thought.

Editor-surveyor, I think that you & I may have been on the same (wrong) track on this one :)


714 posted on 05/18/2010 7:11:49 PM PDT by annie laurie (All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Thanks, Cvengr. I had an “aha moment” immediately after I posted :)

I think I’ve heard “Hubble” so frequently in reference to the telescope that I now automatically associate the name that way, rather than with Mr. Hubble himself. Ironic, that! ;-)


715 posted on 05/18/2010 7:21:18 PM PDT by annie laurie (All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
From the time of Erotosthenes in about 200 BC, anyone lettered not only knew that the Earth was round, they knew, via Erotosthenes HOW FAR AROUND that it was.

The fantasy of Washington Irving of the untutored sailor instructing the wise scholars of Europe that the Earth was round had, as its basis in fact, that there was indeed an argument.

But it was not over if the Earth was round, it was about how FAR around it was. Columbus incorrectly assumed the figure of Erotosthenes was an overestimation. The wise scholars correctly pointed out to Columbus that if Erotosthenes was correct (and he was), Columbus would never make it to India.... and he wouldn't have.

So any lettered person who was from the time of Christ onward would know, not only that the Earth was round, they would know how far around it was.

716 posted on 05/18/2010 7:24:39 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom
Talk about inventing definitions to words.

I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the universe (the heaven and the earth). Do you?

I am not by any means a progressive . . ."

“I propose that a system whereby one allows their knowledge of the reality that God created to influence their interpretation of scripture is superior in *philosophy and results* (emphasis mine) to one in which the favored interpretation is deemed ‘God's teaching’ and anything contrary is just ‘man's teaching’” (your post #676).

As quintessential a declaration of Progressive faith as one could hope to find (if, that is, one wishes to maintain the fiction of Christian faith while denying the legitimacy of the Biblical authority upon which that Christian faith is founded). Otherwise Progressivism simply denies the existence of any religion. What scientific finding (or findings) leads you to the inescapable conclusion that the Judeo-Christian belief is valid?

Of themselves, scientific findings cannot inspire Judeo-Christian faith. They do, of course, provide support for that faith: “That the Truth of reason is not contrary to the Truth of Christian Faith: ”THE natural dictates of reason must certainly be quite true: it is impossible to think of their being otherwise. Nor again is it permissible to believe that the tenets of faith are false, being so evidently confirmed by God. Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.” (Saint Thos Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures)

And, the Scientific Method has perhaps been the happiest inspiration of the Western Civilization from which it arose. I could go on, but I see no point in restating what metmom has already summarized in her Post #678.

The subject of this thread is intellectual suicide . . .

And that precisely summarizes the ultimate fate of a Western Civilization that now rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition. The struggle encapsulated in this thread has nothing to do with the Intellectualism either of Science or Christianity. It is quite simply a fight for the control of public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. That is, likewise, a quintessential definition of Progressivism.

717 posted on 05/18/2010 7:26:49 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Wouldn’t this be making it about the individual?

Making it personal, you mean?

Contingent on what you mean by “this,” the very title of the thread, Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist, already makes it about as personal as you can get.

718 posted on 05/18/2010 7:36:04 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
“You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from.”

You apparently lead a very rich fantasy life, as nothing I have said or ever would say could lead a reasonable person to conclude what you have concluded.

Your particular interpretation of Scripture is not “Biblical authority” and by rejecting your particular views about what you think Scripture says about physical reality I am not rejecting the Bible.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any (Christian), not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas

719 posted on 05/18/2010 7:51:39 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any (Christian), not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas

I've seen you cite this quote several times. You've never been able to cite your source. Please provide the precise source for this quote.

720 posted on 05/18/2010 7:57:54 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 2,221-2,227 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson