Posted on 02/10/2015 2:06:38 PM PST by NYer
Whatever you say vlad! You’re so welcome :-)
Thanks for proving me right again. Anti-Catholics are always predictable.
Sure!
Our intellectuals have been under the spell of Voltaire and his ilk for 259 years. Looking back, I found it interesting that the real collision between Church and the “enlightenment” came about during a time when the national monarchs were pushing the Church, the papacy in particular for control. Benedict XIV, one of the most popular of the popes, and a brilliant scholar, did his best to settle church state issues through a series of concordats, and by protecting clerics with enlightened views, but all this came to nought after he died in 1758. From that time thereof fell in. The Jesuits were suppressed, and the intellectual[s hared of the Church came out into the open. The Church was tarred as anti-scientific at the very time it was ceasing its opposition to the new science and cosmology but trying to battle the scientism of shallow thinkers like Voltaire and the atheism of d’Holbach. Within thirty years the disciples of these men would be cutting off the heads of anyone who opposed their ideas, and all in the name of free thought.
Catholics, even liberal ones, are creationists. The Darwinism reject either a literal and non-literal interpretation of Genesis, because it saves quite plainly that man is the masterpiece of the One God. They reject God, they reject mankind, they only worship dead matter.
Wrong. "Theistic evolution" isn't creationism.
Plus, by granting science the last word in Biblical exegesis on Genesis while telling science to keep its mouth shut about such scientific impossibilities as the virgin birth, Catholics show themselves as internally inconsistent and hypocritical as well.
And again. Thanks.
You are so welcome vlad!
And once again. When the anti-Catholic does exactly as expected it sure makes everything easier. Thanks.
Ha! You have such a good sense of humor!
I’m happy to affirm that you are so very right.
How is the Virgin Birth “scientifically impossible?” The scientific method may tell us about butterflies but it can tells nothing, with certainty, about when and where that butterfly was hatched.
“I’m happy to affirm that you are so very right.”
Yes, by affirming that you’re wrong - which is exactly what you’re doing. I don’t mind.
“Yes, by affirming that you’re wrong - which is exactly what you’re doing. I don’t mind.”
I’m totally affirming whatever you think vlad.
“I’m totally affirming whatever you think vlad.”
No, by your completely predictable actions you’re confirming you can’t make an argument.
whatever you think vlad!
That's the salient fact. Regrettable as the convictions of Bruno and (especially) Savonarola were, they were internal Catholic ecclesial disputes on theological grounds, where the Church had full jurisdiction. When the French revolution rolled along, it was nothing but organized banditry.
No, no, whatever you show. Which so far, is nothing.
Sure
Quantum mechanics is a causal theory, one of the most accurate versions of which is indeed a second order differential equation. The uncertainly principle ultimately arrives from a Fourier transform rigorously dependent on that equation. The Uncertainty Principle, so often abused by mystics, does not establish that the universe is a haunted house. Quite the opposite.
By threatening an old man in poor health with torture, the "church" knew perfectly well that it was threatening Galileo with death.
Some were executed (an extremely rare event).
That's murder there, chum. And the "church" was a full participant, in thousands of them.
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.