Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Socks indeed. One of many secular mysteries for which answer can never be found. Where did that sock go? Why a duck? Whose on first? What is a wavicle?
If she weighs the same as a duck she's made of wood and therefore a witch!
Where did that sock go?
Listen very carefully for I shall say this only once: Protestant sock botherers. In UFOs.
Whose on first?
Whose what is on first?
What is a wavicle?
A half melted fudgesicle.
Catholicism: providing the answers to the questions that matter since Pentecost(TM).
You must mean ‘unless you are Catholic’, because that appears to be the hallmark of Catholic Christianity on FR...
THAT seems to virtually never be remembered . . . oh so chronically conveniently by virtually all the RC’s.
Thanks for your humblingly kind words.
God’s best to you and yours.
Yet another post I enjoyed.
Thx.
Happy to oblige.
Mascots are rarely choosey.
Actually,
Authentic Christians are not abducted by UFO critters.
In every rare example where there was thought to be an exception, a connection with the occult as well as a very compromised Christianty was found.
Or Attila, or, well you get the picture.
First of all, the current state called “Israel” is not neccessarly the Israel of prophecy. For one thing, they are not a theocracy but a socialist state. For another they do not have a king.
And to be honest, the early Christian's would be rather shocked you were taking the Israel of prophecy that way. They viewed it as the Church from very early on.
NOPE.
Only since about 300-400 AD.
Proddies don’t believe the Vatican’s rubber histories.
I was posting Aquinas not as authority to be swallowed whole least of all by people who don’t believe in, well, a whole bunch o’ stuff.
So the point is that he addresses the issue. It feels a little ridiculous to have to mention this, but I think Aquinas may have looked in a Bible once or twice.
I think the protasis is important in your problematic text. (Do you know what it’s a quote from?) Aquinas also thinks that prime matter is made of the four elements. And he didn’t think the “conceptus” was human until weeks after conception. (He was still against abortion.)
I do not agree with either of these thoughts of his. But they were excommunicating heretics, and running them out of town and/or killing them long before and long after him. We don’t kill forgers and most malefactors these days either. And nobody had started doing real chemistry, and he didn’t have the knowledge of embryology that we have.
I don’t see the relevance of these things to his usefulness in working out transubstantiation.
Where did you get a picture of Grandpa?
Though his ears were bigger :)
Yes, that helps, thank you.
Our preconceived notions may not be true.
When it comes to eschatology and the afterlife, I think it's beyond our concepts - as far beyond as life is to the concepts of an infant in the womb.
However, UFOs, body snatching, bioengineering, holograms - these are all very much within our concepts, concepts that have even been made into lots of movies.
So if the measure is "beyond our preconceived notions," these fanciful tales fail there as well.
That would be fine.
I said nothing of the kind.
Further, I put "idea" in quotes and explained:
I am using "idea" in this, though the term "form" is probably more usual. But I think for materialists, "form" is a confusing term.
I also said the "idea" was not in my head, while my understanding of the "idea" was, at least, mine, though not adequate to the "idea."
In other words, for someone who was reading this little effort, there were plenty of clues that saying,
I wish all my ideas were real...
would be to exhibit a complete misunderstanding of what I had said.
I am using the word "understanding" to talk about a personal event. I am using the word "idea" to represent something that is not "just in our heads."
(BTW, for the peanut gallery: I chose to use the word "idea" not only because I thought "form" would lead to even more confusion, but also in homage to Plato and ειδος.) How much does the difference between a gold ring and a gold wedding ring weigh? What color is the difference? IS there a difference?
Will you grant me that there are no perfect material instantiations of 'triangle," or of "circle"? A Circle is "a set of all the points lying in a plane, equidistant from a given point."
A triangle whose base is the diameter of a circle and whose apex is one of the points of that circle (But, of course, not either of the points where the diameter intersects the circle), the angle subtended by the diameter will be a right angle.
That was true before there were any humans, or before any humans started doing geometry. If somebody ignorant of geometry said, 'I bet the angle as described, subtended by the diameter, is NOT a right angle," that would be an 'idea' in your sense.
In the sense of my post it would be an understanding. It would also be wrong.
But we're talking about things which have no perfect material instantiation: "Just" "ideas." So what does it mean to say it's "wrong?" it's just an 'idea,' You say it doesn't exist. How can it be right or wrong.
A drunk runs over an infant, killing him. He bribes the judge and is given parole. What's WRONG with this? Isn't "wrongness" just an idea? What are we talking about, if not an "idea", when we question the justice of a killer getting a slap on the wrist?
Something doesn't become real by thinking it...Is that true or false? It seems to be an "idea", about thought, material, and causation.
What ARE thought, material, causation, truth, and falsehood?
How can you say, "This is a good thought, but that a bad one?" Are a tomato and the gas inside a balloon both "matter"? "Matter" would seem to be an idea, since gas and a tomato are very unlike one another.
Why do you say this causes that when you never see a "cause" but only two things happening simultaneously after a series of events? How much does a cause weigh, what color is it? IS cause "real"? If not, what are we talking about when we talk about it, UNreality?
Your language betrays the position you appear to be trying to advocate.
The wrenching out of context and misconstruing was so obviously lame and so easily pointed out that, though a few on the non-Catholic side applauded, the minute the pointing out process began they all melted back into the night.
And still, with all that, I've come away with the same things we started with. There is a chasm which separates us which no amount of "unity" or "ecumenacalism" can overcome, unless we just give up our beliefs and follow for the sake of getting along.
With only two exceptions. Mary is "venerated", not "worshiped" by Catholics. That is so thin as to not be worthy of normal conversation. And Proddys are considered "separate brethren" by Catholics, not saved with the fullness that Catholics will enjoy.
Two things. And that is being kind. Can anyone add anything else they have learned that they did not know when this thread began?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.