|
Evidence of ET?
|
 RE: Evidence of ET?
December 19, 2015 at 12:52 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
CL takes very little of the Bible literally, and for that reason the existence of ETs wouldn't contradict her belief in God... that's the way I see it.
  (December 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Are you suggesting that the book has changed? Doesn't it mean what it says in there? Could you reiterate for the purpose of thread continuity? I wouldn't want it thought I was putting words into your mouth. You should know my feelings about clarity of positions and definitions.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (December 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know it did. But it hasn't for quite a while. I'm talking in the present. Every position the Church holds that is not official doctrinal teaching regarding faith and morals, is subject to change. The Church only claims infallibility in those specific aspects. As for the bible, its interpretation and understanding changes and will continue to change as we gain a better understanding of it. It is not considered Church Doctrine. With that being said, let's not derail the thread by branching into discussion about Catholicism. This whole thing started because some people were claiming that belief in ET life is in conflict with Christianity. While it most certainly was at one point in history, the fact is that it no longer is now.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (December 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You're ignoring the definition given by the First Vatican Council. Do you ignore the Bible, Sacred Scripture, because it is also 2,000 years out-of-date? Are you saying that the teachings of an ecumenical Council are not "official" Church teachings? Or, those of a Pope? (December 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I've been on these boards for several months now. You know my answer to these questions. Yeah, sure. My post about things changing over the course of several centuries was actually aimed at Min's comment about Galileo... it was not aimed at you. Obviously, the words in the bible do not change. Our interpretation of certain aspects of it though, does change. A lot of it, especially the OT, is written in poetry, allegory, metaphor, etc. So it is not taken completely literally by the vast majority of modern day Christians.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (December 19, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Could you reiterate for the purpose of thread continuity? I wouldn't want it thought I was putting words into your mouth. You should know my feelings about clarity of positions and definitions. Yeah, that's the point; religion can change. Creeds can change; everything can change! There is nothing that can not be, at some point, be changed! It's just a bunch of silly putty, morphing itself from one generation to the next. In other words, religion and religious belief are memes. But, it appears that you do not know much about the Catholic faith, at least historically: Quote:2125 Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?--Reply: In the negative.  RE: Evidence of ET?
December 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2015 at 1:28 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(December 19, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I know, right? Things change in several centuries. Imagine that. That was BS, yes. But like I said. Everything that is not a doctrinal teaching on faith and morals is subject to change as times change and as we learn more about the world around us. The Church only claims infallibility on official matters of faith and morals... example being the divinity of Jesus, the immaculate conception, life after death, etc. Getting back to the topic at hand though.... The Church and mainstream Christianity in general are not at all in conflict with ET life. The first time I heard about there being any conflict was in this *atheist* forum lol. Emphasis on atheist. That should tell you something. (Oh, and I am speaking in the present, fyi.) 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (December 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oh you mean it was bullshit when it started but NOW they've got it right? I think that you need to read more; how about Pope Pius XII (died in 1958): Quote:2328 When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds that either after Adam there existed men on this earth, who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all; or that Adam signifies some kind of multitude of first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
