Franics Collins

[athrock]

Harris emphasizes the final moment of Collins' search without fully appreciating the time and rigorous intellectual effort that went into the journey prior to that moment.

The "waterfall moment" represented a moment of grace when Collins was finally able to submit his WILL to that which his intellect already understood.

From where I sit his intellect didn't win but his desire to have the mystery of god in his life did.  His intellect was basically appeased that it could go on functioning as it always had professionally.  His decision was to live with the seeming paradox and allow that how both could be true was beyond him.  So a leap of faith, not a reasoned result.

Well, in the article quoted above, he specifically states that he did NOT want God to be real.

So, we can either go with your analysis of his state of mind or his.

[athrock]

Sorry I'm just seeing this.

No, the Catholic Church has not changed its position. The key is in understanding the definition what it means to be a member of the Church. I'm afraid your "historical fact" is simply an example of ignorance of the full details.

Despite all the efforts made by Protestants over the past 500 years to prove the Catholic Church has changed a doctrine in such a manner as to repudiate a past teaching, nothing has been found.

Doesn't stop folks from trying, though.

How about marrying non-catholics.  this was changed in 1818, no?

That was a discipline - not a doctrine. Rules about marriage, fasting and priestly celibacy are examples of disciplines.

The church can change its devotions and disciplines but not its doctrines and dogmas.

[Angrboda]

How about marrying non-catholics.  this was changed in 1818, no?

That was a discipline - not a doctrine. Rules about marriage, fasting and priestly celibacy are examples of disciplines.

The church can change its devotions and disciplines but not its doctrines and dogmas.

Ha ha. I knew you were going to use this defense. Talk about hair splitting.

[Jehanne]

No, the Catholic Church has not changed its position. The key is in understanding the definition what it means to be a member of the Church. I'm afraid your "historical fact" is simply an example of ignorance of the full details.

Despite all the efforts made by Protestants over the past 500 years to prove the Catholic Church has changed a doctrine in such a manner as to repudiate a past teaching, nothing has been found.

Doesn't stop folks from trying, though.

These statements are just "ignorance on parade".  It ignores the Catholic Church's own theologians who state, explicitly, that the Catholic Church has changed its teachings on EENS ("Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," or, "Outside the Church there is no salvation")  Consider Cardinal Walter Kasper, who is referred to as "the Pope's theologian":

“Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further. I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).  Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too. Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”

We're atheists; you can't "pull wool over our eyes," and we read for ourselves.  The Council of Florence taught "that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."

You can play "word games" all that you want; it's just a bunch of bullshit.

[GrandizerII]

And I'm still open-minded. 

Open-minded to what exactly?

[Silver]

Otherwise rational individuals can be emotionally compromised to the point of irrationality after a traumatic event. It is no surprise, which is why no one should take those individuals seriously in what they state.

[Whateverist]

From where I sit his intellect didn't win but his desire to have the mystery of god in his life did.  His intellect was basically appeased that it could go on functioning as it always had professionally.  His decision was to live with the seeming paradox and allow that how both could be true was beyond him.  So a leap of faith, not a reasoned result.

Well, in the article quoted above, he specifically states that he did NOT want God to be real.

So, we can either go with your analysis of his state of mind or his.

Well obviously he didn't want God to be real .. until he did want that.  Meh.