Brought back where? In all Protestant churches in N. America?
“Do I need to put another smiley face in here, Gregory?” - Eddie
No, I’m not nearly as anti-modern or hyper-anti-post-modern as you. The smiley face; I ‘get it’ already, Eddie.
We of the 80’s and 90’s think must faster than our 60’s and 70’s elders, largely because of electricity and computers from our childhood (while those younger than me were raised on cell phones and tablets). Just answering my question about your ‘we’ display of ‘Catholicity’ would be fine, thanks, Eddie.
You are surely aware that evangelical Protestants in N. America will most likely never “bring back the Latin Mass,” so it makes sense nowhere in N. America to even dream or tease about this other than in the Catholic Church. Are you Roman Catholic, Eddie, or not? You used the term ‘we.’
“Pope Benedict, the greatest Pope during my lifetime” - Eddie
Where is the ‘jaw drop’ emoticon?
“what could be better or more important in the modern [sic] world than a revival of Latin?” - Eddie
Nothing against Latin (I’ve been working with Latin texts in recent weeks), but since you asked (as a man who said recently here at BioLogos that he personally gave up on ‘progress’ decades ago!). Just a ‘younger generation’ try: much more important = human technological enhancements in the spirit of religious transhumanism?
fuhgeddaboudit, it is not worth the time, energy, mental efforts or emotional resources.
I must say that I enjoyed watching the Pope at St. Patrick’s in NYC. It had an air of fifteenth century mysticism to it, with his holiness’s vestments, the benediction with the incents. I recalled the smell even though I was watching it on TV.
Yes, we can agree on a positive note as I was captivated by the Pope’s visit to DC, NYC and Philly. His message resonated with me. It was to all of humanity and at the same time to each one of us. Did you see the motorcade stop on the way to Congress so he could bless this statue?
Yes, that makes sense. One’s nose, unless badly damaged, doesn’t often forget, or at least remembers. I watched some parts of the visit with amazement too, though not of the incense.
Enjoyment and faith make an interesting and provocative conversation. You started by saying you were (used to be) Catholic. Then a sandwich/peanuts incident and then 9/11. Then disenchantment and silence. Do you think God forgets?
Have you watched the film Zero: An Investigation into 9/11? It’s produced by Italians (a bit more ‘objective’ and globally oriented than the usual USA suspects). It’s even on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
The claim that the Arabs who flew some of the planes were ‘religious’ in the name of Abraham is debatable, given their documented habits and tendencies. King Abdullah just 2 days ago reminded people of the ‘distortions’ of Islam at the U.N., displayed in such fanaticism. The Pope’s Spanish majority speeches likely struck an unusual chord in U.S.A. consciousness, which I’m too distant to properly understand. ‘Gracias’ sounds quite different than ‘thank you’, in the Latinate sense, when linked with ‘grace,’ as in “God’s unmerited favor, love, or help”.
You’re correct, the Aramic and Greek are the original languages. I’m just used to the King James myself so the “ye” and “thou” don’t really confuse me… Lol.
I think you misunderstood my question. My question wasn’t how do most people define the word “faith”, or even how people in general define the word “faith”. I was asking, “What is the substance of THE faith” i.e., the particular faith in question, given the context of the situation.
I will reiterate yet again… If someone was “martyred for a faith” we have to know the context of the faith in question. The “faith” is really something you believe in, or something you put your trust in. People can be “martyred” for trying to protect someone else… Or for fighting in a war… Or for walking around with signs in protest against war … Peacemakers who willingly put themselves in harms way for what they believe in.
The question is not “is it harmful, or a dangerous idea, to die for what you believe in”… The question is “What do you believe in” and “is it worth dying for”…
When I said we need to understand point #2 “Why is the person persecuting the person of faith” is like what I said earlier… We need to analyze the context of the situation. I bring up the subject of martyrdom, and then you say that beliefs can cause harm to oneself… When you should be asking, “Why is the person persecuting you in the first place?”… It’s as if you’re blaming a religious person for not giving up his faith, when you should be blaming the persecutor, who’s killing someone because of their faith… Do you see what I’m trying to get at here?
All sarcasm aside, I do think it’s a good question to ask. Are you Catholic? You seem to know an awful lot about Catholic doctrines when I myself know very little…
I don’t know. Pretty much stopped trying to determine if He exists or not. Never had a personal experience with anything spiritual in my mind.
Can’t accept that religious fanaticism wasn’t the primary reason these attacks were successful. If these hijackers didn’t firmly believe that there was an afterlife and that Allah was approving their actions, these attacks would never have occurred. I feel that belief (faith) is the only thing that can over ride reason and instinct to survive in a person’s mind - especially an educated 21 century person. For these terrorist, indoctrination came early and from their family as traditional Islam. The basis was setup when they were children. It didn’t take much to radicalize. Just a little encouragement.
Yes, that was quite detailed, thank you. I myself am not a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy reading works by church fathers who were (are) Catholic. For instance, I’ve read the first 23 chapters of Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis, and find it quite mentally stimulating… I begin to ask questions I haven’t even ever thought of asking — still yet to read the whole thing however.
You talk about Europe. I went to Wales one time to visit my uncle that lives over there. We went and saw Stonehenge as well as the Salisbury Cathedral in England… the architecture is absolutely stunning, and you can stare it for a very long time, without losing interest. If you’re ever there again I highly recommend it.
[quote=“Patrick, post:180, topic:2555”]
You seem to be much more knowledgeable than I am on the contains of that paper I posted. Please give me your option of it. Do you think it was a significant result? Or just a little piece of the puzzle?[/quote]
Both, as those are not mutually exclusive groupings. The second (the one to which I linked) is much more empirical and significant than the first, IMO. It’s not like demonstrating that the ribosome is a ribozyme, however.
[quote]For someone not at the cutting edge of research, every paper seems like it is either the next Nobel prize or destined for the okay that’s interesting category.
[/quote]Yes, especially when you’re reading a university press release instead of the paper itself.
The way it typically goes is that the writer of the press release vastly overhypes the work in the first draft. The researcher says, “No! You can’t go that far,” the writer decreases the hype, but never as low as the researcher would want it to be. This can go on for multiple cycles and at the end neither is happy with the level of hype in the final press release.
I did. I responded directly to Christy’s post in 172. I repeat below:
No all-powerful God can possibly need me to avoid new knowledge or to misrepresent new knowledge to create fictional gaps into which I stuff Him, thereby diminishing Him.
Here we have an perfect case study: Eddie’s theology clearly is gravely threatened by the simple, yet commonly misunderstood, concept that evolution only happens to populations, never to individuals. He relentlessly misrepresents this (a single animal changing into another, the very first cell, the first life which for some never-specified reason must have been cellular, etc.) to create larger gaps into which he can stuff God.
We scientists want to narrow and close gaps in our knowledge. Those trying to stuff God into gaps want to create and widen them because they know that doing so diminishes God, but won’t admit it to themselves or anyone else. The most important gaps to be maintained are the species gap between human and nonhuman and the gap between living and nonliving.
This explains the ID movement’s nearly universal choice of rhetoric over empiricism, because empirical work narrows and/or obliterates gaps. This extends to learning about the latest data.
One might argue that there’s a single exception in the past decade: Doug Axe of the DI mutagenized an enzyme and from a single sample, argued for a global negative. The argument is logically laughable and the conclusion is extremely technically weak, even for Axe’s single, cherry-picked case. The bottom line is that Axe is the only one trying to work empirically to widen a gap, he is failing, and appears to have quit.
The lack of any reply from Eddie to Patrick’s questions speaks more loudly than his denials:
So from my perspective, this is all about evolution and God’s sovereignity.
Absolutely true. A nineteen year old human male’s brain is wired for risk taking, aggression, display of vigor to potential mates. All instinctive biological raw emotion. It is reason that has to develop to go above these primeval tendencies
