Science vs Religion???

[Split Infinity]

Pity that he (Ravi Zacharias) didn't come right out and engage Dawkin's claim that Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Dawkins on absolute morality vs. his understanding of morality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA&feature=player_embedded

[wally]

mmm... Split, he would not dispute that Atheists is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled. He was simply saying that if there is not a standard reference then being happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled is a matter of one's opinion. And as you would say your view is as valid as anyone else's.

He is simply arguing that where one locates the absolute zero is no longer absolute and binding if there is no God. In a way, your point is that anyone has right to determine where the absolute zero is found.

[wally]

On CBC's  Tapestry, Terry Eagleton who criticizes Dawkins, Hitchens and atheists on the issue of their sloppy understanding of Theology and how their criticisms were based on wrong categorical arguments. On this forum, we have been making similar claims in a bit of different fashion. It is about 54 min. interview and worthwhile listening to.

It talks about how the secular liberal triumphalism might asserts its arrogance in the debate posed by the current crop of atheists.

Split, listen to the interview before you jump all over the issue.

[The Penguine]

That was pretty interesting.  It's true that these guys tend to argue against Christianity with straw men as if all of us believe the world was created less than 10,000 years ago and that Satan planted fossils to deceive us.  It would be interesting to see a debate between them and Eagleton or Wright but as Eagleton said Dawkins seems nervous about that idea.

[Split Infinity]

Split, listen to the interview before you jump all over the issue.

In some strange sense, you folk and Dawkins deserve each other.  God has made a perfect match!

By the way, if you are really so convinced by what got said, I suspect that you would make a very good Roman Catholic seminarian--perhaps even priest.

[The Penguine]

So Dawkins deserves us

[wally]

No, Penguine, after egging us on with Ditchens party, the superior being, Split, is now laughing in a corner, admiring his own intellect for having made us twirl. 

In truth, Split is an enlightened Christian of liberal ilk after Spong... not like any of us. He has become totally open to include everyone in his domain except those of us who are totally beneath him. 

Actually, Split, you are quite perceptive in accusing us to be like RCs. Interestingly, one task that the Church took seriously was and still continuing is to fight heresy. Each age has its own version of Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichean-ism etc. You are quite a Gnostic along with Spong and few others of today.

[Split Infinity]

Nice try, but I don't know anything about Spong.

Blessings on your journey, Wally.  I once knew of a "conservative-evangelical" minister in the Presbyterian Church in Canada who found his true spiritual home and vocation in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest.  Be true to yourself and what you believe.  The theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas (via Terry Eagleton) is a misfit in the protestant church though.

[wally]

'mmm all your blessings...

your claim of ignorance of Spong does not mean that you will not be pals together. and your conjecture of where I stand theologically shows how you fail to get the points of arguments or listen to the arguments.

you are struggling too hard to fit in.

BTW, before you think you know what you are arguing for, here is today's Toronto Star article that reflects what I have been saying in many different ways. You should know who you are to know where you and others stand in the world. You get to know who you are when you know where you have come from and who your family, relatives and friends are.

[Split Infinity]

your conjecture of where I stand theologically ...

Are you now saying that you reject the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas that was expounded by Terry Eagleton in the link you posted?

[wally]

No, I do not reject it out right. I would say that much of our Protestant theology is built upon what TA has done. It has grown beyond where TA left it: some notions are rejected while others are kept.

I consider RCs as I do of UCC and other Christian denominations as cousins and far cousins who share much of the same genes. Yet, each has its own unique genes to differentiate one from another.

[Split Infinity]

No, I do not reject it out right.

Let's be more specific then. To begin with, Terry Eagleton talked about Saint Thomas Aquinas' idea that the world had no origin--that it always was.

Are you saying that you accept this claim?

[The Penguine]

Let's be more specific then. To begin with, Terry Eagleton talked about Saint Thomas Aquinas' idea that the world had no origin--that it always was.

Are you saying that you accept this claim?

I don't think any individual gets it all right.  That doesn't mean that some don't get closer to the truth than others which is why some people's writings are more accepted.  According to Wikipedia, Origin was "one of the most distinguished writers of the early Christian Church" but his idea of universalism is not generally accepted.  John Knox wrote that women should have no reigning authority over men in spite of the biblical story of Deborah, one of the judges of Israel, which he decided not to mention or explain.  As a community, we examine the writings of the past and use them to further own understanding, rejecting the parts which seem to be subject to the author's bias.  If we only studied material which has no errors, we wouldn't have much to work from.

[Split Infinity]

I would say that much of our Protestant theology is built upon what TA has done. It has grown beyond where TA left it: some notions are rejected while others are kept.

(1)  I'm sure you know that the number and understanding of the sacraments are totally different in Aquinas and the protestants (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin).

(2) Sola gratia
Sola fide
Solus Christus
Sola scriptura
Soli Deo gloria

would also be points of great difference between Thomas Aquinas/Roman Catholicism and the Protestant reformers.

(3) The eccleseology in Thomas Aquinas is also totally different--a Papacy verses a church whose head in Jesus Christ.

It's very hard to see how Thomas Aquinas could be thought of as a source of Protestant Theology.

[wally]

Right you are. There are, however, vast quantity of materials that both RCs and Protestants share as well as you know. Whether TA was a source of Protestant theology or not may be debatable to you, however, Calvin would probably say that he stands on shoulders of many great Christians who came before him and would include TA.

You may also already know that many RC theologians wrote very positively about Calvin's ecclesiology. I am sure you are also aware of intentions of both Calvin and Luther whose desire was not to find or establish a new church but to revive the corrupt one as you are trying so hard to do here.