User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 125

  1. #91
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data.
    Have you ever questioned why we are hungry for answers to 'whys', as humans?

    We are infinite minds in finite bodies...
    Kinda agree. I wouldn't call our minds infinite, but I don't think we'll ever see the limits of the human mind in any near future.

    However....how does the above naturally allow for:

    this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.
    Why? I don't get the link. How does the possibility of an infinite mind tie into theology? Wouldn't it be better to explore the workings of the mind? Why are you suggesting something external to it [mind/body], like theology?

    People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.
    People who are defending their religion are always doing it for emotional reasons, in all cases. Whenever one, a priori, picks a side, there's inevitable limits to a full inquiry, either way.

  2. #92
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    People who follow a religion do so entirely based on emotions as well, it's fine to have a subjective view of the world.
    That may apply to some forms of religious beliefs, like Pietism for example, that's not true for religion altogether. Religion has rational aspects as well.

    A Christian philosopher contemplating the world is fine. A Christian philosopher contemplating how the world should operate according to previous believes isn't. Unfortunately, organised religions tend to venture in the second option.
    Are you saying philosophy should be purely theoretical and not have any practical implications?

    'Personal attacks on integrity' and 'warnings', whatever way they are worded are not an argument, attack the message, not the messenger.
    I'm not making personal attacks here. The inability to adhere to a certain set of principles is indeed often a sign of intellectual immaturity.

    Of course when one is younger one's capacity to grasp the world is limited, so thus changing one's mind is to be expected. However, as one ages, they should be better able to grasp what exactly it is that they believe, why they believe so, and so on - at least when it comes to basic principles. This is one reason why Aristotle suggested men should not be involved in politics before the age of 30, because they too often lack the intellectual maturity to truely handle it.

    You could be entirely right if you say I interpreted it wrong. I already basically admitted it.
    Yes you admitted to misinterpreting the Church's message. I commend you for that. However, that should give you pause on making anymore statements about the Church's stances. Rather than do that, you seem to persist on anyways.

    I think I had some hopes for an actual surprisingly progressive point of view from the Catholic church, probably just wishful thinking on my part.
    The Church deals with eternal truths, so "progress" is irrelevant here. And even if it was, the begged question always is progress towards what exactly? Progress is a means of measuring how far you are in achieving a particular end; it is not an end in itself.


    Tell me, what ARE the pope's arguments to ban condoms?
    It stems from the concept that all human life is sacred; and that human life is conceived in the natural process of procreation. Any artifical means of precluding this process is a violation of the Natural Law. Furthermore it also involves the treating of other human life as more a means to an end than as an end in itself - that is it violates the dignitiy of human life.

    That's a rough summary. This is outlined in more detail in Humanae Vitae itself.

    What IS the popes way to stop the spread of AIDS? I think I was being rather accurate, now give my your answers, instead of avoiding them.
    Here, from a Vatican spokesman:
    "Flatly contradicting the propaganda reports in which several governments and family-planning agencies have accused the Church of curtailing AIDS - prevention program, Msgr. Suaudeau wrote that “the Catholic Church has been on the front lines in the war against AIDS in Africa.” He observed that the Church is criticized for failing to approve of the distribution of condoms, but he went on to point out that condoms have been ineffective as a means of curbing the epidemic. “One cannot hope to stop the AIDS epidemic with condoms alone,” he argued, “any more than you can hope to stop a flood with sandbags once the main dikes have broken.” The only real solution to AIDS, the Vatican official continued, lies in “convincing people to change their sexual behavior, which is the principal cause of the spread of the infection.” He added that the frightening spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is abetted by turmoil in the region: the poverty, the lack of adequate sanitation, the conditions of life in refugee camps, and the spread of prostitution.

    The most effective method of avoiding AIDS, Msgr. Suaudeau pointed out, is sexual abstinence. The distribution of condoms to young people, he argued, works against that choice, and in effect “continues the vicious sexual cycle which is the cause of the pandemic.”

    Fight AIDS at Source Vatican Official Urges
    And was pointed out earlier by Dr. Hearst, changes in sexual behavior was more effective than just simply distributing condoms.

    It seems you are now generally trying to attack me on the fact that I don't have all the answers as to how the world might work.
    I've not made any personal attacks on you. I've countered many of your arguments, and am now pointing out that your arguments thus far lack any real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching.

    If you wish to inquire further about Catholic teachings, fine. But you need to lay off the speculations and conspiracy theories here.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That may apply to some forms of religious beliefs, like Pietism for example, that's not true for religion altogether. Religion has rational aspects as well.
    Relligion isn't telling completely random things all the time, but proclaiming (arguably) universal answers is not exactly rational either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Are you saying philosophy should be purely theoretical and not have any practical implications?
    Definition of philosophy quoted from the Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
    n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
    1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
    2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
    3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
    4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
    5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
    6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
    7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
    8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
    Nowhere does it says that philosophy has to have practical implementations. You have picked which personally which philosophies are useful or beneficial to you and implemented them into your life. To give you an extremely negative example of a philosophy that was implemented in the practical world, Endlösung der Judenfrage (I pick this example because I assume we don't have to argue about it's negativity, and because I think that you, me or anybody and anything either of us would ever think of sympathising with in the world would implement it, not because I want to place any association with the Catholic church).

    My point being, philosophy should have practical implementations only if they allow and guarantee absolute freedom (physical and mental) for everybody, not just the minority, not the majority, but everybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I'm not making personal attacks here. The inability to adhere to a certain set of principles is indeed often a sign of intellectual immaturity.

    Of course when one is younger one's capacity to grasp the world is limited, so thus changing one's mind is to be expected. However, as one ages, they should be better able to grasp what exactly it is that they believe, why they believe so, and so on - at least when it comes to basic principles. This is one reason why Aristotle suggested men should not be involved in politics before the age of 30, because they too often lack the intellectual maturity to truely handle it.
    I would call it 'not being close minded and stubborn'. There, you've got my perspective. Start arguing semantics, or stop mentioning it altogether.
    I quite enjoy practising politics and debating, and personally think that Aristotle is wrong if he said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yes you admitted to misinterpreting the Church's message. I commend you for that. However, that should give you pause on making anymore statements about the Church's stances. Rather than do that, you seem to persist on anyways.
    Because admitting a mistake is a reason to stop arguing altogether right? Apologies by Pope John Paul II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    :rolli:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The Church deals with eternal truths, so "progress" is irrelevant here. And even if it was, the begged question always is progress towards what exactly? Progress is a means of measuring how far you are in achieving a particular end; it is not an end in itself.
    May I interpret this as admitting that the Church is conservative and considers progress irrelevant?

    But unfortunately, it's not so infallible!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It stems from the concept that all human life is sacred; and that human life is conceived in the natural process of procreation. Any artifical means of precluding this process is a violation of the Natural Law. Furthermore it also involves the treating of other human life as more a means to an end than as an end in itself - that is it violates the dignitiy of human life.

    That's a rough summary. This is outlined in more detail in Humanae Vitae itself.



    Here, from a Vatican spokesman:
    A.K.A. Controlling the sexuality of people. At least this part is true, you can argue that it is out of a believe that all human life is sacred, but that doesn't change a thing for the people who don't in essence 'just believe' that contraceptions are wrong. (I won't go as far as saying that a human life is not sacred. I consider that to be true as well, I personally don't see why this has anything to do with contraceptives.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    And was pointed out earlier by Dr. Hearst, changes in sexual behavior was more effective than just simply distributing condoms.
    As Dr. Hears pointed out: "Recommendations include increased condom promotion for groups at high risk, more rigorous measurement of the impact of condom promotion, and more research on how best to integrate condom promotion with other prevention strategies."

    I may have misinterpreted Humanae Vitae wrong, but this direct quote from the link YOU provided me with seems pretty straight forward. So far nobody has proven to me the point that condom promotion cannot prevent AIDS if done right, or that it actually makes the crisis worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I've not made any personal attacks on you. I've countered many of your arguments, and am now pointing out that your arguments thus far lack any real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching.

    If you wish to inquire further about Catholic teachings, fine. But you need to lay off the speculations and conspiracy theories here.
    If you feel this is true, educate me! I don't ever want to reject information, but to be frank, it has to be in a format that appeals to my information in-taking side, instead of a format that puts my heels in the hand because I feel you are on an agenda.
    Tell me about what the catholic church's teachings are, factual and without bias and I will listen, not argue. I'll ask questions about things that I'm genuinely wondering about, and will not even provide counter points if you don't want to. I think PM is the best option if you are serious about this, so we won't clog up the forums with threads that might get hijacked by cold-hard arguing, like this one. (I feel at least partially guilty.)

    If you don't know where to start, with such a vague post as this, start out by telling me 'Why people believe in god', then go along with telling me 'Why there has to be a god, instead of there not being one'. I always found these questions fascinating, and they provide with both a good philosophical basis, as well as practical information about religion.

    Finally I do want to point out to you, that I was raised Catholic, made a conscience choice to abolish god altogether, and that when you are saying that I lack a real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching, I feel you are stigmatizing me. In reaction I will say I feel that I have a completely different point of view from you and that in my opinion you just haven't been asking the same questions as me about life, we both came to different answers to our different questions. This however does not mean that I wouldn't enjoy coming to a consensus about practical implication of, at least mine, but preferably both, our answers for the part of the world besides you and me (in this thread, practical implications originally being the teaching of Intelligent Design as a science, eventhough the subject of the thread is apparently shifting to condom use ). However far our stances seem apart right now.
    (removed)

  4. #94
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Nowhere does it says that philosophy has to have practical implementations.
    Please read #8; that's referring to ethics(which is a form of practical philosophy). There's a distinction made between theoretical and practical philosophy. Examples of practical philosophy would be political and social philosophy. There's also the school of thought called Pragmatism which claims that thought only has validity when it can be out into practice.

    My point being, philosophy should have practical implementations only if they allow and guarantee absolute freedom (physical and mental) for everybody, not just the minority, not the majority, but everybody.
    Ok this is your philosophical perspective, but don't confuse that with the very nature of philosophy itself or its relationship to practical implications.

    I would call it 'not being close minded and stubborn'. There, you've got my perspective.
    Having firm principles and being stubborn or close minded are not the same.

    Because admitting a mistake is a reason to stop arguing altogether right?
    No, I didn't say that. You made false statements about the Church's teachings and corrected you. That should give you pause before making anymore statements like that in the future. You didn't heed that, and instead continued to make more false statements like the ones you were corrected on.


    May I interpret this as admitting that the Church is conservative and considers progress irrelevant?
    "Conservative" and "progressive" are irrelevant terms here, since they refer to ideological categories that arose with the French Revolution in 1789.

    None of that has to do with Papal Infallibility(which has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church btw).


    A.K.A. Controlling the sexuality of people. At least this part is true, you can argue that it is out of a believe that all human life is sacred, but that doesn't change a thing for the people who don't in essence 'just believe' that contraceptions are wrong.
    Well truth is still true, even if nobody believes it. As far as controlling peoples sexuality; yeah it's called discipline which is a high-mark of any civilized culture.

    I may have misinterpreted Humanae Vitae wrong, but this direct quote from the link YOU provided me with seems pretty straight forward.
    I already addressed this point, please pay attention.

    If you feel this is true, educate me!
    If you wish, we can continue this via PM or another thread. Lately I've been overloaded with requests for information or questions about Catholicism and whatnot(and I'm not even talking about my one blog either).

  5. #95
    Senior Member Dooraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    105

    Default

    I agree with the churches view on reeducating people on sex (and no I don't mean any prohibition of homosexuality, what I mean is reducing the number of casual sex, prostitution and one night stands that many people have).

    But I don't understand why we can't have an overhaul in sex education and behaviour as a long term goal and yet continue distributing condoms and other preventive measures in the short term.
    INTp (MBTI)
    LII (Socionics) but typed as ILI as well
    5 wing 6
    Ti > Ni > Si > Ne > Te > Fi > Se > Fe

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Have you ever questioned why we are hungry for answers to 'whys', as humans?
    Of course. I seek answers through more than one field of knowledge... in the light of one unifying factor. It is not hard to understand why we wonder "why?".

    Kinda agree. I wouldn't call our minds infinite, but I don't think we'll ever see the limits of the human mind in any near future.
    Sorry, I should not have worded it as such. That was an oversight on my part. I meant to say we are capable of infinite thought, and thinking about the infinite. Our minds are boundless in terms of creative thought.


    Why? I don't get the link. How does the possibility of an infinite mind tie into theology? Wouldn't it be better to explore the workings of the mind? Why are you suggesting something external to it [mind/body], like theology?
    Well this ties into theology.

    Theology, defined as the study of God, covers psychology. I was thinking of Kierkegaard, actually, and his "paradox of faith." I definitely think this ties into psychology, and he talks a lot about this... Also, reminds me of Becker's Denial of Death.

    People who are defending their religion are always doing it for emotional reasons, in all cases. Whenever one, a priori, picks a side, there's inevitable limits to a full inquiry, either way.
    So the same could be said of any defense of a belief in something... besides things that are empirically, entirely provable, of course. Only accepting these things as the only knowable things leaves the mind wanting. I believe a full inquiry can be done into faith in God, as well as materialism. Each attempts to explain themselves rationally... though because neither are provable one must make a leap of faith. Both are attempting to provide the answer to the riddle of existence... which stems from an emotional background, I think. Most things that drive us do... Emotions are capable of more destruction, mental or otherwise than logic and data. Emotions make us aware of our liveliness. Logic is merely a tool, it can be used in the light of God or Creator, or whatever you want to call it, deriving monumental meaning... or it can be used purely in the light of materialism, deriving absolutely no meaning. Each human is faced with this choice... what they do this with choice is subject to many factors.

  7. #97
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Please read #8; that's referring to ethics(which is a form of practical philosophy). There's a distinction made between theoretical and practical philosophy. Examples of practical philosophy would be political and social philosophy. There's also the school of thought called Pragmatism which claims that thought only has validity when it can be out into practice.



    Ok this is your philosophical perspective, but don't confuse that with the very nature of philosophy itself or its relationship to practical implications.
    Nowhere did I say that philosophy cannot have practical implications. I'm just saying there does not have to be one. I want to add to that, using the philosophy behind a practical idea, as a way to justify your practical implication, means you deny other practical options to take the place of your specific ones, regardless of the fact that the other practical implications have a philosophical thought behind them as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Having firm principles and being stubborn or close minded are not the same.

    No, I didn't say that. You made false statements about the Church's teachings and corrected you. That should give you pause before making anymore statements like that in the future. You didn't heed that, and instead continued to make more false statements like the ones you were corrected on.
    You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes (This doesn't work well in writing, but I think you what I mean). You conclude that I change my arguments (I haven't really changed my principles in this case, but just for the sake of honesty, yes I would do that if new information arises that shows to me I'm wrong), and call it and "intellectual immaturity", I conclude that I changed my arguments and call it "being open minded". Who is right? We don't know, we both came to the conclusion that I changed my arguments, but we call it different things. That's arguing semantics.



    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    "Conservative" and "progressive" are irrelevant terms here, since they refer to ideological categories that arose with the French Revolution in 1789.
    Yeah, and at that time we defined "conservative" as "Favouring traditional views and values", and "progressive" as "moving forward". As to why they are irrelevant terms here? Is it because the Church can't be defined in ideological (and thus subjective), because it deals in unquestionable truths?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    None of that has to do with Papal Infallibility(which has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church btw).
    I wasn't actually referring to Papal infallibility in particular, more so to your point that "The Church deals with eternal truths", which they come back round on later, for some reason. What, their first truth (let's pick the inequality of women for instance) wasn't eternal enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well truth is still true, even if nobody believes it. As far as controlling peoples sexuality; yeah it's called discipline which is a high-mark of any civilized culture.
    Well, if your moral point of view is "getting laid every single day", and you feel a bit ill one day, and you really don't want to go out to find somebody and have sex with them, but you do it anyway, because you have to because it is your moral code, then that's called discipline as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I already addressed this point, please pay attention.
    Yeah, you did. With the addition that it should stop me from arguing at all. Sneaking in arguments like that won't work and will likely provoke me to answer them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    If you wish, we can continue this via PM or another thread. Lately I've been overloaded with requests for information or questions about Catholicism and whatnot(and I'm not even talking about my one blog either).
    Do you have an 'official' function within the Catholic church, that you are spending this much time with the subject?
    (removed)

  8. #98
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Do you have an 'official' function within the Catholic church, that you are spending this much time with the subject?
    No I'm a lay Catholic.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    No I'm a lay Catholic.
    Ah, I was just interested.
    (removed)

  10. #100
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Intelligent design isn't really necessary.
    An inscription above the gate to Hell:
    "Eternal Love also created me"

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  2. Dennis Quaid's take on Doc Holliday vs. Val Kilmer's
    By DoctorCroupy#9 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2013, 08:18 PM
  3. [E9] Eights, What's Your Take On This?
    By bechimo in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 02:24 AM
  4. A new/old take on temperament theory: Has anyone heard of this?
    By Bethy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:17 PM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO