Incredulity on Literal Adam and Eve, a Tracing Problem (Quora) · Tracing Efforts Continue : Given that Trent Session V treats Adam as an individual man, when did modernist Catholics start treating him as just an allegory? · Continuing Sci Debate with Marc Robidoux · Marc and Alex between them · My answer to Marc Robidoux' long comment · Answering Pismenny, More Than One Comment
"I share your concern that the simple literal faith is eclipsed by the intellectualization of biblical inerrancy into some high calculus. In that sense I miss the Orthodox lack of equivocation."
Was this to me?
It so happens that yes, Biblical Inerrancy should not be treated as "imaginary numbers", but doing so is not an intellectualisation, at least not a successful one. Biblical Inerrancy without such a mistreatment is accessible without what is sometimes called "simple faith" and I have had to keep it up with a high degree of intellectualisation.
"I think they are robbing themselves of the real and full spectrum of the Faith, as Benedict XVI explained in his document."
If he said so, why is that not a condemnation?
"Especially if they, in Protestant style, use the Bible to fight off reality."
Protestants fighting off reality are, in my experience, not about using the Bible, but very Marc Robidoux style (as he's been to me so far, not to you) of demanding proof text for every level of a reasoning, including the conclusion, even if each premiss has a legitimate proof text.
"What I find admirable though is a simple intuitive faith that is not worried about proofs."
Apart from children and some Hesychasts, you will not find much faith that way.
"That is because in the end, we believe in a miracle"
Non sequitur. Miracle is proof, and to be that, the event that is a miracle and the miraculous nature of it needs to be provable too.
" — at least one, and events of 2000 years ago will never have proofs beyond dispute."
Events from 1945 will never have proofs beyond dispute. Events from 2000 years ago can very well have proofs beyond reasonable dispute.
"We Christians understand that a miracle cannot follow scientific method by definition, so when a naïve Atheist says something like 'dead people stay dead, it’s science, so your faith is wrong' we laugh."
Miracles cannot follow the common course of events. If we didn't know that dead people - normally - stay dead, the Resurrection would prove nothing about Christ. We do, therefore it does.
"At the same time I agree that no one should “deny demonstrable facts”, — that is equally silly."
What exactly counts like that with you?
Example from Marc : // Forming an entire cohort of citizens who believe dinos and humans co-existed, just like in the Flintstones. //
So, it it a demonstrable fact that men and dinos did not coexist? It is rather demonstrated that they did. Unless you will claim that men and ice bears don't coexist, because we don't stroll for morning coffee in the Arctic Sea and they don't do their fishing (except at zoo) near our cities. My demonstration, again depending on C14 dating being neither a literal certainty nor absolutely meaningless, but giving a relative chronology, far back enough (in more recent times, they are close to literal historic chronology), dinos have been found with C14 inside the bones. I couldn't find the Armitage reference, but here is a Snelling one, and it is in English despite youtube automatic translation to French):
Le carbone 14 a-t-il été trouvé dans les os de dinosaures ? - Dr. Andrew Snelling
6 mai 2020 | Is Genesis History?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sun, May 30
- Answering Pismenny, More Than One Comment = link here
- Alex Pismenny
- Mon, May 31
- Thanks, maybe later.
Dialogue previously here is now here:
Post a Comment