co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)
On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)
8:20 Probably, part of the problem behind modern doctrine errors is, Étienne Gilson preserving the exact thought of Aquinas is dealing as if with an objet d'art, and divorced in a way from the neo-scholasticism of Jaques Maritain.
Best exception, Rev. Houghton, whose godparents for his conversion were Jacques and Raïssa.
9:05 In my recall of Newman's history of the Arians, not only was homousios a neologism, but the Latin version, consubstantialis, had even been tainted by previous use, in Patripassian heresy (the one opposite to Arian one).
Perhaps it's just my bad memory.
A word can have different meanings in different contexts, like when in XXth - XXIst C. someone says he's "creationist" you ask if he means young earth or old earth creationist - a Catholic obviously should be young earth, even if Fulcran Vigoroux took liberties - but two centuries earlier you would have replied "oh, you think you got your soul from God, not from your father, then?" (opposites being for one Theistic Evolutionist - or Atheistic such - and for other Traducianist).
So, the problem your "Pope Francis" sees with Fundies is surely not that adding millions and billions of years in the timeline somehow is just a neologism for an old doctrine. Even he must realise, they - we, I'm a Fundie in this sense too - see that addition as a novum.
9:49 Homousios may very well be a Greek culture synonym - indeed is - of adequately researched and obvious Biblical doctrine.
Old Earth creationism or Theistic Evolutionism aren't so to an "Evolutionist" culture, since Evolutionist is actually not a culture, but a specific religious stance in it.
0:45 "the nostalgia of Fundamentalists is to return to the ashes"
In other words, your "Pope Francis" was in fact both referring to a term often used about young earth creationists and also given a disparaging psychological explanation, a Bulverism, of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment