Why Does The Pope Respect Islam?

[Winchester]

In my shrill demands for an apology, I've overlooked something rather humorous.

"Most become functional atheists."

I am assuming Budge is referring to us satan defending Catholics. I never saw the study that determined this fact, but I should very much like to read it. Perhaps Budge can obtain it for us.

[Norseman82]

[color="#33CC00"]Budge:

If a satanist believed that stealing and murder were wrong, would this be a correct or incorrect belief?

a) YES _____


b) NO_____[/color]

[Budge]

What does the CCC say?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I happened to come upon a lovely passage in Henri de Lubac's [u]Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man[/u] which helps illustrate the proper place of philosophy.

[quote]It is a commonplace to allude to the Platonism of the Fathers in connection with these doctrines. But instead of invoking the Platonic doctrine of essential being, we should do better to account for them--to the extent that they are dependent at all on a philosophic basis--by looking rather to the Stoic conception of universal being. There are many expressions in Marcus Aurelius, for example, regarding the integration of the individual in the concrete totality of the cosmos, and still more concerning the reciprocal immanence of those who are participators in the [i]Nous[/i] (knowledge). But all this is of secondary importance, and we should beware of adopting the practice known in accountancy as double-entry, as so many Protestant historians do in dealing with the Fathers and the Bible. For in the Fathers they will see nothing but Hellenistic borrowing and influence, whereas in St. Paul and St. John they will find nothing but "pure revelation" or at least "pure religion". so severely critical an attitude on the one hands, such naive simplicity on the other, are in fact equally the causes of their blindness.

For in whatever degree a philosophical basis was necessary to the Fathers, were it Platonist or Stoic, there speculation was conditioned less by considerations of philosophy than by a keen realization of the needs of Christianity. How else indeed could they make the most of the metaphor of the body and its members in the great Pauline epistles if they were to leave Stoicism out of the account? Or how could they interpret with accuracy the Epistle to the Hebrews if first they must eliminate all trace of Platonism? In fact, they never scrupled to borrow, and that to a large extent, from the great pagan philosophers whom they held in esteem. But, wiser than Solomon, they were not led into idolatry by their philosophy, and as a modern historian, Christopher Dawson, has remarked, we must go back to St. John and St. Paul if we would understand patristic thought. -Henri de Lubac, [u]Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man[/u], Ignatius Press, 1988, pp. 40-41[/quote]

As the early Fathers did, so we use philosophy; the key is not to become a slave to any particular philosophy, that is, not to follow the wisdom of man, but of God primarily.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

Your "early fathers" are deceivers.

Now I dare you to tell me what this verbal vomit actually means...IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

[quote]It is a commonplace to allude to the Platonism of the Fathers in connection with these doctrines. But instead of invoking the Platonic doctrine of essential being, we should do better to account for them--to the extent that they are dependent at all on a philosophic basis--by looking rather to the Stoic conception of universal being.[/quote]

This follows the baffle them with you know what mode...

Edited September 27, 2006 by Budge

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1076500' date='Sep 27 2006, 10:59 AM']
Your "early fathers" are deceivers.

Now I dare you to tell me what this verbal vomit actually means...IN YOUR OWN WORDS.



This follows the baffle them with you know what mode...
[/quote]
First, that's really not the point. The point was that the Church Fathers used philosophy.

As for those words, they refer to the previous passage. The part that was relevant to you wasn't until just after them. However, if you must know, De Lubac was writing on Incarnational theology and the renewal of mankind in Christ, which was often elaborated by theologians with Platonistic philosophy, but De Lubac suggests a Stoic philosophical approach. However, I don't know a ton about Greek philosophy, so I can't tell you much more than that.

Anyway, the point is that the early Church used philosophy and did so in order to explain the faith to those who knew philosophy. God told us to be simple; He never told us to be irrational. We're allowed to use our minds. That's why He gave them to us. As for your theory on modes, no one is trying to baffle you. We can't help the fact that modern education has lost a sense of philosophy. Even I suffer because of it. Get over it. Learn some basic philosophical facts. They might help you organize your thoughts.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

Im waiting for you to tell me what that paragraph I chose means in your own words.

Waiting right here...............................

[img]http://www.x20.org/Test2/hidden-wallclockCam.jpg[/img]

Can you do it...?

Dont change the subject...

Im waiting for you to make that verbal spaghetti your own.



[quote]Anyway, the point is that the early Church used philosophy[/quote]

Of course the early CATHOLIC church did,

nothing better to deceive then Philosophy...

Notice this verse doesnt say SOME philosophy, or THAT type of philosophy but PHILOSOPHY in general.

[size=2]
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[/size]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1076507' date='Sep 27 2006, 11:15 AM']
Im waiting for you to tell me what that paragraph I chose means in your own words.

Waiting right here...............................

[img]http://www.x20.org/Test2/hidden-wallclockCam.jpg[/img]

Can you do it...?

Dont change the subject...

Im waiting for you to make that verbal spaghetti your own.
[/quote]
I already told you what it means and explained that I don't have the Greek philosophical background to give you a full treatise.

You, ma'am, are the one who is changing the subject. We were addressing the place of philosophy, not the nuances of Henri De Lubac's philosophy.

This would be your "change the subject to try to make the opponent look like a fool" tactic. Well, I admit to it. I'm a fool. At least I have manners and reason in a debate.

[quote name='Budge' post='1076507' date='Sep 27 2006, 11:18 AM']
[size=2]
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[/size]
[/quote]
I already answered to this verse. See my response above.

[Budge]

[quote]
I already told you what it means and[u] explained that I don't have the Greek philosophical background to give you a full treatise[/u].[/quote]


So you dont know what that paragraph means?

Just come out and admit it directly.

You know Satan works via confusion. Those who speak in riddles usually arent forthright folks who want you to know the truth.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1076286' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:25 PM']
[color="#33CC00"]Budge:

If a satanist believed that stealing and murder were wrong, would this be a correct or incorrect belief?

a) YES _____
b) NO_____[/color]
[/quote]


[quote name='Budge' post='1076489' date='Sep 27 2006, 09:40 AM']
What does the CCC say?
[/quote]
The question is, "What do YOU say?"

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1076530' date='Sep 27 2006, 11:43 AM']
So you dont know what that paragraph means?

Just come out and admit it directly.

You know Satan works via confusion. Those who speak in riddles usually arent forthright folks who want you to know the truth.
[/quote]
I already did come out and admit that I don't know [i]in great detail[/i] what that means. I do know enough to say that De Lubac is preferring one philosophical system over another and that that's the only thing that matters to this debate. Again, you're trying to change the subject. I suggest you refrain from it.

If you really consider what you quoted to be a riddle, then you must not understand simple English language.

[Budge]

[quote]. I do know enough to say that De Lubac is preferring one philosophical system over another and that that's the only thing that matters to this debate. Again, you're trying to change the subject. I suggest you refrain from it.[/quote]

Honestly if you cant even put these paragraphs into your own words, you really dont understand them.

That is all I asked that you do...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1076011' date='Sep 26 2006, 07:04 PM']
Actually, there would be no "truths of Satan." All truth is of God.

You're being dishonest. Lying. Decieving. Misleading. This puts you in the evil category. Can you treat what we say with honesty, or are yo uso blinded by your hate that you must continue to misrepresent what we've said.
You have misrepresented me intentionally. I demand an apology.
[/quote]

Budgie.

I'm handing you carte blanche here, c'mon.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1076917' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:35 PM']
Honestly if you cant even put these paragraphs into your own words, you really dont understand them.

That is all I asked that you do...
[/quote]
The fact of the matter, Budge, is that I did tell you what his point was, I just couldn't explain precisely why it was his point. As stated before, the matter is irrelevant, since that wasn't the part of the text I was trying to get you to notice.

You don't need to have a doctorate in Greek philosophy to know that when an author addressing the Church Fathers says he prefers Stoicism to Platonism, he is bringing philosophy into Patristic theology.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1076489' date='Sep 27 2006, 08:40 AM']
What does the CCC say?
[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2268']The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.[/quote]
[i]Cf. Gen 4:10.[/i]
[i]Cf. GS 51 § 3.[/i]

[quote name='CCC #2269']The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.[/quote]
[i]Cf. Am 8:4-10.[/i]

The part that will really "trip your trigger" Budge, is that this applies as much to a "Satanist" as it does to a Judeo-Christian; because a "Satanist" ipso facto must accept Judeo-Christian thought, since Satan is a direct subject of God, insofar as he is a fallen angel. So while a "Satanist" may hold these paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in contempt, he must at least recognize the truth of them in order to hold to the opposite view point.

The sad part of Protestantism is that often times Protestants ignore the truth, altogether, saying that the Catechetical view holds no weight for them personally.

So, I ask who is worse, the one who holds the teaching in contempt or the one who ignores the teaching all together?

[quote name='Budge' post='1076530' date='Sep 27 2006, 09:43 AM']
So you dont know what that paragraph means?

Just come out and admit it directly.

You know Satan works via confusion. Those who speak in riddles usually arent forthright folks who want you to know the truth.
[/quote]

Oh, but I do. See, philosophy serves a purpose. It is a means to an end. And this means is simply this; that in defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with said philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

See, philosophy is a starting point. It is simply the application of right reason. All philosophy does is support and give leg to theology. That is why the Summa Theologica is one of the great philosophical works of our time.

One cannot properly understand theology unless one can employ right reason. This is done basically through several means; which are logic, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. There are other disciplines that can be studied, but from the theological point of view understanding these disciplines are the most important. I am not going to get into a gigantic treatise on the minutia of the listed disciplines, however it is safe to say that these are, by far, the most important aspects of philosophy for the theologian and necessary for understanding right reason.

Basically one can think of it this way and use this analogy;

Philosophy is the love of wisdom
Theology is the love of God
A name for God is Wisdom

When one studies philosophy as a means of supporting theology then one creates a closer relationship with God through right reason.