From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 21:22:28 BST
Scott and all:
Scott said:
I agree with what you say about Bin Ladin and Pat Robertson, but to extend
that to theism in general is a mark of prejudicial thinking. Christianity
has been promoting intellect since the beginning (who preserved Classical
learning? -- the monks, those who felt the need to escape society).
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience" -- paragraph
1849 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I find the MOQ, with its glorification of the "pre-intellectual", and its
anti-theism (not just non-theism) to be more anti-intellectual than
contemporary, non-fundamentalist theism.
Oh yes, and I'm still waiting for an example where science and contemporary,
non-fundamentalist theism are in conflict. As I've said before, you're about
50 to 100 years out of date.
dmb says:
I really don't know what you mean. What is "contemporary non-fundametalist
theism"? How is the dogma of Catholic church NOT in conflict with science
when it asserts such things as miracles? How is it NOT unreasonable to
believe that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of
Christ. How about the virgin birth? The ressurection? I can see that Sam has
tried to make such things seems reasonable, but I just don't get it. And
your response here is so very thin that it literally means nothing to me.
Please explain.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 23:15:47 BST