Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Yes, I hope the material will help and yes, I will pray for the conversion of sinners.
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by Miseremini on Today at 07:25:59 PM »
unlike a working class woman who does have to put up with a lecherous boss because she needs her job to keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

I still have a problem with this.  If she keeps silent is she condoning his actions?  And also by staying is she becoming an occasion of sin for him? and thereby herself?
Should she not seek employment elsewhere?  or report him?
A damned if she does and damned if she doesn't situation.
Yes we have St Thomas’ 5 proofs (which are undeniable by men of good will) and yet many still do not believe or at least they act as if it did not matter.

But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.  Luke 16:30-31
"Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone".

Well, that's a given, if one is Catholic. But what about the scoffers who look to science for all answers? The important point to be gained from this film is not St. Thomas' proofs but to try and educated people that what they thought they believed for decades is no longer tenable.

Did you ever once consider the possible effect a film like this might just lead someone, somewhere to embrace the Faith? Most people, even most Catholics have never even heard of Thomas' five proofs. Therefore, a film like this is indeed important from the standpoint that while 'we' may not look favourably on some of the terms employed, nevertheless, may have a great impact on others.

Incidentally, there is no need to quote scripture as I'm rather familiar with it. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. You're right, some will never believe because of the hardness of their hearts. However, many will, therefore, we need to pray for their conversion.

Science has found proof of God in the Big Bang?

First of all we have to know why 'science' 'proves' there was a Big Bang?

Hubble interpreted red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies as an expanding universe. They then assumed by extrapolation that an initial explosion must have caused this expansion.

Had any of them Read Copernicus's book they would have seen him speculate that if the universe was geocentric then it would expand like a carnival swing ride.

So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]

[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

Science cannot prove God exists. If it did then faith would be unnecessary.

Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles.
"So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity."

I believe you missed the whole point. While the so-called "Big Bang" theory was mentioned, if you go back and listen closely, you will find that at the end of the day, many of the scientists concluded that the universe was not the result of some "Big Bang"--which some scientists use as a pejorative term--but rather that the universe was created from nothing.

As far as the Trinity is concerned, the objective was not to engage in theological debate but to explain the origins of the universe. Therefore your comment about the Trinity is rather out of place.
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by 1st Mansion Tenant on Today at 06:43:15 PM »
Where does this stuff end though? The lecherous dirtbags need to be smacked down, yet the whole thing is taking on the flavor of a witch hunt. A person's whole reputation and career ruined because he's accused of goosing a gal decades ago? And with no proof? (Not talking Weinstien here) I'm not sure how justice can be doled out in many of these cases.
Art and Literature for Catholics / Re: Catholics and Hitler
« Last post by Gwaredd Thomas on Today at 06:39:28 PM »

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here but my assumption is that you're trying to demonstrate the foolishness of the Third Reich. If this is the case, you have missed the mark by a considerable distance. If you will read one of my earlier posts you will find that I wrote that these types of displays are ridiculous. These people are clowns dressing like "Nazi's." It has to do, I'm sure, with all these crazy white power movements. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of National Socialism as it played out in the Third Reich. None of this is Catholic much less Christian.
General Discussion / Re: Sex scandals and prostitution
« Last post by Jaynek on Today at 06:34:06 PM »
If I be correct, I do recall that Bishop Moreno, former  dioceses Bishop of Tucson, is no longer, for he was caught managing a prostitution ring.  When victims came, the dioceses claimed bankruptcy.  So rotten!!
I think you are remembering this incorrectly.  According to publicly available information, Bishop Moreno retired at 72 due to ill health and died three years later.   Everyone seems to agree that he was a good man but poor administrator who did not deal well with cases of sexual abuse by priests.  Settlements with victims were a major cause of the bankruptcy. They paid out a huge amount.  There were serious problems in the diocese, but I cannot find any accounts of him managing a prostitution ring.  It seems greatly out of character with everything else known about him.
Crisis in the Church / Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Last post by GJC on Today at 06:18:46 PM »
Anyone know whatever happened with Nishant?  Is he on other boards under a new moniker?
Not sure, last we talked on the boards were about the Thomist vs. Molinist debate. I PM'd him and he never responded, almost a year ago.
Crisis in the Church / Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Last post by 2Vermont on Today at 06:14:12 PM »
Precisely, and Nishant (when he was around) could never refute this.
Anyone know whatever happened with Nishant?  Is he on other boards under a new moniker?
Crisis in the Church / Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Last post by Ladislaus on Today at 06:08:33 PM »
Your whole understanding of what the Magisterium even is, is terribly flawed - but apparently it is what you were wrongly taught, which is why you believe it. Again, the Magisterium can never defect, the pope and hierarchy are not the magisterium, they are the pope and hierarchy.

Perhaps some day you will come to understand and accept that fact in it's simplicity.

Your view of the Magisterium isn't even remotely Catholic.  Maybe someday YOU will come to accept that.  I've splained this to you many times already.  Pope and hiererarchy exercise Magisterium.  Magisterium is not some static body of truth.  Stubborn decides what's in it and what isn't ... so-called Magisterium-sifting where Stubborn's private judgment becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth.  So such-and-such teaching of V2 goes against past teaching.  How do you know the past teaching wasn't flawed and rightly corrected by V2?  In your theological framework, you don't.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10