« Last post by Clemens Maria on Today at 07:36:55 PM »
Yes, I hope the material will help and yes, I will pray for the conversion of sinners.
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?
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."Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone".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
"So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity."
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?’ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.