V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/27/85)
<<>> It looks my name is taken in vain again between Hutch and Rich so... I was asking Rich multiple questions in my earlier postings some were rhetorical and some weren't. As for him not understanding some concepts.. some were beyond understanding for all (well maybe Ken Arndt is the exception :-) ) since they are considered mysteries by Christianity and some I thought he would not understand because I felt that he could not COMPLETELY understand the theistic stance on anything, since he is so adamantly opposed to it. A generalized opposition to a principle makes it difficult to listen to specific arguments or claims from the opposition. I'm just as bad. I do give Rich credit for his ability to write long postings and keep them coherent and in accordance to his set of principles (maybe even beliefs is appropriate). I consider his working set of axioms wrong, although he is able to offer incisive criticisms to Christianity if one is able to see through the heat and to respond appropriately. One good thing is that arguing with Rich sharpens our apologetics. Yes I would like to change his mind on Christianity since one duty of all Christians is to spread the Gospel, but we can't coerce. (yeah I know about the past Rich). Something which causes the fury in our postings is that both Rich and his critics are convinced of the correctness of each position. The PURPOSE OF N.R.C. I agree with Moffett with the general use of the net, only emphasizing the ecumenical nature of reply,otherwise all of replies will sound like ROSEN vs ARNDT. I grant you it is entertaining but dangerous. So...Lets cool down the discussion on miracles. See below. MIRACLES. I started this set of responses off by asking Rich how he would analyze them. I really did want an answer. I haven't seen the reply if he gave one but I got lots more. Thanks. Unfortunatly it is turning into a debate on the existence of God which should be in n.r. Lets finish up this line and I'll try to summarize what I've saved and then we try another tack. I should have known better than to start the discussion the way I did. TRUE CHURCH Karen is getting much heat on her position. Let me help a bit. In grade school some 30 years ago, the position she claims for the Roman Church was understood, at least in our neighborhood. WE may have misunderstood the teacher and or the teacher may have misunderstood the then current teaching. To be objective I need to review older materiel. Now when John called V II the promulgated stance was one of seperation not damnation. As I understand it this is the current position. Again I must reasearch. Sean McLinden has posted on this maybe he could quote a source. I will NOT push on this subject since all sects want salvation, Karen is proseltyzing while n.r.c. is ecumenizing. Btw thanks for all of the HighE articles. EUCHARIST I do believe that transubstantiation is the official position of the Church. SOME of our theologians have fallen out of this and have been censured so be careful what you read. THE LAITY Sean came down hard on the laity and the hierarchy. NOT SO. Our laity is no more nor less qualified than other sects lay groups. The serious student of his sect will be able to quote scripture and or other sources. I have seen no demonstrable difference. As for our clerics having a high degree of error....I'm not sure what he had in mind. Liberal Catholics, (we swear up and down that they are in league with Satan) are critical on MULTIPILE positions. Sean may be talking about them. On the other hand if he is one of THEM then he is talking about the percieved errors of the Magesterium and how JP II is tyranical in demanding fidelity to it. (I'm basically an old fuddy-duddy). There IS dissension within the CHURCH on basic dogma and hopefully the upcoming synod will sort things out. I guarantee you that there will not be harmony during it, especially with the American bishops. Overall though there is great capability on the part of the hierarchy. OH WELl sometimes it is difficult in trying to do what one is told.... Vince.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/01/85)
> I do give Rich credit for his ability to write long postings and keep them > coherent and in accordance to his set of principles (maybe even beliefs is > appropriate). [MARCHIONNI] Thank you (I guess). > I consider his working set of axioms wrong, although he is > able to offer incisive criticisms to Christianity if one is able to see > through the heat and to respond appropriately. One good thing is that arguing > with Rich sharpens our apologetics. If you consider the axioms wrong, then why haven't you discussed precisely what's wrong with them. In the absence of such discussion, one can assume that the only reason you consider them wrong is because they simply conflict with your own. I've detailed my problems with YOUR axioms. [On Miracles] > I started this set of responses off by asking Rich how he would analyze them. > I really did want an answer. I haven't seen the reply if he gave one but I > got lots more. Thanks. Unfortunatly it is turning into a debate on the > existence of God which should be in n.r. Lets finish up this line and > I'll try to summarize what I've saved and then we try another tack. > I should have known better than to start the discussion the way I did. Briefly, my response (offered several times) is based on the very definition of "miracle": an event that appears unexplainable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God (American Heritage). An event APPEARS unexplainable (to human observers) by THE LAWS OF NATURE (i.e., current human understanding of the universe), *thus* IT IS HELD (assumed) that the event has some non-physical or supernatural or divine origin. First, this is obviously an assumption about an event: *we* (in all our great anthropocentric glory) can't explain it, thus it MUST have come from some other plane, a non-physical/supernatural/divine plane. (Why? Do we know all there is to know about THIS "plane"?) Furthermore, what is the boundary between this physical/natural plane and the supernatural/non-physical plane? I contend that the boundary exists only in human codification/classification, that if natural/physical is defined as "the world that humans can observe", and if supernatural, beyond the natural, is defined as "that which we can't observe", then that is a hopelessly arbitrary boundary line that is modified with time and with increased scientific observational capabilities. If one uses the word natural/physical to mean "that which exists", then supernatural has no realistic meaning, except perhaps "imaginary" (?). Finally, if Mr. Marchionni wishes to continue this discussion, I would suggest that he post further commentary to net.religion proper. If followups to my writings appear here, I will address them here, and I know how some people feel about that. Rather than resort to Wingate's friendly deceptive technique of altering a "Followup-to:" line without letting the responder in on his little "suggestion", I am requesting that people re-route their responses to my articles to net.religion if they don't want to see further responses here. An informatory note indicating that such discussion has moved may be appropriate when doing so as a matter of courtesy to readers. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr