The Black Vault

frrostedman wrote:

Notice in the video where Dawkins says he is hostile to any view that opposes his. What an arrogant jackass.

Hmm just noticed this.

To be fair, the quote from the clip was:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine" and then it was cut off. It's obvious he said more after he was cut off, and was almost definitely not saying he was hostile to any views that oppose his.

At a guess, and it has to be a guess as he was cut off, he was going to say something to the tune of:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine that falsely claims to be science", seeing as the discussion was on intelligent design.

But who knows, we're both guessing, it's a little unfair to attack him based on the snippet probably taken right out of context. I am sure there are plenty of genuine Dawkins quotes to get annoyed by if you look!

humphreys wrote:"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.

Maybe they should look at Isaiah 45:7.

humphreys wrote:

frrostedman wrote:The fact that he presented his case alongside Richard Dawkins tells me all I need to know. He's a farce, a fraud, and should be defrocked.

To be fair, I don't think he was there to present any case alongside Dawkins, but rather to debate him. I do not know the details as I did not watch the show, but his claim that the Adam and Eve story was a myth was his personal opinion as part of that debate.

Yes, intentionally or not, the article you cited was very misleading... "alongside" seems to imply a partership or being done in unison. Now that I see he was there to debate Dawkins, I am somewhat relieved; however he should still be defrocked for taking on such a liberal approach.

Sadly, the vast majority of Seminaries in America teach the Liberal Christian "Theology" where most of the bible is tossed into the trashcan.

Does the Cardinal, in all his "expertise," realize the slippery slope such a theory represents? If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then many key Scriptures must be discarded, in both the Old and New Testament. Once you start---where do you stop? (humphreys came to the same, correct conclusion)

His radical view flies in the face of the Catholic faith which holds as a basic tenet that all of the bible is the Holy Spirit-inspired-Word of God.

frrostedman wrote: If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then many key Scriptures must be discarded, in both the Old and New Testament. Once you start---where do you stop? (humphreys came to the same, correct conclusion)

Even if several or even all of the stories are myths, they still can have a lot of meaning and value to the reader.

at1with0 wrote:

frrostedman wrote: If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then many key Scriptures must be discarded, in both the Old and New Testament. Once you start---where do you stop? (humphreys came to the same, correct conclusion)

Even if several or even all of the stories are myths, they still can have a lot of meaning and value to the reader.

Which sort of leads to my signature.

Is Jesus the Christ? Or just a great teacher.

Is the bible the inspired word of God? Or the equivalent of a folktale. One should expect a Cardinal of the Catholic Church to adhere to the former. But we are in--and I emphasize--a New Age and Liberal Theology is taking hold. Given enough time, the Liberal "Christians" would have the bible so watered down, one would sooner trust the teachings of Uncle Remus. And, though many Liberal "Christians" won't admit it (Satan forbid!), that is the ultimate end in their agenda to de-supernaturalize the bible.

If there is such a thing as supernatural, then there must be a super-supernatural and a super-super-supernatural, ad infinitum. Much simpler to just define nature to be all-inclusive.

at1with0 wrote:If there is such a thing as supernatural, then there must be a super-supernatural and a super-super-supernatural, ad infinitum. Much simpler to just define nature to be all-inclusive.

Please explain. All things that happen outside the realm of scientific explanation and natural causes, are supernatural. Why must there be a higher degree of supernatural?

humphreys wrote:Hmm just noticed this.

To be fair, the quote from the clip was:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine" and then it was cut off. It's obvious he said more after he was cut off, and was almost definitely not saying he was hostile to any views that oppose his.

At a guess, and it has to be a guess as he was cut off, he was going to say something to the tune of:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine that falsely claims to be science", seeing as the discussion was on intelligent design.

a) You don't know that it was cut off to the point where it isn't contextually correct
b) That is a major stretch of a speculative guess and I completely disagree

But who knows, we're both guessing, it's a little unfair to attack him based on the snippet probably taken right out of context.

I didn't attack him. I responded to his admitted, unprovoked hostility. He has always been indignant and yes, sometimes hostile, toward my kind and I shouldn't be required, or even expected, to take it lying down.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Hmm just noticed this.

To be fair, the quote from the clip was:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine" and then it was cut off. It's obvious he said more after he was cut off, and was almost definitely not saying he was hostile to any views that oppose his.

At a guess, and it has to be a guess as he was cut off, he was going to say something to the tune of:

"As a scientist, I am hostile towards a rival doctrine that falsely claims to be science", seeing as the discussion was on intelligent design.

a) You don't know that it was cut off to the point where it isn't contextually correct
b) That is a major stretch of a speculative guess and I completely disagree

But who knows, we're both guessing, it's a little unfair to attack him based on the snippet probably taken right out of context.

I didn't attack him. I responded to his admitted, unprovoked hostility. He has always been indignant and yes, sometimes hostile, toward my kind and I shouldn't be required, or even expected, to take it lying down.

We're both guessing because he was cut off. It was clearly editing to make him look bad, in my opinion otherwise the full sentence would have been shown.

Like I said, there is plenty of stuff for you to get riled up about regards Dawkins, his aim is to be provocative, I just don't think this guy's youtube "hit-piece" was a good example.

humphreys wrote:We're both guessing because he was cut off. It was clearly editing to make him look bad, in my opinion otherwise the full sentence would have been shown.

Like I said, there is plenty of stuff for you to get riled up about regards Dawkins, his aim is to be provocative, I just don't think this guy's youtube "hit-piece" was a good example.

Actually it wasn't a "youtube hit-piece." It's a full-blown documentary that is available on DVD. I simply posted a trailer.