@fredsbend Jack Douglas and I were just talking about antinomies recently

christianity.stackexchange.com/posts/15020/revisions How can I link directly to the side-by-side version of edit #2?

@Alypius Sede Vacantists (or whatever they call themselves) come and go from the site, I've seen at least 3. @El'endiaStarman even told me a story about going on a plane ride with one who called himself a bishop. They're well meaning in their own way, but -1's is what they deserve if they try to answer Catholic questions.

Not to be overly harsh, but if you tried to answer "From a reformed persepctive" questions with "From a Catholic perspective...." you'd expect the same thing. I wouldn't try to edit that answer too much (at least not this week).

getting to know/like Pope Francis

@PeterTurner Yeah, I don't plan to edit it. It doesn't answer the question, and gets papal infallibility entirely mixed up. The quote he lists is apparently disputed as being ex cathedra, not that it matters, since "apostasy by deed" isn't "speaking infallibly". I was thinking of setting up a "why do they think" question for him to give his views, but there's no way it would turn out productive.

@PeterTurner Not that I blame him too much, since ex cathedra and infallibility are apparently complicated. I give that little story in my answer, but I'm probably still not getting the underlying confusion in that question resolved. And ex cathedra is not at all like "nihil obstat", as he seems to think.

@PeterTurner Nice article by the way.

yeah, that was great to read, I especially like the last part about public schools.

I'm impressed with how he frames a couple of the major issues in a way that opens up his position to the non-religious.

There have always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos is known as a place where homosexual women lived. But never in history has anyone sought to give it the same status as marriage. Whether it was tolerated or not, whether it was admired or not, no one regarded it as equivalent. We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. But this is the first time that anyone posed the legal possibility of equating it with marriage. I regard it as a retrograde step, anthropologically speaking. I am saying this because it transcends the religious question; it is a…

score on the hate-speech-o-meter?

For example, he points out that both marriage and homosexuality are "human things", but then makes a pretty strong historical case by separating the two when it comes to marriage. He goes after abortion by pointing to the genetic code, which really is when life and the person begin, though that's usually scrubbed out of biology textbooks

@PeterTurner "Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity." Wrong.

@fredsbend You should email the pope ;)

@PeterTurner I am saying that a traditional family is best for any child. I am not saying that it is needed to grow into an upstanding Christian, as this quote implies.

@DanO'Day A lot going on in there. Very interesting thoughts you have, Dan. Maybe it's inside baseball (you mention books and people I don't know), but I cannot figure out what specifically you were saying about antinomies. It seems you were saying they are necessary sometimes but then not at all in another place.

I personally look at it as either lazy or over thinking. Lazy says antinomy when they don't want to explore a mystery, which might illuminate contradictions. Over thinking says antinomy when comparing basic items that seem only marginally related to me, like God's sovereignty and mans free will.

So I actually have never liked the term, in religion any way.

@Alypius As a scientist and as a Christian, I have often thought about when life really begins, and I still don't have an answer. Genetic existence isn't quite enough, because viruses are usually considered to be half-alive, and they're nothing but a protein capsule and genetic code. At conception doesn't quite cut it either because twins are undeniably different people, yet they diverge some time after conception. At pretty much every definable point of "life", there's a counter argument.

If only we could scientifically detect a soul... :P

You only need to detect life.

What is life?

In cases where there are not twins, when is there a new entity? Conception.

Oh no, you may not do that. I am not going to let you separate the cases of non-twins and twins as to when life began.

If you insist on doing so, I will cut you with Occam's Razor.

Careful not to cut yourself with that thing :)

At conception, there is a new human entity (rather than merely a reproductive cell).

When does it become a person? (After all, we have no qualms about killing many other forms of life, especially insects and germs.)

As soon as it becomes a human life.

And when is that?

When there is a new human entity.

What constitutes a human entity?

A human entity is an entity that is human. An entity is something that is distinct from other entities.

What does it mean to be human? | What distinguishes one entity from another?

A reproductive cell is not distinct. But when two opposing cells join, they form a distinct entity because 1) it becomes impossible for either prior entity to claim it as mere part of itself and 2) what is then created eventually becomes a person

What is a person? (Not when as I asked previously.)

A person is a human entity.

How is an entity human?

An entity is human via reproductive generation, in the same way that a species is a species based on its reproductive history.

A reproductive cell is a part of a human entity.

Why does our species matter and not that of chimpanzees?

(Aside, I think the definition of 'species' you've got there is scientifically...imprecise. Species distinctions are indeed based on reproduction abilities, but not reproductive history.)

Because we have been granted the capacity for higher reason, including moral reasoning, the recognition of moral and immoral acts, regulative control over our own actions by which we may make plans to avoid situations where our desires influence us, a robust ability to communicate, and, of course, the capacity to appreciate the Divine.

Why are we able to do all this? Why do we have the capacity to appreciate the Divine?

The order of nature has assured that on our planet there would arise such creatures that could appreciate the Divine.

What enables such creatures to appreciate the Divine?

The reason and in general the mental workings of these creatures enable them to appreciate the Divine.

At what point are the mental workings of such creatures sufficient to enable them to appreciate the Divine?

It is not clear. Apparently, several months into pregnancy we are first able to detect neural activity in the brain. We do not know exactly when consciousness begins to develop, or when the various other mental workings develop. However, altogether in the typical case a human gains the full exercise of reason at approximately the eighth year of life (barring unusual circumstances).

Why is a toddler still "human" given that they do not have the ability to appreciate the Divine?

A toddler is human because a toddler is a human entity. A toddler has the ability, but the ability is simply not fully developed.

Does the same reasoning apply to a blastocyst?

Yes.

Okay. How is it that humans have sufficient capacity to appreciate the Divine and chimpanzees don't?

From evidence, we have seen that we cannot communicate even basic concepts to chimpanzees.

Why can't we do that? What do chimpanzees lack?

Higher forms of reason, a robust ability to communicate, and the ability to exercise control over their will so as to bring about moral outcomes despite the influence of their carnal desires; and probably other things.

Why do humans have these things and chimpanzees don't?

The order of nature has assured that on our planet it would be this way.

Were a chimpanzee (or a distant descendent of a chimpanzee) ever to exhibit various behaviours that would indicate that they do have these capacities, we would then need to re-evaluate their status as (mere) animals.

What is "the order of nature" and why/how has it assured the development of creatures with these abilities?

Are you asking as a scientist or as a Christian?

Ha! Either one. Let's pick this up tomorrow because I have to go to bed. Getting up for church in four hours... >.>

Namarië, mellon!

Have a good rest. Peace.

@El'endiaStarman Correction of the comment above the one I'm replying to: "eventually becomes a person" should read "eventually becomes what is clearly recognizable as a person" (I did not mean to imply that it was not a person at that very moment).

@El'endiaStarman If as a scientist: we have no idea. We have however been able to recognize certain patterns in nature that suggest that it was very natural (in accordance with the order of nature) for us to develop as we have, as improbable as it may seem that we would have developed at all.

@PeterTurner I know my input wasn't asked for, but I'm gonna give it anyways. The last sentence is the point of the whole paragraph right? I have to argue, in the strongest terms that in the 21st century it's becomes hogwash. Yes 1 man, 1 woman is the ideal. I'll believe that until I'm blue in the face. BUT single people can adopt, single parents are darn near the norm. I don't see why that particular rationale is any longer a reason to prevent two people from getting legally married.

I'd go on to argue that there is no indication that a pair of gay parents are any more ore less competent than a single parent, or whatever actual or potential situation of parentage perspective adoptee children would have otherwise been in.

also apropos of nothing in particular, bot some things about this site in general:

@PeterTurner It scores pretty high on the bullshit-meter anyway.

foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion/…

@DavidStratton Meh. Atheists are religious if you define the word religion in a way that includes atheism. That tautology is slightly interesting the first time you see it. Next!

@waxeagle It's not a matter of competence. It's a matter of the needs of the child. I'll be absolutely stunned if we find that children have no sensitivity to differences in gender. The first words out of their mouths aren't "dada" and "mama", because what they mean by those words are "male" and "female": young children very often end up calling all males "dada" until corrected.

@Alypius Their first words are mama and dada because they're coached to say those words.

@TRiG Doesn't matter, because whether they are coached or not, the point is that they recognize, within their limited ability to reason (not even speaking of biological impulses), differences in gender apparently as early as they recognize differences between other people and their own parents.

@waxeagle The pope is not saying that a person can't grow up normal, or that homosexuals won't try to do the best they can to provide for the needs of a child that they might be obligated to take care of. He's saying that close familial (disciplinary, nurturing, etc.) exposure to both genders is very important to development. Obviously, it is better to have one parent than to be in an orphanage, though.

Quoted at Box Turtle Bulletin. Thanks @PeterTurner and @fredsbend.

@PeterTurner A couple of those statements (notably those on same-sex marriage and on secular education, and perhaps also the one on science) are simply incoherent. I have no idea what the man is talking about. Perhaps they'd make more sense in context.

@fredsbend we were discussing a video where an Arminian theologian/philosopher refutes the notion of an antinomy as used by J.I. Packer (a Calvinist theologian) and equates it with intellectual dishonesty/laziness. I was agree that as Packer used it it was truly a cop-out for dealing with the logical implications of his soteriology, but I'm not so sure the concept of an antinomy is always a bad thing.

@TRiG - that would be the correlation to the "Creationism isn't science" tautology because "Science" has been redefined to "Naturalism", right? ;-) (Just stirring the pot for fun.)

@DavidStratton Double double // toil and trouble // fire burn and cauldron bubble...

@DavidStratton Did we deliberately define the word science in such a way as to exclude creationism, or did we already have a coherent definition of the word which happens not to encompass creationism? I suspect it's the latter. To say that definition can sometimes lead to tautology is not to embrace Humpty Dumpty. Words do mean things.

But carry on stirring the pot: you might turn up something interesting.

> But in the meantime, I’n not entirely sure what the definition of a rleigion is or how mutilated and wrecked that definition has to be before atheism squeaks in. But if it means we can start a Foundation here ate FtB and enjoy all the perks of a rleigion, might as well look into it!

Zingularity.

The way I see it, Creationism isn't scientific because it doesn't/can't make predictions.

> There is no charitable way to interpret Obama’s endorsement of Pope Francis I. He is either gullible in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the Vatican has become rich off the poor and most vulnerable among us, and lacks the compassion to stop demonizing condom use in AIDS wracked countries; or he is dishonestly pandering to the religious. The official Catholic stance forbidding contraception contributes to the cycle of poverty especially in third world countries.

Arona.

Is there any way to make box drawings that don't have gaps between lines? See for example christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15037/3941#15038

@Alypius Not that I know of. Not besides using a graphics program. I like how it looks though.

Thanks. I couldn't figure out anything better than to add spaces between the horizontal lines to get a consistent effect.

Have a commandment?

@TRiG I can never understand why people think the Church is getting rich. Where do they think the money goes? New tall hats for the pope? The construction of gold-plated churches? Ecumenical outings to Vegas? Large pit of money under the papal apartments?

@Alypius The Church certainly is pretty rich.

@TRiG I'm not sure what you mean by that, and I'm not sure that you're sure what you mean by that...

@Alypius Whether or not the Church is getting rich, it is rich.

A lot of money passes through it in some sense? Yes. It's the largest charitable organization on the planet.