Topic: The Catholic Route to Birth Control

[elijahmaria]

It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?

No.  This was a minority view among monk-scholars.  Also it is more nuanced than it appears in most Internet sources.  Clearly the soul is necessary to support life from the moment of conception and that was not argued against by anyone in those early centuries.  Somewhere around here I have a text on the history of our understanding of body, intellect and soul...

At any rate it is not quite so simple as most think or express it.

If you google "immortal soul" you might find more.  I don't know.  It's been a while.

[elijahmaria]

It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?

Yes, there were such teachings among anyone under the shadow of Scholasticism and leaning on "natural law."  We Orthodox, however, escaped most of that and have always held that the human person begins at conception, based on the Church honoring the conceptions of Christ, His mother and St. John the Baptist.

Such is the problem with basing morality on the present state of science, as Thomism (and following the "angelic doctor" the Vatican) does, is that knowledge changes.  Go with revelation, the sure thing.

This is not something one should follow or emulate.  I don't have time to do the work right now but the history of the understanding of the immortal soul is far more complex that our resident Wiki-Professor is proclaiming here.

[elijahmaria]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

[ialmisry]

It was always my understanding from study that the RCC (Like everyone who existed before the Mid 19Th century) Held that the infusion of the soul into the fetus happened in the fourth month of pregnancy when the child began to move around in the mothers womb.  This action was known as "Quickening" and was considered the officially start of a women's pregnancy.  This was before the discovery of sperm as well as an understanding of the workings of conception and pregnancy due to the invention of the microscope. 

So did the RCC and every other religion condone abortion before the fourth month of pregnancy before the mid 19Th century?  I know that certain Catholic theologians (Including former NY gov. Mario Cumeo) Point out the facts I mentioned above as reason for acceptance of abortion in the first three months of pregnancy by Catholics (Who wish the teaching changed).  I don't hold to that, but was this what the RCC taught centuries ago?

Yes, there were such teachings among anyone under the shadow of Scholasticism and leaning on "natural law."  We Orthodox, however, escaped most of that and have always held that the human person begins at conception, based on the Church honoring the conceptions of Christ, His mother and St. John the Baptist.

Such is the problem with basing morality on the present state of science, as Thomism (and following the "angelic doctor" the Vatican) does, is that knowledge changes.  Go with revelation, the sure thing.

This is not something one should follow or emulate.  I don't have time to do the work right now but the history of the understanding of the immortal soul is far more complex that our resident Wiki-Professor is proclaiming here.

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

It is your "magisterium" approved material which, to your dismay, I provide in abundance, that shouldn't be followed or emulated.

[elijahmaria]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

[ialmisry]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

[elijahmaria]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

[ialmisry]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

[ialmisry]

Just a stray thought I thought I would put here, in opposition to the determinism of the Scholastics on marriage: persons do not marry in order to have children, but children result from persons marrying.

[stanley123]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

[ialmisry]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

and the Muslims have birth control.

[stanley123]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

and the Muslims have birth control.

As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.

[ialmisry]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

and the Muslims have birth control.

As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.

The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.

[stanley123]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

and the Muslims have birth control.

As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.

The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.

Yes, that's right about their western secular attitude. As the Muslims assimilate in the West, their fertility rate appears to be decreasing.
BTW, would you consider Russia to be a western country, with a western secular attitude? Russia has historically been somewhat suspicious of the west, so it is questionable as to whether it is a western country with a western secular attitude? Anyway, the abortion rate in Russia is one of the highest in the world, even though it has had a suspicious attitude toward the west:
Abortion rates, by country per 1000 people:
# 1   

Russia:

19.2885 per 1,000 people

 



# 2   

Bulgaria:

13.0232 per 1,000 people

 



# 3   

Hungary:

7.69032 per 1,000 people

 



# 4   

Cuba:

7.39958 per 1,000 people

 



# 5   

Sweden:

4.16452 per 1,000 people

 



# 6   

United States:

4.0945 per 1,000 people ...etc.
 

[ialmisry]

LOL. You can't even manage wikipedia.

Not only can I manage it but I can also go beyond it...

Really, I don't recall you going much beyond your self authorized musings.

My musings come directly out of what my Church teaches. 

Your musings have no bearing on my Church...thank God.

so you claim.

Your "magisterium"'s documents demonstrate otherwise:"open to life" means being reduced to the mere passive instruments of beggeting virgins, as St. Jerome would have it.  Nothing more. 

If one depended on providence for his livelihood the way one is told to conduct his procreation, he would be called improvident.  Promoting a semen fetish (taken over from dying Stoicism) rather than cultivating an image of children as an asset rather than a liability (demonstrated by the experience of your traditional co-religionists telling newly weds they have to use the rhythm method, even when they have no intention of using any birth control method), a joy rather than a duty (as HV emphasizes), the Vatican misses the mark on treating the problem of depopulaiton.

Whether it is the Catholic route to birth control, the Orthodox route to birth control or the Protestant route to birth control, it doesn't make too much difference to the Muslims in Europe. Last time I checked the fertility rate per woman in Ireland was about 1.9, for Greece it was about 1.3, and for women coming to Europe from Morocco (Muslims) it was about 4.7.

and the Muslims have birth control.

As time passes, and Muslims become more familiar with the western methods of ABC, the fertility rate for Muslims does appear to be going down, but still it is higher than the Christian fertility rate. The fertility rate for R Catholics appears to be slightly higher than that for Orthodox Christians in Greece, but not by much.

The Muslims are quite familiar with all methods of birth control, including what is called "Natural Family Planning": the Islamic states have been pushing birth control since the 50's, the large Muslim population in the former USSR also being exposed, like the Muslims in India.  What they don't have is the Western secular atttitude towards children and family life.

Yes, that's right about their western secular attitude. As the Muslims assimilate in the West, their fertility rate appears to be decreasing.
BTW, would you consider Russia to be a western country, with a western secular attitude? Russia has historically been somewhat suspicious of the west, so it is questionable as to whether it is a western country with a western secular attitude? Anyway, the abortion rate in Russia is one of the highest in the world, even though it has had a suspicious attitude toward the west:

it also has a Marxist past.  As Bismark warned, Russia only caught Nihilism and other diseases n the West.

It's always been the West as far as we (Middle East, Arabs) were concerned.  And it has definitely been Western ever since Czar Peter dragged it there.

With the Church promoting the restoration of family life, the move away from abortion has only just begun. Hopefully the embrace of children is coming.

[Wyatt]

Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.

Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?

[ialmisry]

Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.

Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

which agreed with no one in the preceeding 1900 years.  Any other Protestant can do the like.  But then the Protestants are your kin, and so we can see why you prefer their/your ways, rather than the steadfastness of the Orthodox.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control,

SOME Fathers opposed not only all forms of birth control, including sex with the infertile, and others, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, opposed such ideas.

or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?

Since you resort to misrepresenting the Fathers, you aren't in a position to know the mind and heart of the Fathers.

Taking, for sake of argument, your skewed picture, you're still out of luck. You claim all Fathers opposed all contraception. You allow contraception (while denying its contraception), and we allow contraception.  I.e. no difference.

[Wyatt]

Contraception =/= birth control

[ialmisry]

Contraception =/= birth control

with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.

[stanley123]

Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.

Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?

But what is the effect of Catholic teaching? If you compare the fertility rate in Catholic countries like Spain and Italy with some of the Orthodox countries, they are not too far apart and in fact in some cases, the Orthodox fertility rate is higher. And the rate in Moslem countries is higher still.  For example, in a Moslem country such as Niger , the fertility rate (births per woman) is about 7.5, and in an Eastern Orthodox country such as Serbia the fertility rate is about 1.8. Compare that with the fertility rate of Catholic countries such as Poland 1.2, or Italy 1.4. Apparently Catholics are not following the teaching of their Church, while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

[Irish Hermit]

Aw, I think you are missing Chesterton's "democracy of the dead here". The Pope did, in fact, have the consent of the Church if you were to look back at 1900 years of tradition. For 1900 years, the Church clearly taught that contraception was wrong and this demonstrates a clear consensus among Catholics. The twentieth century, is clearly an anomoly, and should not be considered the measure of the sensus fidei which preserves the deposit of the Christian faith.

Though this post is old...I think this is a very good point and worth taking another look at. The Church is not just the present universal institution of believers. The Church is all Christians at all times. It is eternal. It is the Communion of Saints. To me, Humanae Vitae is a good example of why the Pope is so crucial in the Church. Without him, we would have went the way of the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to contraception which I think would have been a mistake, yet Pope Paul VI safeguarded truth with his encyclical.

Which is more patristic...opposing all forms of birth control except natural family planning (the RC position) when the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control, or allowing all forms of non-abortive birth control (EO position) despite the fact that the Fathers opposed all forms of birth control. Indeed, both positions are developments from the original position of the Fathers, yet which one is truly closer to the mind and heart of the Fathers?

But what is the effect of Catholic teaching? If you compare the fertility rate in Catholic countries like Spain and Italy with some of the Orthodox countries, they are not too far apart and in fact in some cases, the Orthodox fertility rate is higher. And the rate in Moslem countries is higher still.  For example, in a Moslem country such as Niger , the fertility rate (births per woman) is about 7.5, and in an Eastern Orthodox country such as Serbia the fertility rate is about 1.8. Compare that with the fertility rate of Catholic countries such as Poland 1.2, or Italy 1.4. Apparently Catholics are not following the teaching of their Church, while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

Abortion Statistics for Italy

For the year 2008:

Live births.... 576,659

Abortions......121,406

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-italy.html

[Poppy]

while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

   
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.

[elijahmaria]

Contraception =/= birth control

with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.

Physician heal thyself

[ialmisry]

while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

   
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.

A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.

[Cavaradossi]

while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

   
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.

A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.

So the pious ones are the more relaxed ones? If I might ask, what, in your opinion, causes such a paradoxical result?

[ialmisry]

while Moslems appear to take their religion more seriously.

   
Muslims have to take their religion more seriously because they don't get all loved up and forgiven if they are slack. I went out with a Muslim bloke Tariq for three years and you should have heard his family on the phone when he didn't do stuff that he was supposed to... blimey i wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.

A third of Islam is all sorts of rules you can't keep, a third is paranoia that Allah is going to give it to you for not following all the rules ('adhaab al-qabr "the torment of the grave" bring that up to a Muslim and see him shiver) and a third is watching, sticking your nose into everyone else's business to make sure they follow all the rules.

I've been fortunate to know Muslims who don't fit the above discription, but the massess fit that description.  Usually the pious Muslims I've know are the former, the ones who know nothing about Islam except "it's right"  in the latter.

So the pious ones are the more relaxed ones? If I might ask, what, in your opinion, causes such a paradoxical result?

They tend to be humbler, and try to breath spirit into the letter of the law.  The nominal ones, having nothing else, cling to the letter of the law.

There is a lot wrong with Islam, but it does have its moments. For instance, the accounts of their Prophet's household in his latter life is scandal, but the accounts of his devotion to his first wife are exemplary.

[ialmisry]

Contraception =/= birth control

with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.

Physician heal thyself

Don't have to do it myself.  I have the Church.

I'd ask what malaprops point you wanted to make, but given the dearth of originality, I suspect it's just tit for my tat in another thread.

anullment=divorce, contraception=birth control, "natural family planning"=birth control....the "pro-choice" (i.e. pro-abortion) ilk, the "marriage equality" (i.e. gay marriage) cabal and the "reproductive rights" (i.e. unfettered fornication) crowd have nothing on your Vatican.  Odd, given the Scholastic pursuit of defining things in re as they are (or so they claim).  And that's before your self authorized musings on your ecclesial community's propaganda.

[elijahmaria]

Contraception =/= birth control

with all this redefinitinon, it's a shame the world of 1984 didn't come about.  You'd be a natural in the Ministry of Truth.

Physician heal thyself

Don't have to do it myself.  I have the Church.

I'd ask what malaprops point you wanted to make, but given the dearth of originality, I suspect it's just tit for my tat in another thread.

anullment=divorce, contraception=birth control, "natural family planning"=birth control....the "pro-choice" (i.e. pro-abortion) ilk, the "marriage equality" (i.e. gay marriage) cabal and the "reproductive rights" (i.e. unfettered fornication) crowd have nothing on your Vatican.  Odd, given the Scholastic pursuit of defining things in re as they are (or so they claim).  And that's before your self authorized musings on your ecclesial community's propaganda.

My Church does not heal me.  The Christ heals me, and sometimes He does so through the Body of Christ on earth...which of course is the Church of my Baptism.

I find it interesting that nobody pokes at our infantile banter, if I just be quiet and let you pound on me and my Church...

[ialmisry]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

I haven't been able to get a copy of Noonan to read it through, so I can't repeat his argument, nor the criticism that he didn't completely prove the case.  Since I've already posted bits I've found, I shan't repeat them at this point.

Care to put some evidentiary meat on that ad hominem bone?

[elijahmaria]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

This is all hocus-pocus since the Church over the centuries has Christianized many many more pagan philosophical concepts than just this.

Your rants against natural law...are just that...rantings.

And then you find someone who agrees with you...wow!!   

[ialmisry]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

This is all hocus-pocus since the Church over the centuries has Christianized many many more pagan philosophical concepts than just this.

Such as?  Do include other ones that form the basis of Christian theology. DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Your rants against natural law...are just that...rantings.

Ordinarily we would all have to defer to your experience and expertise in ranting, but you have an axe to grind in this one.

As for the evidence I've assembled and posted against "Natural Law", along with the arguments thereof, well, we can't be suprised that you continue to ignore that.

And then you find someone who agrees with you...wow!!   

Given the date on Noonan's work,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vw_aAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_book_similarbooks
it would seem he assembled his evidence before my conception.

[elijahmaria]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

This is all hocus-pocus since the Church over the centuries has Christianized many many more pagan philosophical concepts than just this.

Such as?  Do include other ones that form the basis of Christian theology. DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Your rants against natural law...are just that...rantings.

Ordinarily we would all have to defer to your experience and expertise in ranting, but you have an axe to grind in this one.

As for the evidence I've assembled and posted against "Natural Law", along with the arguments thereof, well, we can't be suprised that you continue to ignore that.

And then you find someone who agrees with you...wow!!   

Given the date on Noonan's work,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vw_aAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_book_similarbooks
it would seem he assembled his evidence before my conception.

Your position has the gravitas of Jack Chick tracts.  Not worth discussing.  Plays right into the hands of modernism. 

[ialmisry]

The "natural law" in the understanding of the Church is nothing more than God's Providence in Creation...all driven by Caritas.

yes, sort of like how Descartes using "cogito ergo sum" to pay lip service to God, and then go dream up whatever he wants.

The Vatican's understanding is all driven by scholasticism, nothing more than pagan philosophy with a Christian veneer.

Only the very most ignorant will follow you in this.

It was brought to my attention recently that Noonan, in his magnus opus on the matter, points out that the Vatican's teaching on the subject matter of HV comes directly from Stoicism, a conclusion I have otherwise come to.  For one thing, that is starkly brought out by the CCC's quotation of the Stoic Cicero for its "Natural Law," the basis of HV.

This is all hocus-pocus since the Church over the centuries has Christianized many many more pagan philosophical concepts than just this.

Such as?  Do include other ones that form the basis of Christian theology. DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Your rants against natural law...are just that...rantings.

Ordinarily we would all have to defer to your experience and expertise in ranting, but you have an axe to grind in this one.

As for the evidence I've assembled and posted against "Natural Law", along with the arguments thereof, well, we can't be suprised that you continue to ignore that.

And then you find someone who agrees with you...wow!!   

Given the date on Noonan's work,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vw_aAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_book_similarbooks
it would seem he assembled his evidence before my conception.

Your position has the gravitas of Jack Chick tracts.  Not worth discussing.  Plays right into the hands of modernism. 

IOW all that crowing of yours just laid another egg.  Typical.

[elijahmaria]

IOW all that crowing of yours just laid another egg.

This particular egg is useful.  Your rants against natural law are not.

[ialmisry]

IOW all that crowing of yours just laid another egg.

This particular egg is useful.  Your rants against natural law are not.

Sour grapes hatched from a rotten egg are useful only to raise the stench level.  And your defense of the Vatican smells funny enough.

Natural Law is a Stoic concept, one intimately connected with their materialism.  Useful for apologetics and polemics, as all philosophy, but not for theology.

The Stoic doctrine, of which Zeno laid the foundations, was developed by Chrysippus in 705 treatises, of which only some fragments have been preserved. In addition to the principles accepted by all thinkers of their age (the perception of the true, if it exists, can only be immediate; the wise man is self-sufficient; the political constitution is indifferent), derived from the Sophists and the Cynics, they base the entire moral attitude of the wise man conformity to oneself and nature, indifference to external things on a comprehensive concept of nature, in part derived from Heraclitus, but inspired by an entirely new spirit. It is a belief in a universal nature that is at one and the same time Fate infallibly regulating the course of events (eimarmene, logos); Zeus, or providence, the eternal principle of finality adapting all other things to the needs of rational beings; the law determining the natural rules that govern the society of men and of the gods; the artistic fire, the expression of the active force which produced the world one, perfect, and complete from the beginning, with which it will be reunited through the universal conflagration, following a regular and ever recurring cycle. The popular gods are different forms of this force, described allegorically in myths. This view of nature is the basis for the optimism of the Stoic moral system; confidence in the instinctive faculties, which, in the absence of a perfect knowledge of the world, ought to guide man's actions; and again, the infallible wisdom of the sage, which Chrysippus tries to establish by a dialectic derived from Aristotle and the Cynics.
Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14299a.htm

Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.
According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

...The Philosopher [Aristotle] proposes there to discover the genus of virtue; and since it is evident that virtue is a principle of action, he mentions only those things which are principles of human acts, viz. powers, habits and passions. But there are other things in the soul besides these three: there are acts; thus "to will" is in the one that wills; again, things known are in the knower; moreover its own natural properties are in the soul, such as immortality and the like....

....I [Aquinas] answer that, As stated above (Question 91, Article 3), the precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason, what the first principles of demonstrations are to the speculative reason; because both are self-evident principles. Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says "man," says "a rational being": and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, "Every whole is greater than its part," and, "Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another." But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions: thus to one who understands that an angel is not a body, it is self-evident that an angel is not circumscriptively in a place: but this is not evident to the unlearned, for they cannot grasp it....

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

Man is not a rational being, but a being with reason, which is why he longs for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not for the God of the Philosophers.

[Papist]

IOW all that crowing of yours just laid another egg.

This particular egg is useful.  Your rants against natural law are not.

Sour grapes hatched from a rotten egg are useful only to raise the stench level.  And your defense of the Vatican smells funny enough.

Natural Law is a Stoic concept, one intimately connected with their materialism.  Useful for apologetics and polemics, as all philosophy, but not for theology.

The Stoic doctrine, of which Zeno laid the foundations, was developed by Chrysippus in 705 treatises, of which only some fragments have been preserved. In addition to the principles accepted by all thinkers of their age (the perception of the true, if it exists, can only be immediate; the wise man is self-sufficient; the political constitution is indifferent), derived from the Sophists and the Cynics, they base the entire moral attitude of the wise man conformity to oneself and nature, indifference to external things on a comprehensive concept of nature, in part derived from Heraclitus, but inspired by an entirely new spirit. It is a belief in a universal nature that is at one and the same time Fate infallibly regulating the course of events (eimarmene, logos); Zeus, or providence, the eternal principle of finality adapting all other things to the needs of rational beings; the law determining the natural rules that govern the society of men and of the gods; the artistic fire, the expression of the active force which produced the world one, perfect, and complete from the beginning, with which it will be reunited through the universal conflagration, following a regular and ever recurring cycle. The popular gods are different forms of this force, described allegorically in myths. This view of nature is the basis for the optimism of the Stoic moral system; confidence in the instinctive faculties, which, in the absence of a perfect knowledge of the world, ought to guide man's actions; and again, the infallible wisdom of the sage, which Chrysippus tries to establish by a dialectic derived from Aristotle and the Cynics.
Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14299a.htm

Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.
According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

...The Philosopher [Aristotle] proposes there to discover the genus of virtue; and since it is evident that virtue is a principle of action, he mentions only those things which are principles of human acts, viz. powers, habits and passions. But there are other things in the soul besides these three: there are acts; thus "to will" is in the one that wills; again, things known are in the knower; moreover its own natural properties are in the soul, such as immortality and the like....

....I [Aquinas] answer that, As stated above (Question 91, Article 3), the precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason, what the first principles of demonstrations are to the speculative reason; because both are self-evident principles. Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says "man," says "a rational being": and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, "Every whole is greater than its part," and, "Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another." But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions: thus to one who understands that an angel is not a body, it is self-evident that an angel is not circumscriptively in a place: but this is not evident to the unlearned, for they cannot grasp it....

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

Man is not a rational being, but a being with reason, which is why he longs for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not for the God of the Philosophers.

Are you seriously splitting this hair? A rational being and a being with reason are the same blasted thing. And as for the silly "not the God of the philosophers" nonsense... The philosophers are not claiming to prove the truth fo the Christian faith. They are not claiming to prove the incarnation, or the Trinity, or any such thing. All That philosophy proposes to prove is that there is a God who is simple, one, eternal, unchanging, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, good, perfect, willing, loving, etc. To know which religion is revealed by this by God, one needs faith.

[ialmisry]

Are you seriously splitting this hair? A rational being and a being with reason are the same blasted thing.

No, it's not.  A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

And as for the silly "not the God of the philosophers" nonsense...

Folly to those who are perishing, as St. Paul said.

The philosophers are not claiming to prove the truth fo the Christian faith.

LOL. They are not so modest.

They are not claiming to prove the incarnation, or the Trinity, or any such thing. All That philosophy proposes to prove is that there is a God who is simple, one, eternal, unchanging, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, good, perfect, willing, loving, etc. To know which religion is revealed by this by God, one needs faith.

Then Aquinas wouldn't have tried to prove the filioque by Aristotle's categories.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

[Wyatt]

DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Why not? If Pagan philosophical terms can be adopted to explain the Christian Faith, why can't other philosophical terms be used the same way?

[Papist]

Are you seriously splitting this hair? A rational being and a being with reason are the same blasted thing.

No, it's not.  A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

And as for the silly "not the God of the philosophers" nonsense...

Folly to those who are perishing, as St. Paul said.

The philosophers are not claiming to prove the truth fo the Christian faith.

LOL. They are not so modest.

They are not claiming to prove the incarnation, or the Trinity, or any such thing. All That philosophy proposes to prove is that there is a God who is simple, one, eternal, unchanging, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, good, perfect, willing, loving, etc. To know which religion is revealed by this by God, one needs faith.

Then Aquinas wouldn't have tried to prove the filioque by Aristotle's categories.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

Computer's are not rational beings because they can only store and compute data. They lack the first two acts of the mind, understanding essences, and judging whether propositions are true or false. You are using the cartesian definition of reason, which is a reductionist one.
And no, Aquinas did not prove the filioque. He specifically believes that the matters of the Trinity are matters of Divine Revelation and not reason. Get your facts straight.

[ialmisry]

DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Why not? If Pagan philosophical terms can be adopted to explain the Christian Faith, why can't other philosophical terms be used the same way?

Borrowing a term is one thing, borrowing a concept is another.  We have, for instance, borrowed the pagan term for God, but anyone who borrows a pagan concept of God upon which to "build" a Christian theology is building on sand.

The number of terms borrowed can be listed, and run long. That's not what EM is claiming: she claims that Chrisitanity has adopted pagan concepts, much in the same way as historians of religion make claims that the Church borrowed the Resurrection from the cultus of Osiris, Tammuz and Adonis.

I was just asking her to back that claim with a list of a few, besides "natural law."  A list of borrowed terms won't serve that purpose.  That's "Why not."

[ialmisry]

Are you seriously splitting this hair? A rational being and a being with reason are the same blasted thing.

No, it's not.  A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

And as for the silly "not the God of the philosophers" nonsense...

Folly to those who are perishing, as St. Paul said.

The philosophers are not claiming to prove the truth fo the Christian faith.

LOL. They are not so modest.

They are not claiming to prove the incarnation, or the Trinity, or any such thing. All That philosophy proposes to prove is that there is a God who is simple, one, eternal, unchanging, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, good, perfect, willing, loving, etc. To know which religion is revealed by this by God, one needs faith.

Then Aquinas wouldn't have tried to prove the filioque by Aristotle's categories.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

Computer's are not rational beings because they can only store and compute data. They lack the first two acts of the mind, understanding essences, and judging whether propositions are true or false. You are using the cartesian definition of reason, which is a reductionist one.

We're not bound by Aristotle, no matter what Aquinas held.

And no, Aquinas did not prove the filioque.

LOL. We Orthodox know that.

He specifically believes that the matters of the Trinity are matters of Divine Revelation and not reason. Get your facts straight.

I have. He didn't.

No Aristotelean categories here?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

[stanley123]

 A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

The being of a computer also consists of hardware and data. Also, are you implying here that reason is nothing more than calculative competence? If so, that would seem to rule out intuitive expertise based on diverse real world experiences.

[ialmisry]

 A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

The being of a computer also consists of hardware and data. Also, are you implying here that reason is nothing more than calculative competence? If so, that would seem to rule out intuitive expertise based on diverse real world experiences.

Only, perhaps, if you subsume intuitive expertise under/within the faculty of reason.  Intuition, however, would seem to be opposed (as in contrast to, not opposition against) to reason.  Otherwise it could be explained rationally.

Memory (experience) is not part of the faculty of reason.

[elijahmaria]

DO NOT include terms adapted from pagan philosophy to explain the Christian Faith.

Why not? If Pagan philosophical terms can be adopted to explain the Christian Faith, why can't other philosophical terms be used the same way?

Borrowing a term is one thing, borrowing a concept is another.  We have, for instance, borrowed the pagan term for God, but anyone who borrows a pagan concept of God upon which to "build" a Christian theology is building on sand.

I said "Christianized"...not adopted.

[stanley123]

 A computer is rational being, its being consisting of reason and logic.  A human being has the faculty of reason.  It does not determine his being.

The being of a computer also consists of hardware and data. Also, are you implying here that reason is nothing more than calculative competence? If so, that would seem to rule out intuitive expertise based on diverse real world experiences.

Only, perhaps, if you subsume intuitive expertise under/within the faculty of reason.  Intuition, however, would seem to be opposed (as in contrast to, not opposition against) to reason.  Otherwise it could be explained rationally.

Memory (experience) is not part of the faculty of reason.

Reason comes in as part of the skill and expertise in dealing with real world experiences.