On 5/28/2017 9:38 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017 07:48:26 +0100, Martin Harran
> <
martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:47:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/
xonomy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/17 2:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I will however remind you of one of the fundamental rules of research
>>>> - check primary sources. If you really want to know what the Catholic
>>>> Church's teaching is, the first port of call in of things relating to
>>>> Catholic teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is
>>>> available on line.
>>>
>>> I submit that there is room for disagreement about what, exactly, "the
>>> Catholic Church's teaching" means. It can refer either to the body of
>>> congregants who come together identifying themselves as Catholics, or it
>>> can refer to their leadership, especially the Pope and bishops. The
>>> beliefs of those two groups, I understand, are not always in agreement.
>>>
>>> I grant that "the Catholic Church's teaching" or "position" strongly
>>> implies the teachings of the leadership.
>>
>> I don't think there is any doubt that Coyne was referring to the
>> leadership.
>>
>>> However, some of the dispute
>>> in this thread has been over the "views", which to my mind more likely
>>> refers to the congregants and their own ideas.
>>
>> It was Jillery who tried to divert it into "views". I corrected what
>> Coyne specifically said in the article she had linked to.
>
>
> You shouldn't post such stupid lies, especially on a Sunday.
>
> It should go without repeating so soon, but the following is your
> reply to my OP:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> [...]
>
>> Also from the article:
>>
>> ******************************************************
>> if it’s construed as applying to all species except humans—in fact,
>> that’s exactly the position of the Catholic Church.)
>> ******************************************************
>>
>> It is NOT the position of the Catholic Church; Coyne comes out with
>> some unadulterated bullshit, this is just one example.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> A few hours later, you attempted to clarify your point:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> [...]
>
>> For clarity: "it’s construed as applying to all species except humans
>> ..." = "evolution in general if it’s construed as applying to all
>> species except humans ..."
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> For further clarity, the following is Coyne's entire and unmangled
> parenthetical remark:
> ******************************************************
> (Note: it’s not evolution in general that’s surveyed by the question
> below, but human evolution. It’s entirely possible that more
> Americans would accept evolution in general if it’s construed as
> applying to all species except humans—in fact, that’s exactly the
> position of the Catholic Church.)
> ******************************************************
>
> Based on your posts above, a fair reading is your "It" refers to
> Coyne's "that", which a fair reading is he refers to his immediately
> preceding phrase:
>
> "...evolution in general if it’s construed as applying to all species
> except humans ..."
>
> As Mark Isaak pointed out above, what remains unclear is what Coyne
> means by "evolution in general".
>
Of all the pointless debates....the quote doesn't make
if clear that Coyne is stating the position of the
church is that evolution applies except to humans.
Or that the position of the church is that more
people would accept evolution if the church
would take that position.
It appears to me that latter would be the case.
But who cares what he thinks, he can't even form
a sentence.
What do you think about the relationship between
the body, mind and soul?
Ohmygosh I think I've crossed a red line with
that, how can you parse, evade, dip, dance or
step around such a question as 'what do you
think'?
There's no way to claim your post was
misrepresented and then walk away, when
the reply is your own opinion. No way to
claim some meaningless word means something
else and claim victory.
God forbid you should 'own anything' at all.
What do you think about the relationship between
the body, mind and soul?
And let us pick you apart for a change, see
how you like it, coward.
> As is your style, you assume you know what Coyne means, and
> categorically declared your assumed meaning as "unadulterated
> bullshit". What remains unstated is what you think Coyne meant.
>
> In reply to your post above, I cited an article where Coyne explicitly
> states what he means by that phrase in context with the Catholic
> Church:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> [...]
>> The Church’s support of evolution, then, has been equivocal: while
>> allowing that humans had evolved, it also affirmed human
>> exceptionalism in the form of our unique soul.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This is simply the Church’s traditional view of non-naturalistic,
>> theistic evolution, expressed in words that sound good, but that still
>> reflect a form of creationism.
>> *****************************************************
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> This makes clear what Coyne meant, and what Coyne thinks is the
> Catholic Church's position on Evolution, an explicit inclusion of
> "ensoulment".
>
> In your following posts, including the one to which I reply, you make
> clear that you dismiss the above clarification in lieu of your own
> assumptions.
>
> You do not explain what you think Coyne meant.
>
> You do not explain what you mean by 'divert it into "views"'.
>
> You do not explain how you think you corrected Coyne.
>
> As is your style, you run away from the issue with a Parthian shot
> about my alleged irrationality and a reaffirmation or your disinterest
> in discussing anything with me. That you refuse to accept Coyne's
> explicit inclusion of the Church's teaching of ensoulment suggests it
> you who is the irrational one here.
>
> Which in turn explains why you wasted so much time not discussing this
> with me.
>
> Which in turn explains why I don't care what you do.