I like the way Dawkins puts it. Its the difference between 'ought and is'..at least for many questions.

Dr. Robert Hickson,

will something more complicated come out instead?

Blaming all of christianity is a bit harsh?
Showtopic= 26304<-------------------Closed thread
Hello Dakfe09 and all,

I am not Robert Hickson. I would never underline so much.

MrB.
This be Dr. Hickson:
-------------------->
More surprisingly, since he was a priest, “Teilhard accepted the Darwinian theory of evolution” (69), and this unmistakably heterodox and equivocal Jesuit priest dared to go even further: “He argued that biological evolution had been nothing more than [good old reductionism!] God’s first step in an infinitely [sic] greater design” (69--my emphasis added).[33]

But, did this imply, for example, that the created finite cosmos (intelligible and knowable, but abidingly unfathomable) was now, or potentially, infinite? And, is that not a form of evolutionary pantheism? That is to say, a dubiously “christianized” form of dialectical Hegelianism?

33. For those who wish to read more about this hypothesis, “his great work, The Phenomenon of Man” (71) is still in print, although “his great masterwork” (71) by a man with “a certain shady eminence” (71) had already, for years, circulated “sub rosa, sotto voce, in a Jesuit samizdat” (71), say Wolfe. It was a kind of “forbidden fruit”, an alluring “underground classic”.

Wolfe then valuably traces how the Canadian professor, Marshal McLuhan, made a further “synthesis of the ideas of two men” (72): Teilhard de Chardin; and Harold Innis, “the economic historian” and McLuhan’s “fellow Canadian” (72). <-------------------


This be MrB. reading from page 71{following Hickson's footnote 33 above}:
-------------------->
"No one paid closer attention tho this gusher of Teilhardiana than a forty-four-year-old St. Michael's teaching fellow[University of Toronto] named Marshall McLuhan, who taught English literature." Notice that "Marshall" is spelled with two ls in our unsigned printed copy.

This is Hickson on Tom Wolfe,

"Moreover, Wolfe’s vivid language and modulations of tone, as well as his insights and admirable integrity, should be slowly imbibed, savored, not just rapidly read."

And if Soundhertz (and others are) is still able to follow along, with this McLuhanism of technology and not so much science,

page 73:

"McLuhan's "global village" was nothing other than Teilhard's "noösphere," but the Church had declared Teilhard's work heterodox, and McLuhan was not merely a Roman Catholic, he was a convert. He had been raised as a Baptist...

I don't have the slightest doubt that what fascinated him about television was the possibility it might help make real Teihard's dream of the Christian unity of all souls on earth."

[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for copy-and-pasting even though he knows the formatting is ludicrous when LINKING with at least one persuasive paragraph in favor of following the link in the standard.]

Does anything that Belfry posts make any friggin sense at all?

It's called Hereiophobia.

As I've read your post, I was reminded of this Scripture:

"It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear."
Isa 65:26

Too often we are too busy doing, that we forget to take time to observe what God is doing.

That's why we pay the paparazzi.

Show us one thing that can be proven to have been done by your brand of god; remember, the condition is "proven".

Physfan