zk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.
This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.
As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.
I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks. I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding. Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?
