/clg/ - Catholic Literature General

>*whistle blows*

adoration of idols, numerology. 1000 years gulag!

Why do you guys hate creationism and literalism so much? I thought you were all about tradition.

>Literalism
>Traditional
Sure, if you count the 19th century as traditional

That's around when people started turning against literalism though.

Young earth creationism is not traditional or biblical. This idea that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old is a 19th century protestant invention. Those Christians who believe that creation is only a few thousand years old come to that conclusion by counting the years included in the genealogies of the old testament. However the genealogies in the bible cannot be used to date the age of the universe because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived.

>Young earth creationism is not traditional or biblical. This idea that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old is a 19th century protestant invention.

Oh really?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Biblical_dates_for_creation

>Calculations based on the Septuagint have traditionally dated creation to around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah produces a date around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic a date around 4000 BC.[15] Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated the date of creation to be around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Sextus Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[16][17] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC, while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[18][19] Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.[20]

Gilson's Thomism - Introduction etc.
Are you a native English-speaker ?

Gabriel Marcel may interest you if you want Catholic existentialism.

I doubt that MacIntyre is the best Catholic philosopher since Aquinas.
Pascal is better. Vico is better. (time gap) Gilson is better. Koninck is better. Pieper is better. Molnar is better. Marcel de Corte is better.

I imagine much my trouble with it comes from my own paranoia and slight hypochondria. The fear that someday, the slim chance I'll get ALS occurs and I know that I'd rather just hasten the inevitable instead of end up this slowly dying husk who can't feed himself. It doesn't sound dignified to me.

I pray that the Lord has mercy on such people who ask for euthanasia.

I feel bad for all non Catholics. It must suck burning in hell for eternity.

:-/

>the best Catholic philosopher since Aquinas desu
>Not Simone Weil

Stop this meme.
She's not Catholic.
She didn't converted.
She was a Marcionist (rejected the Ancient Testament), i.e. a heretic.

Yes, English is my native language, but I'm good enough in French that I've read a few novels and philosophy in it. I was disappointed to learn my French wasn't very useful for doing average stuff in Paris, however.

This notion of a dignified death baffles me. That term was thrown around a lot with regard to poor Charlie Gard in defense of denying him medical treatment. I feel as if one could otherwise argue that it would have been more dignified to try every reasonable method possible to save him even if the prospects looked bleak. The only reason why I bring this up in reference to a debilitating illness is because I can imagine one dying with dignity without euthanasia.

It's good to pray for people who have to make such difficult choice. However, I do believe the Church's perspective is pro-life under all circumstances except in terms of capital punishment, even if Pope Francis says otherwise.

We equally have the chance to burn in hell for eternity, although fortunately we have (ideally) better knowledge than others on how to avoid it.

stay mad, brainlet

I'm just LARPing

I don't actually care about religion lol

Does anyone here suppose there could be saints among the leadership of today's democracies?

When reading the lists of royal saints, I was struck by how many kings, queens, and other titled nobility have been saints or blesseds, even monarchs as recent as Charles I of Austria being a blessed and Nicholas II of Russia being a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Is there something about the rule of law that prevents modern-day heads of states or other politicians from being candidates for formal recognition of sainthood? I suppose I could imagine, for example, a former president becoming a saint through great acts of Christian virtue, but in office? It's unthinkable. Take for example, Roosevelt, Churchill, and De Gaulle, almost universally recognized as great men, but definitely not saints.

It just seems to me that democracy is predisposed to worldly people.

I'm not familiar with Charlie Gard I'm afraid. I think my big difference with ALS is how it's a slow killer. That I might be nothing more than this vegetable who can't use the bathroom or feed himself, likely costing a good deal of money and his loved ones a lot of pain, is not something I'd be particularly excited to stick around for. Plus ALS doesn't have a cure yet, so it doesn't give me much hope. I don't find it very dignified to be crapping myself and drooling.

I know the Church is pro-life, it's why I asked if any of us have disagreements with the Church. Despite it being unlikely to ever happen, I am a paranoid man and I fear it may someday happen to me.

The whole thing does make me wonder how it works for altruistic suicide, in case like a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades. Though I imagine that might not really count.

Maybe, but I think we could say that she was the greatest catechumen of all time. Also she wasn't a complete Marcionite. She loved the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. At the very least she qualified as a deeply virtuous pagan

You aren't the only Catholic who is skeptical of the ridiculous notion that taking another persons life is less of an offense than taking your own. What arrogance and cruelty, to speculate and dictate what a damnable offense is or isn't - in the end, the Catholic Church remains a human institution, like all others.

I didn't say anything about killing another. I'm just hoping God would forgive me for ending my life if I had an incurable disease or had to be hooked up to life support for the rest of my life.

The point was that if God will forgive you for taking someone elses life, he would surely forgive you for taking your own.

>the grenade case
I would not define that as an "altruistic suicide." It's an act of heroism. He did it with the intention of saving lives, knowing that, unless there was a miracle, he would die. He did not do it with the intention of killing himself. He did it knowing there would be a great risk of death. In cases like these, you usually have to look at the intention as much as the act.

Another reason why I stand with the church on being pro-life is because I'm suspicious of the state getting the power to say that they may be allowed to terminate the unhealthy. Eugenics has already been practiced in the past and has been showing an eerie rise in around the world. For example, in Iceland, they are encouraging pregnant mothers to abort their children if they have Downs syndrome. The Charlie Gard case in England was something similar to that, where this infant had a disease that would likely end in death but they would not let them bring the child to the US for treatment, instead saying that the infant should "die with dignity." I'm frankly afraid of giving the state that power, "who lives or dies." In war and crime, it makes sense that it should have power, but the idea that we as citizen could be killed off because we're a "drain on society" or "parasitic" is disturbing.

It is indeed a terrifying prospect to imagine watching oneself becoming vegetative. I often worry more about the possibility of becoming mentally ill. Nonetheless, I don't think the ill should be "terminated," "euthanized," or whatever other euphemism they've dreamed up.

>You aren't the only Catholic who is skeptical of the ridiculous notion that taking another persons life is less of an offense than taking your own.

People get drafted into wars and have to kill other people. They don't have much of a choice about it. However, you do have a choice whether or not to take your life, unless there are outside factors that might force you to do it such as mental illness or someone saying "take this cyanide pill or be hanged—your choice".

>People get drafted into wars and have to kill other people. They don't have much of a choice about it. However, you do have a choice whether or not to take your life, unless there are outside factors that might force you to do it such as mental illness or someone saying "take this cyanide pill or be hanged—your choice".

Of course they would have a choice. Do you think the government puts a gun to your head and forces you to kill people? It's simply harder to object than it is to pick up the gun.

Are you implying that most suicides are unrelated to mental health issues? The fact that someone is killing their self would likely indicate mental health issues. Why would the least likely scenario (a healthy person committing suicide) be the basis for a rule? It makes zero sense.

>Does anyone here suppose there could be saints among the leadership of today's democracies?
Other than Poland(whose Prime minister or president has son who was recently ordained an fssp priest) they're usually heretics and don't do much to propagate the faith.

>the church
Do you talk about the Vatican?

Ouch

Quoi c’est pas utile

Today catholicisme has no use for politics

>Do you think the government puts a gun to your head and forces you to kill people?

In the event of a draft, yeah, that could happen and does happen in some countries, especially despotic countries. For a recent example, I'm sure many Catholics in the Congo had to struggle with this moral decision during their civil war. For an ancient example, look into how Odysseus was compelled to join the Trojan War. There are plenty of examples where people are compelled to kill others and it is not sinful.

>Are you implying suicides are unrelated to mental health issues?

A lot of people committed suicide after the stock market crash of 1929. I'm sure something similar happened in 2008. A criminal, such as Hitler, may choose to commit suicide instead of facing justice for their crimes (can't blame him considering what happened to Mussolini).

People who commit crimes of passion are usually held accountable for what they do. Is suicide often not a crime of passion? The Church is actually fairly generous considering it is generally forgiving of people who don't know if an act that they commit is sinful. But once you know, you must obey.

Aaah. Reading it again, I understand your point user. Thank you.

Not every soldier is drafted.

Is there some other Church we're supposed to speak of in a Catholic thread?

Idk, byzantin? Just being curious, don’t mind me

I could imagine that coming from Poland. Could you recommend any Polish writers? I was very impressed by a quote from Czeslaw Milosz either here or in the previous Catholic general.

What's not useful? French in general? or my literary knowledge of French for getting around Paris? For me, it was the fact that I wouldn't know useful words like how to ask for "the bill" to pay after eating at a restaurant. I still don't remember the word for that important little piece of paper. But I do know the rules for an alexandrine. Nonetheless, I managed to get around and had a good time in Paris. I would go back if it wasn't so expensive.

How so? I would love, for example, to see the US have a Catholic president, but not some degenerate like Kennedy.

Not always, but even then, a soldier would be excused in a just war if he volunteered.

reminder that prayers to Mary trace back to an anonymous 3rd century Egyptian document, and not to the apostles or an early Christian father
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_tuum_praesidium

>little piece of paper
L’addition
>How so
Sorry I meant politics have no use for Catholicism
e.g. Charlemagne needed it to unify his empire

I'm still not convinced, but I have more to think about. Christ did stay Peter's sword.

Your example of the market crash and Hitler are exceptional outliers, considering the ~120 people who kill themselves in the U.S every day. I'm still not compelled. I think the Church is casting judgement on states of mind it does not understand. I can understand why they wouldn't want to appear ambiguous on the topic, because that might not attempt to deter suicide enough, but I'd prefer that to damnation.

Christ stayed Peter's sword, but he also said to sell your cloak and buy a sword if you didn't have one.

can't stay your sword if you don't have one! he sure had a sense of humor, huh.

Scientism is where today's political elite find legitimacy

Yeah I know and I’m not saying it’s for better days but that answer the first question

Is this bait? Are you new? Are you same user asking if I was talking about the Vatican?

If this is bait, this is some of the best I've seen and I'm eating it.

>creationism
Because it's based on a crude and unnecessary understanding of Genesis.
>literalism
Because of the sheer ignorance of it all.
None of this relates to tradition. is partially correct. In the early church there were many divergent views about genealogies which caused confusion, along with a bit of Psalms that they related to it. Rabbis that influenced them were they, themselves, mixed on it.

Young Earth Creationism is a revival of very old interpretation of Christian views that have been rationally dismissed for much of the church's history. What is called "Biblical Literalism" is what is a 19th century Protestant invention, however, primarily because it is a viewing of Biblical texts without regards to genres because iy assumes modern styles about it.

>Young Earth Creationism is a revival of very old interpretation of Christian views that have been rationally dismissed for much of the church's history.
Interesting. So when exactly did Young Earth Creationism fall out of favor?

>l'addition
Merci pour me dire.

Quant à Charlemagne, je ne crois pas qu'il était un proto-machiavélique, plutôt qu'il était le type de son époch qui a le plus fait pour maintenir la civilisation chrétienne contre les barbes... mais c'est possible que mon savoir là est mal informé. Mais quand je regard une carte de cet époch, je peux imaginer un monde pour le pire sans lui.

The Church makes exceptions for some suicides, as I have previously stated and you seem to understand that. However, you can't seem to accept people are quite capable of doing it as rational agents. I'm also hard-pressed not to see how we won't be held accountable for doing something even in a crime of passion. To what extent we will be held accountable, I don't know.

I read Mechthild this week, the flowing light of the godhead. highly recommend it

The only one of those who can compete is Gilson and I could see why you would say that, but the rest is just picking obscure ones for no reason.

She refused to be baptized. She was not a Catholic and that baptism of desire can't work here, she had plenty of time to convert and knew the teaching well enough, the Church didn't hide the scary stuff back then.

How? You can't confess after you die and suicide is a mortal sin. Those who die in mortal sin immediately descend into hell, as per the Catechism. You cannot be forgiven if you take your own life at all, we may speak of mitigating circumstances, but that's a question of culpability, not forgiveness.

We trace it to the Archangel as we only repeat his words and also is this supposed to somehow argue against it?

Has anyone read Wolfgang Smith and how much of what he's saying is nonsense?

It's no sudden thing. In the early church we see more complicated understandings of the text shown many times:

>"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" -Irenaeus

>"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" -Augustine

>"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally"

No view has been endorsed by the church, though many views got popular. As research came out over ancient Jewish practices the use of genealogies to date an Anno Mundi in Europe made them fall out of favor (though the use of Anno Mundi became the standard in Jewish circles and mixed in Constantinople), as well as other holes in the dating of the creation story that came about. For example, Aquinas expands onto previous church fathers how there is no explanation for the amount of time between these events that God does and as God does not create in time these adjustments can be best understood as when they developed.

The coming to of evolution made people rethink how things make sense. However, despite fixism never being doctrine in something like the Adam and Eve story it has been so ingrained in culture as such that some treat it as doctrine to see Adam and Eve that way.

>the best Catholic philosopher since Aquinas desu
>not Bonaventure
>not Scotus

>>"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" -Irenaeus
Irenaeus isn't disputing the genealogies in Genesis at all. He's claiming since Adam didn't live until 1000 (he died at age 930) he really did die on the day he ate the fruit, from God's point of view.

Augustine isn't either, he's talking about the days of creation. Elsewhere he affirmed a young earth:

>They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
City of God - Book 12, Chapter 10

> je ne crois pas qu'il était un proto-machiavélique
Wtf, I never said that, just that he needed the church to unify

Only judge can judge me

Interesting, so in the 19th (!) century, the pope is praising the Egyptologist Jean-François Champollion for proving the Derenda Zodiac is younger than previously thought, thus not contradicting biblical chronology, and implies that, with 1800 years of darkness left before that the world was created in 4000 BC.

And Champollion himself had limited his discoveries to 2200 BC so as to not offend the church.

So if the church is still making a fuss about it in 19th century you cant say in any way that it had been "rationally dismissed for much of the church's history".

The judge has given you a lot of rather clear rules. The rules include for this discussion a number of important elements, first that those who die in mortal sin go to Hell, that mortal sin is forgiven in the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of confession, you cannot receive the sacraments after you die. The judge has already told you under which rules he will be doing it and the only way a person who committed suicide escapes eternal damnation is by the factors that are unknown to us, mainly the mental state and level of responsibility. God didn't leave us here without the means or the knowledge necessary for salvation.

>clear rules
yeah right, that’s why they do summa about them

They are pretty clear if you are Catholic. If you deny religious authority, of course nothing is clear.

>The judge has given you a lot of rather clear rules
You sound like a protestant bro

>it's obvious, just read the bible! forget all the commentary and tradition!

>The entire history of the Church teaches this
>Lmao it's not clear

But that doesn't preclude the world being older than 4000 BC, just that the Bible is the sole source for understanding the years between 4000 and 200 BC. Sick comprehension brah.

The Catechism also says that those who commit suicide will be judged by the Father. It doesn't say they go to Hell.

Tell me more about Sedevacantism and why I should stay away from them

It's schismatic (claims the pope has been illegitimate since v2) and denies yourself the community of faith offered by the true church.

>although if you pulled the plug on someone in a coma
Pulling the plug on someone who is in a coma is not euthanasia because they die because their body cannot sustain itself. Euthanasia would actually be doing something to make the body die unnaturally.

I'm not Polish and unfortunately don't read any book. I want to though which is why I'm here. I always get distracted by the internet and never end up reading.

Be that as it may, I don't see how it would not be sinful to pull the plug on anyone in a coma or vegetative state because you'd be denying them the chance to live.

>I always get distracted by the internet and never end up reading.
I always read the Bible when I wake up and before bed. If there's still free time left, I read profane literature. There's no reason why you couldn't do that unless perhaps you're raising a family. This is coming from a student who spends probably 12 hours a day on the computer!

Consider subscribing to a good monthly magazine as well. I've found the New Criterion very edifying for its articles and book reviews. I wish my professors had been at least half as brainy and clear as those fellows are.

>Interesting, so in the 19th (!) century, the pope is praising the Egyptologist Jean-François Champollion for proving the Derenda Zodiac is younger than previously thought, thus not contradicting biblical chronology, and implies that, with 1800 years of darkness left before that the world was created in 4000 BC.

No, this is not what the quote says at all nor implies a comment about creationism. To say this is about creationism would say this would imply "generations" in a far larger scale than normally attributed. Adam being 930 upon death and Seth at like 913 or something. If generations are this long then the idea of the Dendera Zodiac being dated at an older date wouldn't be an issue and such a thing as dating an Anno Mundi to 4000BC wouldn't make sense.

The pope IS speaking about biblical primacy. Hence the image you use as evidence saying: "Champollion prudently restricted his historical discoveries to post-Hyksos dynasties, then dated to 2200BC, THUS ALLOWING BIBLICAL PRIMACY". The poster is correct.

Anno Mundi dating extend from the teachings of the Hebrews, which had very mixed reception in Europe.

>No, this is not what the quote says at all nor implies a comment about creationism. To say this is about creationism would say this would imply "generations" in a far larger scale than normally attributed. Adam being 930 upon death and Seth at like 913 or something. If generations are this long then the idea of the Dendera Zodiac being dated at an older date wouldn't be an issue and such a thing as dating an Anno Mundi to 4000BC wouldn't make sense.
No, this isn't a problem for a young Anno Mundi, the further from Adam the more lifespans decrease until they reach normal spans.

I think you guys are misunderstanding it, the wikipedia article also claims the problem they had with it was the age of the earth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Champollion#Reactions_to_the_decipherment

>In France, Champollion's success also produced enemies. Edmé-Francois Jomard was chief among them, and he spared no occasion to belittle Champollion's achievements behind his back, pointing out that Champollion had never been to Egypt and suggesting that really his lettre represented no major progress from Young's work. Jomard had been insulted by Champollion's demonstration of the young age of the Dendera zodiac, which he had himself proposed was as old as 15,000 years. This exact finding had also brought Champollion in the good graces of the Catholic Church which had been antagonized by the claims that Egyptian civilization might be older than the church-sanctioned chronology according to which the earth was only 6,000 years old.[65]

And even ignoring all this, there are still Catholic theologians Benedict Pereira, Denis Pétau, and Antoine Augustin Calmet calculating the Anno Mundi at 4000 BC into the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries mentioned in this link here.

>mfw reading about the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe

AVE MARIA

Can we get an image dump of Christ-chan ITT?

youtube.com/watch?v=Ui6wp7VV9VU

Ill dump what I can, since my internet decided to crap itself

...

I feel like Wolf-lad is the gym leader while the random user heretics / protestants / atheists are trainers about to be BTFO'd.

Merci.

Is there any Catholic literature about art? As an artist myself I figure that we should try to make beautiful work (rather than useful or 'original' work), and to achieve this there should be a synergy of effort and creativity. If that's right I wonder if the creative element is our receiving of the divine in some sense?

Christ-living non-catholic here. Still waiting to be btfo.

Number of times Mary has visited a Catholic: 10
Number of times Mary has visited a non-Catholic: zero

>Number of times Satan has visited a Catholic: 10
Fixed

Christ-chan is American protestant.
Stop spamming her here.

Check out the aesthetics of Jaques Maritain

Go back to Muscovy you Orthodox scum

In the early church period there was a mainstream view of creation that understood "days" not in a 24 hour sense but as 1000 years (to follow with the expression in the Psalm that a day to God is a thousand years). Some others understanding it as 24 hours days and some understanding it as not days in any sense. What is unique from the view of 1000 year days is that despite the separation of creation between different days is rejected on rational grounds for a view of simultaneous creation. Fixism (that species before have been the same as species previous with no development of them) is presumed as that's the unsaid way in which people understood the world to work. As such the idea of the date of creation coinciding the date of the creation of man does not come from the early church's understanding of scripture but by a rational premise about how the world works. And their date for the creation of man is based on genealogies that have been questioned and rejected and accepted throughout much of the church's history. Primarily because the numbers (and even figures named) differ in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint and later because of learning more of ancient Jewish records and realizing them as incomplete (and seem to be a selective chain of notable figures or a whole house rather than being a modern family tree). It cannot be denied that some of the genealogical links are omitted in the Biblical lists; even St. Matthew had to employ this device, in order to arrange the ancestors of Christ in three series of fourteen each.

And note that this is already entirely distinct from Young Earth Creationism, which propound a support for 6 separate days of creation.

For further discussions of genealogies, check out the Catholic encyclopedia. All of it is approved by the Catholic Church as accurate.

>Biblical Chronology
newadvent.org/cathen/03731a.htm

>Biblical Genealogies
newadvent.org/cathen/06408a.htm

part 1/2

part 2/2
But now we're away of the legitimacy from creationism as a topic and the genealogies but rather the historic view of it all within the church. I have maintained that it was an early mainstream view with divergent ideas here but as I've stated, Anno Mundi systems never took hold in Europe. It was maintained as a topic in some theological circles that still accepted the genealogies as complete or derived their information from Jewish circles.

These quotes aren't to refute the idea, they are to show variation with each other as divergent ideas was the point.

>obscure
Pascal is not unknown.
Vico is the best to refutate Descartes.

Also in the history of Catholic thought Koninck is known for being a fervent opponent to Maritain's personnalism (that he proceeded to refutate in "De la primauté du bien commun contre les personnalistes").

Pieper is a solid classic philosopher but not that known it seems.
Molnar is very good and has a conservative Catholic view and criticizes utopian thought, neo-paganism, German idealism.

As for de Corte, I must say that he's only known by few people (mainly trad Catholics) in French-speaking areas (and maybe in the "Lusosphere"), but he's a very solid Catholic realist philosopher that proceeded to criticize modernity with the aristotelico-thomistic method.

Pascal is not considered a philosopher by many and I'm inline with that view. I see him as a fantastic writer and a worthy author of spiritual writings, but he simply doesn't do systematic philosophy that we usually take to be the practice in the first place.
And I don't think any of the ones that I've read from the list or the ones are mentioned are bad in any way, but we can really mention only a small number of authors who can be said to have received the study of Aristote and Aquinas when it seemed to be dying in our secular culture. MacIntyre is the prime reason we've got Fesers and Oderbergs aside Aquinas himself.

There really is no good excuses for me. I just need to better manage my time

Pascal not a philosopher? There are plenty of philosophers who do not make systematic philosophy.

The Pascal as a devotional/existential writer isn't an uncommon opinion, as per Compleston and MacIntyre.

Apologetics may be closer to the reality