Believing without direct verification

[JapaneseKappa]

Please take a moment and think about the assumptions in that statement. What you’ve done is assumed one particular interpretation of that passage, and then imposed an expectation of a set of behaviors based on that interpretation of Scripture. What if your interpretation is wrong? What if you’ve misunderstood what the author is attempting to say? If so, then your expectations, too, would be way off base.

Sure. I assumed the author was trying to convey historically accurate information. You’re right that he might not have been! Indeed, the whole NT might not have been intended to convey historically accurate information! In any case, if we take the “parts of this text were intentionally historically inaccurate” view, then there’s no harm in pointing out the historical inaccuracies, since it simply clarifies exactly how much of the text was fiction, and how little was “actual signs and wonders” that could be used as evidence for the supernatural.

On what do you base that expectation? We’ve seen reports of miracles in contemporary times… and no one’s jumping to avoid persecuting Christians and their beliefs…

For the simple reason that if a whole city believed that a religious group’s leader had literally caused the dead to walk the streets, no one would seriously deny that person’s power.

 

[goout]

Surely someone who would think that they have enough information to opine on this subject would have done enough homework to know about the kinds of things Roman historians wrote about. Surely you know about Josephus’ accounts of chariots in the skies over Jerusalem, and various Roman reports of lights in the sky from a little before Jesus’ time, and so are aware that Roman historians regularly recorded information about “supernatural” phenomenon.

Now, the rest of your post is troubling. What do you think an engineer does when he sets out to build a Big Important Bridge using some New Theories? He’s not just going to take the scientist’s word for it that the New Theories apply, he’s going to make some scale models and computer models to test it out. Not only to make sure that the scientists were right, but also to make sure that he fully understands the New Theories and their limitations.

That is to say: as the stakes go up, how careful we are should also go up. But what you’re saying is tantamount to “being, meaning, identity and purpose are too important to be intellectually cautious about!” An engineer would rather build no bridge than get it wrong and kill people. But you’re saying “It’s better to build the bridge of being/meaning/identity/purpose wrong than to have intellectual standards high enough that you have to admit you don’t know how to build the bridge.”

That’s a whole lot of putting words into other’s mouths. You even put into quotes things I did not say. That’s just a tad offensive and damaging to good faith discussion.

Calm down a second and please address what I actually said, not your personal interpretation of what I said.

Just for the record, I happen to agree with you that no direct verification exists for the resurrection, in the fundamentalist rationalist way the OP is asking for.

Engineers building bridges… you got me there!!!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s a whole lot of putting words into other’s mouths. You even put into quotes things I did not say. That’s just a tad offensive and damaging to good faith discussion.

Calm down a second and please address what I actually said, not your personal interpretation of what I said.

Just for the record, I happen to agree with you that no direct verification exists for the resurrection, in the fundamentalist rationalist way the OP is asking for.

Engineers building bridges… you got me there!!!

When someone says that you said something tantamount to a quoted phrase, it is understood that you did not literally say the quoted phrase. If they had meant that you literally said the quoted phrase, they would not have used the word tantamount.

Now your post, which you claim I misrepresented literally says this:

Right, because that’s the way of modern journalism and scientific discovery.
These are good things, but are not worthy of worship as idols of superstition, as they are when used as the arbiter of all being and meaning.

My interpretation of this: you believe that the requirements for intellectual rigor imposed by science and journalism are tantamount to superstition when used as a deciding factor in a search for being, meaning, identity, and purpose (b/m/i/p.)

Therefore, since my use of science and journalistic methods to decide against Christian belief in Jesus-as-God is tantamount to using science and journalistic methods to decide against Christian beliefs about b/m/i/p, I am being superstitious.

So it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that I ought form my beliefs about (b/m/i/p) without the standards of intellectual rigor represented by science and journalism, then subsequently use those (b/m/i/p) beliefs as a justification for belief in Jesus-as-God despite the lack of direct verification.

 

[goout]

When someone says that you said something tantamount to a quoted phrase, it is understood that you did not literally say the quoted phrase. If they had meant that you literally said the quoted phrase, they would not have used the word tantamount.

Now your post, which you claim I misrepresented literally says this:
My interpretation of this: you believe that the requirements for intellectual rigor imposed by science and journalism are tantamount to superstition when used as a deciding factor in a search for being, meaning, identity, and purpose (b/m/i/p.)

Therefore, since my use of science and journalistic methods to decide against Christian belief in Jesus-as-God is tantamount to using science and journalistic methods to decide against Christian beliefs about b/m/i/p, I am being superstitious.

So it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that I ought form my beliefs about (b/m/i/p) without the standards of intellectual rigor represented by science and journalism, then subsequently use those (b/m/i/p) beliefs as a justification for belief in Jesus-as-God despite the lack of direct verification.

In matters of ultimate truth science and journalism are inherently limited.
A good scientist knows this. He knows that his science answers the questions that are verifiable, or if not verifiable, that are explorable through scientific discovery.

He does not make the leap in to superstition with his science to make pronouncements on questions which science cannot answer. Like the meaning of life, the nature of being, where did I come from, where am I going, what is love, why is there something and not nothing. Those are metaphysical questions, not questions of fundamentalist rationalist evidentiary proof.

A competent scientist also does not take the leap you did above, which assumes that because science cannot verify all of existence, we should leave behind the intellect.

That does not follow.
Faith and reason inform each other, and to make either into the stand-alone arbiter of all reality is pretty much the definition of superstition. You may not realize it but much of the intellectual tradition of the world, science, philosophy, art, etc…has flourished because people of faith, most specifically the Catholic Church, helped it to flourish through the integration of faith and reason.
Where faith abounds, reason abounds even more.

You still may not realize:
you and I agree on* the answer to *the OP’s question.

 

[Gorgias]

Sure. I assumed the author was trying to convey historically accurate information.

No… you assumed it was a literalistic account. Of course, that means that you failed to notice that the narrative changes at that point – from what’s going on at that moment, to what happened at another time. It’s ok: unless you’re paying close attention, it’s easy to miss.

You’re right that he might not have been! Indeed, the whole NT might not have been intended to convey historically accurate information!

Ahh… now you’re just getting snarky.

In any case, if we take the “parts of this text were intentionally historically inaccurate” view

No – we’re just pointing out that it might not be as slavishly literalistic as you’re trying to make it out to be.

it simply clarifies exactly how much of the text was fiction

Again, if you want to get snarky, that’s your prerogative… but don’t pretend to be interested in dialogue if that’s how you’re gonna play it.

For the simple reason that if a whole city believed that a religious group’s leader had literally caused the dead to walk the streets, no one would seriously deny that person’s power.

Agreed. Yet, that’s an interpretation that’s completely incongruous with the rest of the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels. You’ve read the passages where, after performing a miracle, Jesus exhorts the recipient not to tell anyone, right? So… why are you asserting that this pericope must be read literalistically, in such a way that requires us to presume that maximum visibility is what he’s intending?

 

[tonyrey]

Unless you go around believing that every account of a resurrection you hear about is “probably real”, you will also agree that these explanations are unlikely. But maybe you do! Maybe you believe the dozen-or-so resurrections in the Bhagavata Purana probably happened. Maybe you think that its pretty likely that the 89 year old buddhist monk did recently come back to life. Or maybe you only think that Jesus’ is the only likely resurrection, because of how much you’ve staked in that idea.

The significant difference is that Jesus established a community based on God’s love for us **as a Father **which has lasted for two thousand years, is now worldwide and has created schools, universities, hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, hospices, asylums, homes for the elderly and refuges for the victims of abuse, violence and oppression before there was no help from governments or other organisations. His teaching is also the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity.

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

The significant difference is that Jesus established a community based on God’s love for us **as a Father which has lasted for two thousand years, is now worldwide and has created schools, universities, hospitals, dispensaries, orphanages, hospices, asylums, homes for the elderly and refuges for the victims of abuse, violence and oppression before there was any help **from governments or other organisations. His teaching is also the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ahh… now you’re just getting snarky.

Why is it snarky to ask which part of the Bible is “literal” and which part is “allegorical”? It is a recurring question without an answer.

 

[goout]

Why is it snarky to ask which part of the Bible is “literal” and which part is “allegorical”?

That wasn’t the point.
The point was the erroneous fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, which oddly enough is shared by religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists alike.

It is a recurring question without an answer.

This question is answered all day every day.
Are you interested in learning what the Catholic Church actually teaches in regard to the senses of Scripture.
I (and others) are willing to post the references, but only if you are willing to look at them and engage them.
What do you say?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That wasn’t the point.
The point was the erroneous fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, which oddly enough is shared by religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists alike.

A fundamentalist is someone who takes every sentence in the Bible verbatim and correct. To speak of “atheist fundamentalists” is the same as talking about “liberal fascists”. It is total nonsense.

This question is answered all day every day.
Are you interested in learning what the Catholic Church actually teaches in regard to the senses of Scripture.
I (and others) are willing to post the references, but only if you are willing to look at them and engage them.
What do you say?

I am interested in actual evaluations of Biblical verses. To my best knowledge there is NO such thing as a “Catholic annotated Bible”.

 

[goout]

A fundamentalist is someone who takes every sentence in the Bible verbatim and correct. To speak of “atheist fundamentalists” is the same as talking about “liberal fascists”. It is total nonsense.

Not so. You contradict yourself. You and other atheists continually look at scripture in exactly the same way as fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist atheists read the bible the same way as religious fundamentalists, they just come to different conclusions.

I am interested in actual evaluations of Biblical verses. To my best knowledge there is NO such thing as a “Catholic annotated Bible”.

Right, the Church says nothing about your issue of sound scripture interpretation. :whacky:

You’re defying credibility here.

Do you want resources on Catholic senses of Scripture and interpretation?

They are available, and since it seems this is of deep concern to you, why don’t you avail yourself?

 

[Bradski]

Not so. You contradict yourself. You and other atheists continually look at scripture in exactly the same way as fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist atheists read the bible the same way as religious fundamentalists, they just come to different conclusions.

So if it says in Corinthians that the risen Jesus was seen by 500 people, we must not take a literal view of that. Which I don’t. Yet so many here will do so.

Who is the fundamentalist in that case?

 

[goout]

So if it says in Corinthians that the risen Jesus was seen by 500 people, we must not take a literal view of that. Which I don’t. Yet so many here will do so.

Who is the fundamentalist in that case?

You. Because your apologetic against Christianity is based on fundamentalism.
Really, I don’t get it.
You have been presented the Catholic case for reading scripture over and over and still…

I would invite you to read some good materials on the subject of Scripture senses, what inspiration is, inerrancy, etc…Read the catechism.

Whether precisely 500 people saw the risen Jesus is not the point. The point is that we have testimony that the risen Jesus was seen. The first sense of scripture is literal. By literal we mean the literature has a literary value and integrity, right? The words are there, they were written, they have an inspired meaning and value. Do you understand that? Literal *does not necessarily mean *factually and historically and scientifically inerrant.
Can you see that distinction?

You may chose to believe Corinthians, and you may not. Your choice. (and no, I cannot offer you evidentiary proof, so don’t even start that foolishness, just call me foolish for believing the testimony and be done with it. Don’t be shy, I can take it. And it will save a lot of bandwidth. )

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Not so. You contradict yourself. You and other atheists continually look at scripture in exactly the same way as fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist atheists read the bible the same way as religious fundamentalists, they just come to different conclusions.

The religious fundamentalists take every word at face value, and assert that every one of them is correct and literally / historically correct. How do the “atheist fundamentalists” read the Bible, in you opinion? If you believe that you are qualified to speak for atheists is general, you are seriously mistaken.

Of course it is obvious that you guys created the phrase “fundamentalist atheists” as an insult. I do not care, because to praise and to admonish can only happen from “above”, and you don’t qualify to be superior in any manner.

But atheists look at the Bible as a mixture of some facts and fiction. Just like Catholics do. The difference is that Catholics have no support from the church to separate fact from fiction - according to your own next sentence as quoted.

Right, the Church says nothing about your issue of sound scripture interpretation. :whacky:

If that is the case, then the Bible is superfluous for Catholics.

 

[Bradski]

You. Because your apologetic against Christianity is based on fundamentalism.
Really, I don’t get it.
You have been presented the Catholic case for reading scripture over and over and still…

I would invite you to read some good materials on the subject of Scripture senses, what inspiration is, inerrancy, etc…Read the catechism.

Whether precisely 500 people saw the risen Jesus is not the point.

It is precisely the point. How can you have a sensible discussion with someone who takes that claim exactly as it it is written? That there were exactly 500 people. Not quite a lot. Not more than a few. But 500, period.

And then go on to use that specific claim, that exact number, that irrefutable, not-to-be-denied statement of what they describe as a fact as part of the evidence for the resurrection.

Maybe you should be telling THEM that they need scriptural senses, that they need to understand the exact meaning of inerrant and to allow for the fact that is is not necessarily factual or historically true.

Literal does not necessarily mean factually and historically and scientifically inerrant.

Literal means exactly as written. Inerrant means that it cannot be wrong. You seem to have different definitions of those two words to some of your fellow Catholics who take the claim as being both.

 

[davidv]

It is precisely the point. How can you have a sensible discussion with someone who takes that claim exactly as it it is written? That there were exactly 500 people. Not quite a lot. Not more than a few. But 500, period.

And then go on to use that specific claim, that exact number, that irrefutable, not-to-be-denied statement of what they describe as a fact as part of the evidence for the resurrection.

Maybe you should be telling THEM that they need scriptural senses, that they need to understand the exact meaning of inerrant and to allow for the fact that is is not necessarily factual or historically true.

Literal means exactly as written.

Not so.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

Inerrant means that it cannot be wrong. You seem to have different definitions of those two words to some of your fellow Catholics who take the claim as being both.

 

[Bradski]

Then using sound interpretation and exegesis, please tell me how you understand what the passage in question actually says.

Do you, as others have done, take it to mean that the risen Chriat was literally seen by 500 people?

I’ve got an awful feeling that you are going to tell me that it doesn’t matter.

 

[Gorgias]

Why is it snarky to ask which part of the Bible is “literal” and which part is “allegorical”? It is a recurring question without an answer.

“Snark” speaks to the way the question is asked. When someone says, “gee, maybe all of the NT isn’t intended to convey factual info!”… that’s snark.

 

[tonyrey]

In matters of ultimate truth science and journalism are inherently limited.
A good scientist knows this. He knows that his science answers the questions that are verifiable, or if not verifiable, that are explorable through scientific discovery.

He does not make the leap in to superstition with his science to make pronouncements on questions which science cannot answer. Like the meaning of life, the nature of being, where did I come from, where am I going, what is love, why is there something and not nothing. Those are metaphysical questions, not questions of fundamentalist rationalist evidentiary proof.

A competent scientist also does not take the leap you did above, which assumes that because science cannot verify all of existence, we should leave behind the intellect.

That does not follow.
Faith and reason inform each other, and to make either into the stand-alone arbiter of all reality is pretty much the definition of superstition. You may not realize it but much of the intellectual tradition of the world, science, philosophy, art, etc…has flourished because people of faith, most specifically the Catholic Church, helped it to flourish through the integration of faith and reason.
Where faith abounds, reason abounds even more.

You still may not realize:
you and I agree on* the answer to *the OP’s question.

In fact science wouldn’t exist without belief in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe both of which are metascientific principles. Empirical investigation is just one aspect of human activity which tells us nothing about the most valuable aspects of life: truth, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

 

[goout]

Then using sound interpretation and exegesis, please tell me how you understand what the passage in question actually says.

Do you, as others have done, take it to mean that the risen Chriat was literally seen by 500 people?

I’ve got an awful feeling that you are going to tell me that it doesn’t matter.

Of course it matters. Scripture conveys the message in literal form
What doesn’t matter is whether 500 or really 55 people factually saw him. It’s not about precise headcounts. The witness of the community (Tradition) that is passed on in literal form is the durable thing.

You can accept the witness or reject it. If I used evidentiary proof as my standard for all truth, I would reject it also.