Do the sophisticated theologians believe in those miracles in the N.T

[Detales]

Wow, Jimmy, guns ablazin!

First, you guys may be arguing apples and oranges. In order to have a meaningful discussion as distinct from a shouting match, there has to be a point of agreement on the topic. Shouting “God IS,” vs “God ISN’T” (I know you aren’t an atheist, B&B, I’m talking about J’s form.) is neither a dialog nor a discussion; it is an impass, and the controversy only proves the shouter’s point to themselves. You, Jimmy, maintain the Cause as a “Who,” and argue it against someones who maintains it to be a “what.”

Something we do know about all this is that our thinking processes thamselves are not true to fact, or faulty at best. There is yet a “proof” to be had about the “Personhood” of God when eternality, by definition, is changeless, and “person” means “mask’ and is about the most changeable thing going. Perhaps that is why CS Lewis said " I pray not to change God, but to change myself.” At least there the shoe is on the right foot.

Also, neither the IS or ISN"T positions above as argued on these forums to my knowledge has admitted to any mention of the one world view that acknowledges both in concert. That view immensly simpifies everything, whether you might agree with it or not, despite it’s being the oldest and most consitent explanation yet, even to this day.

Further, arguing the internal correctitude of the Church and its scholars and fathers, true though it might be, is to no avail if the premis that all that is founded on is not accepted. Don’t waste your breath and look silly. I call such people of our faith as persistently and vehemently ague from a premise unaccepted by their object of inculcation “catha-holics,” as they seem blinded by their own faith to the simply obvious dynamics in a converstation. Don’t argue with such; go be an example. Maybe then someone will ask why you are so wonderful.

Regardless of what I believe, I do see merit and accuracy in B&B’s signature quotes. There are many, including some in the Catholic faith, who would rather die or kill about some point that is an intellection of a way of being, than even think about what truth might be contained in somone else’s even adversarial position. This is a stance with a sad history from time immemorial. Your dismisal of B&B’s quotes that way seem to be an example of that, ie, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And as for Lenny’s quote, maybe he didn’t have the inner strength to stand up to the assult of the people whom he was trying to get to think, whatever his unpleasant way of doing that was.* I don’t know about you, but I know many people of many faiths who left their church because of it’s inability to clearly address their needs. Many of those have now found God as clealry as you have, and they earned their discovery, right or wrong. If I was God, I’d give them great points for sincerity and courage, at least. Had I lost a child in the wilderness, I’d far more admire it for making even an incorrect effort than not, as in simply accepting its circumstances as they might appear to be. But I’d love it in either case.

• Also it doesn’t work to assess the verity of a single statement from someone as an equality with the totality or manner of the end of their life.

 

[JP_Borberg]

when Dawkins says the word “sophisticated,” he basically means to refer to “people who know better than to take an inexplicable phenomenon and say an imaginary force did it.”

I kind of see his point. … I’m not sure why, but I really side with Dawkins on this one.

oh, and I’m not an Atheist-- I need to make that very clear.

For the sake of us who like to think clearly, it would be nice of B&B to explain how God can exist and be an imaginary force at the same time.

But remember kids, no trying to kill the truth.

 

[JP_Borberg]

Detales,

My question was for B&B, who made the statements. If she doesn’t want to answer, I don’t really blame her. But it’s hard to tell what’s more sad, being so wrong, or going to such lengths to not admit it.

Anyway, if you take it upon yourself to answer for her, please, first prove:

1. That “our thinking processes thamselves are not true to fact, or faulty at best”

and

1. How the “one world view” that acknowledges both ‘is’ AND ‘isn’t’ regarding a single object manages to describe anything real (i.e: something that actually IS).

As I believe both positions to be false (the second to be nonsense, in fact), and

arguing… is to no avail if the premis that all that is founded on is not accepted. Don’t waste your breath and look silly. I call such people of our faith as persistently and vehemently ague from a premise unaccepted by their object of inculcation “catha-holics,” as they seem blinded by their own faith to the simply obvious dynamics in a converstation.

those points should be addressed before any further argument. You wouldn’t want to be a ‘catha-holic’ now, would you.

For clarities sake, I define ‘truth’ to be the conformity between the thought or word and the existent thing the thought or word is intended to describe. I understand this is what is understood as ‘truth’ by most native English speakers, and I see no reason to disagree. If you wish to use another definition, you’ll have to convince me of that too.

All the best, and remember, no killing truth.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Detales,

Good post, and the guns are back in the holsters. 20 years as a criminal defence lawyer mean I come out of the corner swinging.

I’m reading a book just now, “the death of forever” quantum physics, photons etc, etc. It’s one of these books you (well, at least I do) have to read every line four times to try to understand it due to the sheer complexity of the subject. The point is, the author of the book over a ten year period changed his view from a - z eventually concluding from his many years of research as a biologist primarily, that due to our DNA, evolution, genes etc the consciousness, the thing which we are, the soul is immortal, and will live forever and by scientific research debunks ( the in-word in this thread) the theory that man invents the idea of God, heaven, eternity, merely because he fears extinction of his own self, and so deludes himself as a consequence.

The book is fascinating, but why I mention it is because this non christian writer, with references to some of the most up to date scientific studies and research into biology, genetics, quantum physics and the like, proves, (yes proves) at least to the satisfaction of a large number of sophisticated scientists that God probably did create the world (in whatever way he chose )that the soul is immortal and that every single miracle Christ ever did (although he does not state this, it is an obvious observation and deduction to make) is (not of course that it has to be, but for the purposes of this thread) perfectly in keeping with the laws of quantum physics as presently understood.

Now this author has no axe to grind, no bible to bash over an unbeliever’s head as he is arguing not as a christian, because he isn’t, but as a very high brow, respected scientist; someone the likes of Dawkin could not even attempt to compete with.

The fact that particles such as atoms, which make up all solids, liquids and gases, from hard diamonds to helium, are almost entirely empty, and the parts that aren’t, electrons and the nucleus, are made of nothing but photons which are mere waves and do not exist in a particular place, or even spacetime until observed, fits entirely with Christ’s words that if we have faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains. This, according to quantum physics seems to literally be if not the actual case, a possibilty at the very least.

It was Einstein that said “All reality is an illusion, albeit a very convincing one” and again “all we can be certain of is that we know absolutely nothing”

People like Dawkins and those who read the drivel he writes, drive me mad. as they think themselves not only more sophisticated than the Augustines of this world, but also the Einsteins.

The fact is those of us with the ability to read scientific study and articles written by those further up the foodchain than Dawkins have discovered from indepedent, non christian scientists that the miracles of Christ may well have happened, and point to ways in which they in fact did, though these are of course theories and in my view all fall short of what Christ did as he is God.

I would advise B&B (in a loving bvrotherly fashion) to be proud of the fact that the Apostles, Early fathers, The Catholic Church (which has many, many outstanding scientists) and the majority of top class scientists are on our side. All Dawkins has is the devil and some duffers.

As far as Lenny Bruce is concerned, can I say that what you say sounds all nice and warm and fluffy, but if someone attacks my faith, then I fight back. Over the years I have been the chief of sinners, but I don’t believe the bold Lenny was on any journey of self discovery, he was too busy pointing out other people’s faults. He hated hypocrisy but used this as an excuse to do whatever he wanted without shame. His impersonation of a priest, in 1951 andcollecting money for a charity he created, then donating a third of the money and keeping two thirds for himself, speaks volumes.

Keep the Faith,

God bless,

Jimmy Two Guns

 

[Detales]

JP: What’s more sad is your appearant attitude of self-righteous bashing.

#1) Our thinking process is not true to fact or faulty at best on a number of counts.

A) Grammar: The grammar of any language is an artificial construct developed over time. Ours, English, like many others, makes certain assumptions about relationships, say Subject-verb-object that are either not completely alligned to even measurable fact, or are exclusive of certain ideas, modes, measures or contexts. These variances can lead to incorrect perceptiopns, thinking, and especially to misleading translations from other languages and cultures. Case in point, RA Heinlein stated, correctly, that only the first person singular of the verb “to be” in English is true to fact. Not only that, but it has other connotations and denotations in other languages. This has immnese implications when translating the Bible, for instance. Navajo, for instance, doesn’t have nouns in the same sense we do. Eg, “house” might be “housing,” denoting its present use and condition, but acknowledging its past and future changes. Also, “Idem non idem.” The same in one language is not the same in another.

B) Belief: One of the most common occurances on these pages, as you will observe, is the synonymity made between belief and faith, and fact. Things we believe in, for whatever reason or by whatever logic, are yet beliefs, as distinct from fact. We, as children, might believe in the Santa Clause, or the Easter bunny. Or that the Earth is flat. Yet such are beliefs, not facts, and we carry many beliefs into adulthood as habits of emotion and thinking even when they are useless or wrong. “I* knew *that would happen, and I did it anyway!”

C) Theory: We tend to take working theories as having one-to-one correspondencies with fact. This leads to false tendencies in assesment and interpretation. Eg, phlogiston and spontaneous generation. We likely have very similar mispreceptions today as will be laughed at in future. The irriducibility of the atom, and the common understadning of its structure has change greatly in even the last few years.

D) Witnessing: Any competent student of eyewitness theory can tell you that it is a profoundly inadequate mode of assesing what actually happened. Or watch any good magician.

F)* Logical, gramatical, and semantic errors*, as demonstrated in any good text on logic, criticism, or General Sematics, as a start.

G) Fragmentary thinking: Western thought in general is based on measure. Eastern thought is generaly based on the immeasurable. We are so unaware of this dichotome that it doesn’t even enter our perceptual field as a possibility of importance, yet it is fundamental to the difraction of the world as we experience it today. See *Wholeness and the Implicate Order *by David Bohm for a complete discussion of this subject of grave concern for us all.

H) Lack of experience and/or data: Enough said.

Please let me know if you need further examples or catgories of the possibilities of errors in thinking. I will offer this last one, a quote from Albert Einstein. " I know two things that are infinite: The Universe and Man’s stupidity, and I am not so sure about the Universe."

#2) How the “one world view” that acknowledges both ‘is’ AND ‘isn’t’ regarding a single object manages to describe anything real (i.e: something that actually IS).

A) For starters, though there may be a different future explanation, photons are both demonstrably waves and particles. Certain particles, when split from an original, are equally influenced by a change applied only to one of them. See the cat in the box below, and wonder. Both christianist and atheistic explanations are subverted to the position of inadequate explanations by dint of Occam’s razor when analysed through the system of Monism, yet it can include them both, it being more fundamental. But that last one is for you to discover, as its mode of understanding is not by any means you have demonstarted as possesing.

B) Magic pictures, optical illusions, and puns: A magic picture is a computer generated image that seems to be either a flat image or a confusion of dots. By focusing outside of the picture plane, a three dimentional image pops magically into being. This is one of the hints that can be useful in #2A above. Same holds for optical illusions whch are both this and that concurrently, except in our abitlity to see only one or the other. Puns, though they depend on sound, yet carry a pivotal quality that depends on two distinct referents having the same audial symbol. This leads to the importance of contextual perception and understanding. It also speaks to potentiality and other issues.

As for killing truth, there is a reason for the admonition “When you see the Buddha, kill Him.” It is said because, due to far more than the above, our perception of something so fundamental as Diety is so incalculably covered by the veils of our prejudices, that it is necessary for a sincere seeker to assume that his percieved “Buddha” is a gross anthropomorphization.

I think that this might do for now. If you need more, please be in touch. Remember, Don Juan Matus gave his student Carlos every kind of halucinagenic, not to trip him out, but because “You were so stupid it took that kind of blow to knock you out of your habitual perceptions.” I also have fond memories of a friend who was told many times to re-read a small book because he was superimposing his own views on it. It took 27 readings to break the illusion that he knew what the book was about. All this is not just about you, brother, it is just how we as men are. Untill you can break thorough it, the ordinary world as you think it is, is itself the evidence of your thinking on to it. Once you understand experientially that you are doing that, then we can talk.

 

[Detales]

Gotta admire a fighter, Jimmy. I like gumption. And being a defense lawyer can’t be an easy row to hoe.

I know very well what you mean by reading lines, or even books, four or five times, See my last post. And when I read or write, I always have a dictionary on hand and edit my stuff several time befor hitting “send.” (stihl make mistrakes…) I also admire your persistance in slogging through a book when you have to do that. It is my current experience with Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

I can understand your excitement about The Death of Forever. I have not read it, and this is my first hearing about it. I will see if I can find it. I was similarly excited when I slogged through Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. He was an electrcal engineer who lived and worked in California and worked a gold claim here in the more Southern part of the state. Rather different than usual “take” of God on his part, and I’m glad I read the narative of his spiritual journey first.

I like what you said about quantum physics and the quotes from Einstein. One of my favorite things is to watch shows on astronomy, physics, and biology, and see how it is all of a miraculous piece.

Though I do admire the prowess of the fathers and scientists of the Church, I don’t feel that there are “sides” as such. God gave us agency, and I don’t for a minute, myself as a parent, believe that the infinte God doesn’t equally love all his children. I look at all the fragmentation that is in the mental world we have to deal with and find it hard to blame any who are of a different opinion or understanding. That is why we have teleolgy, and I am sure that people get points for sincerity and integrity. I like the idea of transferable patterns.

I also have since childhood had a feeling that goodness is on a different axis, at least in God’s eyes, than religion. If good is done, it is hard, for instance, for a person saved from drowning to determin whether it was a Catholic rescue, Shintoist, Pocomaiac, or even agnostic or atheist. Fact remains the good was done.

There are in any case so many dimensions and factors in personal experience that I, despite my earlier childhood inclinations, feel not much need to convince anyone of my brand of belief. Seems to me that if you are doing good, you are an attractive force. If someond feels that, they might ask you why, and then you have reason to say.

For my part, I will answer if asked, or comment where it is implied that that is the protocol, as on here. My Mentor had a policy; “I will speak if asked, and otherwise remain ordinary in appearance.” Well, he wasn’t that, but it was a good policy, and mostly I follow it. He also prayed, as he lectured often, “That the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart, are acceptable unto You, oh God.” I think that is from a psalm, though I’m sure it is dialected in a rasta tune I like. In any case, it is a very worthy prayer.

Anyway, thanks for your posts, and I will see about that book. Lord save me from the temptation of blowing my wallet on books!

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Thanks for the post Detales. The book is entitled “The Death of Forever” and was written by Darryl Reanney. If you like I’ll happily send it to you when I finish it.

You win. I feel bad now about what I said about the bold Lenny, as believe me, I have been a far greater sinner than he was, and that’s not a throwaway line, but the straightforward honest truth (For another time, but I didn’t get my nickname for nothing)

I couldn’t care less about his drug taking or womanising, been there, done that, in spades. I think what p----d me off was his blasphamous attitude to things in which we believe.

But the fact that JP has a quote from him at the bottom of his posts, pushed me over the edge. I preferred Lenny’s attitude to that guy’s. Talk about delusions of adequacy?

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Hey D, meant to say, like your Schrodringer’s cat. I have no idea how to put images onto my posts, or even a quote.

Here’s an idea to improve on the Schrodinger theory. Take some radioactive material, a Geiger counter and a poison capsule and place them in a box, then, instead of a cat, put JP into … Just kidding

God bless,

J-T-G’S

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

A collosal injustice has been done. I didn’t mean to refer to JP in my posts, but rather to Bed and Breakfast, B&B or whatever his handle is.

Sincere apologies to you JP.

Jimmy Two Guns

 

[Detales]

Hi Jimmy, I have no stake in “winning” as such, as that implies I get something I don’t have, get something from someone that is theirs, or whatever. My understanding of these pages is that it is a teleological excercise wherin we can help each other by creating a “group mind” the irons out its own internal non-sequiturs in order that all its alleged parts can more clearly see. My Mentor taught me this. He never had a stake in anyone’s outcome, he only made us see what we were actually doing from another point of view. It’s kind of like internal triangulation. You can’t tell where you are if you only have one point of view. If you can entertain two you can define a line, three, a plane, and four, space. And of course it all takes place in time.*

“Entertaining” another viewpoint must be something like what you did as a lawyer. You had to consider the internal logic and integrity of the prosecution’s case as if it was actual and as compared to the statutes.** Same with your own. That is two. The jury makes three. The judge, or course, has the viewpoint of his office. ALL of that takes place in the same space, and is impersonally supported by it. When it is all over, there is a decision and an action. The “space” is uneffected, save as a medium of the individual experiences of those in it, who are all, in reductionist terms, “contents of space,” and *as such *are identical.

I don’t think God is effected by our sincere inquiry. He remains intact, lol! As far as Earthly concerns, there are still possible mistakes,*** even in science and the judiciary, as recent DNA evidence has cleared and condemned people incorrectly deemed by the system. So, even the societies of forensic scientists are now meeting to review how they assess and present evidence, as it has been found that both they and lawyers have incorrectly evaluated fragments of evidence. (Listening, JP?) This is part of why I constantly rail against the fragmentary thinking that is so vastly and unconsciously prevalent today.

So even as such a case as a JP or even Lenny Bruce and their mental cohorts are a case in point of mistaken identity, so are we, and it behooves *all *to end the race as did the physically/mentally challenged kids in the Special Olympics when one of the racers fell. They all went back, picked him up, and crossed the finish line together, holding hands. Competition and argumentation have their place in defining and clarifying meaning or encouraging excellence. Yet the underlying Reality is Unity.

*That said, there is yet a special case of spacial self-navigation that operates on an entirely non-spacial premise, but that is another story. Another case of two-in-one.

**Note that you and the opposition were using the *same* statutes! Interesting when it comes to an analogy of arguments here.

***This, of course, is a vast and yet kind understatement.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What a good question. Reading writiers like Raymond Brown, who tend to be more “nuanced and sophisticated” in their understanding of the Scriptures, one is left to wonder.

They tend to explain away OT miracles as teaching stories, allegories, or as intended for audiences who didn’t have a scientific vocabulary capable of explaining phenomena. In other words the OT was written for an ancient people with an ancient mindset.

Wasn’t it ? What use would it have been to them in their situation to use the language & forms of thought of Westerners 2,000-3,000 years later ? What did Israelites know about electricity, depth psychology, or a thousand other things we take for granted & probably don’t even notice ? The books aren’t for us either - there will be readers in the distant future, & they will be equally liable to make our blunder of imagining that the books were written for their most recent readers & not for their first - or indeed for those in the intervening centuries.​

And what has your comment to do with Raymond Brown ?

I have always been curious how that brand of theologian interprets the NT. If nothing supernatural happens in the NT, then it doesn’t make sense. Jesus either rose from the dead or he did not. He either ascended into Heaven or he did not.

Have you ever given any thought to what claims of supernaturality imply ? And why is the supernatural important in the first place ? Is it even a useful category for applying to the Bible at all ?​

I see two possibilities: Either by Chinese whispers and exaggeration Jesus was deified by his followers and those exaggerated stories were recorded. OR, that the gospel accounts we have basically agree because that is they way it happened. There are some minor differences, but they are symbolic (eg Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the plain). I believe the later. We do not hold other historical records up to such scrutiny as to claim for instance that Confucious never existed.

On the contrary, Classical & Ancient Near Eastern scholarships is no stranger to such questions. Similar questions have been asked about Apollonius of Tyana, some of the early Sumerian kings, & others: for instance, were Gilgamesh & Etana real persons ?​

The Bible is being treated no differently from any other ancient text which contains the sort of texts & literatures that it does. Other literatures have talking animals, city-destroying gods, floods, inventions of technology, ascending heroes, heroes who go down to the underworld, divine mountains, etc., etc., as well as the Bible. If the ascent of Etana to heaven on the back of eagle is not a fact - why must the ascension of Jesus be ? It might be - or it might not. Great men attract legends - which remain legend, not fact. What reason is there to assume that the NT is absolutely accurate ? Tacitus, Livy, & Velleius Paterculus are not treated as though they were, but no one thinks they are useless; that would be silly. Why must Luke be differently treated ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, there are only 10 kinds of people in ten world: those who understand binary and those who don’t

Would they understand base 3 ?​

 

[Detales]

It might be a real “trit” to meet someone who does.

 

[JP_Borberg]

And Detales: what’s saddest is that you find an irksome attitude more lamentable than a kid who would deliberately lie to avoid confronting the truth about God.

Let’s just say I don’t think much of your priorities.

I’d like to be as sanguine as Jimmy (btw Jimmy, no offence taken), but I’m not. So if you want to trade pejoratives with me, go ahead, it could be fun even if it isn’t charitable. But before you criticise my attitude again, you should look up ‘condescending’ and ‘pretention’ in a dictionary, have a look in a mirror then read Mat 7:5 and see what the Good Lord has to say about motes and beams.

Thank you for trying to answer my challenges though. Unfortunately you didn’t quite manage. I asked you to prove something, and a list of supposed examples is not a proof.

Still, because you put in the effort, I’ll put in the effort to try and show you why none of your examples even demonstrate the point you were supposed to be proving.

You were supposed to prove:

1. That “our thinking processes themselves are not true to fact, or faulty at best”

I accept that it is possible for people to be mistaken. Yet your statement (and what I am asking you to prove is a direct quote from yourself) implies that our thinking is always faulty. I maintain your belief is false, and that the human intellect can accurately reflect a reality (though not all of it).

1B) Yes, people confuse belief with fact. This doesn’t not mean they cannot not be confused, and people who aren’t confused don’t make this error. Hence it does not support your statement.

1C) Yes, taking unsound theories as fact is another thing people do, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. It is anther example of how people can be wrong. It doesn’t prove that everyone is wrong.

I started with these because they are errors you made in ‘example’ 1A, but you do it all the time in other post. You assert theories as fact because you believe them. I don’t. Hence we disagree. That’s why I wanted proofs, not examples.

I’ll do things in order now.

1A) You assume grammar is artificial. Strong arguments can be made that it is quite natural, and apt at describing nature. While grammar does assume various relationships, it could very well be that the assumptions are correct. You say that yourself that these lead to variances that can lead to incorrect perceptions, which means that the do not necessarily do so. Again, it is a potential source of error, not a necessary source of error.

And Mr Heinlein was a very clever man, but why do you assert his contentious opinion like it was a fact?

1D) Witnesses. Um… Eye witnesses aren’t 100% accurate, therefore “our thinking processes themselves are not true to fact, or faulty at best”. You might want to reconsider that one.

1E) Ok, there was no E

1F) True, people make logical/semantic/grammatical errors. It is also possible to not make errors. That’s what the textbook is trying to teach them.

1G) Your dichotomy is overly simplistic. Did the scholastics, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant base their thought on ‘measure’? Or weren’t they ‘western’? Or do you need to broaden your reading?

1H) There are some things we don’t know about, therefore we can never know the truth? Enough said. (At least we agree on that.)

Second, you were meant to prove:

1. How the “one world view” that acknowledges both ‘is’ AND ‘isn’t’ regarding a single object manages to describe anything real (i.e: something that actually IS).

2A) Photons are NOT ‘demonstrably waves and particles’. They are objects implied by a theory of light, which, depending on what is being observed, exhibit either wave-like or particle-like behaviour. The fact that all objects (yes, even big lumps of matter like us) exhibit wave-like properties while quite obviously not being waves indicates that this shows a limit in our classical concepts of ‘wave’ and ‘particle’. It does NOT show that reality can’t make up its mind.

2B) Autostereograms (or ‘magic pictures’, as you would have it) aren’t something that is and isn’t at the same time. An autostereogram IS an autostereogram, and it is not NOT an autostereogram. And the way the image pops out isn’t magic.

The same with optical illusions. That isn’t a vase and two faces at the same time. It is in fact a picture that is specially designed to look like a vase and two faces at the same time. So it is a picture, and it is not not a picture. Again, your case is not supported.

As for puns, that a word has two meanings does not mean an existent object exists and doesn’t exist.

To conclude:
First up, you should stop thinking you know things. Socrates wisdom was knowing he knew nothing. Second, stop trying to impress me with big words. I am not impressed, and they seem to get in the way of you understanding what you’re writing about, which is another way our ‘thinking processes’ won’t be true to fact.

Am I being condescending now? Probably (after all, it is opinion that is in the eye of the beholder). But it’s also true. Really, ‘example’ 2B shows such a blatant misunderstanding of what things are that I hope you’re actually taking the mickey.

I don’t need anymore of this, thank you. As I said, I asked for proof, and these aren’t even examples. Though if you would like to attempt to actually prove your statements, you’re welcome to have another go.

And don’t kill (a) Buddah. To do so would be terribly un-ecumenical. He is also not a deity.

So let’s not kill truth, either.

Respect.

BTW, the academic year down here starts on Monday, so I’ll probably not have time to reply after that. Especially as one tangled sentence takes at least a paragraph to straighten out.

 

[Detales]

Each herring hangs by its own tail/tale, JP. Thanks for your effort and good luck in academia.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Re D and JP

First, Hi Detales, and thanks for your private email. I’m still trying to work out how to reply. Yes, I know, I know, it must be incredibly easy and anyone with the IQ of a poached egg should be able to work it out; but when I press the reply button, it wants me to send the message you sent back. You’re talking to a man who’s like a bull with a banjo when it comes to things like this.

I just wanted to say to you and JP (btw JP, sorry for putting your initials in my post instead of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, sorry Bed and Breakfast, oh, whatever B&B stands for) anyway what I wanted to say is it is pointless for you two to fence back and forwards in this way (yes, you were fencing too Detales, now, don’t start!) with the occasional cry of “touché” (cut occasional and substitute, very rare) coming from one or tother.

Let me quote the words of a man, who was, in my humble submission, a very clever chap, (almost as clever as you two and way above a humble lawyer) who undoubtedly believed in the NT miracles and swam the Tiber many years ago, when it simply “wasn’t cricket” to do so in England. I speak of John Henry, Cardinal Newman.

“It is very well for educated persons, at their ease, or in the joyous time of youth, to argue and speculate about the impalpableness and versatility of the divine message. it’s chameleon-like changeableness, its adaptation to each fresh mind it meets; but when men are conscious of sin, are sorrowful, are weighed down, are desponding, they ask for something to lean on, something external to themselves, they want something to lean on, holier, diviner, more stable than our own minds. A creed, a creed necessary to salvation they will have; a creed either in Scripture or out of it; and if in Scripture, I say, it must be, from the nature of the case, only indirectly gained from Scripture”.

AND AGAIN.

“Creeds and dogmas live in the idea which they are designed to express, and which alone is substantive; and are necessary only because the human mind cannot reflect upon it, except piecemeal, cannot use it in its oneness and entireness, nor without resolving it into a series of aspects and relations …and thus the Catholic dogmas, are after all, but symbols of the Divine fact, which, far from being compassed by these very propositions, would not be exhausted, nor fathomed by a thousand”

You may feel I’ve gone off the subject rather, talking about dogmas etc, but I merely attempt to point out that the original poster was talking about whether or not the “sophisticated” (HOW I HATE THAT WORD. IT IMMEDIATELY CONJURES UP, AT LEAST TO ME, SOME INCREDIBLY SO-CALLED URBANE, SECULAR MINDED, HEAD RAMMED SO FAR UP HIS OWN BACKSIDE HE CAN TASTE BRYLCREEM, TYPE TWERP) theologians" believe in the NT miracles.

Einstein said “the only thing we can be sure about is we know nothing” Much like JP’s quote re Socrates, stating wisdom was knowing he knew nothing. We all know other great “thinkers” have said similar things. In fact Einstein also said similar things to himself. (I don’t mean he went about saying them to himself, although he may well have, and probably did, 'least first time round. I meant things similar to what he himself had said …)

The fact is it’s all about faith. We are never going to be able to understand, prove or disprove the miracles and I for one couldn’t care a flying fandango if some so called sophisticated theologian believes or not. Let each look to his own soul.

Apologies if you think I’ve shot off at a tangent, and please do not think I’m referrring to those who, by the light of their own understanding and conscience, in the position they find themselves, conduct their lives, living as best they can, according to their conscience or the belief system they were brought up in (We adore Thee O Christ, and we bless Thee, for by Thy holy cross though hast redeemed the world.

I’m talking about so-called (yes, that hyphenated word I like so much) “sophisticated theologians”, and I mean, christian theologians. If a theologian, claiming to be christian, whether uber sophiticated or otherwise, does not believe what Christ told His apostles, and what they tell us, through the Scriptures and the Church, and what we hold to be the truth, i.e. dogma, doctrine, the miracles, etc, then they have chosen not to be in unity with the Catholic Church. It’s all about faith, not unity.

Last word to the Cardinal (who, along with G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, make up my three muskateers. I mean by that, heroes. I’m not D’Artagnan)

“Many a man finds himself unable, though wishing to believe, for he has not evidence enough to subdue his reason. What is to make him believe? The will, his will … the evidence is not his fault … there is quite enough evidence for a moral conviction that the Catholic Church and none other is the voice of God… He will not have, he cannot expect, clearer light before conversion. Certainty, in its highest sense, is the reward of those who, by an act of will, and at the dictate of reason and prudence, embrace the truth, when nature like a coward shrinks. You must make a venture; faith is a venture before a man is a Catholic; it is a gift after it. You approach the Church in the way of reason, you enter into it in the light of the Spirit.”

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Re D and JP

First, Hi Detales, and thanks for your private email. I’m still trying to work out how to reply. Yes, I know, I know, it must be incredibly easy and anyone with the IQ of a poached egg should be able to work it out; but when I press the reply button, it wants me to send the message you sent back. You’re talking to a man who’s like a bull with a banjo when it comes to things like this.

I just wanted to say to you and JP (btw JP, sorry for putting your initials in my post instead of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, sorry Bed and Breakfast, oh, whatever B&B stands for) anyway what I wanted to say is it is pointless for you two to fence back and forwards in this way (yes, you were fencing too Detales, now, don’t start!) with the occasional cry of “touché” (cut occasional and substitute, very rare) coming from one or tother.

Let me quote the words of a man, who was, in my humble submission, a very clever chap, (almost as clever as you two and way above a humble lawyer) who undoubedly believed in the NT miracles and swam the Tiber many years ago, when it simply “wasn’t cricket” to do so in England. I speak of John Henry, Cardinal Newman.

“It is very well for educated persons, at their ease, or in the joyous time of youth, to argue and speculate about the impalpableness and versatility of the divine message. it’s chameleon-like changeableness, its adaptation to each fresh mind it meets; but when men are conscious of sin, are sorrowful, are weighed down, are desponding, they ask for something to lean on, something external to themselves, they want something to lean on, holier, diviner, more stable than our own minds. A creed, a creed necessary to salvation they will have; a creed either in Scripture or out of it; and if in Scripture, I say, it must be, from the nature of the case, only indirectly gained from Scripture”.

AND AGAIN.

“Creeds and dogmas live in the idea which they are designed to express, and which alone is substantive; and are necessary only because the human mind cannot reflect upon it, except piecemeal, cannot use it in its oneness and entireness, nor without resolving it into a series of aspects and relations …and thus the Catholic dogmas, are after all, but symbols of the Divine fact, which, far from being compassed by these very propositions, would not be exhausted, nor fathomed by a thousand”

You may feel I’ve gone off the subject rather, talking about dogmas etc, but I merely attempt to point out that the original poster was talking about whether or not the “sophisticated” (HOW I HATE THAT WORD. IT IMMEDIATELY CONJURES UP, AT LEAST TO ME, SOME INCREDIBLY SO-CALLED URBANE, SECULAR MINDED, HEAD RAMMED SO FAR UP HIS OWN BACKSIDE HE CAN TASTE BRYLCREEM, TYPE TWERP) theologians believe in the NT miracles.

Einstein said “the only thing we can be sure about is we know nothing” Much like JP’s quote re Socrates, stating wisdom was knowing he knew nothing. We all know other great “thinkers” have said similar things. In fact Einstein also said similar things to himself. (I don’t mean he went about saying them to himself, although he may well have, and probably did, 'least first time round. I meant things similar to what he himself had said …)

The fact is it’s all about faith. We are never going to be able to understand, prove or disprove the miracles and I for one couldn’t care a flying fandango if some so called sophisticated theologian believes or not. Let each look to his own soul.

Apologies if you think I’ve shot off at a tangent, and please do not think I’m referrring to those who, by the light of their own understanding and conscience, in the position they find themselves, conduct their lives, living as best they can, according to their conscience or the belief system they were brought up in (We adore thee O Christ, for by thy holy cross though hast redeemed the world.)

I’m talking about so-called (yes, that hyphenated word I like so much) “sophisticated theolgians”, and I mean, christian theologians. If a theologian, claiming to be christian, whether uber sophiticated or otherwise, does not believe what Christ told His apostles, and what they tell us, through the Scriptures and the Church, and what we hold to be the truth, i.e. dogma, doctrine, the miracles, etc, then they have chosen not to be in unity with the Catholic Church. It’s all about faith, not unity.

Last word to the Cardinal (who, along with G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, make up my three muskateers. I mean by that, heroes. I’m not D’Artagnan)

“Many a man finds himself unable, though wishing to believe, for he has not evidence enough to subdue his reason. What is to make him believe? The will, his will … the evidence is not his fault … there is quite enough evidence for a moral conviction that the Catholic Church and none other is the voice of God… He will not have, he cannot expect, clearer light before conversion. Certainty, in its highest sense, is the reward of those who, by an act of will, and at the dictate of reason and prudence, embrace the truth, when nature like a coward shrinks. You must make a venture; faith is a venture before a man is a Catholic; it is a gift after it. You approach the Church in the way of reason, you enter into it in the light of the Spirit.”

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns.

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Jimmy,

Yes, I’m a fencer. My weapon of choice in high school was the saber, followed by Belgian, Italian, and French foils. Epee wasn’t available, else I might have tried that, but my national heritage favors the one I chose, as many Hungarians were Olympic saber medalists.

As I have said before, I’m reasonably sure that I have witnessed extraordinary miracles, as well as the ongoing one of Life itself. And I agree with Einstein that we best stick to knowing that we don’t know, as that way we don’t use “knowledge” as a sheild against understanding. I don’t for a moment believe that God is wooed by logic and intellect, though those are wonderful embelishments if kept in proportion. Feeling, devotion, and action in Love are more what I see as a “Way.”

Nevertheless, I am given a particular kind of inquisitive intellect, and I have been blessed by a variety of experiences that are fuel for questioning. I guess it takes all kinds, eh? But that is why I admire your honesty and convicton in the way of your life, because it includes a simple integrity of tolerance that doesn’t compromise your own understanding and faith. It yet acknowledges that the variety of experience may better be resolved through listening than through aggression, and that God will have His way in the end, regardless. At least that’s how I see it.

I appreciated your quotes, and enjoy your posts.

Bindar Doondat