I am baffled, please explain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The tap is running.
The engine is running.
The stream is running.
The sap is running.
The candidate is running.
The soccer tournament is running.
The wound is running.
Your nose is running.
The text is running.
The TV program is running.
The operating system is running.
The printer is running.
The movie is running.
The company is running (smoothly.)

Impossible without legs, you say?
I was running out of things to say; thanks for the opportunity to keep this running.
But the cab is waiting with its meter running. If I miss it and with my legs unable to do the running, I will find myself out of the running. I will run along now.
 
An obviously contradictory proposition:
  1. This sentence is not a sentence.
An unintelligible proposition:
  1. Invisible yellow universes taste backwards.
An incoherent proposition:
  1. This truth value of this sentence is false.
I will not give examples from Catholic theology because I think they will be unnecessarily offensive. But, just by hinting at it, if you know what I mean, then you suspect that these propositions exist within Catholic dogma as well. Are we obligated to pretend to “believe” things that seem to be obviously contradictory, incoherent, or unintelligible? From where does this obligation come? Is it derived purely from the credibility of the one proposing the propositions for belief?
You will not offend anyone in saying you do not understand Christian teaching; that’s why we are here.
For sure, if you think Jesus said 1, 2 and/or 3 above, you will have to quote chapter and verse.
 
Is everything staked totally upon the credibility of the one asking you to believe a proposition?
Everything is staked totally upon the credibility of the one “asking you to believe a proposition.” In most cases the ONE making the request is yourself. You trust your own authority and capacity to ascertain whether a proposition is true or not.

The question is whether it is possible to shift the grounds from yourself to another person given very good reasons. I would think, yes, unless you are so smitten by your own infallibility that you cannot rise above it. If you have very good reasons for showing deference to the capacities of another being BECAUSE you know them to be more capable, trustworthy and knowledgeable than you are, what would be the problem with that, in principle?

Reading the words and acts of Jesus, it is quite clear to me that there is no contest with regard to which of us – Jesus or me – is more qualified to make statements with regard to moral or spiritual matters. My goal is to try to understand what he says more clearly, not to claim I have more privileged access to the truth that he did. Clearly, I don’t.

And, neither, by the way, does anyone on this forum or Earth, for that matter. To make a claim that “I know better than he” would be, simply put, nonsensical.
 
Everything is staked totally upon the credibility of the one “asking you to believe a proposition.” In most cases the ONE making the request is yourself. You trust your own authority and capacity to ascertain whether a proposition is true or not.

The question is whether it is possible to shift the grounds from yourself to another person given very good reasons. I would think, yes, unless you are so smitten by your own infallibility that you cannot rise above it. If you have very good reasons for showing deference to the capacities of another being BECAUSE you know them to be more capable, trustworthy and knowledgeable than you are, what would be the problem with that, in principle?

Reading the words and acts of Jesus, it is quite clear to me that there is no contest with regard to which of us – Jesus or me – is more qualified to make statements with regard to moral or spiritual matters. My goal is to try to understand what he says more clearly, not to claim I have more privileged access to the truth that he did. Clearly, I don’t.

And, neither, by the way, does anyone on this forum or Earth, for that matter. To make a claim that “I know better than he” would be, simply put, nonsensical.
I don’t think there is a problem with believing what others tell us in principle. I trust my car mechanic (mostly) to tell me what is wrong with my car and how to fix it. But, my car is not nearly so important as whether a human being is actually God, or whether an organization of mostly western Europeans “speaks with the voice of God.”

Is your trust in Jesus similar to my trust in my car mechanic? Is that warranted? Why? I’m OK with trusting my car mechanic because I will lose only money if he is a liar. I suppose I could lose my life or harm or kill others if he is a particularly vicious liar. However, if Jesus is lying, or the RCC has seriously misrepresented the teachings of Jesus (knowingly or unknowingly) we could be either wasting our lives or incurring eternal punishment, or losing our eternal lives, or any number of nasty alternatives.

Shouldn’t we have some serious justification for believing the teachings of the RCC other than hearsay? I suppose if there were no dubious or extraordinary claims, I might be willing to accept their authority (I do believe in history in general). However, since the claims are so extraordinary or unintelligible (One God is three, also bread, also has a mother, etc) then shouldn’t we demand extraordinary proof from the ones making the claim?
 
An obviously contradictory proposition:
  1. This sentence is not a sentence.
An unintelligible proposition:
  1. Invisible yellow universes taste backwards.
An incoherent proposition:
  1. This truth value of this sentence is false.
I will not give examples from Catholic theology because I think they will be unnecessarily offensive. But, just by hinting at it, if you know what I mean, then you suspect that these propositions exist within Catholic dogma as well. Are we obligated to pretend to “believe” things that seem to be obviously contradictory, incoherent, or unintelligible? From where does this obligation come? Is it derived purely from the credibility of the one proposing the propositions for belief?
We are not obligated to pretend to know the meaning of things we don’t understand. However, it is quite consistent to admit we don’t or can’t understand the meaning of those things, while, at the same time, admitting that our lack of a capacity to determine their truth value does not make them false.

The virtue is called humility and involves an honest assessment of your own state or place in the universe, I am not omniscient, nor do I have an inkling of what that would mean, but that in itself does not preclude me from accepting the possibility that God is omniscient as far as I can understand what the term means.

I am quite comfortable with “unknowing” or not knowing while still admitting the possibility that the unknown can be known by some being or other that has a greater capacity than I do. There is nothing to be gained by posturing to the effect that “Man (or woman) is the measure of all things.” That proposition is most certainly not true.
 
…since the claims are so extraordinary or unintelligible (…God is …bread, …) then shouldn’t we demand extraordinary proof from the ones making the claim?
Read Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre

Video summary here:
youtu.be/P45BHDRA7pU

Seems to me that if the claims were ordinary or easily intelligible the claim would be made that God would not make himself so plain and simple; and if too high and inaccessible God would put himself out of reach.

He chose the best of both - turning the mundane and ordinary into symbols of the inaccessible. That is a consistent and stable theme through all of Judeo-Christian tradition.
 
However, since the claims are so extraordinary or unintelligible (One God is three, also bread, also has a mother, etc) then shouldn’t we demand extraordinary proof from the ones making the claim?
Jesus resurrected from the dead and founded a Church. He gave us ‘extraordinary’ proof.

The problem is that it is too extraordinary for those who demand ‘extraordinary.’

What can I say?

He can’t win for losing. Catch-22.

People refuse to believe the extraordinary claims in the same instance as they demand them.

See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Luke 13:35)
 
lol Thanks. 😃
Looks to me like it’s a man resting his chin on his hands.

Where’s the evidence for the mind?

But let’s do this. I’ll accept that as evidence for the mind, if you accept this as evidence for God’s existence:

http://www.naturepictures.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/beautiful_field_flowers.jpg

It seems odd that folks accept one standard for evidence but deny this same standard for God’s existence.

So, are we agreed, Son? Do both images prove what we want them to prove?
 
Jesus resurrected from the dead and founded a Church. He gave us ‘extraordinary’ proof.

The problem is that it is too extraordinary for those who demand ‘extraordinary.’

What can I say?

He can’t win for losing. Catch-22.

People refuse to believe the extraordinary claims in the same instance as they demand them.

See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Luke 13:35)
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Founding a church is not extraordinary. Human beings have established many religions and cults throughout all periods of history. Resurrection from death would indeed be extraordinary, but allegations of an empty tomb or hearsay accounts of visions of a resurrected Jesus are not enough in my opinion. Precisely why, for instance, do you reject claims of the followers of Islam about the direct inspiration of their prophet’s revelation, but accept the claims about Jesus made by the RCC? Are you “choosing your belief” or is the evidence convincing enough for one but not the other?
 
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Founding a church is not extraordinary.
Ummm…I’m pretty sure Peter means that rising from the dead is pretty extraordinary. Esp. when you predicted you’re going to do it.
 
Resurrection from death would indeed be extraordinary, but allegations of an empty tomb or hearsay accounts of visions of a resurrected Jesus are not enough in my opinion.
Walk us through this.

Firstly, who do you believe lied about this? The alleged witnesses, or the recorders of this incident?
 
We are not obligated to pretend to know the meaning of things we don’t understand. However, it is quite consistent to admit we don’t or can’t understand the meaning of those things, while, at the same time, admitting that our lack of a capacity to determine their truth value does not make them false.

The virtue is called humility and involves an honest assessment of your own state or place in the universe, I am not omniscient, nor do I have an inkling of what that would mean, but that in itself does not preclude me from accepting the possibility that God is omniscient as far as I can understand what the term means.

I am quite comfortable with “unknowing” or not knowing while still admitting the possibility that the unknown can be known by some being or other that has a greater capacity than I do. There is nothing to be gained by posturing to the effect that “Man (or woman) is the measure of all things.” That proposition is most certainly not true.
Say it aint so!!! Would I have to give up the proposition that I am autonomous cause and ruler of myself? That can not and will not happen! :mad:
 
Walk us through this.

Firstly, who do you believe lied about this? The alleged witnesses, or the recorders of this incident?
I am not accusing anyone of knowingly telling lies. And, I am well aware of the apologetic dance regarding the resurrection narrative. I used to be on the other side of it. The problem is that it does too much work. It would justify belief in many different historical claims, including the claims of Islam and Mormonism. Let’s not for now OK? We can’t even seem to figure out whether we choose our beliefs along with many other difficulties. If you want to take me through the resurrection proof discussion you can PM me or direct me to hundreds of similar arguments available everywhere unless you have new evidence. If God himself appeared to you to tell you something not generally alleged by the Church or other Christians, please do share. I will need witnesses and/or video tape please.😉
 
I am not accusing anyone of knowingly telling lies.
So all the people who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were deceived, not lying?

How did this work?
If you want to take me through the resurrection proof discussion you can PM me or direct me to hundreds of similar arguments available everywhere unless you have new evidence.
No, PC. That’s a copout. You need to offer some apologia for your beliefs here.

You cannot assert that the resurrection didn’t happen, then when asked to support your beliefs, claim you don’t wish to discuss.

It ought to be a very simple discussion. Who was deceived? How did this happen?
 
Say it aint so!!! Would I have to give up the proposition that I am autonomous cause and ruler of myself? That can not and will not happen! :mad:
When we insist that our beliefs must conform to our wills we make ourselves into the arbiters of truth.

When we insist that our beliefs must conform to observed reality or reason, we acknowledge with humility that we do not make the truth, it is greater than us, and compels our beliefs.

In my opinion. Could be wrong, like everyone else, always.
 
So all the people who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were deceived, not lying?

How did this work?

No, PC. That’s a copout. You need to offer some apologia for your beliefs here.

You cannot assert that the resurrection didn’t happen, then when asked to support your beliefs, claim you don’t wish to discuss.

It ought to be a very simple discussion. Who was deceived? How did this happen?
Respectfully, I decline. I will offer an opinion. I do not know exactly what happened in 1st century Palestine, and I don’t know what happened in 7th century Arabia, but in neither case do I think that the claims arising from either of those situations should be believed based on the amount and quality of evidence available to me right now.

Besides, if we “choose our beliefs” why would you attempt to persuade me or ask for an argument? You have already chosen your belief, the evidence is irrelevant. Right? (No, I know that’s not right, but if you would like to explain to me why not, I would welcome it, since I don’t choose my beliefs, but am rather compelled to them by evidence).
 
that folks accept one standard for evidence but deny this same standard for God’s existence.
Interesting that you should bring that up. There is far more evidence from the 21st century to prove that Sathiya Say Baba was God than there is for Jesus. Sathiya worked many miracles, including resurrecting from the dead, with many eyewitnesses, its well documented, and there is even video proof. You could have even travelled to India and met him in person. Even though this overwhelming amount of evidence exists, I am more than willing to bet you wont profess your belief in and devout your life to Sathiya Say Baba. You are willing to accept much less and weaker evidence for Jesus though. Why is that?

By the way, referring to your picture, there are natural explanations for why flowers exist and none of them include God.
 
Respectfully, I decline.
Well, that’s as otiose as someone coming here and saying, “The MMR vaccine causes autism” and then when asked to offer evidence for his assertion saying, “Respectfully, I decline. I will simply say that none of us knows what really goes on with vaccines, so I don’t know what happens. But I will continue to say that the MMR causes autism.”
Besides, if we “choose our beliefs” why would you attempt to persuade me or ask for an argument? You have already chosen your belief, the evidence is irrelevant. Right? (No, I know that’s not right, but if you would like to explain to me why not, I would welcome it, since I don’t choose my beliefs, but am rather compelled to them by evidence).
I, too, am compelled by evidence.

That’s why I’m asking for your evidence.

I think you have simply been duped into believing something, but can’t connect the dots when asked.
 
Interesting that you should bring that up. There is far more evidence from the 21st century to prove that Sathiya Say Baba was God than there is for Jesus. Sathiya worked many miracles, including resurrecting from the dead, with many eyewitnesses, its well documented, and there is even video proof. You could have even travelled to India and met him in person. Even though this overwhelming amount of evidence exists, I am more than willing to bet you wont profess your belief in and devout your life to Sathiya Say Baba. Why is that?

By the way, referring to your picture, there are natural explanations for why flowers exist and none of them include God.
Yes, very interesting! One of my former clients was a medical doctor of Indian origin who now teaches at one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world, and he is a devotee of the most recent incarnation of Sathiya Say Baba. He spends 3 months of every year tending to ill children in the poorest slums of India at his own expense. He told me all about this apparently magnificent person.

However, even though my former client is an extremely intelligent, honest, and caring person, I do not accept his religious beliefs as true because I do not have enough evidence. I have not seen any video evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top