T
Tomdstone
Guest
Are you sure? Adam and Eve were not fallen, and yet they still committed a mortal sin of disobedience by eating a forbidden apple.
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Philosophy, being the love of wisdom, encompasses all subjects.We were talking philosophy, not math.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That would be because it is qualitatively better to be a free moral agent than an automaton, a jellyfish, an amoeba, a chunk of rock or the apple that got eaten, I suppose.
Being a free moral agent implies the capacity to make decisions unencumbered by causal determinants. We are not just pawns in a game of life, but players that can make a difference. An aspect of ‘the weight of glory:’ the dignity of having the capacity to actually love as a live choice and the “weight” of having to live with our choices.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
It does indeed, because mathematics is a form of logic, and logic belongs to philosophy, not to science. But then science also belongs to philosophy because you cannot do science without logic.
My question though is this:
How do you express the Golden Rule as a mathematical equation?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Word problems were a bit difficult for me, but how about:
x = y
m(x+n) = m(y+n)
It doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Word problems were a bit difficult for me, but how about:
x = y
m(x+n) = m(y+n)
It doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You just need an authoritative voice reading it in KJV styled language.Word problems were a bit difficult for me, but how about:
x = y
m(x+n) = m(y+n)
It doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it.
Do ye unto x as ye would have done unto y.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Would I deny that this passage implies Jesu set up a water station at the Feast of Tabernacles and was providling * his listeners with water merely because he said “…come to me and drink?” Yes.
Do I deny that those who believe in Jesu will have water gushing out of their hearts like a fountain? Yep, again.
What Jesu said in both instances is true, but only true in an allegorical or analogical, not literal, sense. The question is “What is that ‘true’ sense in which his words were intended?”
Ditto for “ascended into Heaven” and “sits at the right hand of the Father.” In what sense are these true, if NOT literally?*
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
In everything, one sees what one knows.
In the natural sciences, we begin to understand the structure of nature once we have developed a theory.
Things don’t quite make sense and there are many possible explanations until one gets the main point that ties them all together.
When we are discussing scripture and its meaning, we are essentially talking about one important aspect of what is a relationship between an individual, as part of a religious community, and a personal God.
It is as part of that relationship that God speaks to us through scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and bears the responsibility of being the soul of humanity.
We pray that we ourselves along with the religious, the priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope be guided by the Holy Spirit.
That is the Authority - God Himself, to whom we pray to illuminate us.
I do not see metaphors, I listen, pray and meditate on what I hear.
This is as part of a life dedicated to doing God’s will.
Anyone who chooses to do likewise, will ultimately hear the word of God.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
There is no vicious circle here. I don’t know why you see one.
The Catholic Church selected the books of the Bible with infallible authority. If these books are not infallibly true, then where are they false?: Do Protestants ever say they are false? No, but they do say they are not infallibly true. They have to say that because they believe the Church that selected them is not infallible, and therefore the books may not be infallible.
So then the domino is tipped over, and all the other dominoes fall in turn as thousands of Protestant sects imagine they have the truth; but the Church that gave them the “truth” cannot possibly have the truth and has probably perverted it beyond recognition.
Go figure.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The reason there is no vicious circle is because the Church does NOT assert that it is “this passage” gives the Church authority. What the Church asserts is that Jesus Christ gave the Church authority through Peter and apostolic succession. In other words, Jesus bestowed authority on his twelve closest followers by imparting upon them the Holy Spirit to a special degree. The Church is a living corpus of believers beginning with the initial twelve. This is the reason Jesus bothered to form them for three years to get them ready to fulfill the mission he had designated for them - to “build his Church.”
The Gospels are the definitive records of Jesus’ words and works to corroborate and guide the living witness of the Church, but Scripture does not “give the Church authority” because Jesus, God himself, directly did so. In fact, the Church had the authority to determine which writings were the authoritative and true representations of Jesus’ life and teaching.
It may be true that the passage of Scripture attests to the Church’s authority to interpret Scripture, but it is incorrect to say the passage is what gives the Church authority - Jesus did that - live and in person.
Atheists can choose not to believe that, but their lack of purchase does not make what happened 2000 years ago untrue.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Interestingly - and coincidentally - today’s first reading was a passage from Isaiah:
Not only does this pertain to our discussion of how the word “high” ought to be interpreted in Scripture, but it also puts to rest your inclination to use the “atheist” as the arbiter for truth.
Notice, first of all, that God’s thoughts and ways are described as “high;” in fact, “high” relative to physical realities - heaven and earth. Does that imply his thoughts and ways are physical in nature and exist somewhere “up there?” No, clearly, this is an analogy, and contrary to Bradski’s contention that people “back then” took things literally, there seems to be a presumption that “higher” was being used as a metaphor, since it doesn’t make literal sense for thoughts and ways to be “higher” in the same way as the heavens are above the earth.
I am certain that there were atheists and fundamentalists in the crowd who would have dismissed Isaiah as a kook for making such a confusing metaphor - one they wouldn’t know whether to take literally or figuratively - but, Isaiah clearly knew about which he spoke.
Secondly, why is there a need to rely on atheists to determine - with no confusion on their part - whether words of Scripture ought to be metaphorically or literally understood?
Isaiah is addressing those who think their own thoughts are the definitive ones regarding God and he is putting things into perspective for them. I.e., “Atheist, what you think to be true about God’s ways and thoughts are so ridiculously off base that you cannot even fathom how far off. God’s thoughts are comparatively and analogically higher above your measly thoughts than the heavens are above the earth.”
Recall, that if God inspired Isaiah to speak these words then presumably HE would have known precisely how high the heavens extended into space “above” the earth and those know-it-alls back then really didn’t have a clue (lacking observatories, radio telescopes, etc.)
The message, then as today, is that before we go subjecting God’s thoughts and ways to atheist scrutiny, we ought to contemplate what this passage is really saying. Human beings do not have the slightest inkling into the nature of God’s thoughts and ways.
Better trust someone like Socrates…
“At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.” [Apology 21d]
…than anyone who thinks their level of knowledge endows them with the competence and means by which to assess God’s thoughts and ways.
Whether particular passages of Scripture ought to be read metaphorically or literally is an open question, but it is not correct to conclude that because it is an open question we have warrant for dismissing Scripture outright merely because we cannot easily determine the question.
In fact, it is in finely and deeply considering the question that perhaps we get small but oblique glimpses into the ways and thoughts of God. At no time, however, ought we to think ourselves competent to proclaim, “Well it’s all just nonsense anyway because I can’t make heads or tails of it!” Whoever claimed that we had the wherewithal to make judgements on the thoughts and ways of God to begin with? Isaiah’s words should be indelibly etched into our frontal lobes lest we get too uppity concerning the determinations we can legitimately make.
My :twocents:
I
inocente
Guest
This began when you linked a highly technical paper, apparently in support of a claim that words in the bible don’t have their obvious and usual meaning, but are a sophisticated code which only a tiny elect have the magnificent intellect to decipher.
Please tell me that’s not what you’re claiming.
I
inocente
Guest
When you go to sleep, you’re visiting the Land of Nod, just to the east of Eden
.But while I agree to some extent, salvation cannot depend in any way, shape or form on education or intellect. Christ did not die for the chattering classes alone. ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me’. ‘Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine’.
In terms of the thread, viewing the world through scholastic terminology isn’t the only way to be rational. Artists, poets, and subsistence farmers can be rational too. Imho.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
First, you tell me what you think I’m claiming and then I’ll tell you whether that IS what I am claiming.
There is a reason why there are “doctors” of the Church and why bodies of knowledge, such as physics, biology, medicine, and even theology exist. Knowledge can be obtuse and difficult to grasp - that is the nature of reality.
Knowing what is necessary to be saved and why is a different matter than being saved.
It is possible to know all the ins and outs of theology and still not meet what is necessary to be saved because knowing is not necessarily doing.
The hearers are the ones who listen and either get it or don’t, but the doers are the ones who follow through, whether they fully grasp the intricacies or not.
That, however, does not preclude someone from fully understanding the historical, theological or philosophical concepts behind salvation from being saved. It is not necessary to be a simpleton to be saved, although being saved is within the means of the most simple, largely because what is required is a gift from God. As long as your intelligence does not get in the way of grace being effectual, there is NO reason for even Mensa types NOT to be saved.
Again, what is your point?
By the way, I am not sure what “usual” or “obvious” means relative to words in the Bible. Many words in the Bible are charged with meaning at many levels and those words create powerful expectations and obligations on the part of readers. For this reason, those “obvious” and “usual” meanings are twisted in hundreds of different ways, otherwise known as “interpretation.”
Are you denying this occurs?
Witness the tens of thousands of different denominations extant, each with their own subtle “take” on those "usual’ and “obvious” meanings. Your own “spin” on Paul’s words is an example of this.
Granted, I think the Catholic Church does insist on the most “usual” and “obvious” meanings, but many - for a multitude of reasonings - disagree with her. When I read Scripture it is inevitably the most obvious and likely meaning that I find agrees with the Church - it is resisting trying to change those meanings to better suit my own desires and broken will that I find to be the challenge. The Church clearly has it right, but is required to propose all kinds of explanatory addenda in order to address the rationalizations of those who take their own incorrect interpretations to be Gospel.
Witness, for example, the large number of heresies that made their appearance in the first few centuries, each of which made it incumbent on the Church to “unpack” her teachings in terms of the subtle details and intricacies that needed to be explained to counter the heresies. Had those heretical individuals accepted as put forth the clear teaching of the Church, there would have been no need to explicate in such fine detail.
Again the “sophisticated” article, which you point to in your post, was written, largely, I think to address those who deny the truth of Catholicism, or the classical theism that is clearly implied in Church doctrine, by raising objections to the possibility of the eternality or simplicity of God or have misconceptions concerning what that implies.
Furthermore, there are those of us who appreciate the subtle, substantial and extensive beauty of the truth - that it isn’t just skin deep, but profoundly and unfathomably so. God’s treasure house is vast and deep. Some are okay with skimming the surface, others are deep sea divers, I think God is fine with both and everything in between. His power to save extends to all.
Why would you want to insist that everyone ought to live as water striders, barely touching the meniscus of knowledge of God? Perhaps you are afraid of finding something that “disagrees” with you, your ways or your thoughts?
You love to quote Paul, well…
I
inocente
Guest
I like Pre-Raphaelite art, which is chock full of symbolism, so I full-well understand allegory and metaphor.The point you may be missing is that where the soul goes (you claim “in space”) and waits (you claim “in time”) may be not literal (univocal) terms but analogical terms.
In the same sense that the word “see” might be used both to describe what I do when I experience a sunset as when I grasp a concept. “I see what you mean,” has its own meaning - to apprehend with one’s mind that is a manner of “seeing” similar to, but not exactly the same as perceiving with eyes is a manner of “seeing.” They need not be identical kinds of “seeing” to both be meaningful ways of “seeing.”
Merely because the use of “goes” and “awaits” are not intended to have literal physical implications does not make the ideas behind them incomprehensible - except, perhaps, to fundamentalists who can’t get past concrete or literalistic world views.
Surely, if I say, “You can’t be blind to this possibility?” you aren’t compelled to take that I mean to imply you are physically blind, do you?
Likewise, the authors of the soul “going to meet God” and “awaiting a resurrected body” aren’t doing anything more complicated or obtuse than my asking why you can’t “see” my meaning. The question to be asked is: Why are you insisting that their using words in that way is so confusing to you when we do it all the time in normal conversation? CS Lewis has a brilliant expose of literalism in one of his books - Mere Christianity, I think.
In the case of the soul “going” somewhere, a physical location need not be implied if the idea is intended as an analog of traveling. “Awaiting” need not mean “in time” except to convey the idea of suspension from time.
Again, Feser offers an instructive lesson in how we need NOT be committed to taking things literally in order to affirm the truth of things.
I gave an example earlier - 'suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind’. Sure, you can interpret it as analogy or symbolism if you’re skeptical that Elijah really existed or really went to heaven in a whirlwind, but what then of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection? Where do you stop?
If taking something literally seems fanciful and there’s an unforced allegorical meaning to a passage then fine, but when faced with a choice between taking bible writers at their word or reinterpreting them for the sake of compatibility with some philosopher, in or outside the blogging fraternity, methinks scripture wins every time.
I
inocente
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
The logical foundations of modern knowledge are to be found in Greek philosophy:
Aristotle: Metaphysics classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html
A
Aloysium
Guest
Depending on how tiny an elect you are talking about, I may qualify as having a magnificent intellect;
and, since I am being spoken about, I feel compelled to respond.
I suppose it serves as evidence against my claim, but I couldn’t find what link you were referring to.
Seriously though, I wanted to throw in my two cents:
God speaks through scripture. He speaks through people and events, but in scripture we see the Word’s presence in history preparing for His coming as one of us.
That is the key to the code, the password to get past the encryption is “Jesus”.
It doesn’t take any more intellect to know Him through the teachings of the Church than it takes to read.
Being smart is probably a draw-back actually, giving the person too much confidence in their own opinion.
What is more important than the degree of intellect is the grace, the capacity to accept revelation. One embarks on the Road towards God by trusting and acting on His word.
Enter “Jesus”, and what is revealed in scripture from the beginning to the end is that we are meant to be in the same loving filial relationship that exists between the Father and the Son.
That is why and how we are created. Through us the Word enters into His creation, and brings it all into loving communion with our Creator. We failed to accept the original offer, thereby damaging, on our side, that relationship with the Source of truth, beauty, goodness and life. Sin spread throughout mankind, but in Noah, Abraham and Isaac, Moses and the Jewish people, when asked again, we demonstrated our determination to love.
When one is trying to sort out whether the words are idioms, metaphors, or analogies, whether the story is an allegory, clearly at that point, communication, the contact with the speaker has been broken.
If one approaches scripture as merely a historical text, or as science, or as anthropology, or myth, excluding God, one will only understand it as a confused mishmash of contradictory and outlandish stories and beliefs held by primitive irrational people.
If one, as part of His Church I would add (although it may be misunderstood), listens for God’s voice, it is totally, utterly different.
Scripture and other teachings may not play a role in everyone’s journey to God. However, there are billions of people who have come to know and love God this way.
- Status