Opinion and Faith

[Bubba_Switzler]

Truth is a tricky one to discuss because one wrong word in your argument and it’s all over for you.

I would actually consider it far more humble to admit one can never know for sure.

I think it is useful in general, and in this discussion in particular, to distinguish between truth and judgement about truth (i.e. opinion). We use judgement in the absence of certainty and in the humble acknowledgement that we could be wrong.

The problem is not about truth itself. You may not realize but even the most staunch athiest scientistic is on an endeavour to discover truths. They wouldn’t bother, if they didnt think the truth was out there.

I have to disagree with you here. I’ve known quite a number of de facto (if not actual espousing) atheists who are very particular about where they search for truth. They search where the light is best. They reject the idea that there can be truths in subjects for which there can be no definitive evidence or proof. Thus they do not pursue the truth of God but only the truth of atoms, earthworms, and asteroids.

For example…

The only tool we have atm that can work for all humanity is the scientific method because it can be verified. It’s not something(once verified) that is really up to “personal” feelings or experiences. Truth, doesn’t give two hoots about what we want to believe.

That doesn’t mean, as I said that a person cannot find meaning or believe they’ve come across some great truth via a spiritual experience. They can even share it with us. But because they cannot verify it, we cannot use it to manage our global society. And yes, of course this is my opinion.

This is false at one level, true at another. Everything that “we” use to “manage our global society” is of the same character. Scientists do not manage the world; the world is not managed by science.

But the management of the world is characterized by differences of opinion that arise mostly from our different experiences.

And as to the ressurrection of Jesus being an historical event? It is not considered by many historians or theologians of any note to be an historical event. They do not think the writers of the gospels ever intended for the reader to take it as an actual event. They used their cultures writing techniques, history and beliefs to try and get a message to their people. And Yes, that includes christian theologians.

You can find Christian Theologians who will say just about anything but the question is two-fold: is there evidence and what is it? I don’t want to go offtrack on that particular debate but simply use it to illustrate this discussion. The pursuit of truth must always begin with a dispasionate acceptance of the evidence. And then, beyond that, we have to interpolate and extrapolate. Even scientists do that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Can you provide for me some names of theologians and historians that do not consider the resurrection of Christ to be historically significant?

allaboutreligion.org/jesus-seminar.htm

These guys pretty much reject everything miraculous in the Bible.

Let’s not go off on this tangent but simply note that such exist.

 

[jkiernan56]

There is no physical evidence that a man of this name even existed.

Considering the age we live in one cannot base claims made 2000 year ago as true. Especially when there are no documents that are carbon dated, that can show the story was even “physically” written during that time.

Lets get real …

How do you know … that you know … that you know … what you know … ? Huh???

Lets get real and at the starting point … Either Jesus Christ the human being EXISTED in history or He did NOT EXIST in history. Either that is TRUE or NOT TRUE. Irrespective of what I believe - there is OBJECTIVE TRUTH and FACT. I can say that gravity doesn’t exist because I don’t believe in it … that does not change reality. I can say that Socrates did not exist, but that does not change reality. I can say that Jesus Christ did not exist as a human being on earth, but that does not change reality. It doesn’t take FAITH to ascertain from history that a particular person existed in time and space. The existence of the historical Christ is a FACT.

“The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.”

“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Only an irrational person would deny the reality of the historical Jesus of Nazereth … most likely to discredit that there is any validity to its claims. Like the scene in Monty Pithon where the guard had his arms and legs chopped off …

Jesus in History is just as real as I am right now in History … but how do I know that I really exist … but how do I know that I know … that i know … that i know … ??? good grief …

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Please show me where the Church has done this. In every situation that I have investigated, the Church gives official explanations and provides the teaching behind the doctrine.

Here is one thread where I posed a fundamental question without a satisfying answer:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293677

There is a circularity to Catholic authority that one must accept on faith.

Obedience to Christ whether we understand and agree with him or not is good, is it not?

This is certainly an interesting hypothetical. The BIble is filled with individuals who rejected God directly (e.g. Johah) or who argued with God (e.g. Moses). It’s also interesting that Jesus argued with the Pharises on their own terms, not by authority. He shamed them with their own knowledge.

It’s also worth noting that God is not in our faces telling us what to do every moment. Jesus does not sit on the throne in Rome. Why?

Pursuing truth is no guarantee that you will do it well. Personal interpretation is usually errant in some fashion. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Body and is ensouled with the Holy Spirit. When it expresses the gift of these, it is God protecting the message from error. Thus, it is as reliable as God.

See, this is where I see the problem. I have no qualms about admitting my limitations in pursuit of truth. And I have not problems recognizing the “wisdom of crowds”, that a group of people searching for the truth together are more likely to find it. But the dogma of the Catholic Church as Christ’s Body ensouled with the Holy Spirit, and therefore infallible, is a bit too much.

Will we ever understand God fully? Did God ever call His people to each become a theologian? I don’t think it’s very important. He stresses obedience much, much more than learning.

“You can eradicate heresy simply by burning heretics at the stake.” What are you trying to get at?

If erasing heresy is the goal, there are more direct, tried and true methods.

What I was referring to was that the academic community is more likely to carefully consider the findings of a man who has proven consistent rigor and creativity to discover new things than they are to consider the findings of a novice. Likewise those who are recognized to have conducted the most extensive studies of a given subject matter and written substantively and impartially on it are recognized as authorities on the subject more likely to be correct than those who have not.

Agreed. But this is exactly the model I find violated by the CC claim to be infallible. I have not problem with the CC claiming to be more knowledgable.

If the Church DOES have the charism of infallibility, then is its authority on those limited matters not the highest, and thus a perfect complement to the message?

(Obviosly, any infallible source of knowledge can be relied upon to provide the truth.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But it is inconsistent for them to claim that they can do so without error. It is also not logical to deny the Church’s authority if there even was a Church before the Bible was compiled.

I’m with you on that one.

The Church has failed at catechesis for many. However, in my previous post I made the point that God never called His people to become theologians, but rather has always placed more importance on obedience.

Yes, this is a big part of my complaint against the CC for a number of reasons (mostly discussed already). This is a core faith of Catholicism: obey the CC.

Judaism has longevity and some measures of consistency—they retain their cultural heritage and many of their core teachings and traditions. Moreso and through more hardships than any other human community in history, I would wager. This is evidence of God’s work. They lack much theological unity or consistency, however. I’m not an expert on this, but it seems like there is a great diversity of religious traditions and a significant amount of change through the centuries.

True enough,

I did already say this above, but please show me where. Individuals, yes, even whole regions. But where has there ever been a defined doctrine that was not supported by argument by the Church? We’ve always had leaders combating heresies with truth. Surely you’re not proposing to condemn the truth of the Church for the lack of argument of a few?

Yes, see above, and, no, I’m not talking about the odd fellow’s heresies.

And then there is the validity of simple obedience to God’s Truth. Why would you claim that such obedience is not good?

Again, making the distinctions I prevoiusly noted, the question is not of obedience to God or obedience to truth but obedience to other men.

You don’t see what? Are you saying that the Romans reduced access to education and scholarly resources? That would be surprising to me. Are you saying that Jesus and the early Church wanted everyone to be scholars with a Bible in their hands?

No, I’m saying that Jesus engaged people to think about morality and act on simple principles (e.g. “love one another as I have loved you”), not just to memorize the law and perform rituals.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If God tells you one truth, are you ever going to be right if you develop theologies around an idea that contradicts or combats against that truth? No. Thus it is with the Church. God has given us certain truths. There is no point questioning Him, unless you don’t think He’s truthful. Thus we develop our understanding around what has been revealed and guaranteed as truth already. Why would you do it any other way?

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose that God was whispring in Pope Benedict’s ear. The Pope would tell us what God said. But we could not see this occuring. We could only hear what the Pope said. Should we trust him? Given that there are probably thousands of others making the same claim?

This is a problem throughout the Bible. Moses was beside himself when God sent him out. “Why would they listen to me,” he asked God? So God enabled him (Aaron actually) to perform miracles.

We read in Acts that when the Holy Spirit descended at Pentacost there was rushing wind and tongues of flame over everyone’s heads. But I don’t see any tongue of flame over Pope Benedict’s head when I watch him on TV.

Catholics had the first economists—it was formalized through monks and Jesuits. Aside from that, though, Capitalism is just a human label applied to a natural process. How do you think human civilizations got along ever since we started settling down? Barter, trade, division of labor; capitalism is a natural process. It’s ecology as it expresses itself in human civilization.

I’m thinking of capitalism in the more philosophical and moral sense of a system that respects individual choices. It was mostly developed under Protestantism and the Catholic Church, while perhaps owed some credit for early thought on it, has otherwise been late to the game. You can see the evidence of this today in Latin America. There is no natural reason that Latin America should be poorer than North America.

If through human sacrifice the Aztecs perfected certain qualities of sacred obedience, was that worth it? If through human experimentation the Nazi’s discovered some medical breakthroughs (and from what I hear, they did), was it worth it? And here is the most relevant one: if through disobedience to God and committing the first sin Adam learned about evil, learned a lesson about obedience and the cost of sin, or really learned anything at all, was that worth the cost of that disobedience?

All fine extreme examples. But now you are changing the game by comparing consequences.

How, then, would our disobedience of God by rejecting His Truth ever be “worth it” in the sense of being better than obedience to God? That is what it seems like you are saying. Better for some people to be disobedient to God because you never know what they might come up with.

You are presuming, though, that this is a simple matter of a known disobedience of God. What I am suggesting is that the truth of things is not so clear and so it is good that different people explore different possibilities. (Again, I’m not arguing for falsity.)

Would in these instances the learning have been impossible to gain any other way, or could it still have come through a much better avenue?

I think sola scritpura is a farce, absurd on its face. But there is a deeper truth in Protestantism that is lacking in Catholicism. It is why Protestantism is not going away anytime soon. I have not desire to be a Protestant but I do think Catholicism has something to learn from Protestantism.

I do think it is possible for Catholics to do better.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Am I making an accusation? My point is that if the Church was given teaching authority, it would be irresponsible to abdicate its role in favor of telling everyone to figure things out on their own, particularly without proper preparation.

You are posing a false dichotomy. You don’t need authority to teach and you don’t need to obey to learn. People don’t just figure stuff out on their own, they typically survey many sources of knowldege in addition to their own direct experience.

As far as whether the Church was given teaching authority in the first place, aside from the many evidences that it was, we know Christ had teaching authority. Why would he leave his flock to wander on their own, abdicating his teaching authority and role in favor of telling everyone to figure things out on their own, without proper preparation, having only to study those few things that he said were written down? Christ is no shepherd if he did that.

I’m not arguing for sola sciptura. I’m not arguing for the disbandment of the CC.

 

[jkiernan56]

Bubba, I am not trying to take this thread off the tracks. This thread is about Opinion and Faith. While I acknowledge the importance of disquinguishing between the two, it is even more important to note that the Christian Faith rests on the historical event of the resurrection.

Is it possible to discuss Faith and particularly Christian Faith if the person you are trying to have a discussion with denies the historical Jesus? The existence of Jesus is not an object of Faith. Who Jesus is and His Resurrection are a matter of Faith.

I know that the Rocky Mountains or the Grand Canyon exist even though I have not visted there or seen it firsthand. I acknowledge it on the testimony and reliability of others who have witnessed and reported on it.

The irrationality of a person denying the fact of the historical Jesus reminds me of the non-sense of those who deny the reality of the Holocaust - iranholocaustdenial.com/

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba, I am not trying to take this thread off the tracks. This thread is about Opinion and Faith.

You are right, it is, but it’s too particular and important to subsume here. So I started a new thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4732886#post4732886

 

[Dameedna]

True, but IS physical evidence necessary to show historically that someone existed? .

As I said in my post, historians use other more refined methods to attempt to understand what may or may not have happened.

And there are many historians and theologians that have, using these techniques drawn the conclusion that he did exist, but that the stories themselves are not to be taken as a recording of an actual event.

 

[jkiernan56]

As I said in my post, historians use other more refined methods to attempt to understand what may or may not have happened.

And there are many historians and theologians that have, using these techniques drawn the conclusion that he did exist, but that the stories themselves are not to be taken as a recording of an actual event.

Look, we are NOT attempting here to understand the recording of actual events in a persons life … right now I am attempting to discuss the idea of whether or not a particular PERSON existed in time and space here on earth. What they did or didn’t do according to recorded events is not the subject of this discussion with you … I am only focused on one thing - “DID THIS PERSON EXIST AND LIVE ON THE PLANET EARTH”.??? We know that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck did NOT actually live on the earth in human form. I am focusing on whether a HUMAN BEING was alive around the year 33 AD by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Do you understand the question yet?

Because if your answer is that Jesus of Nazareth did not ever exist, then that would be like telling me Mickey Mouse DID exist … that Jesus is a made up cartoon character just like Mickey Mouse … that the story of Jesus was made up by an entity similar to Disney LOL

 

[Dameedna]

That’s the way I and many others have experienced it-that our resistance to the notion of God wasn’t so strictly due to rational motives after all.

This is fair enough if it is what you’ve experienced. There are plenty of people who have faith in a God, and are highly educated about religious and historical matters and do not subscribe to those experiences, nor do they agree with the catholic church.

It is wrong to assume that a recognition of doubt, results in catholic thought.

In Catholic thought there exists in humans a drive to find truth which can be denied but only at our own expense.

And for some-one who desires truth, the end result of that search is not necessarily religion. Even the human desire for truth, can be explained by our biology and evolutionary qualities such as tool-maker and problem solver.

Ie we desire to solve problems, because it enhances our survival, not because there is a “god” pushing us in that direction, but a biological imperative. The idea of “God” gives us a solution to our problem. It does not mean that God actually exists and the drive to find a solution does not mean God exists either.

That drive however, can be used to manipulate people.

At the same time we possess an arrogance of sorts which is out of place, because it causes us to give preferential treatment to our own righteousness, placing it in a position ahead of truth.

It is a shame, that when one is searching for truth and realizes that they don’t have it, that religions pounce on this realization and use it the way they do. Yes, it is very possible to understand that you don’t actually know and it is extremely humbling to come to this awareness. If you place truth, as a higher concept in your life, you are not necessarily going to go down the path of institutionalized christianity.

I have no doubt that a church that has spent 2000 years studying human nature can find a way to use this element of human nature to drive a belief.It is common for a lot of religious teachers to do this(I’ve known quite a few). How on earth could you be so arrogant as to presume you have it figured out?

Then…the religion will tell you that it does have truth. Ironic really.

This is the Catch-22 I referred to, a subtle illness that can be overcome by the hypothetically existing god whom we’ve found to exist if and when we turn to Him with some sincerity and ask, because that act itself is one which runs counter to the very arrogance which detests the act and which opposes God and causes an unnatural separation from Him in the first place.

Either that, or an individual who searches for truth feels genuinely uncomfortable with the nature of the unknown and reverts back to that which give them answers. That does not mean the answers are correct, it just means that it brings them comfort.

And if this sounds too esoteric and all consider your own words that humility should demand that we acknowledge that we just don’t know. Christians agree that that is the correct starting point but that one need not stay there by necessity -that a little more humility before an interiorly existing hunch that “somethin’ bigger” is going on here-that the transcendent *should *exist in some manner primarily perhaps because of an “awesomeness” I detect in myself and the world even amidst the dirt and suffering and mundaneness and even shame of it all.

I think many believers start out with a suspicion something is bigger. This I do not have any problem with at all.

It is the religious claims that come along with that something bigger, that are the problem. It is the “I have the absolute truth” type of comments that smack of a lack of integrity because once you accept the reality of your lack of knowlege and understanding, you will never once again go back to claiming you have any kind of absolute. Rather than a step forward, I think people have moved way too far out of their comfort zone while searching for truth and refuse to continue further.

Anyway, that’s my short version of why I say things like that which you objected to and why I’ve come to agree, after many years of searching in life and various religions that the Catholic thought I alluded to above just happens to be correct.

Well I at least hope you realize that others can go through the same process and draw completely different conclusions. I suspect however that you will assume that any searcher of truth will end up where you are.

It is no different than an athiest saying that the reason an individual believes is because they are ignorant. The athiest, may have at one point believed in a God and when they started on a search for truth THEY realized how ignorant THEY were. So of course, by default any individual who still believes is ignorant. That is human narcisissm at it’s finest. Not all “believers” believe because they are ignorant anymore than all people who doubt do so, because they are arrogant or filled with pride.

I see a lot of manipulation being played out by those that take a human awareness of the mystery of existance and longing for truth and providing them with the answers they seek. I think an individual can get so caught up in the middle of their own experience that they don’t once again take a step back with some humility and continue to question. Maybe they just aren’t ready yet.

 

[Dameedna]

Look, we are NOT attempting here to understand the recording of actual events in a persons life … right now I am attempting to discuss the idea of whether or not a particular PERSON existed in time and space here on earth. What they did or didn’t do according to recorded events is not the subject of this discussion with you … I am only focused on one thing - “DID THIS PERSON EXIST AND LIVE ON THE PLANET EARTH”.??? We know that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck did NOT actually live on the earth in human form. I am focusing on whether a HUMAN BEING was alive around the year 33 AD by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Do you understand the question yet?

I would suggest you actually read what I’ve said, instead of yelling at me.

 

[jkiernan56]

I would suggest you actually read what I’ve said, instead of yelling at me.

Trust me, I have read and re-read what you actually said … and you are denying that the Person named Jesus of Nazareth existed on the earth in history … right now I could care less about what was recorded about what He said or did in His life.

You have placed the story of Jesus on par with Mickey Mouse … a made up character that never existed in reality.

 

[Dameedna]

Trust me, I have read and re-read what you actually said … and you are denying that the Person named Jesus of Nazareth existed on the earth in history … right now I could care less about what was recorded about what He said or did in His life.

Sigh…I have not once denied that he existed. Try again.

 

[jkiernan56]

Sigh…I have not once denied that he existed. Try again.

OK … now I think we are getting somewhere … LOL … thank you for at least engaging me

Now which of the other historical facts of Christ’s life are you also willing to go on the record as NOT being true?

History would agree that Jesus was 1) a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was 2) regarded as a healer, 3) was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate 4) was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

1, 2, 3, or 4? Are all of them are true according to history or are some of them not true in your understanding? Which ones are not true?

 

[jkiernan56]

When I asked you the question “Do you also deny that there was a Person by the name of Christ who was put to death on a cross by the Romans around 33 AD?”, you responded with some of the following:

There is no physical evidence that a man of this name even existed.

Considering the age we live in one cannot base claims made 2000 year ago as true. Especially when there are no documents that are carbon dated, that can show the story was even “physically” written during that time.

Would you believe a map that was drawn up 2000 years ago as fact? Why not? The individuals did not know enough to create a truthful map.
When we say evidence, we mean something that is physical. Ie it can be verified through a scientific method that requires a specific object of study.

There is no physical evidence at all, of Jesus’ existance, anymore than there is physical evidence of a God.

From your responses, it sure does sound to me like someone trying to deny the reality of the existence of Jesus. I’m not trying to pick a fight … just wanted you to see that my objections were legitimate … and were not out of think air … i won’t bring up this issue again … we both acknowledge that there existed a historical Jesus.

 

[Dameedna]

OK … now I think we are getting somewhere … LOL … thank you for at least engaging me

Now which of the other historical facts of Christ’s life are you also willing to go on the record as NOT being true?

There is an event called the Jesus seminar held by theologians and historians much greater than I. They are to a degree trying to determine what Jesus said and what was put into his mouth.

The bible is a book my friend and it is up for debate. It has been for a long time

There is not one “fact” about christs life that has, or ever will be verfified. What an individual in the averge church pew believes, has nothing to do with what actually occured.

What evidence do we have ? Plenty. It does however depend on what you are or are not willing to accept.

 

[jkiernan56]

There is an event called the Jesus seminar held by theologians and historians much greater than I. They are to a degree trying to determine what Jesus said and what was put into his mouth.

The bible is a book my friend and it is up for debate. It has been for a long time

There is not one “fact” about christs life that has, or ever will be verfified. What an individual in the averge church pew believes, has nothing to do with what actually occured.

What evidence do we have ? Plenty. It does however depend on what you are or are not willing to accept.

I am not even asking you to acknowledge specific details in the life of Christ … what He said specifically … or was reported by others that He said specifically … or even what others reported that He specifically did … but rather … things in His life … that are general in nature … such as … was He known as a healer … teacher … that He made alot of enemies with the religious establishment … that He was put to death …