The recurring question without an answer

[o_mlly]

According to the believers they are ALL God’s unchanging word.

No, that is the fundamentalist’s error. The words are human; the Truth divine. The issues of sacred scripture are not historical fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text.

The fundamentalist’s error imputes God’s Word into every word the author wrote. Catholics do not believe in “verbal inerrancy” because we do not believe God was directly and specially involved in the choice of every single word in the text’s original language or in every subsequent interpretation of that language to another.

While the scribes were principally theologians, I do not believe we can dismiss them as being completely ahistorical. The inspired writers wrote at particular times in which contemporaries could and, presumably would, challenge historical errors in their writings about events occurring within living memory. Exegetes believe the Yahwist epic was compiled during the reign of Solomon or shortly thereafter (950-900 BC) and fixed in writing during the Babylonian Exile (586-539 BC).

So, there is reason to attach a scale of historicity to the Old Testament. The scale would have its highest rating for factual accuracy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity and the reigns of David and Solomon and would descend in accuracy as events moved back in time. Scholars note that in the stories of the Kings of Israel and Judah we find accounts that are much more like histories written by the Romans and Greeks.

 

[o_mlly]

No, I mean those independent lectors , who made sure that the text correctly reflects the events.

As historians, the ancients attempted to explain natural phenomena not by analysis but by action which required they use story or myth. Myth was serious business; they did not intend these stories to be merely entertainment. They were recounting events upon which their very existence depended. Through myth, the ancient historians put order into apparent chaos. The myth or interpretation of reality followed the observation of the natural phenomena. In this respect the myths were a posteriori or induced from prior observations.

Ancient historians, like their modern counterparts, used inductive reasoning. They produced their myths after examining the natural phenomena. If the myth stood the test of coherence and gave meaning to the phenomena, it endured passing from generation to generation. But the sacred writers, unlike their contemporary and our modern historians, used deductive reasoning. Through divine inspiration, the sacred writers had definite knowledge of God’s plan. This knowledge was a priori and independent of Israel’s many traditions, oral or written. From this certainty, using their human faculties, the sacred writers enlisted the available stories, selecting and manipulating them to write the Truth for the people of their times.

Therefore, an important distinction between the secular and sacred historian is the primacy of events and the primacy of meaning. The secular historian, modern or ancient, gives primacy to events and derives from them his or her “truth.” No serious historian would invent or alter events, or ignore controverting facts to prop up a weak hypothesis. Our divinely inspired authors, giving primacy to God’s inspiration, may well have melded and manipulated the traditional histories of Israel to make their Truth tangible. They were theologians first, secular historians second.

 

[Rau]

Self sacrifice can be a noble thing to do. But sacrificing your children because of your moral beliefs is not.

And yet just that may be demanded on moral grounds. Would you think it morally right to follow the terrorists instructions - whatever those may be - to avoid your children’s death? Of course not.

 

[macska]

And yet just that may be demanded on moral grounds.

What kind of “moral grounds”? The one which demands unquestioning submission to some “authority”? Without having some agreement about “morality” questions like this cannot be answered.

Would you think it morally right to follow the terrorists instructions - whatever those may be - to avoid your children’s death?

The significant part is : “whatever those may be”. Since the concept of “absolutes” is rejected, the questions cannot be answered without the specifics.

It might be an interesting topic to discuss just “what” is morality? Though I doubt that it will even take off the ground. There seems to be no common ground at all.

 

[Rau]

The significant part is : “whatever those may be”. Since the concept of “absolutes” is rejected,

You should be clear that “you” reject absolutes. The point remains - one’s accepted moral system may conclude that sacrificing one’s children is the proper course.

 

[macska]

You should be clear that “you” reject absolutes.

Yes, along many others.

The point remains - one’s accepted moral system may conclude that sacrificing one’s children is the proper course.

Yes, it may.

 

[Gorgias]

Any evidence? No? I thought so.

Eyewitness testimony.

Eye-witnesses are supposed to have been living in the same years as the events.

And there are scholars who date the composition of the Gospels within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. (Those who date them as being composed later will generally explain their schemata with the circular argument “Jesus couldn’t have made the His prophecies prior to the events He prophesied, so therefore, the Gospels must have been written later than those events.”)

Since you refer to scholars, remember that the “names” in the Gospels do not refer to actual people.

OK… I’ll play along. How do you reach such a conclusion?

The analysis of the texts point to different authors within every gospel.

Are you claiming multiple authors per Gospel?

No, I mean those independent lectors , who made sure that the text correctly reflects the events.

That’s not a usage of the word “lector” that’s familiar to me. Care to elaborate?

Absence of evidence is ALWAYS a very strong evidence of absence.

Actually, your assertion is a logical fallacy.

What makes your “attitude” even more dishonest is that you dismiss ALL the other religions’ sacred texts as irrelevant.

Nice red herring. That’s neither relevant to the discussion at hand, nor part of the discussion we’ve been having. What’s next? Do you want to ask me why a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks?

 

[macska]

Actually, your assertion is a logical fallacy.

Another empty assertion. And incorrect to boot. The argument from ignorance is to assert that a proposition must be true, because there is no logical refutation for it.

Nice red herring.

It is not a “red herring” to point out that you use a different method to evaluate the “sacred” texts of different religions. None of those texts (Christian, Mormon, Islamic, or otherwise) have and external justification for their alleged veracity.

 

[Gorgias]

Another empty assertion.

Of course. Only your assertions are rational, around here.

And incorrect to boot. The argument from ignorance is to assert that a proposition must be true, because there is no logical refutation for it.

You know what I really like about you? Your fearless and unwavering desire to redefine every term you encounter, to your personal liking.

In all charity, please read up a bit more. “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is literally an expression of one type of the ‘argument from ignorance’ fallacy. (The only time it’s not is when the null hypothesis has been demonstrated.)

It is not a “red herring” to point out that you use a different method to evaluate the “sacred” texts of different religions.

It is when that has nothing to do with the present argument.

 

[macska]

It is when that has nothing to do with the present argument .

It has everything to do with it. You try to use YOUR sacred text to substantiate your position, and discard the same approach by any other religions.

 

[Gorgias]

It has everything to do with it. You try to use YOUR sacred text to substantiate your position, and discard the same approach by any other religions.

When you try to prove a point about physics, must you utilize a biology text to prove your point? Are you acting irrationally if you do not? C’mon, man… just drop the red herring already. It’s not helping your case.

 

[macska]

When you try to prove a point about physics, must you utilize a biology text to prove your point?

When I wish to argue about REALITY, I use reality. Of course I use the appropriate branch of reality - whether it is physics or chemistry or biology. But the epistemological method is always the same.

There is no difference between one religion and another. If the sacred text of one religion is used to substantiate a position, then the same procedure should be acceptable for another claim of another religion.

Maybe you believe that there is some FUNDAMENTAL difference between religions. But there is none, and you cannot present one. Are you familiar with the phrase: “One is ‘six’, the other one is ‘half a dozen’…”? What is the difference between “Bigfoot” and “Nessie”? They are both imaginary beings. Why do we say that? Because there is no evidence for either of them. And that is NOT a fallacy! It is possible that there is a “Bigfoot”, or that “Nessie” is real… but until positive evidence is presented, the belief in these entities remains irrational.

The basic problem for you is that your propositions assume a physical result caused by non-physical causative agents. But since the results manifest themselves in the physical realm (or, really they don’t!) they are subject to empirical verifications. If you would understand and internalize this simple concept, you might be able to participate in a conversation. But until that happens, you are simply not qualified. Oh, and that is NOT an “ad hominem”.

 

[Gorgias]

When I wish to argue about REALITY, I use reality. Of course I use the appropriate branch of reality - whether it is physics or chemistry or biology.

So, when I wish to argue about the truths of the Christian faith as expressed by the Church, I use the appropriate materials, and not inappropriate ones.

There is no difference between one religion and another.

Right. There’s no difference between asserting that God is a Trinity, and Jesus is the incarnate second person of that Trinity, and that there is no god and no reality and all is merely illusion and our goal is to free ourselves from that illusion. Those statements are absolutely identical to each other!

(Seriously… why do you allow yourself to walk right into these situations? Your statements are patently absurd… and yet, you keep on making them! . )

What is the difference between “Bigfoot” and “Nessie”? They are both imaginary beings. Why do we say that? Because there is no evidence for either of them .

Thank you for that assertion! With luck, you’ll be able to follow it to its logical conclusion!
What’s the difference between Bigfoot, Nessie, and God? Bigfoot and Nessie – if they exist – are physical creatures, and therefore, are detectable by empirical methods. Therefore, the lack of empirical evidence begins to speak to a refutation of the claims of their existence. God, on the other hand, is not a physical creature, and therefore, a lack of empirical evidence does not imply that God does not exist. Rather, it merely implies that you’re using the wrong tool in the wrong context. If I attempted to determine your weight with a yardstick, you’d claim I’m a loon. If you attempt to use a lack of empirical evidence to determine that God does not exist… well, if the shoe fits, wear it!

The basic problem for you is that your propositions assume a physical result caused by non-physical causative agents. But since the results manifest themselves in the physical realm (or, really they don’t!) they are subject to empirical verifications. If you would understand and internalize this simple concept

Dude… I totally get that dynamic. Here’s the concept you’re not getting: if I cannot predict with any reliability when or where these manifestations will take place, then my lack of measurements and observations do not constitute evidence of absence. Since we cannot make those kinds of predictions, we therefore do not learn anything about the assertion you wish to make. (After all, if I stand at the top of Mt Everest and attempt to photograph a whale, I cannot thereby conclude that whales do not exist by my lack of success at collecting empirical evidence of them. )

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, and that is NOT an “ad hominem”.

You’re correct. It’s not. It’s just poor logic.

 

[macska]

Dude… I totally get that dynamic. Here’s the concept you’re not getting: if I cannot predict with any reliability when or where these manifestations will take place, then my lack of measurements and observations do not constitute evidence of absence.

This kind of precision could only be demanded for a deterministic process. I would be very happy if a stochastic connection would be shown, with some reasonable probability of success. Say, a 5% correct prediction with an 80% confidence level! (Are you familiar with statistical sampling and stochastic processes?)

However, I can make a 100% correct prediction with a 100% confidence: “no manifestation will EVER take place”. And that is more than sufficient to discard your hypothesis. I asked several times to present your epistemological method, and the only response was: “what would you accept?” What a joke. Why should I solve your problem? Why would I even help you to solve your problem?

Sorry, not interested. The ball is your court. You need to propose an objective epistemological method to support your hypothesis.

 

[Rau]

Adherents to religion rely in part on faith. The ultimate foundations for moral positions they may take rest on beliefs. And the existence of sacred texts (Eg. The Bible) support those beliefs to varying degrees.

It is quite comical and futile to debate the justification for a moral position when one party relies on these beliefs as foundational and the other labels all such foundations as “irrational”.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

But which arguments are jesus arguments that you use??

The ones attributed to him in the Bible!

Like do unto others? But you said that wasnt his!?! I want to know which ones you use that are only from jesus. There must be lots but i havent read a lot of the bible. Thats why im here so people like you who know about this stuff can help me.

 

[Annie]

no manifestation will EVER take place

[Miracle at Lourdes itnessed by atheist Nobel-winning doctor](http://library : Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What …)

Five scientifically examined Eucharistic miracles

I remember that when I was a child, my parents said no to me most of the time. They loved me and understood more about life than I did, and so they often told me no.

I would say that God’s saying no to us could frequently happen more as a result of His knowing more than we can ever hope to know rather than as a result of Hos non-existence.

Just a thought…

 

[Gorgias]

Say, a 5% correct prediction with an 80% confidence level! (Are you familiar with statistical sampling and stochastic processes?)

Yes. Are you familiar with the impossibility of predicting transcendental events with empirical processes?

However, I can make a 100% correct prediction with a 100% confidence : “no manifestation will EVER take place”.

I get that. And, my response is: if your predictions have 0% chance of successfully anticipating anything, then a 100% correct prediction rate of “no success” prove absolutely nothing…!

I asked several times to present your epistemological method, and the only response was: “what would you accept?” What a joke.

I agree. Since you have no reasonable answer, any attempt to engage is fruitless. What a joke your assertions appear to be!

 

[Gorgias]

I want to know which ones you use that are only from jesus. There must be lots

Look at his predictions of his death and resurrection. Those are clearly ones that are solely from him.