The Spock principle

[Spock]

He came down from Heaven in Person, and explained it out to 12 men, whom He then appointed as the leaders of His Church. He was then crucified, died, and rose from the dead, in fulfillment of prophecy.

The Bible exists because some of those men wrote down what they saw and heard, and the Church exists because it has continued from that time until now, teaching what Christ taught them, and administering the Sacraments, just as He told them to do.

Just a farfetched legend. If that is sufficient for you, fine. It is less than sufficient for me.

 

[jmcrae]

Again: “who makes the correct interpretation?”. How do you decide which is the correct interpretation and which is not? Details, please.

1. What does the writer himself say it means?
2. What did the first people who read it (Early Fathers) think it meant?
3. What has the Church been consistently teaching about it, these past 2,000 years?
4. If somebody just came up with it recently, and it contradicts 1-3, then it’s most likely not correct.

 

[Spock]

God didn’t create Hell. Hell exists because there are spiritual beings - people and angels - who don’t love God, or who love themselves more than they love God.

That does not translate to “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity.” I do not “love” God here (cannot love someone whose existence I do not believe in) and I do not feel “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity”… sorry to say, but I don’t feel any of that. If hell is like I feel now, it is pretty good.

 

[jmcrae]

Just a farfetched legend. If that is sufficient for you, fine. It is less than sufficient for me.

And yet, the Bible and the Church indisputable exist - and had to have come from somewhere.

No one has provided any sensible or consistent alternative explanation for their continued existence.

Some say that the Emperor Constantine made the whole thing up to get power over Europe - problem: his mother believed in it, and went to priests who taught her about it, before he was born.

Some people say that Pope Boniface III made the whole thing up, to get power over Europe. Problem: “Boniface the third.” What were the first two doing calling themselves “Pope,” if the Church didn’t even exist, yet?

Problem #2 with both of those: “To get power over Europe.” There are easier ways to get power over Europe - just ask the EU (which is currently running Europe), and the present Pope (who isn’t exactly being listened to in Europe).

 

[Spock]

1. What does the writer himself say it means?
2. What did the first people who read it (Early Fathers) think it meant?
3. What has the Church been consistently teaching about it, these past 2,000 years?
4. If somebody just came up with it recently, and it contradicts 1-3, then it’s most likely not correct.

None of this gives me any clue to my questions. We have no information what the writers themselves meant. We have no clue what the first people thought it meant. The Church’s teaching is not obvious. Even today there is no official “Catholic Annotated Bible”, which would tell us, which verse is literal, and which one is allegorical, and if allegorical, how is it supposed to be interpreted?

Based upon YOUR criteria, any an all interpretations are on equal footing.

 

[jmcrae]

That does not translate to “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity.” I do not “love” God here (cannot love someone whose existence I do not believe in) and I do not feel “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity”… sorry to say, but I don’t feel any of that. If hell is like I feel now, it is pretty good.

I don’t know what Hell is like, nor do I hope to find out - but if you find out that God is love, and that you have rejected Him, would you not feel painful regret? (KInd of like when you suddenly realize, too late, that your mother has been trying to send you a birthday cake, when you thought she was going to nag you so you were avoiding her - except instead of only lasting until you can apologize, it lasts forever).

 

[jmcrae]

None of this gives me any clue to my questions. We have no information what the writers themselves meant.

Have you ever actually sat down and read through the Bible? The writers are continually explaining themselves.

We have no clue what the first people thought it meant.

And again - “take up and read, take up and read.” *

The writings of the Early Fathers are available on-line - Google is your friend.

The Church’s teaching is not obvious.

Seriously? And yet, you have also accused the Church of being too certain of its doctrine, and too dogmatic.

Pick a side.

---

• the quotation is from The Confessions of St. Augustine

 

[Spock]

I don’t know what Hell is like, nor do I hope to find out - but if you find out that God is love, and that you have rejected Him, would you not feel painful regret?

I answered to the poster who said: “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity”. Does not sound like “love” to me.

 

[jmcrae]

I answered to the poster who said: “intolerable, pure torture, infinite loneliness, and doom greater than the greatest sufferings ever endured on earth, and that these pains last for all eternity”. Does not sound like “love” to me.

And Hell doesn’t even come from God anyway, so why would there be anything to do with love in it?

 

[tonyrey]

Sure. That is the only reality we experience.

You are mistaken. We have direct experience only of our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, emotions and decisions. We **infer **the existence of everything else.

That is not “faith”. It is a reasonable conclusion.

**All **conclusions are based on faith in the power of reason! You can’t reach any rational conclusions without it.

The theory of materialism was formulated by human minds and the success of science demonstrates** the power of reason **rather thanthe power of material objects.

 

[vz71]

Always argue on the playing field of you opposition.

Examples:

When talking to a Protestant, don’t ever try to refer to the Cathecism, or try to refer to the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church. These arguments are meaningless to a Protestant. Your only option is to argue based upon Sola Scriptura. Nothing else is convincing to a Protestant.

When arguing with an atheist, never try to bring up the Bible, the sacred tradition, the Cathecism, the infallibility of the Pope, or the authority of the Catholic Church. You only waste your time, and your opponent’s time. If you want to make a convincing argument, use only rational, secular methods. And your starting point should always be fully secular. Otherwise your arguments are wasted. Your conversation partner will not accept it.

You are not only free, but strongly advised to bring up these sources to clarify your position. It is always helpful to have a clear understanding of what you believe in. But don’t think that you delivered an argument, because you did not. Of course I am not naive, and I don’t think that this advise will be followed for a long time. Eventually it will be forgotten, even if it might be followed for a short time. I would like to see this as a “sticky”, to cut down on meaningless posts, but I don’t think this will happen. But as long as I am around, I will refer to it. When I see a post contrary to this principle, I will not go into details, but I will refer to it as a violation of the Spock principle.

So if I am arguing with someone that rejects facts, I should also toss out facts as well?

You must be kidding. No, you should not discard the facts.

Then I believe we can rightfully say you are in violation of your own principle

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The Spock Principle is merely that–your principle, not CAF’s principle. If you want to have one-sided arguments in which no person or group of persons may be cited that don’t already agree with you, then you should start your own forum. But what is the point of having any discussion on those terms?

Also, the pope is not to be negated because he believes in God any more than an atheist must be negated because he doesn’t. Anything that is true, no matter who says it, is right and good and ought to be allowed to be said. And atheists hardly have a corner on truth. Nor does the Church make such a claim for itself, either. It claims that the fullness of truth revealed to us by Christ subsists within it. That’s leaves a lot of room for others to contribute much else for our understanding. I’d like to see any atheist say as much.

:clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Then I believe we can rightfully say you are in violation of your own principle

Ouch!!!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

And Hell doesn’t even come from God anyway, so why would there be anything to do with love in it?

Indeed. Hell is an ABSENCE OF GOD, which one commits to of one’s Own Free Will.

Good Show.

I LOVE the Responses So Far On This Thread!!!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

To respond to your other response to me on God’s benevolence and reasonableness in the Bible… At least you say that you do not “see” those characteristics of God in the Bible. I certainly do see those things. And yes, it is the same Bible. With that said, I can certainly see why you would assume He is not all-good or reasonable. I had jumped to that conclusion before also. This is not the thread to be arguing the points of His omnibenevolence and reasonableness though.

Then who is the one who makes the correct interpretation? And how do you tell the correct interpretation from the incorrect one? I hope you find these questions reasonable.

Those questions are quite reasonable and do deserve answers.

Question #1: I believe it to be the Church. I said “I am not saying the Church makes the correct interpretations” (or something like that) to make a point. I forgot what that point was because this phone does not allow me to easily navigate the pages and see what in context I had it. It was probably because it was besides the point, but I will check it tomorrow (or Monday at the latest) to fill you in on that. Besides, “Saying” and “believing” are two different things. I can “not say” something and still believe it.

Question #2: It is really hard to answer that question with a non-theist. Usually, the wrong interpretation is blatantly obvious. “The first 1 or 2 chapters of Genesis is meant to be a scientific account of the beginning of the universe.” That is undoubtedly not the case not the case. There are some that are just plain obvious. “We are justified by faith and not by works.” But in one place, it says we “are justified by works and not by faith alone.” Sometimes it is not as obvious. “Jesus is not God”. (Note: To avoid argument here, we are just talking about interpretations from the Bible and not actual reality.) That is a major error in interpretation but not so obvious (arguably perhaps) even though He is God. There are some that do not seem obvious at all. “God is not good, reasonable, etc…” This is not the case from the Bible. That is not an easy one to see. I should know. I have been there.

Correct interpretations of Scripture can also be blatantly obvious (Adam caused the Fall of Man), just obvious (the Incarnation), not so obvious (Mary, Queen of Heaven) and does not seem obvious at all (omnibenevolence).

I guess I personally can tell a right one from a wrong one by lots of studying. I may not always know the right one, but I usually (99% of the time) can sense the wrong one unless it is just way beyond my understanding… I just tell my atheist friend to assume the Catholic interpretation is correct. He has no qualms with that. As a matter of fact, he thinks they make more sense.

I am not even sure I did your questions justice with these answers but there it is.

 

[The_Exodus]

No, not really. Some people call it faith that I believe that my car will start in the morning. It is not based on any authority, rather the expectation stemming from past experience. Of course I don’t call it “faith”, I call it “reasonable expectation”. But many believers call everything “faith” for which they do not have ironclad certainty - and I am using their playing field.

Well you have a confused understanding of the Christian notion of faith. I am talking about claims which exceed our experience: that Jesus performed miracles, or that God became man, for instance. Or that there is an afterlife.

spock:

When in turn you refer to John 3:16, you gave me an evidence for your belief, and I understand that this evidence is sufficient for you. Now I ask, is there any other evidence? Suppose you will quote other passages from the Bible. I am still shaking my head, and asking: “do you also have non-biblical evidence?”. You say: “no”. At that point we are at an impasse. If all your evidence is based upon the Bible (or the Cathecism, etc…) then you don’t have evidence which would be meaningful to me.

Yes, you ought to realize that faith has no appeal to anything outside the authority of what the mind believes God has revealed - whether this be Scripture, tradition, etc. You are asking of faith more than what it claims to be. This a straw man you’ve been beating for days now.

I readily concede, as all Christians do, that faith is belief. It is not certain knowledge, and it is not evidence based on experience.

Bad analogy. A better one would be: “I am asking you about the evidence that Jesus performed miracles - evidence outside the Bible”. If you could give me a list of non-biblical evidence, I would be satisfied.

Well, I could give you scientific evidence about the miracles at Lourdes or other examples in Church history, and you could even find them compelling, but where would this get us? No further than “something unexplainable by current science has occured.” You still couldn’t get from that to belief that “the God of the Christian tradition has done this.”

The problem with miracles is that, unless one already has faith, one won’t believe they are evidence of anything. Indeed, one will be skeptical that they even occur, and any reference to historical sources (such as Biblical texts, or even texts outside the Bible - which I’m sure you would not accept anyway, so it is really useless for you to ask for evidence “outside the Bible” if you indicate texts) will immediately be looked at with a dubious eye. But, even if one were to witness a miracle first hand, one may still think he was hallucinating or that his senses deceived him.

In short, faith rests on believing in the authority of God, and that authority alone, as it is perceived by the individual. It is not “sense experience” or certain knowledge, nor does it claim to be. It is simply that: believing that certain things are true, which entails the absence of demonstrative evidence, yet the exclusion of doubt.

 

[Spock]

Then I believe we can rightfully say you are in violation of your own principle

You believe incorrectly. A solipsist might deny the existence of the external world. I would not argue with such a person, I would kick him and see if he still can deny it. Problem solved.

 

[Spock]

To respond to your other response to me on God’s benevolence and reasonableness in the Bible… At least you say that you do not “see” those characteristics of God in the Bible. I certainly do see those things. And yes, it is the same Bible. With that said, I can certainly see why you would assume He is not all-good or reasonable. I had jumped to that conclusion before also. This is not the thread to be arguing the points of His omnibenevolence and reasonableness though.

Agreed.

Those questions are quite reasonable and do deserve answers.

Question #1: I believe it to be the Church. I said “I am not saying the Church makes the correct interpretations” (or something like that) to make a point. I forgot what that point was because this phone does not allow me to easily navigate the pages and see what in context I had it. It was probably because it was besides the point, but I will check it tomorrow (or Monday at the latest) to fill you in on that. Besides, “Saying” and “believing” are two different things. I can “not say” something and still believe it.

Ok. So now you say that only the Church is qualified to interpret the Bible correctly.

Question #2: It is really hard to answer that question with a non-theist. Usually, the wrong interpretation is blatantly obvious. “The first 1 or 2 chapters of Genesis is meant to be a scientific account of the beginning of the universe.” That is undoubtedly not the case not the case. There are some that are just plain obvious. “We are justified by faith and not by works.” But in one place, it says we “are justified by works and not by faith alone.” Sometimes it is not as obvious. “Jesus is not God”. (Note: To avoid argument here, we are just talking about interpretations from the Bible and not actual reality.) That is a major error in interpretation but not so obvious (arguably perhaps) even though He is God. There are some that do not seem obvious at all. “God is not good, reasonable, etc…” This is not the case from the Bible. That is not an easy one to see. I should know. I have been there.

Correct interpretations of Scripture can also be blatantly obvious (Adam caused the Fall of Man), just obvious (the Incarnation), not so obvious (Mary, Queen of Heaven) and does not seem obvious at all (omnibenevolence).

I guess I personally can tell a right one from a wrong one by lots of studying. I may not always know the right one, but I usually (99% of the time) can sense the wrong one unless it is just way beyond my understanding… I just tell my atheist friend to assume the Catholic interpretation is correct. He has no qualms with that. As a matter of fact, he thinks they make more sense.

I am not even sure I did your questions justice with these answers but there it is.

But you tried, and that counts for a lot in my book. I appreciate it.

You quoted two contradictory statements about faith and works. Clearly both of them cannot be right. So which one is right and which one is wrong? Let’s see how to resolve the Bible’s stance on death penalty. The OT says: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”. In the NT Jesus says: “turn the other cheek”, and “do not resist evil”. Contradictory! Now usually the resolution is offered that Jesus overrides the OT. Oops! But Jesus also said: “I came to uphold the law and not to abolish it”. You see, there are many internal contradictions in the Bible, as well as many factually wrong passages.

Now you said that for the time being we are not talking about actual reality. The trouble is that the Bible is supposed to be about actual reality. It is not enough to study the Bible for internal consistency (and it is not consistent, as the examples show), but it must be measured against the actual reality.

I will show you here: (1 Kings 7:23) and (2 Chronicles 4:2) both say this:

He made a bronze altar twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide and ten cubits high. He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Pretty straightforward description of the temple. Do you see where the factual error is? I will tell you. A circle with the diameter of 10 units does not have a circumference of 30 units. And this fact was known in the Biblical times. Now this is usually countered by saying that the Bible is not a “science book”. That is not an excuse to have actual errors in it, especially when the error was known in those times.

The trouble is that the Bible is choke-full of contradictions, scientific absurdities, moral atrocities and plain nonsense. If an atheist points them out, he is accused of cherry-picking, and misinterpreting. If someone so desires, he can “justify” almost anything by picking the “supporting” passages from the Bible.

You say that the Catholic Church is the only one who can interpret the Bible. But the Church does not do it. There is no list of verses which must be taken literally and the ones which must be taken allegorically. That puts the believer and the atheist on an equal footing.

 

[Spock]

Well you have a confused understanding of the Christian notion of faith. I am talking about claims which exceed our experience: that Jesus performed miracles, or that God became man, for instance. Or that there is an afterlife.

I don’t think so. Look at tonyray’s post above. He says that everything is accepted on “faith”, except the existence of our own thoughts. Before you accuse me of having an incorrect understanding, look around in your “camp”.

The problem with miracles is that, unless one already has faith, one won’t believe they are evidence of anything.

Anything? How do you know that? I read the following nonsense so many times, that I am sick and tired of it: “For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is sufficient”. Hogwash!

And when I tell you (in general, not personal) what would I find compelling evidence, then the next accusation comes: “how dare you impose your criteria on God!”. Don’t you see the dishonesty? I hope you do.

 

[Spock]

And Hell doesn’t even come from God anyway, so why would there be anything to do with love in it?

Who created hell? Did not God create everything? Is God not omnipresent - which means that God is everywhere, also in hell? But of course I said that to condemn someone to everlasting torture is not a good way to express God’s love toward that person. That is not how love manifests itself in the circles where I dwell.