Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
- From: macaddicted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (macaddicted)
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:56:11 -0800
snex <xens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 7:59 pm, macaddic...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (macaddicted)
wrote:
snex<x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:22 am, macaddic...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (macaddicted)
wrote:
snex<x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:42 pm, macaddic...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (macaddicted)[snip headers]
wrote:
quit cherry-picking which parts of the bible
to take literally and which parts to not.
Sigh. Didn't we just go through a whole section
on perspicacious reading?
and yet you read the resurrection story
aperspicaciously. gain, you cherry-pick.
At which point I am forced to conclude that either
you are not understanding what I am writing or think
I don't believe what I keep telling you.
If we are just going to keep going in circles there
is no point in continuing.
a simple yes or no will remove any confusion: in your
opinion, was the bodily resurrection of jesus a real
historical event the same way that the delivery of the
gettysburg address was a real historical event?
Yes.
then you do in fact read the gospels, at least that part of
them, perspicaciously.
No. I guess I went through this with Vend in another thread.
Actually I went through this with Pags a few years ago in
regards to Lazarus. What is stated in the bible is not history.
We refer to it as historicity, or relating to an actual event.
It may seem like we are playing word games....
yes, because thats exactly what you are doing.
but words are our tools. There are differing versions of the
crucifixion in scripture, which is "historically" true? Try as
we might we cannot point to one version and say "that one is
true." So we focus on what they are trying to tell us, the
literal sense, that Jesus was ressurected.
and once again we come back to genesis. if you focused on what the
author of genesis was telling you, you would find that he was
relating the story of how
Whoa! I've been trying to get you to understand that in reading
Genesis, especially the pre-history of 1-11, WE DON'T READ IT AS A
GUIDE TO HOW THINGS WERE DONE.
yes, so you keep saying. but you cant seem to offer a coherent reason
as to WHY. thats the issue here. you JUST claimed that you believe the
resurrection because it seems to be the point of what the authors were
trying to convey. but when the author of genesis intends to convey the
how as well as the why, you ignore it. why?
One problem is that you keep skipping back and forth. I'm ignoring it
because Genesis appears quite strongly to borrow from a story that
existed in the ANE prior to the writing of the comparative Genesis text.
But the meaning has changed from an accidental creation resulting from a
battle between the gods to one where a singular (arguably) god creates
the world on purpose. That's why I keep bringing the context up.
the gospels also borrow heavily from pre-existing myths or
philosophical ideas that were floating around at the time (not to
mention the prophecies of the OT). virgin births, turning water to
wine, spiritual realms of perfection, self-sacrifice for redemption,
bodily resurrections - these are found all over the place in myths of
the time. off the top of my head, i cant think of a single unique
aspect of the jesus story that didnt already exist beforehand.
And none of which is news to me.
Hey, you're back. Hope you had a nice weekend. Kept looking for your
post and here it is.
A favor, since we are the only ones in this thread can we take this
offline? My newsreader doesn't rewrap text and fixing everything so that
it's only 80 characters wide is taking almost as long as writing my
responses. Do you mind continuing by email?
then why dont you take this into account when determining whether or
not to believe that the story of jesus' miracles means those miracles
*actually* happened? once again, according to your own methods, you
should treat these stories as allegory, but you do not.
Again, it goes back to historicity vs. modern history. The events
portrayed refer to historical events but aren't history, the same as the
creation myths.
Also, in the Gen. 1-11 texts there have been enough scientific
discoveries, the order of the evolution of the universe, of man, the
lack of flood evidence, to make it clear that we cannot treat this text
as history. This has been clearly stated by the Church, and has been
doctrine since 1942's "Divino Afflante Spititu."
how many scientific discoveries do you need to know that human virgin
births dont happen?
Your assertion. A lack of knowledge is not knowledge of lack.
its amusing when you people say that "human virgins do not give birth
without modern technology" is my mere assertion as if it werent backed
up by sound science. are you not aware how babies get made?
I know the point you were making. I also know why the Jovian satellites
were given their names.
Ultimately believing in miracles requires faith. But (as a supposition)
you have made the statement that virgin births outside modern technology
are impossible. But that opens the possibility that an event happened
that lead to a virgin birth using a technique unknown at the time. Thus
the miracle.
yes, yes, "it was a miracle." but the same can be
said for genesis. give an answer that justifies one but not the other.
Sigh. This is getting tiresome. This is what, the fifth or sixth time
I've gone down this path?
the reason you keep going down this same path is because you keep
walking in circles. try not assuming your conclusions.
No, you are focused on the Gensis stories to the detriment of the other
creation myths.
Gen. 1-11 has been understood to be a special case, trying to set forth
the development of humanity leading up to Abraham.
why wasnt it understood to be a special case until the theory of
evolution? is that just a coincidence?s
It happened with the rise of the modern historical methodology and their
application to scripture. The fact that Darwin's work is contemporary is
a coincidence.
Now listen carefully:
IT'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO PROVIDE A HISTORY, GUIDE OR METHODOLOGY TO HOW
THE UNIVERSE, THE EARTH OR HUMANITY WERE CREATED.
It is, however, trying to tell us THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, ETC.
thats your assertion. you keep repeating it as if repeating it made it
true. but you havent once given a single logical reason to accept it.
Ugh. Not from a scientific method. But the scientific method precludes
the presence of God as an active force, a point I've made repeatedly.
In the same way the ressurection stories tell us that Christ was
ressurected. Now, perhaps you are confused because one tells how but
means why and the other tells why and ignores how. But I am using the
same technique on both. I'm just not getting the answers you seem to
want to foist onto me.
"one tells how but means why and the other tells why and ignores
how..." just listen to yourself. do you realize the mental gymnastics
you are performing here, just to salvage a silly myth? why are you
putting yourself through this? why dont you just admit you are wrong
in your beliefs and amend them? any honest and self-respecting person
would have done so by now had the subject been anything but religion!
I'm applying the same method to different texts and getting different
answers, and somehow this surprises you.
god created the earth and everything in it. why would he relay
those details if thats not what he was trying to tell you?
Honestly that's exactly why I wanted you to look at the Enuma.
or you could just answer the damn question yourself.
I've tried, as late as above.
you keep on switching back and forth between different methods of
interpretation between the two parts of the bible, and you have
absolutely no justification for doing so.
I'm not, which is why I'm not trying to justify anything.
you are. you read genesis metaphorically and you read the gospels
literally.
You can't read the Gospels literally. Even if you can get past the
Synoptic Problem there is a clear difference between the synoptics and
the Johannine gospel. It's a point I hammer on consistently with those
who do try to read the gospels literally (perspicaciously, not literal
sense).
you cant read them *entirely* literally, but you treat the miraculous
claims as literal claims.
Please go back and look for "historicity."
and that has what to do with claims about miracles?
Answered above.
the whole "science contradicts genesis" excuse is made moot by
the fact that you ignore science when it contradicts the
gospels.
1. I don't claim that science contradicts Genesis.
so it doesnt? science is in fact compatible with a 6 day creation 6000
years ago?
No. But then I don't read Genesis as a science text. It has a different
purpose.
so you say, but you have no real arguments to demonstrate this other
than "my church says so." sorry, but your church has no authority over
what the original author intended.
Oy. When did I say that? When did I claim that?
thats all youve been saying! you keep referring me to read church
books and "church tradition."
One book. From Mesopotamia.
Here, try this. I found it on Google. It boils things down:
<http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/
genesis_and_enuma_elish_creation.htm>
It's really short (I promise) and you need to scroll down to get past
the ads.
that is strictly an historical
argument which must adhere to the same standards as any other analysis
of history.
THUS THE NAME HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD.
the historical-critical method, as practiced by actual historians
(rather than religious apologists) requires the use of actual
scientific knowledge. if a document seems accurate on its face but
states something that we know to be scientifically impossible, we
reject the document as accurate on that claim.
Great. What do they do when the object of the history has nothing to do
with science?
the catholic church is
simply throwing this caveat away whenever it contradicts their dogma.
NOTHING will make the catholic church deny the literal bodily
resurrection of jesus. no amount of evidence, no amount of historical
critical methodology, NOTHING. it is dogma and it will be defended no
matter what, just like creationism. pretending to do science and
history when you examine the gospels is just a ruse.
Thus is the nature dogma. But creationism isn't Catholic dogma.
Oh, and your point was actually stronger with the virgin birth.
2. I readily admit that some events that were believed to be
miraculous have proven not to be. I also admit that somethings
that are currently believed to be miracles could at some point
be shown to be from natural causes. The corollary is that events
outside current human understanding could have happened but that
we do not understand how.
why dont you readily admit that some events written about might not
have happened at all? i imagine you entertain that possibility when it
comes to other religions, so why not yours? what makes you think your
beliefs are in any way special?
In the particular case of the ressurection I rely not only on scripture
but on the tradition of my faith.
neither of those are in any way reliable guides to truth.
Define "truth."
"that which is the case." even if we cannot directly access the whole
truth about the universe, we can find methods that approach it within
reasonable limits. science is one of those methods. reading scripture
and relying on tradition are not.
You asked why I don't abandon religion. It's because I do not accept
that humanity can, or ever will, be able to understand all that they
encounter. Again it's the difference between your metaphysics and mine.
you really arent concerned with science at all, so why do you
pretend that you are? why not ditch it altogether and accept
genesis?
"Truth cannot contradict truth."
Pope Leo XIII, "Providentissimus Deus," 1893.
that is true, but it has NEVER been demonstrated that *any* church has
access to any truth.
And it won't be scientifically. But then I don't hold that scientific
truth is the only level of truth available.
it doesnt matter if other truths exist, the question is whether you
can *demonstrate* that they are truths. and you cant.
So now you are saying that only scientifically testable truths are
really true?
only scientifically testable truths (when we are talking about beliefs
involving empirical reality) are worth believing. anything else and
you are no better than tossing darts at a dartboard. had you been born
to muslim parents, youd be in here saying how islam is the one true
faith rather than catholicism. had you been born to creationist
parents, youd be in here arguing for creationism. these things rely on
scripture, tradition, and faith - just like you. scripture, tradition,
and faith are therefore unreliable guides to forming accurate beliefs,
and should be abandoned.
The problem with your response is what do you do when science can't
explain something. And as science changes, as it must with new
discoveries, are the ideas that extended from the original science
discarded?f
all they do is assert, assert, assert. go ahead
and demonstrate that any supernatural teaching of any church is true,
and THEN we can talk about science possibly contradicting it.
If science has come to a conclusion that appears to contradict a
revealed truth then we are required as theologians to look back at how
we arrived at that truth. We are left to either set the issue aside
until more information is available or to rethink what we believed.
That one's been around in one form or another since Trent.
how many times is your church going to go through this until it
realizes that maybe its the entire method of arriving at truth it uses
thats flawed? has your method of arriving at truth ever been tested
for accuracy? why do you buy into a method that hasnt been tested for
accuracy?
So what you are saying is that we shouldn't leave science to the
scientists? Or that scientists are better at metaphysics?
who said anything about metaphysics? we are talking about whether or
not a human being named jesus actually performed miracles in galilee
near the beginning of the common era. that is strictly the domain of
science to decide. the second you start talking about what some guy
did at some place at some time, youre treading on science's toes, not
dealing with metaphysics.
But the modern scientific method didn't exist, so we are left with the
texts we have.
pick whatever metaphysics or moral system you want, but dont sit there
and tell me that catholicism and other flavors of christianity that
require belief in a literal resurrection arent imposing on science.
they are, and they are absolutely 100% not compatible with it.
why? what makes it ok in this case but not in the
case of genesis?
The above is specifically why.
the above isnt in any way a logically coherent justification,
all it amounts to is "because i (or my church) says so." why
dont you try actually thinking for once? use that brain you
assume that god gave you.
Which is why it's always such a joy to correspond with you. ;-)
Relax. If you want to have a conversation I'm obviously available.
you are the one trying to avoid conversation. rather than discuss
things yourself, you just say "go read a book."
One text. Originally written on stone. It's not that long.
rather than explain
why you take a certain position, you just repeat the fact that you
take it.
You keep repeating that I'm using different methods between Genesis and
the NT. I'm trying to tell you I'm not but we seem to be talking past
each other.
you completely are using different methods. every time you offer a
justification for one text, i ask you why you refuse to apply that
same justification to the other.
No really I'm not. I'm not going to read a tragedy from Shakespeare the
same way I do a novel from Hemmingway. But I can use the same literary
interprative methods to understand them in their context.
You are clearly, as often happens, too caught up in Genesis. But why
ignore Job, Proverbs or even the prologue to John? All are or contain
creation stories.
because genesis is the one most relevant to this group and it is the
one i know your opinion on as regards to its literal truth.
But my position is based on understanding that the Genesis myths are not
the only creation stories in the Bible.
and then you wonder why atheists think you are deluded.
I take it as a given that atheists will think that a devout theist is in
SOME way deluded.
we
(atheists) apply the same standards of evidence and reason to all
subjects across the board. we do this because it is a reliable way to
understand things.
Any attempt to justify, say, morality is going to require a
philosophical system.
the idea that one should "justify morality" is absurd. it implies that
you pick some random moral system and then later justify it, even
worse, with an arbitrary philosophical system that also cannot be
tested.
The world waits, with bated breath, your scientifically testable system
of morality.
i have never claimed to have one. and thats why i dont wander through
the aisles at the religion store and pick one that i like and then
later justify my purchase when i get home.
Nor did I.
i make no attempts to justify my behavior or my moral beliefs. i make
no claims as to whether those behaviors or beliefs are "correct" the
way religions do. i simply act how i feel like acting and deal with
the consequences. if the consequences dont turn out the way i wanted,
i dont act the same way again. i dont *need* justification to act in a
way that is considered "morally good." i do it because i feel like it.
and sometimes i feel the opposite and do the opposite. and i sincerely
doubt that you or anybody else does anything differently - you just
pretend that you do because facing the reality that there is no
eternal referee somewhere out there keeping score for everybody is
simply too difficult for you to deal with.
Ok. But your system would allow for any action so long as the person
acting felt that the conclusion was justified to themselves.
why do you pretend that the christian moral system is in any way
superior to any other?
Nice leap. Didn't say it.
you dont need to say it. the fact that youre catholic says it.
catholics, just like most other major religions, think that they
follow the one true god and that they have his commands about moral
behavior written down.
New book, Vatican II's _Lumen Gentium_. Summing up it states that anyone
can actively deny the reality of God and still encounter grace. But now
we're moving into natural law.
theists pick a few arbitrary claims and then refuse
to use any reason or evidence when evaluating them, and then when they
find other theists that obviously reach different conclusions using
these horribly flawed methods, they kill each other over it.
Well the muslims believe the have the words of god. Makes it hard to
talk to them.
and they say the same thing about you. why dont you consider the
possibility that youre both wrong?
Or that we are both right.
thats simply not possible. even if we could say, for the sake of
argument, that you really worship the same god, either *somebody* is
seriously wrong about what he wants, or god is a liar. the muslim god
and the catholic god make very different claims about what is morally
good.
Lumen Gentium again.
why cant
you just admit that your reasoning itself is flawed and abandon it?
Back to "don't believe in a metaphysics based on science."
then what do you believe it based on? whatever it is, i guarantee it
is not reliable.
Don't mistake reliable with repeatable.
repeatability is a key aspect of reliability. besides that, i asked
what your *method* is. if the *method* itself isnt repeatable, then
you dont have a method at all.
It is in the scientific method. But we don't make the claim that Christ
needed to be born multiple times, or ressurected multiple times.
if
you REALLY think any part of christianity is true, then it should
stand up to the same rigorous standards that evolution stands up to
and you should apply them.
Notably limited evidence set for the original claims doesn't make them
false.
then why do you disbelieve in the miraculous claims of all other
religions? they have the exact same evidence as yours.
Again, nice leap. Didn't say it.
you dont need to say it. the fact that youre catholic and not a member
of those other religions says it.
Nope.
that you refuse to apply them indicates
that you probably know that your beliefs arent really true. all you
have to do is admit it to yourself.
Yeah. Not so much.
bs. anybody who 1) truly believes in the empirical and historical
claims of their religion,
FOOSH. Off he slips again.
off where? you believe the claim in a literal resurrection. youve
admitted it.
and 2) understands the power of science to
evaluate empirical and historical claims will apply science to those
claims in order to vindicate them. why do you think i abandoned
catholicism? its claims simply do not stand up to any form of scrutiny
whatsoever.
Again I don't confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism.
which has bollocks to do with the LITERAL BODILY RESURRECTION of
jesus. quit trying to slip out of this one - im not going to let you.
claims about what some historical figure did are not metaphysics.
Again, in the complete absence of anything approaching the modern
scientific method how do we test for it given that it only happened
once?
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Perspective on "we'll win any time now" claims
- Next by Date: Re: Tony! Yoo hoo, Tony! Here are those questions again!
- Previous by thread: Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
- Next by thread: Re: Vatican Declares ToE Compatible With Christianity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
