Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[Pastaneta]

And you know this how?

By looking at contemporary documents... The Gospels aren't it at all... You can BELIEVE, all it is is a belief. Its not a proof or anything like it.

[Marcus]

. . The Gospels aren't it at all . .

And you know this how?

[oao]

asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees.

Nonsense. There is no holy mission, it's not a matter of just disagreement and why would I want to bother to destroy you or anybody? You're free to believe what you want, no matter how wrong, as long as it does not affect me.

I thought this is a place for intellectual exchanges, but it looks like I was wrong.

The logical implication of your position is that that there no criteria on which to disqualify anything as evidence. Anything goes. I have a strong suspicion that is not how you make decisions in your daily life.

[Marcus]

I thought this is a place for intellectual exchanges, . .
The logical implication of your position is that that there no criteria on which to disqualify anything as evidence.

Oh, it is, it is. It's just that no single person gets to define what constitutes "intellectual."

Nope, not even close. Everyone has criteria in terms of which they decide what is evidence and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't. Some criteria are mutually exclusive, that's all. This ain't rocket science.

Credo ut intelligam . . .

[Michael]

oao

Your arguments put me in mind of those of the celebrated Father Hardouin, who denied the authenticity of almost the whole of the Latin classics. He accepted the works of Plautus, Cicero, Pliny's Natural History, Virgil's Georgics, Horace's Satires and Epistles, as genuine; but he rejected Terence's Plays, Virgil's "Æneid," Horace's Odes, and the Histories of Livy and Tacitus as forgeries of the Dark Ages.

Now, so far as the manuscript evidence goes, there is nothing in it to refute him (and Hardouin had an unrivalled knowledge of the sources), nor is there any reference to any of these works in other classical writers. However, his theory has simply to be stated, to be seen as preposterous.

That is, we have no means of inferring absolutely, that Virgil's episode of Dido, or of the Sibyl, and Horace's "Te quoque mensorem" and "Quem tu Melpomene," belong to that Augustan age, which owes its celebrity chiefly to those poets. Our common-sense, however, believes in their genuineness without any hesitation or reserve, as if it had been demonstrated, and not in proportion to the available evidence in its favour, or the balance of probabilities.

Classical scholars mention Hardouin’s theory as a curiosity; none has even attempted to rebut it.

As in poor Hardouin’s case, great erudition will not compensate for lack of common-sense.

[oao]

Your arguments put me in mind of those of the celebrated Father Hardouin, who denied the authenticity of almost the whole of the Latin classics.

That's your problem.

Now, so far as the manuscript evidence goes, there is nothing in it to refute him (and Hardouin had an unrivalled knowledge of the sources), nor is there any reference to any of these works in other classical writers. However, his theory has simply to be stated, to be seen as preposterous.

Did I deny the authencity of the NT manuscripts (even though nobody knows who exactly wrote them?). It's the authencity of the claims made by them that I question.

We're not having an exchange about literary wors here.

[oao]

Well, calling arguments stupid or trash it's not exactly it, ain't it? I have not.

It's just that no single person gets to define what constitutes "intellectual."

I don't have to define it, it is a concept well-defined by many more illustrious than I.

Everyone has criteria in terms of which they decide what is evidence and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't.

So there are NO general objective criteria, there's only personal preferences? Even so, hope as evidence is certainly not it and it is not I who came up with such objection.

This ain't rocket science.

You betcha. With rocket science you can experiment and either disprove claims or fail to disprove them and must accept them as true until they are disproved. Do that with jesus' resurrection if you can.

[Marcus]

Did I deny the authencity of the NT manuscripts (even though nobody knows who exactly wrote them?). It's the authencity of the claims made by them that I question.

We're not having an exchange about literary wors here.

With rocket science you can experiment and either disprove claims or fail to disprove them and must accept them as true until they are disproved. Do that with jesus' resurrection if you can.

Ummmm . . let's see if I get this: the NT manuscripts were authentically written by someone making authentic claims that are questionable in terms of authenticity? By whose definition of "authentic"? Yours?

Prove Jesus' resurrection? Hell, let's include proving the Exodus and Moses receiving the Ten Commandments at Sinai for good measure. And of course, by "prove," you mean by your definition of [Materialistic] proof—right? And you know that only Materialistic proof constitutes proof how? Rank Fundamentalism.

We're not having an exchange here about much of anything worthwhile . .

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your [Materialistic] philosophy.

***********************

Reading assignment:

Science, Faith & Society by Michael Polanyi

Product Description

In its concern with science as an essentially human enterprise, Science, Faith and Society makes an original and challenging contribution to the philosophy of science. On its appearance in 1946 the book quickly became the focus of controversy.

Polanyi aims to show that science must be understood as a community of inquirers held together by a common faith; science, he argues, is not the use of "scientific method" but rather consists in a discipline imposed by scientists on themselves in the interests of discovering an objective, impersonal truth. That such truth exists and can be found is part of the scientists' faith. Polanyi maintains that both authoritarianism and scepticism, attacking this faith, are attacking science itself.

Understanding the Sick and the Healthy; A View of World, Man, and God by Franz Rosenzweig

Review

Today, more than three-quarters of a century after it was written, the critique of philosophy in this book is what makes it of such great interest. Critique of philosophy has been a central theme of twentieth-century philosophy, and many philosophers have attacked some of the targets that Rosenzweig attacked in his little book.Yet this early attack by a profound religious thinker is far more powerful and far more interesting than most. Like the later Wittgenstein, Rosenzweig contrasts the pretensions of philosophy with the ways in which language ('names of things') is used in the stream of life? —Hilary Putnam, Harvard University
***************
Reader review

Mindful of a postmodernist deconstruction of historical articulations, we live in an epoch with an ethical imperative to recognize and acknowledge that to conceptualize experience is to falsify reality. With the subtitle of Rosenzweig's manuscript, "A View of World, Man, and God," we must realize, both as an ideation and in actuation, that world, man and God are analytical abstractions. It is their relationality that is really real, thus immune to the rationalizations of the human ego.

While we marvel that something exists, rather then nothing, we must not idolize these somethings into an Everything. Our lives are not absolved from radical contingency. The momentous momentum of human life is embedded in multifarious antecedents having multifarious consequences. In the spirit of Franz Rosenzweig, each day of our lives we think anew, the categories of our thought constantly renewed.
****************
—from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The “little book” is noteworthy for the story it tells about a person who becomes paralyzed by philosophical questioning: he cannot walk for fear there is no real “ground”; his eyes won't see for fear all is a dream; his hands won't grasp for lack of any ultimate reason to do so. Rosenzweig explains this paralysis as a result of an unhealthy reaction—characteristic of philosophy—to the human experience of wonder. In moments of awareness of ourselves, of others, of the world, we may be struck by wonder in the midst of life. When we allow life to unfold in time, Rosenzweig suggests, such wonder is resolved on its own: those relations which are the source of our wonder become part and parcel of the actual life we live. But philosophy, Rosenzweig claims, cannot wait for wonder to resolve itself in the course of life. Moreover, in the way that it questions the source of its wonder—“what is this x?”—philosophy ends up removing itself, and the source of its wonder, from the flow of life. Any answers it thereby receives for its questions no longer correspond to the very course of actual life in which alone they would be meaningful.

Treatment for such philosophical paralysis, Rosenzweig claims, is not to be sought in the philosophical pursuit of grounds, but rather in an appeal to common sense. The “healthy” character of common sense, according to Rosenzweig, derives from its inherent trust in the flow of temporal life, and in the language we use to describe the things and persons we encounter within it. Common sense does not ask “what” things are, Rosenzweig suggests, not because it lacks curiosity, but because it recognizes implicitly that all things and persons we encounter in life are part of a course of development in which alone they realize themselves as “what” they are. The patient can only emerge from his paralysis, then, by turning away from the pursuit of essential grounds and regaining that trust that allows him to reclaim his place in the flow of everyday life.

[Pastaneta]

And you know this how?

No independent outside corroboration... know his is too difficult for you to understand...

[Marcus]

And you know this how?

No independent outside corroboration... know his is too difficult for you to understand...

I have no idea what you just said . . .

[oao]

Ummmm . . let's see if I get this: the NT manuscripts were authentically written by someone making authentic claims that are questionable in terms of authenticity? By whose definition of "authentic"? Yours?

You are very good at setting up strawmen and shooting them down. And you know how to twist what I said even though I am sure you know that's the case. Nice try.

Authencity of manuscript does not mean the claims by it are authentic. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. NT is not a fake and the people who wrote it did believe what they wrote, because probably the myth traveled to them and the notion of evidence and corraboration did not exist in those days and the world was full of such myths and people readily believed them because relative to today they lived in a state if ignorance and religion was their attempt to understand the world. A failed attempt, as we now know. So, no, the claims made by NT for jesus have no grounds to stand on.

Prove Jesus' resurrection? Hell, let's include proving the Exodus and Moses receiving the Ten Commandments at Sinai for good measure. And of course, by "prove," you mean by your definition of [Materialistic] proof—right? And you know that only Materialistic proof constitutes proof how? Rank Fundamentalism.

Well, to the extent that evidence for Exodus and Moses is similar to that about jesus, I question it too, particularly when it comes to his talking to god and splitting the sea.

As to proof, you know exactly what is considered persuasive evidence, and you use that daily to make decisions or you would be in serious trouble otherwise. You just use "materialistic" in a pejorative way to eschew accepting it publicly. No matter how much you dismiss it, it's the only thing humans have and each time when they dismiss it they get fooled and in trouble. But one thing I assure you: it's not hope.

[oao]

Reading assignment:

Do you really believe that I engage in this kind of exchanges without being familiar with the arguments offered in your sources? And that I have not considered them?

[oao]

By which I mean I did and they're hardly persuasive.

[Marcus]

As to proof, you know exactly what is considered persuasive evidence, and you use that daily to make decisions or you would be in serious trouble otherwise. You just use "materialistic" in a pejorative way to eschew accepting it publicly. No matter how much you dismiss it, it's the only thing humans have and each time when they dismiss it they get fooled and in trouble. But one thing I assure you: it's not hope.

Yes, I do know what you mean by evidence, nor can I, in terms of your definition of evidence, prove the Resurrection or the Exodus—but you knew that. But I can prove both events occurred using what I call evidence.

And, yes, faith is the substance of hope, and everyone uses it daily.

Finally, you know "it's the only thing humans have" how? If you'll answer that question honestly instead of ducking it, we can end this dog-and-pony show and move on to better things.

[Victor]

by Marcus » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:11 pm

David,

I can read anti-Christian trash lots of places, but that I'm now able to read it associated with First Things is why I cancelled my subscription some months ago. Please tell the guys at the office to save postage by sending me no more offers to subscribe.

Ain't gonna happen,

Re: Cardinal Koch:
by Frodo » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:20 pm

Someone should explain to David that insulting people in order to win them over isn't what is meant by "tough love".Where apathy is the master, all men are slaves!

Forgive me Mr Goldman cause I might be a little off topic but right now with The Body and Blood of Christ in me, I want to talk to sinner vic and your readers may listen if they so chose to!

Ok sinner vic, from what I've read here so far, you win and you were probably right when you said that "IT" was ok for me having stole from the church when I was an altar boy and I must confess that you were also right when you told me that playing Diablo, Warcraft and Age of Empire would be as close as I would get to spiritual reality but when I played Warcraft as The Orgs and destroyed all humans and their churches, I really didn't feel that bad and and for awhile, I almost believed that they really wanted to make me their king and when I saw email address popping up as org., let's just say that "IT" seemed a little weard. To top "IT" ALL, This morning after church when I saw a dog in another room off the chapel and don't try to make me feel better sinner vic by saying something like, "But Victor, "IT" was a beautiful French poodle!" What I'm trying to say sinner vic is that you might really be The Only True God I might ever have known as far as some of these people are concerned. Does that make you feel better?

Victor oh Victor! Why didn't you say that to me yesterday before one of your dead cells spoke to me in a vision.

sinner vic, why don't you also kick me while I'm down, wouldn't that be worth more than just a little laugh?

I'm not laughing at you Victor, one of your dead cell really did talk to me while you were praying this morning which almost brought tears to your eyes. If you only could have seen the vision that I saw Victor, you of all people certainly wouldn't have anymore doubting Thomas thoughts about Jesus truly being The Son of God The Father. Let me try and explain what I saw while Jesus was in the garden praying but I'll never know what He was thinking although what I saw is enough to convince me that He's for real. Anyway, this angels dead cell somehow materialized some of what Jesus was seeing in reality. There was a narrow passage and Jesus was standing in front of "IT" and what He was seeing must have been a LOT worst than what I saw cause His Face looked so sad. He stood there for awhile and then walked back to where He had left a few of His disciples and He saw that they were sleeping so He went back to the garden and prayed on His knees. I asked the angel why He still looked so sad and the angel told the dead cell who told me that He was talking to His Father and then we both knew. In so many words His Father told Him that "IT" was all UP to Him and didn't need to help any of these so called dead cells who didn't know what they were really doing anyway. Jesus stood up again and the Narrow Bloody Hall lite up and Jesus walked in and walked back out and "IT" seemed as if He was really sweating blood and His Face looked very sad indeed. The dead cell told me that Jesus saw and felt all the pain that pass prophets and saints went through for sinners but "IT" was still His choice as to what History Writers say He really went through but this dead cell says that he can find tune the rest for me and I can share "IT" with you Victor if you like?

Forget "IT" sinner vic cause I don't even know if you're telling me the truth right now cause if you were, I would honestly tell you to bury me alive and use all my dead cells as bait if you know what I mean?

Thank you for your time and space again Mr Goldman.

God Bless PeaCE