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.
For discussion of David P. Goldman's writings
asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees.
oao wrote: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.
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.
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.
It's just that no single person gets to define what constitutes "intellectual."
Everyone has criteria in terms of which they decide what is evidence and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't.
This ain't rocket science.
oao wrote: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.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your [Materialistic] philosophy.
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.
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
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 wrote:And you know this how?
No independent outside corroboration... know his is too difficult for you to understand...
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.
oao wrote: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.
by Marcus » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:11 pm
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!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest