Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[oao]

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.

When I said "prove the resurrection" I meant PRECISELY prove that it occurred, not "prove the resurrection itself", and I meant 'with persuasive evidence". My only claim is that NT, as the only evidence, cannot persuade: it would be a violation of physical laws, many historical analyses of the period and of the events described in NT and of the NT itself demonstrate that it was xtremely unlikely, to understate the case, to have happened. So unless and until better evidence emerges, I treat it as if it did not happen. I do not make strong claims, religionists do.

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

I agree. But substance of hope is not evidence. And faith does not require evidence, BY DEFINITION. As long as these are not confused, it's OK.

In fact, it is a principal argument of mine that it's the psychological convenience of hope that interferes with people's reasoning faculties. It is much harder pyschologically to live based on reason than on faith, but if the latter is allowed to override the former on a systematic basis, it's a recipe for suicide. Last time I looked, the church frowned on that.

Religion has had such a powerful effect over the ages precisely because it helps them to deal with aspects of reality they cannot cope with, such as death, pain, defeat, etc. It's a psychological clutch. But understanding the psychology -- which I do -- does not negate the crucial importance of reason.

Fata morgana in the desert helps psychologically, but unless water is found...

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.

Can you answer honestly the question Is there ANY evidence that will cause you to lose your faith and stop your religious beliefs and, if so, what is it?" It should be easier than having to explain why knowledge and reason is the only tool humans have to survive in the long run".

[Marcus]

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.

Can you answer honestly the question Is there ANY evidence that will cause you to lose your faith and stop your religious beliefs and, if so, what is it?" It should be easier than having to explain why knowledge and reason is the only tool humans have to survive in the long run".

Naughty, naughty . . you bet I can, but I asked first. You show me yours, and then I'll show you mine. You know "it's the only things humans have" how?

I know the answer, do you, and can you admit it?

A blessed First Sunday of Advent to all here who celebrate such . .

[oao]

Incidentally, I would also argue that it is possible to hope without religion.

[Marcus]

Incidentally, I would also argue that it is possible to hope without religion.

You're still playing dodgeball with my question . .

No, it's not possible to hope without religion, and the reason why is apparent in an honest answer to my question . .

[Victor]

Dodgeball . . .
by Marcus » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:43 pm

A blessed First Sunday of Advent to all here who celebrate such . .

Same to you Marcus and all my friends at http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ would also want to offer the same wishes to all of God's Children.

God Bless Peace

[oao]

Well, first, it's not exactly true that you asked first. In fact, I mentioned this question I always pose to religious folk several messages ago. So now is a good opportunity to pose it to you.

2nd, it depends what kind of hope we're talking about. If it's about life after death then you are correct that it cannot exist without faith, although not all those who believe that subscribe to a supernatural god. But if we're talking about more mundane concerns, then hope does not require faith. And in any case I don't think a supernatural monitor is necessary.

And I don't have any problem wishing you a blessed Sunday if you believe that, even if I don't. It's the intention that counts.

[Marcus]

You're a slippery rascal, oao . . you still won't answer my question . .

However, in a spirit of generosity, I'll show you mine: I know that "[materialist evidence] for rationality is not the only thing humans have" by faith.

Now, you show me yours. Once more:

You know that "facts, [If they . . can be assessed and validated/invalidated via evidence and reasoning] is the only thing humans have" how?

And pleeeeeeze . . don't dodge it again . . .

[Jeffrey555]

I'll answer the question
I was asked years ago in a friendly discussion with an atheist what would cause me to stop being a Christian.
I readily answered "If it was proved that the Resurrection of Jesus didn't happen, which at this late date is hard to do"
Buckley, the conservative pundit, answered the same way, and said he would then convert to Judaism if it was proven Christ didn't rise from the dead.

[Marcus]

Truth be told, "they" know Jesus didn't rise/exist/was-who-He-said-He-was in the same way that Christians know the opposite—by faith. But because "they" lack the cajones to admit that "they," exactly like the people they despise and ridicule, are "Faithers" as well, they construct a circumscribed definition of what constitutes proof and then attempt to keep the discussion within the parameters of their faith-based definition.

[oao]

Truth be told, "they" know Jesus didn't rise/exist/was-who-He-said-He-was in the same way that Christians know the opposite—by faith. But because "they" lack the cajones to admit that "they," exactly like the people they despise and ridicule, are "Faithers" as well, they construct a circumscribed definition of what constitutes proof and then attempt to keep the discussion within the parameters of their faith-based definition.

And you call ME naughty?

I never said I KNOW he did not exist!!!!! Don't put words into my mouth. You did that several times, which means you're having a hard time arguing with my real position on the merit.

It is true that neither of us KNOW whether he existed or not, but whether he existed or not is a minor side issue. The real issue is the Christian claims made for him. And for that you don't have persuasive evidence, only faith. People can have faith in anything -- and you don't accept ANYTHING? Muslims believe in Mohammad and Allah on faith--
do you believe in that? Buddhists believe in their gods, do you? Had there not been knowledge and reasoning progress, all you guys would have been at each other throats in the cause of the faith. Hell, the muslims still prove this.

Looks like the there is some criterion by which you decide that some faith is better than another. What is that criterion?

I was asked years ago in a friendly discussion with an atheist what would cause me to stop being a Christian.
I readily answered "If it was proved that the Resurrection of Jesus didn't happen, which at this late date is hard to do"

It is not up to us ro prove that he wasn't god, it is the one who makes the claim to provide the evidence that he was. We did not claim anything, we're only asking for evidence.

By the way, you demand proof to drop your faith knowing full well that it cannot be offered, as you admit. But what is more sensible: to believe in the supernatural in the absence of poof or, to question it? And I am not asking about hope.

THAT is the crux of the matter here: the absence of proof is reason to NOT believe, for you it's just the opposite. Fundamental difference. You say you know without proof, I say without proof I can't know.

[Victor]

God Bless you oao and if you're an atheist, I didn't mean "IT" as an insult so who ever you are and whatever you truly believe in, I hope you find the good that you're searching for and because of what I've been through spiritually I could never lose my Christian Faith or as you might say, what I believe in.

I had written a LOT more but instead, I'll just say that "IT" frightens me that most likely un-intentially, you might be causing some people to send bad waves in various direction which can only bring bad luck to our real world and from my experience evil forces feed on this stuff and trust me when I say, especially when God's Children start thinking that because of a smart man, they've truly lost their so called believing in Christ and I like to think that this is not your intention cause who can truly say that Jesus The Christ is completely without merits and/or the best He deserves is a lower case j.

I know that this might seem like I'm stiring the ashes and worst of all throwing gas on the flames but then again there's no rest for the wicked. Right sinner vic?

Peace

[Frodo]

Incidentally, I would also argue that it is possible to hope without religion.

I hope I win the lottery. I hope there's beer left in the fridge. I hope I haven't missed the bus. I hope it doesn't rain.

[oao]

God Bless you oao and if you're an atheist, I didn't mean "IT" as an insult

None taken. In fact I am not that easy offended as some christians here who trash me but accuse me of doing it.

and because of what I've been through spiritually I could never lose my Christian Faith or as you might say, what I believe in.

I am sorry if you've been through harships. Believe me I too. But we have reacted differently to that. You need an external source for strength, I have an internal one. And I don't look for good in any god. One is not necessary.

You at least admit that you'll stick to faith no matter what. That is a fundamental distinction between humanists and believers, the problem is that some of your brothers claim otherwise.

I'll just say that "IT" frightens me that most likely un-intentially, you might be causing some people to send bad waves in various direction which can only bring bad luck to our real world and from my experience evil forces feed on this stuff and trust me when I say,

That I trust, believe you me. But evil is responsible for evil, not I. Accusing others of "causing" them to do it is wrong and it is that which encourages evil.

I hope I win the lottery. I hope there's beer left in the fridge. I hope I haven't missed the bus. I hope it doesn't rain.

Exactly. Thanks.

[Michael]

I was not implying that you reject the NT texts, but drawing an analogy, based on a huge historical improbability.

The texts of the three synoptic gospels obviously draw on a body of existing material (written or unwritten) that existed in the nascent Christian church and it is equally plain that they were written in a Jewish milieu Equally clearly, John’s gospel draws on a different (non-Pauline) tradition, but existing in the same milieu To the four gospels should be added Revelation/Apocalypse, which is in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, stylistically and linguistically. That is the first difficulty with your argument. At first blush, Christianity appears to belong to the class of mystery religions, centred on a dying and rising god: in other words, a Corn King. The clincher would appear to be the Last Supper, when Jesus, the Corn King, declares bread (i.e.corn to be his body and which became the central rite of Christianity. The difficulty is, not only was such a notion alien to the traditional Judaism of the time; it seems to have been alien to the gospel writers (or their sources) as well, who never exploit the wealth of traditional language and symbolism associated with such cults. Moreover, the wealth of didactic and prophetic teaching that they contain and their enormous stress on the end-times is quite unlike anything to be found in the mystery cults, whose idea of history is entirely cyclic, as becomes a vegetative cult.

The still greater difficulty is that Christianity seems to have been, from the first, highly organized, and with the local overseers (ἐπίσκοποι or πρεσβύτεροι) exercising an absolute, despotic authority over teaching, worship and morals and maintaining a close correspondence with other local communities. This is clear from the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp, among others. Indeed, so vigorous was this discipline that the Romans, who were quite comfortable with the other mystery cults, classified Christianity as a collegium illicitum or criminal organization – The last religious group to be so classified had been the Bacchantes in the 2nd century BCE. It is simply incredible that Paul could have imposed a wholly alien theology on the other communities of apostolic foundation.

It is all quite as implausible as thinking of the polished, Epicurian poetry of Horace’s Odes, or the Palace of King Latinus as the products of a Carolingian monastic imagination. Yes, the Dark Ages could produce great poetry (I love Alcuin and Paul the Deacon), but it is utterly unlike the products of the Augustine Age. Similarly, the gospels and Apocalypse are utterly unlike the products of Hellenic religion.

That leaves us with a formidable question; how do we account for the remarkable history, not of “Christianity,” as an idea, but of the same highly-organized, dogmatic and liturgical corporate body that we call the Church, from (at least) the early years of the 2nd century, down to our own day? Whatever doubts we might have about a man’s title deeds, we should accept them as authentic, if he could show sasine of the land.

[Marcus]

It is true that neither of us KNOW whether he existed or not,

No, that is not true, it’s only half true—it is true that you don’t know whether Jesus existed or not because your criteria for knowing precludes the possibility of your knowing. But that is not true for me because my criteria for knowing is not your criteria for knowing.

You believe (read “have faith that") your way of knowing is the only way and the right way. Such a belief constitutes a world-view, a “religion” if you will, which you embrace by faith. Your religion is not my religion.

You can sit there until the cows come home in an effort to get me to accept your definition of knowing, but it ain’t gonna happen.. Your way of knowing precludes my definition of knowledge, and my way of knowing precludes yours. There is no common ground.

I Never Saw a Moor

I never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.

—Emily Dickinson