Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[charleston]

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

and then, you cannot convince the schizophrenic that he is in fact not Napoleon~because he KNOWS

[PatrickMurphy]

A question for "oao":

Is there a spirit realm?

Another way of asking the same question: Is it possible that another dimension of reality exists, that overlaps our own? (That is, a parallel realm occupied by sentient beings who are capable of crossing into our own, even if we can't cross over into theirs.)

[oao]

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.

My critria for knowing is evidence. Your "criteria for knowing" is faith. You are trying to convince me that the two criteria are equivalent, or at least equally effective. I am saying you DK you believe, which you equate with 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.

A worldview is not a religion. A religion invokes the supernatural and is not concerned with whether and how well it fits reality or predicts it or explicates it. It explains everything by god's will and sins, BY DEFINITION. A worldview can be disproved by evidence, a religion can't.

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.

Oh, you flatter yourself. I don't care one bit or another whether you accept reality or not and I am old enough to know that changing the mind of believers is a lost cause: their identity is warpped up in the faith and they don't have the strength to live without it.

What I say here is purely for the record and to prevent the notion that what believers say here has no response. I remind you that my initial contribution was a reaction to Spengler comment of the importance of "why Jesus died". To the extent that he lived and died on a cross, it was because he challenged Roman authority by inducing jews to resist the occupation and stop cooperating with the romans, to return to their religious roots. Period.

Several decades later Saul aka Paul, a troubled man, invents this song and dance about Jesus being the Messiah and, when having a hard time pulling the gentiles into believing it, he alters judaism to make it more attractive to them. That's how he succeeds and the christianity turns into what it is today: because it says what people want to hear.

The rest is conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe what you want and think you know what you want. It's your life.

[PatrickMurphy]

oao said:

What I say here is purely for the record and to prevent the notion that what believers say here has no response.

oao also said:

As far as I'm concerned, you can believe what you want and think you know what you want.

You have spent more than a week arguing atheism at a theistic web site, devoted to an ecumenical conversation between Catholics, protestants and Jews. You have been ably challenged by theists who declare you to be a representative of purely materialistic scientism. You have sidestepped these challenges.

Yet, an hour after I threw down the glove,having distilled the argument to the key question, you reenter the conversation, but ignore my challenge.

Answer the question.

[Marcus]

. . Is there a spirit realm?

. . Is it possible that another dimension of reality exists, that overlaps our own? . .

Some observations from my conversations with Materialistic “faithers”:

The answer to the question is “No,” because proof of such a dimension lies outside a Materialistic definition of proof. Materialists claim to want evidence, but their definition of evidence is rigorously limited to and precludes everything outside the realm of the material.

Of couse, they know that the “material” is all that there is in the very same way that a transcendentalist knows differently—by faith. The Materialist cannot prove his definition of reality or even the validity of his definition of proof—he cannot prove his definition of reality as limited to the material, he accepts it by faith. He is, in short, a “faither.”

Materialists love to claim they have evidence while the poor, sappy Christian or Muslim or Jew or whatever has only faith, and the two, evidence and faith, are not equatable. Of couse, the Materialist knows this too by faith.

Materialism is a world-view. The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic construction of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.” And in that sense, Materialism is a religion.

Materialism and Transcendentalism of any sort be it Christian, Jewish, or just plain theistic in any sense are mutually exclusive in terms of their fundamental assertions about the nature of reality, but all are based on faith. There is no common ground.

The dispute is irresolvable. To an outsider, the scientific materialist looks like a closed-minded fundamentalist dogmatically (even angrily) asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees. To a scientific materialist, all others seem like the dogmatists that have clung to old beliefs and inhibited the progress of mankind since time immemorial. Furthermore, scientists are something like psychopathic serial killers in their single-minded and obsessive need to seek out problems and solve them (and thank God for that). When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, ya know? And they don't take kindly to people telling them that some problems are immutable, unsolvable, non-rational mysteries. It is not only a personal insult but, since most scientists are staunch humanists, it is an insult and challenge issued to mankind from the depths of the universe itself; another defense thrown up as nature attempts to elude its master. Yes, there is something Luciferic in all this.. .

[CognitiveDistoibance]

...

What I say here is purely for the record and to prevent the notion that what believers say here has no response. I remind you that my initial contribution was a reaction to Spengler comment of the importance of "why Jesus died". To the extent that he lived and died on a cross, it was because he challenged Roman authority by inducing jews to resist the occupation and stop cooperating with the romans, to return to their religious roots. Period.

So "purely for the record" you are absolutely certain why a person died, even though you are not certain said person ever lived or how he died. Got it.

... Several decades later Saul aka Paul, a troubled man, invents this song and dance about Jesus being the Messiah and, when having a hard time pulling the gentiles into believing it, he alters judaism to make it more attractive to them. That's how he succeeds and the christianity turns into what it is today: because it says what people want to hear.

I will grant you this ... between the two of you, one of you clearly is in the song and dance business.

[Jeffrey555]

Most life decisions are made with incomplete, inconclusive evidence and facts - choice of spouse, business enterprises, career are examples = evidences, feelings, logic, hope, gut responses are blended together in the decision making process. So it is with faith in Christ - we Christians must admit if we're honest - with the added tincture of spiritual experiences, answered prayers and the miraculous - which led my elderly Jewish neighbor, grand daughter of an Orthodox rabbi whose picture hangs in her living room, into faith in Jesus. She had a vision of Him and the attendant experience of his personal love for her. For me my reasons for trust in the reality of Jesus Christ were a jumble of the motivations just listed, reasonable and unreasonable with the final push of Pascal's Wager. Why not! If it's not true no loss, if it is - Eternal Life with God. Evangelical Christianity is the WalMart of religions for the masses, spreading world wide relentlessly. Being what I am I can't afford to shop anywhere else for God. I am not ashamed of the Gospel Of Christ, it really is the gift that connects you with God.

[Simple Minded]

Jeffery555,

Very well put.

What is more personal than the choice of one's religion?
While interesting to discuss one's reasons for choosing a particular religion, expecting another to agree with one's reasons, or expecting another to accept the same "proof" that one's choice is correct is foolishness. In fact, I have often thought that seeking the approval of another, in regards to one's choice of religion is little more than human vanity or loneliness.

And that is just from the perspective of the testifier's ability to convey information that is difficult to convey. When one adds the infinite number of ways one may experience God, and differences in personal experience, it truly becomes "to each his own."

I think that is one of the reasons I find this forum so valuable. I think I have learned a tremendous amount from my better here (not you Charleston )! Lots of difference of opinion between people who are sincerely trying to communicate is great. How much does one really learn from those who agree with you?

Expecting agreement or acceptance, muddles the potential of communicating clearly. Which I may or may not have done.....

"Criticizing another man's religion is like telling him his wife is ugly and his children are stupid....."

[Marcus]

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

—St. Peter

[Uche Africanus]

oao,

I do not fault you for believing as you do. Belief in God is something that will happen to you when God comes calling. It also helps if one is humble enough to ask for help. The most remarkable thing is that He comes to the good and the flawed alike but they have to be humble to ask for help. As for me, I had no where else to turn to. I was caught in a sandstorm and couldn't find my way home, and He took me and pointed the way for me. Still, I struggle many times with sin.

Best wishes,
Uche

[Michael]

oao,

I do not fault you for believing as you do. Belief in God is something that will happen to you when God comes calling. It also helps if one is humble enough to ask for help. The most remarkable thing is that He comes to the good and the flawed alike but they have to be humble to ask for help. As for me, I had no where else to turn to. I was caught in a sandstorm and couldn't find my way home, and He took me and pointed the way for me. Still, I struggle many times with sin.

Best wishes,
Uche

You are right

Amma Syncletica [ἡ ἀµµᾶς Συγκλητική] of Alexandria (270-350) a lady hermit was fond of quoting these two texts of scripture

"Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!" (Ez 18:31)

but, then

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;" (Ez 36:26)

She also says

In the beginning there is struggle and a lot of work for those who come near to God. But after that there is indescribable joy. It is just like building a fire: at first it is smoky and your eyes water, but later you get the desired result. Thus we ought to light the divine fire in ourselves with tears and effort.

[Simple Minded]

Excellent posts, Marcus, Uche, CD, and Michael.

Uche's post is an excellent reminder for those who believe Mother Nature is a kind, benevolent, nurturing force.

Uche's story of his epiphany makes me wonder if one of the reasons for the decline in spirituality of the West is the several consecutive decades of unprecedented materialistic prosperity we have enjoyed. In short, "life has become so easy for so many, that we have become arrogant instead of humble."

Perhaps if each of us were in a situation which is potentially life threatening, every couple years or so, we might have more appreciation of the simple aspects of life, and we would be less materialistic. Would this naturally lead to more awareness of God?

Appreciation of God/the Divine/etc. has always seemed more readily available to me, in a simple setting. For example, walking through the woods rather than walking down a city street. People who live in rural setting seem more inclined to believe in God than city dwellers.

Does humbleness, poverty, or the sense of loss lead to a mindset of appreciation? Certainly, the sense of entitlement does not.

[Michael]

Appreciation of God/the Divine/etc. has always seemed more readily available to me, in a simple setting. For example, walking through the woods rather than walking down a city street. People who live in rural setting seem more inclined to believe in God than city dwellers.

One does observe a certain disconnection with reality amongst those who live in concrete boxes, who believe that food comes from supermarkets and who strive to catch an echo of the world from their televisions.

I recall a van-driver, a Glaswegian, who came looking for me in my lambing-shed. He withdrew very quickly and, when I went out to him, he exclaimed, “It’s like an abattoir in there!”

When a man cannot tell the difference between death and new life, what can one say to him?

[PatrickMurphy]

Simple Minded said

Perhaps if each of us were in a situation which is potentially life threatening, every couple years or so, we might have more appreciation of the simple aspects of life, and we would be less materialistic. Would this naturally lead to more awareness of God?

Appreciation of God/the Divine/etc. has always seemed more readily available to me, in a simple setting. For example, walking through the woods rather than walking down a city street. People who live in rural setting seem more inclined to believe in God than city dwellers.

For whatever reason, this thread became a debate between one atheist ("oao") and lots of theists. "oao" repeatedly insisted that Jesus might well have existed (even though he/she doubts it), but it still doesn't matter; all it would mean that some guy once lived.

After observing the conversation for a week or so, I asked "oao" if he/she acknowledges that a spirit realm could possibly exist. Perhaps sensing a trap, he/she never responded (and seemingly has fled the jurisdiction).

Of course, based on the evidence to date, I expected the answer to come back, "No." Obviously, I'd have demanded to know how he/she could possibly know that.

Materialistic scientism simply assumes there is no reality outside the concrete evidence of taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell. This assumption is purely arbitrary, though, as anyone with sense must acknowledge. No one could possibly prove such a postulate, and to claim that those who have evidence to the contrary must submit that proof in the form of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing defies logic. Proof of extra-dimensionality, by definition, cannot be confined to this dimension of reality. To contend otherwise might be compared to having a five year old child demand of an adult proof that sexual reproduction exists, stated in terms strictly confined to his own personal physical experience. Absurd.

If an angel were to cross over into our realm, right now, in the room "oao" is sitting in, and tell him/her that another dimension DOES in fact exist, and that it's just as rich and full of life as this one is, I wonder how well he/she would hold up under the strain. Would it be possible to keep him/her from committing him/herself to a mental institution?

Atheism is not intuitive. It takes a high degree of training to become a scientistic materialist. There is a certain conscious dedication required to maintain that position, too. It's a mark of pride with them, that no evidence can dent their self-created shell. I'm guessing it does indeed become harder if one lives amongst nature. Paul, after all, in Romans chapter 1, says as much: all creation is self-evident proof that God created it.

I am deeply saddened by people like "oao."

[Marcus]

. . Materialistic scientism simply assumes there is no reality outside the concrete evidence of taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell. This assumption is purely arbitrary, though, as anyone with sense must acknowledge. No one could possibly prove such a postulate, and to claim that those who have evidence to the contrary must submit that proof in the form of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing defies logic. Proof of extra-dimensionality, by definition, cannot be confined to this dimension of reality. To contend otherwise might be compared to having a five year old child demand of an adult proof that sexual reproduction exists, stated in terms strictly confined to his own personal physical experience. Absurd. . .

I am deeply saddened by people like "oao."

Bingo! That said, there are lots of folks out there without any common sense.

As for oao, thought about sending him some bandages . . . . . he's gotta be licking his wounds.