Faith Like Potatoes

[Antlerman]

He did no wrong, and neither did the people that gathered the label, A true story; because according to him, it is true. Reality is that faith is true to the people that believe in faith, and it is factual that those people exist because we share the experiences of those 'faithful' moments to the rest of the world; whether that be your mom, brother, work, church, pastor, community, country, or the world.

Ah yes, I see. Fair enough. Yes this would be true. It is a true story. It's a true story about his faith, not whether or not his faith is based on reality as such. Surprised I missed that. Good reply YoYo.

[florduh]

It is difficult for most of us to accept the view that all may be telling the "truth". We might see things differently if we imagine that each (...) comes to the situation with a different perspective, and therefore sees a different reality.

 

Among 10 witnesses to a car accident, there will be at least 3 or 4 different versions of what happened. Each witness's perception is the "truth" to him. That truth (actually just an interpretation) has nothing to do with reality. As the injured people and wrecked vehicles are being taken away, suppose one person at the scene said that there was no accident at all. What if that is someone's truth? There was an accident or there was not. There is no philosophical conundrum. The person denying that there even was an accident is either lying or mentally ill. We have no need to accept that version as "his truth." It's just plain wrong, and at odds with the facts.

 

Did the Holocaust really occur? Some say it did and some say it didn't. Are both views the truth, depending on your perspective? That's what this "potatoes" story is about, factual reality. The Holocaust did in fact really happen, though the "truth" for people can range from believing it was all Hitler's fault, or it was a few bad apples in the German army, to the idea that the Jews brought it on themselves. Each of those conclusions can be a "truth" to somebody, but denying that the event even happened is not a truth, but denial of factual reality.

 

So did some guy get religion and have the power to raise the dead? Perhaps it is true that he felt all warm and runny with his new faith, but no dead people were brought back to life. That's the truth. That's the fact.

 

I see no value in being so spiritually open or philosophically free as to give weight to any and all interpretations of reality people can come up with. Believing you can raise the dead doesn't make it so. It is in no way a "truth" but it may be someone's lie or imagination. Someone may have the belief it is possible, and it's the "truth" that they believe this, but it gets confusing and pointless to call this belief their truth. The word "truth" connotes an actual reality.

[Antlerman]

I see no value in being so spiritually open or philosophically free as to give weight to any and all interpretations of reality people can come up with. Believing you can raise the dead doesn't make it so. It is in no way a "truth" but it may be someone's lie or imagination. Someone may have the belief it is possible, and it's the "truth" that they believe this, but it gets confusing and pointless to call this belief their truth. The word "truth" connotes an actual reality.

Pretty much all your examples cite instances of hard-to-argue cases of "did or did not happen", as examples of your greater premise that calling something right or wrong, true or false should fit into this sort of pretty much "black or white" type examples. This is a fallacy of logic. When you shift away from the extreme examples of mostly-consensus opinion into the world of real-world examples of everyday life, the clear lines of binary truth, 0 or 1, true or false, becomes quite fuzzy indeed. It's that place, in the real world where binary language runs about against real reality. A reality of shades, not stark contrasts.

 

You're saying this is being "philosophically free as to give weight to any and all interpretations of reality people can come up with", suggesting that one can have no opinion as to the value of it, is a total red-herring argument. I would never accept that characterization of this. It only betrays a lack of understanding of what is actually being said - in reality.

 

We should try to consolidate the discussion of this in the thread in General Theological where it's going more in depth, and it's hard to repeat in two places. This thread here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...30407&st=20

[florduh]

Pretty much all your examples cite instances of hard-to-argue cases of "did or did not happen", as examples of your greater premise that calling something right or wrong, true or false should fit into this sort of pretty much "black or white" type examples.

 

I'm not making that point at all. I'm trying to differentiate the two kinds of truth - personal perspective and concrete, undeniable events. The mere fact that there exist thousands of Christian sects attests that interpretative reality (their truth) varies greatly among individuals, but the other reality (literal truth) is that someone named Jesus was in fact a real person who did all the things attributed to him in the Bible stories, or he wasn't. Can't have it both ways. That's the "potatoes" situation. Even the OP didn't believe anyone had been raised from the dead, yet stated initially it was a true story, a man raised the dead. It was not just copying the sensational title of the work. Regarding Jesus, unable to be proven or disproved, the Jesus story can be assumed by someone to be factual, and thereby create a meaning, mythology and "truth" for that person and others who are like-minded. That alone doesn't mean that Jesus actually existed in the flesh. It just means that if he had, it would mean such-and-such.

 

Real things do happen and can have symbolic meanings, but just imagining something concrete and real occurred when it didn't isn't any kind of truth at all. To say that imagining that something has happened, when it clearly didn't, is that person's truth doesn't seem helpful to me. It's a delusional "truth" at best.

[Antlerman]

Pretty much all your examples cite instances of hard-to-argue cases of "did or did not happen", as examples of your greater premise that calling something right or wrong, true or false should fit into this sort of pretty much "black or white" type examples.

 

I'm not making that point at all. I'm trying to differentiate the two kinds of truth - personal perspective and concrete, undeniable events. The mere fact that there exist thousands of Christian sects attests that interpretative reality (their truth) varies greatly among individuals, but the other reality (literal truth) is that someone named Jesus was in fact a real person who did all the things attributed to him in the Bible stories, or he wasn't. Can't have it both ways. That's the "potatoes" situation. Even the OP didn't believe anyone had been raised from the dead, yet stated initially it was a true story, a man raised the dead. It was not just copying the sensational title of the work.

Alright, I understand the difference between an objective and subjective truth. But even seemingly "undeniable events" can be subject to a debate of what actually occurred, or that it even occurred or not at all. My great reluctance is in simply making it seem such a clean line, which itself becomes a sort of 'myth' upon which people justify their perceptions as an absolute truth. I think we're all better off having just a little less "faith" in our point of view as reflective of what may or may not have happened.

 

As to the OP, here's the title:

 

Faith Like Potatoes, Anyone seen this true story? He raised the dead.

 

Later YoYo, explained how he meant the use of this:

 

I guess I will say it again. It was marketed a true story, the man wrote it as a true story, and I am sure to him, it felt all real. If I meant it to be a news report, I would've put it in the news thread. I put it here because I was sure it would raise some conversation. But, yes I did say that I was inspired by the movies, and yes I suggested that it may be possible that the woman was actually dead. The storyline of the movie and the book is that the man raised the dead. So, again, sorry for any confusion of what everybody thought I thought before I posted my thoughts, I think

 

I'll granted it, the OP title suggested that the events that occurred factually occurred. If it were me, I would have worded it more carefully if it was to convey this as a movie based on a true story of a man and his faith. That's a very different thing than saying it like this, "This is a true story. He raised the dead". That YoYo later explained how it mean it, I'll just accept his explanation and my criticism would be that he constructed his words poorly if that's what he meant.

 

So yes, in this context he either did raise the dead or he didn't.

 

Regarding Jesus, unable to be proven or disproved, the Jesus story can be assumed by someone to be factual, and thereby create a meaning, mythology and "truth" for that person and others who are like-minded. That alone doesn't mean that Jesus actually existed in the flesh. It just means that if he had, it would mean such-and-such.

Not exactly. Mythology actually doesn't really care about the factual events. It cares about the symbolic value, as reflective of a certain truth to them. The Christian myth just happens to have a feature that used "history" as part of the fabric of its myth. You can actually see through textual criticism how the earliest layers of the movements had no concerns at all about the life of Jesus, it was only a later feature that became a part of the myth.

 

Real things do happen and can have symbolic meanings, but just imagining something concrete and real occurred when it didn't isn't any kind of truth at all. To say that imagining that something has happened, when it clearly didn't, is that person's truth doesn't seem helpful to me. It's a delusional "truth" at best.

And this is that tricky line. When it comes to a mythology set in "history", it will be spoken of as "reality". And in a sense it is. It's a symbolic reality set in history. But when the critic says that if the historical events that really occurred aren't that, the myth is garbage, it's delusion because it's based on a false belief of what really happened, is in fact not understanding the nature of myth at all. It's not based on false belief of what happened.

 

Myth is not born of delusion about reality. It doesn't begin with a "wrong idea about reality". That's not myth. Myth is the creation symbols in a place and time that hold symbolic truth about certain perception of reality, having nothing to do with the pursuit of 'fact findings', like science. Abraham Lincoln didn't believe the things attributed to him in the myths we heap on him today. But they are "truths" we see in a certain context relevant to us today. Does the fact that Lincoln may or may not have actually believed the things we attribute to him, mean that our ideas are based on a "bad understanding" of history? Or is "history" besides the point, and the myth is based on something else?

[florduh]

When it comes to a mythology set in "history", it will be spoken of as "reality". And in a sense it is. It's a symbolic reality set in history. But when the critic says that if the historical events that really occurred aren't that, so the myth is garbage, it's delusion because it's based on a false belief of what really happened, is in fact not understanding the nature of myth at all.

 

I suppose one can say that everything is symbol, since our understanding hinges on our individual perception, but not everything is a myth. Most of life is just dealing with that which exists and is real in the normal meaning of that word.

 

Christianity seems to be a special myth in that typically, the Christian believes it is based in factual history, hence all the trips to the Holy Land. Isn't that quite different from basing your views on the imagined existence of Shiva, for example? Do all religions believe their gods exist, or existed, in a real, concrete way, or do they create those gods as symbolic language to express their understanding of the universe? I think they do, but Christianity doesn't.

 

There are some who call themselves Christian but don't believe the historical reality of the Bible. They believe in a Christian myth. Traditionally, mainstream Christians have not recognized the mythical reality of the religion, but believe it is the only religion and god that is founded on real events, thus making it the only true and correct way. They like to say that though there may be other gods and religions, their god literally rose from the dead, so he's the real one. That doesn't sound like a belief in a myth to me. It sounds like a belief in a real event and historical fact.

 

The "truth" is that they may believe it. I don't see any other "truth" to it.

[Antlerman]

When it comes to a mythology set in "history", it will be spoken of as "reality". And in a sense it is. It's a symbolic reality set in history. But when the critic says that if the historical events that really occurred aren't that, so the myth is garbage, it's delusion because it's based on a false belief of what really happened, is in fact not understanding the nature of myth at all.

Christianity seems to be a special myth in that typically, the Christian believes it is based in factual history, hence all the trips to the Holy Land. Isn't that quite different from basing your views on the imagined existence of Shiva, for example? Do all religions believe their gods exist, or existed, in a real, concrete way, or do they create those gods as symbolic language to express their understanding of the universe? I think they do, but Christianity doesn't.

Pilgrimages to holy places happens in religions everywhere, so that has little to do with the "historical" contexts. However, you are right that Christianity did do something a bit unusual for myth, and that is to have placed it so close in history to the time of the mythmakers. Normally that "history" would be in some distant past, in some distant world like the Garden of Eden. Noah's Ark before the flood, and even Moses and the Exodus are good examples of this. But Christianity took these features of myth and put them into recent history, a matter of only 40 years.

 

Not that that makes it something special, and therefore sets it apart from all other myths because it doesn't. There are reasons to explain the special circumstances that generated such a move on their part. But again, the Christians that made those myths were essentially doing so for the typical reasons, just at a highly accelerated rate, which is why you have such variety a flavors of the myth all coming up so soon after the Jesus movements began.

 

There are some who call themselves Christian but don't believe the historical reality of the Bible. They believe in a Christian myth.

I would say that your average Christian probably does understand the mythological nature of the Bible, but just unable to articulate it. To them they are stories that have meaning. That's "believing" in the myth. Because in this culture they lack an education as to what myth is, if there were challenged saying "This never really happened!", what they hear is "The stories aren't valid". But to them, they are valid because of the meaning.

 

They just don't know how to distinguish and separate it when challenged. They will get defensive and block this "historical" evaluation as a result. The result is that they will try to defend it's historicity to defend its symbolic importance, but that is not what they are basing their beliefs on from an emotional/cultural perspective. Faith is not something adopted at the end an evaluation of facts. This whole thing is simply a problem of our culture, and with Christianity in this age, IMO.

 

Traditionally, mainstream Christians have not recognized the mythical reality of the religion, but believe it is the only religion and god that is founded on real events, thus making it the only true and correct way. They like to say that though there may be other gods and religions, their god literally rose from the dead, so he's the real one. That doesn't sound like a belief in a myth to me. It sounds like a belief in a real event and historical fact.

Well, I'd say it still functioning as a myth for them, and that the problem is that they are confused by these post-enlightenment arguments which tries to defend it against Western rationalism on that basis. Other culture's don't have an issue with understanding the nature of myth. We do. Both for those who believe in it, and those who are critics of it. It's just opposite sides of the same coin. I prefer to deal with it by removing it from the debate all together and saying a myth either does or does not have value as a myth. But you are right in that the debate has become on the level of arguing in a context of historical and scientific fact. Modern, mostly the Evangelical flavor, are so tied into that argument that the myth becomes a different sort of an animal altogether. It's becomes politics.

 

But I will still argue that even though they put that out there as a belief, that is not the reason why they buy into it. They buy into it for the mythical value. I judge their insistence on these historical and scientific "facts" in support of their belief as an indication of how weak that faith really is. They are frightened to put it on the table for consideration as to its value, so they need to argue it as fact as to the reason for accepting it. Pretty messed up and confused IMO.

 

The "truth" is that they may believe it. I don't see any other "truth" to it.

The other truth to it would be those sorts of aphorisms, maxims, axioms, lessons, etc contained in the stories and myths. They aren't wildly unique, but they're part of a symbolic system of society. And as such they may or may not have value to someone. It's on that level that they try to shift the debate away from. That's the fear I see that drives them to such irrational extremes. But to me it's important to understand the motivational factors behind all the arguments put out by them, and understanding the nature of what myth is and how it works is key to that.

[florduh]

So in other words, Bible literalist Christians believe in a history that didn't happen, and that is their "truth." I think that believing the book literally is then the primary myth, and the lessons or messages contained therein are a distant second in importance, or even irrelevant. For example, the lesson of loving your neighbor is often lost on such people.

 

The mind boggles!

[Antlerman]

So in other words, Bible literalist Christians believe in a history that didn't happen, and that is their "truth."

I think what they really believe in is socially conservative values and use the Bible as their justification. Their truth is what they value, and what they argue for the literalness of their beliefs is merely to claim a source of authority to argue for them. They use the Bible to support what they believe for the benefit of critics. Such is the inheritance of the Protestants, always defining themselves as contrasted to others.

 

Biblical literalism is a reaction. It's not a source of belief. That's my point. Their truth has nothing to do with the historicity. If critics weren't there, they would care a less, actually. Does that make better sense?

 

I think that believing the book literally is then the primary myth, and the lessons or messages contained therein are a distant second in importance, or even irrelevant. For example, the lesson of loving your neighbor is often lost on such people.

The reason the lesson of loving your neighbor is lost on such people (and you'll get no argument from me on that), is for the reason that they are too busy defining themselves as what they aren't, rather than what they are. They define their righteousness in contrast to the lost, to the sinner, to the heathen, to the deceived, to the Harlot Church, etc. They are so wrapped up in justifying themselves, that they replace the heart with religion. But again, their primary myth is a social one, one that shuns embracing diversity in favor of fundamental values of one social vision. It's not in Biblical literalism. That's the secondary myth. It's about being "right". That's the primary motivating factor.

 

 

The mind boggles!

It's really more a matter of gaining a slightly different perspective in understanding it. Not so mind boggling actually.

[florduh]

What's boggling to me is that all emphasis is on believing the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and insisting that everyone else believe that, yet they don't embrace or even try to understand the message of those words.

[Antlerman]

What's boggling to me is that all emphasis is on believing the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and insisting that everyone else believe that, yet they don't embrace or even try to understand the message of those words.

You and me both. It really is true that I actually "get it" more now than I ever did when I was trying to be a Christian. What does this say? Tons I believe.

[Taphophilia]

Raising a person from the dead in Africa is, in itself, a terrible punishment inflicted by your God. In Africa, it's much better to be dead. But then, your God would rather raise a person from the dead than perform miracles that just might be useful, such as, extingushing crimes against humanity.

[Looking4Answers]

So in other words, Bible literalist Christians believe in a history that didn't happen, and that is their "truth." I think that believing the book literally is then the primary myth, and the lessons or messages contained therein are a distant second in importance, or even irrelevant. For example, the lesson of loving your neighbor is often lost on such people.

 

The mind boggles!

 

What's boggling to me is that all emphasis is on believing the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, and insisting that everyone else believe that, yet they don't embrace or even try to understand the message of those words.

 

When I "got saved" at the age of 25, I was instantly introduced to the idea that the Bible is inerrant, literal and true. In the small church I first attended, during our Wednesday night services, before the teaching, the pastor would have us all hold our Bibles up in the air and say something like, "This is my Bible. It is the word of god. Its pages are filled with truth." And so by repeating this mantra each week, we began to develop a mindset about the Bible.

 

Once this type of mindset is in place, when you run across a problem in the Bible (historical statement that does not match history, an error or contradiction, etc) then you do not see the error. Instead, your mind tells you that, as a human being, you simply cannot put together all the pieces of that which came from the very mind of a perfect and infinite god! Therefore you automatically assume that the passages in question are true and, instead of seeing the error, a quest to reconcile the passages is sought for. If the answer cannot be found in the immediate context (the verses in and around the passage in question), then verses and passages are examined from other portions of the Bible. As the old statement goes, which was printed in the front of many ancient Bibles, "The best interpreter of the Scriptures is the Scriptures."

 

If a satisfactory answer is not found within the pages of the book itself, then one might turn to a lexicon to examine the words of the ancient Hebrew and Greek itself. It did not matter if the one studying knew the languages at all. It only mattered that the tool was there and that god would aid in this quest. After all, the holy spirit was sent to led the believer into all truth. When looking into the lexicon it becomes obvious, like any dictionary, that many words have multiple meanings. So, without regard to the context of the sentence, the one using the lexicon would scan the meanings of words and look for the one meaning that would best resolve the conflict, if possible. This would be done DESPITE the fact that experts in the ancient languages, who had degrees and training in the languages they translate as well as the ancient culture of these languages, had chosen the word or words based on their vast knowledge. None of that mattered. All that mattered as that the word of god had to be true and if the passage in question was not squaring up then an answer had to be found. So, frequently from pulpits, preachers would educate people on the nuances of a particular Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word, having never studied (or barely studied) and of these languages myself!

 

When that failed ... when none of the lexicon definitions fit and the error remained ... then other methods might be turned to. If still no resolution was found, then the person would finally conclude that their poor, limited mind was just not up to the mind of the infinite god! The Christian researcher would then conclude that the Bible was still without error, but that we, as a people, despite having the deposit of the holy spirit, just did not have the ability to figure it out.

 

And that would be that.

[Dagan]

Once this type of mindset is in place, when you run across a problem in the Bible (historical statement that does not match history, an error or contradiction, etc) then you do not see the error. Instead, your mind tells you that, as a human being, you simply cannot put together all the pieces of that which came from the very mind of a perfect and infinite god! Therefore you automatically assume that the passages in question are true and, instead of seeing the error, a quest to reconcile the passages is sought for. If the answer cannot be found in the immediate context (the verses in and around the passage in question), then verses and passages are examined from other portions of the Bible. As the old statement goes, which was printed in the front of many ancient Bibles, "The best interpreter of the Scriptures is the Scriptures."

 

Wow, that was great! Thanks so much for posting it. I have had many thoughts that echo what you have laid out here, just never put them into a logical progression like you have.

 

I guess that's why they call it apologetics, eh? "We're sorry our bible appears to be full of so many errors, but it's not what it looks like... really... trust us."

 

If a satisfactory answer is not found within the pages of the book itself, then one might turn to a lexicon to examine the words of the ancient Hebrew and Greek itself. It did not matter if the one studying knew the languages at all. It only mattered that the tool was there and that god would aid in this quest. After all, the holy spirit was sent to led the believer into all truth. When looking into the lexicon it becomes obvious, like any dictionary, that many words have multiple meanings. So, without regard to the context of the sentence, the one using the lexicon would scan the meanings of words and look for the one meaning that would best resolve the conflict, if possible. This would be done DESPITE the fact that experts in the ancient languages, who had degrees and training in the languages they translate as well as the ancient culture of these languages, had chosen the word or words based on their vast knowledge. None of that mattered. All that mattered as that the word of god had to be true and if the passage in question was not squaring up then an answer had to be found. So, frequently from pulpits, preachers would educate people on the nuances of a particular Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word, having never studied (or barely studied) and of these languages myself!

This part (especially the bold part) really bugs me because I have seen it so many times. Why is God so bad at getting his message across that it takes someone with a Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic lexicon to find the "right" interpretation? Maybe he shouldn't have zapped humanity at the Tower of Babel, hmm? And how come the translation's OK when it agrees with what we want it to say, but if something controversial comes up, out comes the lexicons and those translators are suddenly wrong? How can we trust any of it unless we learn the languages the originals were written in? And once we start looking at originals, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms of authorship, date written, legitimacy, etc. etc.

[glebealyth]

Anyone who believes these stories is dumb.

 

Ouch.

 

Phanta

 

But accurate.

[florduh]

Anyone know where I can get a bandaid for my tongue?

I don't think you can put a bandaid on your tongue, but I found that a couple of frozen margaritas stops the bleeding and soothes the pain. FWIW.

[chefranden]

This part (especially the bold part) really bugs me because I have seen it so many times. Why is God so bad at getting his message across that it takes someone with a Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic lexicon to find the "right" interpretation? Maybe he shouldn't have zapped humanity at the Tower of Babel, hmm? And how come the translation's OK when it agrees with what we want it to say, but if something controversial comes up, out comes the lexicons and those translators are suddenly wrong? How can we trust any of it unless we learn the languages the originals were written in? And once we start looking at originals, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms of authorship, date written, legitimacy, etc. etc.

 

 

The majority of inerrantist scholars say the bible is inerrant in the original. That is, there may be error in copying. They generally have to admit that there are differences in the many bits of manuscripts that have survived the ages. They don't find the differences significant, nevertheless getting as close to the original as possible gets you closer to God's intent and helps protect against isogesis. Thus being able to read the "original" languages removes one more level of interpretation. That's the hypothesis.

[florduh]

The majority of inerrantist scholars say the bible is inerrant in the original. That is, there may be error in copying.

That was always a problem for me. If God could inspire the writings word-for-word in the first place, is it beyond his ability to preserve accurate translations and copies? After all, he ostensibly wants us all to hear his word correctly.

[Antlerman]

The majority of inerrantist scholars say the bible is inerrant in the original. That is, there may be error in copying.

That was always a problem for me. If God could inspire the writings word-for-word in the first place, is it beyond his ability to preserve accurate translations and copies? After all, he ostensibly wants us all to hear his word correctly.

Well you know that was one of the "puzzles" that never made sense to me either, and one of those stones that started the avalanche. Why would God care all the way up to the Church councils to make sure the right books got chosen, but then let the chips fall where they may after that? Was He busy?

 

Inconsistency. The hallmark of the inerrantist.

[Snakefoot]

Miracles always occur in Africa and New Guinea where cameras aren't rolling and no one is available to be interviewed. It's a miracle!

 

What Vigile said plus the same criteria applies to "miraculous" restoration of amputated limbs. No video, no reports in bona fide medical journals, it didn't happen. More xtian delusions and/or lies.

[Snakefoot]

Lets say someone was pronounced dead, and a man came in and raised this dead person to life again; no cameras, no creditable witnesses other than the doictors that pronounced him dead. Would that be viable? What if it was on camera? I ask again, viable?

 

My point is that even if it was recorded, documented, witnessed, video taped, explained, there will always be some type of criticism in that corner of life. It's just natural. It's not about God or faith, or Jesus; it's just about common human logic. I, a believer in Jesus and the power of God, was skeptical of the 'raising of the dead', yet I see that whether she was dead or not, these people were influenced, and other great things happened in this small commune in the aftermath, which inspired me.

 

1. Pronounced "dead" by doctors in Africa is not credible due to the intellectual backwardness of most of the continent.

 

2. As an EMT, I have raised quite a few from the dead with CPR, oxygen, and an AED. Credible, provable, and reproducible. That makes me a better deity than babblegawd. Armed with my knowledge and a few pieces of medical equipment, I could rule many parts of Africa and the rest of the backward corners of the world as a god who raises the dead and cures the incurable.

[chefranden]

My late mother was raised from the dead a couple of times. She was pissed and made them stop doing that. Why would being raised from the dead be a gift from god? It could be a curse as it was for mom. Isn't dying once bad enough?

 

 

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is

destined to die once

, and after that to face judgment,