Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[agnosticator]

"He is not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" (someone tell me what movie that quote is from?)

 

Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[Ouroboros]

Jesus was not the Messiah LNC. The genealogies trace him through Joseph, but the Father "over shadowed" Mary. Jesus was son of Mary-- Not seed of David

That's right. If the Christians stick with the virgin birth, Joseph wasn't Jesus's biological father. They can't have both. Unless they now claim some mystical and magical cross insemination by Joseph AND God. Perhaps they now believe Jesus was a blood chimera?

[centauri]

Jesus was of the lineage of David (take the genealogies from Matt. 1 and Luke 2 for evidence), he was sinless (Heb. 4:15), and he claimed to be Messiah (John 4:15). He also made claims to be Son of Man in the likeness of that spoken about in Dan. 7 (Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 24:27-30; 26:64; Mark 2:8; 13:24-26; 14:62; and elsewhere). On top of that he claimed powers and authority that only God could have (Matt. 9:6; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27-28; 19:28; and elsewhere).

And you’re still pumping lies.

Jesus wasn’t the seed of David, he wasn’t sinless, he claimed he had a God, he never sat on the throne of David, and never ushered in the messianic era.

 

You are also uninformed about Paul as he did meet Jesus personally (Acts 9:4-6);

...So, was Jesus Messiah and therefore someone special? Yes, your assertion is refuted.

Paul claimed to have met a light beam that he thought was Jesus.

That’s all he did.

Jesus never sat on the throne of David nor did he perform the job requirements as a valid messiah was to do.

Your claim is refuted.

 

 

1 Corinthians 9:20-22: Why could not Paul simply adapt to the people with whom he was speaking in order to better relate to them. For example, he took the Nazarite vow when interacting with devout Jews. Paul was fully within his rights as a Pharisee to take this vow and was not being deceptive as he kept the requirements. While with Gentiles, he didn't talk to them or deal with them as Jews, nor did he feel compelled to keep dietary laws that had been rescinded by Jesus (Acts 10). There is nothing deceptive about this.

There is plenty that’s deceptive about it.

Paul was a hypocrite, caving in to the demands of the Jerusalem Christians while telling the Galatians to curse anyone that deviated from his version of the Gospel.

And Jesus had no authority to rescind any laws, dietary or otherwise.

The job of an expected king was to lead the people into great compliance with the law.

[Wizened Sage]

LNC,

You wrote: "...he commits the fallacy of ambiguity by saying that "religions" are dangerous. Does he mean all religions? If so, does he consider the good that has been done in the name of religion?" What's the good got to do with whether something is dangerous? Adolf Hitler put Germans back to work and gave them hope during the Great Depression. Does this mean he wasn't dangerous?

 

You wrote: "In other words, can someone justify committing evil from a proper understanding of the religious text?" What is the "proper understanding" of the following commands?

 

Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

• Kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)

• Kill blasphemers (Leviticus)

• Kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

• Kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

• Kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)

 

If someone actually did any of those things today, couldn't we say that they did evil based on a "proper understanding" of Biblical text?

 

LNC, I think you are overlooking a whole lot of evil in your "Good Book." It's as obvious as the nose on your face. How is it that you miss it all? Did you forget that according to the Bible, God created evil? “I am Yahweh, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness:I make peace, and create evil: I, Yahweh, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:6-7)

[Ouroboros]

Jesus was of the lineage of David (take the genealogies from Matt. 1 and Luke 2 for evidence), he was sinless (Heb. 4:15), and he claimed to be Messiah (John 4:15). He also made claims to be Son of Man in the likeness of that spoken about in Dan. 7 (Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 24:27-30; 26:64; Mark 2:8; 13:24-26; 14:62; and elsewhere). On top of that he claimed powers and authority that only God could have (Matt. 9:6; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27-28; 19:28; and elsewhere).

 

...

 

So, I am supposed to take your word the the Greek is mistranslated? Sorry, after how you have dealt with the Hebrew and the NT passages that you cited, you have not shown that you have a grasp of the English, let alone Koine Greek. What has the Hebrew got to do with this argument. As I said before, Hebrews was written in Koine Greek, not in Hebrew. However, I'm not surprised that you would think this as many who are unfamiliar with the Bible think that Hebrews is in the OT rather than the NT where it actually resides. I have already dealt with the Is. 7:14 issue, but even if you were to be right, a young maiden in those times would also have been a virgin. But then, the translators of the LXX did translate it as parthenos, which means virgin. You are wrong about the Greek regarding young maiden as the word korasiō/korasion could have been used and was used in other parts of the NT. You make assertions, but you have backed them up with no evidence.

So Jesus was of David's lineage through Mary, not Joseph. Why does the Bible say it was through Joseph? Isn't that false information to claim the lineage was through Joseph when it really was through Mary? It's deception. The Bible does not tell the whole truth there. Why did the Gospel writers hide the truth and make a false claim?

 

You say that you care, so that you know what is really happening, but it is apparent that you are misinformed and base your rejection of God on false information.

Ad hominem fallacy.

 

If you are concerned about buying into a "load of crap" as you say, then maybe you should do better work at checking your facts as it seems that you have, in fact, bought the full load and are now spreading it as well.

More ad hominem.

[LNC]

It is so amusing to watch you try to wiggle around that fact that you are unusually obsessed with the idea of "evidence." It colors everything you read.

 

Actually, it is called reading in context. Yes, context does color my reading of the text.

 

Here is the statement from the post where this conversation started.

 

And I agreed with you about the concept of conviction or assurance. I believe I added the term "sense of certainty," and I do not think you would object to that. All three of these terms describe the concept of faith as contained in the greek word "pistis." In other words, we both agree on that point.

 

Certainty is a psychological state and I don't know that I would go that far since no one really achieves the state of certainty. Some may think that they do, but no one really does, no matter what the topic is and how strong the evidence is.

 

My reading of Brown and Arndt, Gingrich and Danker supported that part of the definition. So, what did you want me to cite from these passages? Really. What could I have possibly cited? And to what end? We were in agreement about that part.

 

I think I cited enough to make my case and you have not done anything to refute that, so it stands as far as I can see.

 

Then there was the quaint requirement on your part that pistis "flow from the evidence." Once again, how do you expect someone to quote something that is not there? The word evidence did not appear in that article, at least not in a significant way that I could tell.

 

Maybe I am remiss in not providing citations. But I am not as skilled as you, obviously, in making texts say things that they do not say. I can only go with what IS said (conviction, assurance, certainty) and cannot produce words which are not there (flow from evidence, evidence).

 

Simply read the balance of the chapter and notice how each person cited had faith that had a basis in good evidence. They all had reasons for their faith rather than a blind faith. In other words, they all had an evidential basis for their faith.

 

I did provide a quote from Brown's New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2 where the very word YOU said meant 'evidence' was directly said to NOT mean evidence in the context of the Heb. 11:1, the very verse you were focusing on. The funny thing is, you didn't even address that citation. It's as if you don't WANT it to exist, therefore <poof!> it does not!

 

Next, you provide a citation from Brown, Vol. 1, page 603:

 

This is a section under the specialized category of John's theology and not immediately relevant to Heb. 11: 1.

 

I believe that I already addressed that issue in post #61, please refer back to that. Besides, looking at the use in the context of the whole chapter, it is clear, as I mentioned earlier, that the people cited had reason for their faith; that it was based upon something that they experienced or had knowledge of that gave them the assurance and confidence of their convictions. I don't know how Brown would legitimately dispute that given this context.

 

There are words in here - faith, knowledge. Reception of testimony. Nowhere do we see the word "evidence" or the phrase "flow from evidence." Nor do you see any common synonyms that are associated with evidence.

 

However, for some reason, you leave out the first part of that paragraph where it says, "Faith arises out of testimony, authenticated by God, in which signs also play a part."

 

So, instead of Faith "flows from evidence," as you say, "Faith arises out of testimony. . ." In other words , as I said, an unbeliever hears the narrative (dogma) and then believes. You know, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." God authenticates it (not a reasoned investigation of facts). And SIGNS play a part. You know, miracle claims. None of these items carry the denotation or connotation of evidence along with them.

 

Then, you do an amazing thing. You try to convince us that Knowledge means evidence!!

 

Testimony can and is used for evidence here and, by the way, in our U.S. courtrooms. So, just because the word is not used, doesn't mean that it cannot be inferred given the context. Now, I would ask what your definition is of the word evidence as you seem to have something in mind as to what counts and doesn't count as evidence. Why cannot testimony count as evidence in this case? You claim that all they are hearing is dogma, which it seems, you are reading into the text. Nowhere does it say that the testimony was mere dogma. How is it that you come to that conclusion? How is it that you also conclude that God's confirmation of that testimony is not reasoned? Again, you seem to be reading an interpretation into the text that is not clear from the reading of it. Why cannot signs be a part of it, even if they are miracles. It seems to me that miracles would be a clear confirmation of God's authentication as it clearly could not be (by definition) a natural or concocted event. You seem to be defining evidence either based upon naturalistic presuppositions or in a very narrow sense so as to discount certain phenomena that don't fit into your tight categories. Why is that not special pleading on your part?

 

So, the word evidence doesn't appear in the section of Brown you quote (or in the Robinson citation, for that matter). So, you go on to say that since faith and knowledge go together and knowledge is justified true beliefe, then voila!! Faith comes from evidence.

 

It is in Hebrews, which is what we are discussing. Also, justified true belief, the definition of knowledge, implies that there is something that justifies the belief, which would be evidential support of some sort. I'm not sure why you need to have the actual word stated when, by definition, it is clearly implied? How is one justified in believing something unless they have some sort of evidence of that belief?

 

As a matter of fact, "Justified true belief" is a specialized philosophical and technical definition for knowledge. There are other technical and philosophical definitions besides "justified true belief." There is a much wider constellation of meanings for the word. And there is no justification for trying to limit the word "knowledge" in the article being cited to your specialized, philosophical definition.

 

Dictionary dot com provides a host of definitions of knowledge that do not conform to your use of the word knowledge:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

 

Knowledge does not have to be justified by reason or evidence. One can still have knowledge yet that knowledge be unsubstantiated by a process of reasoning and weighing evidence. One merely has to have a grasp of the facts and narratives that go with a particular topic.

 

Thanks for posting that. There is nothing about that definition that contradicts my point. In fact, it is completely supportive of my point. I have highlighted those portions of each definition that speak to this point. Why is one justified in believing? Because the person has facts, acquaintance with that which is known, a body of knowledge...these are all based upon direct or indirect awareness which fits into the evidential category. I'm not sure why you thought that this would run contrary to the philosophical definition?

 

Faith goes with knowledge because once you have a grasp of a narrative (the gospel story) you can then, under the influence of a preacher/teacher, gain confidence that the narrative is true. That's all. That's it. That's the association between faith and knowlege. Instead of "knowledge = justified true belief" you can easily claim "knowledge = the perception of fact or truth." The former use of the word knowledge is less common in usage than the latter use of the word.

 

There is no need to inject the idea of "evidence" or "flows from evidence" into the mix.

 

The unbeliever hears the narrative and then they come to have confidence in that narrative as a source of salvation.

 

No evidence required. Any notion of evidence is so far in the background and so insignificant that one wonders why you have this overarching almost compulsive need to place that emphasis on it.

 

You are beating and torturing texts to try to make them say what you want them to say. And you are failing.

 

Now you are sounding more like a postmodern than an existentialist or a modern. These people weren't claiming belief based upon understanding a narrative and I challenge you to prove otherwise if that is what you believe. Just because you claim this doesn't mean that you have given proof of this view. This is a common view of postmodernists, but these people didn't come from or exist within a postmodern culture. You can't read Paul, John or any of the other writers and legitimately conclude that they were. John talks about that "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life." (1 John 1) He wasn't talking about a narrative here, he was talking about a real live flesh and blood person. Paul talks about the actual event of being knocked off his feet and hearing and seeing. (Acts 22, 26) Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he put his fingers in the nail holes and his hand in Jesus side (John 20)

 

I think that you have fallen into the trap of postmodern thought. You have ripped these people out of their historical context and imposed your postmodern ideals onto them. That is not good exegesis.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I wonder if you are toying with me, playing some kind of spaghetti Western "Fist full of Dollars" stare-down about this passage.

 

No matter. It's not that important.

 

However, if you REALLY don't think that passage is in the New Testament and that it is easy to locate, then I really do wonder at the true nature of your bible exegesis skills.

 

I'm not the one claiming that the Bible says what you claim it does, so I don't shoulder the burden of trying to come up with a proof text, that would be your responsibility. I know why you can't find it...it is not in the Bible. It's funny that you would use such a ploy to question my exegesis skills...find a passage to prove something that isn't in the Bible. In your words you said, "if you REALLY don't think that passage is in the New Testament and that it is easy to locate..." How would something be easy to locate when it isn't there?

 

LNC

[LNC]

Rev. 22:18

 

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

 

Now as far as the context and proper interpretation, it really depends on which set of eyes you're reading it through. "Whatever best suits your theology", seems the most common approach to Biblical hermeneutics, particularly with the conservative who reads it a priori as infallible, and typically and ironically matching their branch's set of beliefs.

 

That would be a postmodernist interpretation. I believe that the author (John) had a specific meaning for this statement and that it applied to the letter that he was writing (Revelation) as it says "this book". The Bible wasn't a book at the time he wrote that, so it cannot be read to apply to the Bible as a whole. However, that is not the essence of what OB was arguing when he said, "do not go beyond what is written." John is saying not to add to the words that he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, where as OB was saying not to go beyond what was written, however, that might be interpreted. I suppose it could loosely be interpreted this way, but it's not clear the way he wrote it.

 

LNC

[oddbird1963]

I wonder if you are toying with me, playing some kind of spaghetti Western "Fist full of Dollars" stare-down about this passage.

 

No matter. It's not that important.

 

However, if you REALLY don't think that passage is in the New Testament and that it is easy to locate, then I really do wonder at the true nature of your bible exegesis skills.

 

I'm not the one claiming that the Bible says what you claim it does, so I don't shoulder the burden of trying to come up with a proof text, that would be your responsibility. I know why you can't find it...it is not in the Bible. It's funny that you would use such a ploy to question my exegesis skills...find a passage to prove something that isn't in the Bible. In your words you said, "if you REALLY don't think that passage is in the New Testament and that it is easy to locate..." How would something be easy to locate when it isn't there?

 

LNC

So, is it your position that no modern tranlation of the New Testament contains the phrase "do not go beyond what is written?" Is that what you mean when you say "it is not in the Bible?" And that is what you clearly seem to be claiming. I underlined your claims that the phrase "do not go beyond what is written" is not in the Bible.

 

If your answer is yes, then I am astounded that you cannot find it.

 

And what's this nonsense about "I know why you can't find it . . ." I found it. I've read it multiple times in my readings of the New Testament. In fact, I've got it memorized.

 

It is easy to locate. So, why haven't you found it?

 

Hint: It located in a widely used modern translation of the Bible.

[Antlerman]

Rev. 22:18

 

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

 

Now as far as the context and proper interpretation, it really depends on which set of eyes you're reading it through. "Whatever best suits your theology", seems the most common approach to Biblical hermeneutics, particularly with the conservative who reads it a priori as infallible, and typically and ironically matching their branch's set of beliefs.

 

That would be a postmodernist interpretation.

I wouldn't call that a postmodernist interpretation, but really a simple fact. "Whatever best suits your theology" is in fact what does happen - and each one with their interpretation citing justifications for it; and each claims their justification is the better approach. That's not any interpretation, but an observation.

 

Any BTW, based upon how often I see you call down the word "postmodernist", you seem to use that as a dirty word. Even if it is, it doesn't make it bad or wrong. I don't consider myself a postmodernist per se', but just because it has flaws in its conclusions does not negate what good it does offer. I look at Christianity the same way. I'm not such a fool as to say if something is not 100% correct it has no value.

 

There are very many positive contributions that postmodernism has offered, in much the same way Christianity had in its day, in the past.

 

I believe that the author (John) had a specific meaning for this statement and that it applied to the letter that he was writing (Revelation) as it says "this book". The Bible wasn't a book at the time he wrote that, so it cannot be read to apply to the Bible as a whole.

That's how I would interpret it, and as a young learning Christian that's how I hesitantly did. I say hesitantly because it went against the way everyone else in our organization liked to use it, and not just them but other Christian groups as well. And that was and is my point. They felt fully justified in their interpretations and is stood as authoritative to them. Call that postmodernism if you like. It still remains a fact.

[oddbird1963]

 

I think I cited enough to make my case and you have not done anything to refute that, so it stands as far as I can see.

 

It's really touching that you feel so confident about your citation. You are selectively

forgetful about the citations that I made on previous posts. But it's really cute to see one so confident.

 

However, you don't deal with my question.

 

Simply read the balance of the chapter and notice how each person cited had faith that had a

basis in good evidence. They all had reasons for their faith rather than a blind faith. In

other words, they all had an evidential basis for their faith.

 

You were doing fine up until "had faith." The rest (underlined) is simply your imagination

desparately wanting to impose that requirement upon the text which does not support that

requirement. It is extraneous - unneccesary. "Blind faith" is your characterization and not mine.

 

You miss the point of the balance of Hebrew 11 (I assume that is the chapter you are referencing.

You don't specify it). Hebrews 11 teachers that faith was the precedent for witnessing the

power of god in the world. In other words faith preceded the mighty works of god through people

like Noah, Abraham, Moses, the children of Israel, etc. and it prompted god's people to obedience.

 

Nowhere in this chapter do we read any words about the precendents to faith. In other words, nothing in the passage supports your anachranistic and forced assertions about an "evidential basis for faith." You really are torturing and contorting the meanings of passages to support your "evidential basis for faith" nonsense.

 

 

I don't know how Brown would legitimately dispute that given this context.

 

Well, LNC, Brown,et al are the experts in terms of the theological meaning of new testament words. You are not. The only reason you have to dispute the source is because it comes to a conclusion you don't care for.

 

Testimony can and is used for evidence here and, by the way, in our U.S. courtrooms. So, just

because the word is not used, doesn't mean that it cannot be inferred given the context. Now, I

would ask what your definition is of the word evidence as you seem to have something in mind as to what counts and doesn't count as evidence. Why cannot testimony count as evidence in this case? You claim that all they are hearing is dogma, which it seems, you are reading into the text. Nowhere does it say that the testimony was mere dogma. How is it that you come to that conclusion? How is it that you also conclude that God's confirmation of that testimony is not reasoned? Again, you seem to be reading an interpretation into the text that is not clear from the reading of it. Why cannot signs be a part of it, even if they are miracles. It seems to me

that miracles would be a clear confirmation of God's authentication as it clearly could not be (by definition) a natural or concocted event. You seem to be defining evidence either based upon naturalistic presuppositions or in a very narrow sense so as to discount certain phenomena that don't fit into your tight categories. Why is that not special pleading on your part?

 

Testimony is the least reliable form of evidence allowed in the courtroom. It has to be subjected to a process of cross examination and coroberation with known facts. Testimony as it is recounted in the NT was not subjected to the rational and critical methods of analysis we have today.

 

The testimony recounted in the NT concerning the resurrection and other events is about the equivalent of the testimony of bigfoot sightings, chubacabra encounters, UFO alien abduction claims, ghost sightings and Loch Ness monster sightings. No one claim has ever been supported when analyzed critically, but there are plenty of people who believe the stories. Partly based upon the sincerity and passion of so-called witnesses and partly because of the "expert" testimony of "cryptozoologists," the modern day apologists for belief in the existence of such creatures. They compile collections of testimonies about their particular pet monster and declare, "surely all these people can't be wrong!"

 

So there is something lacking in the treatment of "testimony." And it begins with lack of evidence. There is nothing available in the case of bigfoot sightings to establish the truth of those claims. We suffer from the same lack of evidence in the case of establishing the claims of christianity.

 

Dogma is beliefs or principles passed along by religious authorities. Dogma is accepted as true because parents, priests, prophets, pastors or preachers say it is true. That is the nature of the testimonies, miracle claims and sacred narratives contained in the Bible. The writer of Hebrews referred primarily to the Old Testament events. Those OT narratives and many non-canonical narratives were accepted as true based on tradition. Thus, they are dogma.

 

I think the real problem is that for you anything that smacks of a motivation for someone to believe something counts as evidence. My use of the word evidence is not special pleading. You have so watered down the very idea of evidence to support your beliefs that ANYTHING counts as evidence as long as it supports your beliefs. I'm using evidence in the normal sense of something that establishes a fact as true. You seem to use "evidence" to mean anything that leads someone to believe. Your approach leads to credulity and belongs on the same footing as big foot sightings and UFO abduction stories.

 

Thanks for posting that. There is nothing about that definition that contradicts my point. In fact, it is completely supportive of my point. I have highlighted those portions of each definition that speak to this point. Why is one justified in believing? Because the person has facts, acquaintance with that which is known, a body of knowledge...these are all based upon direct or indirect awareness which fits into the evidential category. I'm not sure why you

thought that this would run contrary to the philosophical definition?

 

Once again, you ignore or simply miss the point. You were using a narrow and technically precise definition of the word "knowleged" and then arbitrarily substituting that definition for the word knowledge. You tried to stack the deck.

 

The use of the word knowledge doesn't have to involve "justified true belief." There is a wide constellation of connotations to the word knowledge. Your selective use of one connotation is too restrictive for the subject matter being described in that section of Brown.

 

I never said you contradicted the definition of the word knowledge. I said your use of that one connotation in the midst of more appropriate connotations was inappropriate.

 

Now you are sounding more like a postmodern than an existentialist or a modern. These people weren't claiming belief based upon understanding a narrative and I challenge you to prove otherwise if that is what you believe. Just because you claim this doesn't mean that you have given proof of this view. This is a common view of postmodernists, but these people didn't come from or exist within a postmodern culture. You can't read Paul, John or any of the other writers and legitimately conclude that they were. John talks about that "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the

word of life." (1 John 1) He wasn't talking about a narrative here, he was talking about a real

live flesh and blood person. Paul talks about the actual event of being knocked off his feet and

hearing and seeing. (Acts 22, 26) Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he put his fingers in

the nail holes and his hand in Jesus side (John 20)

 

I think that you have fallen into the trap of postmodern thought. You have ripped these people

out of their historical context and imposed your postmodern ideals onto them. That is not good exegesis.

 

LNC

 

OH!! Lookie! LNC learned a new word and now EVERYBODY is going to be called a postmodernist. "You nasty nasty postmodernist you!"

 

If you were a Teabagger, you'd probably accuse me of being a socialist. If you were an evangelical from the 80's you'd probably accuse me of being a "SEK-UH-LAWR HOOMINIST!!!"

 

Just because something "sounds like" something you don't like doesn't make it true. I have already cited texts from the new testament that shows my model of biblical faith is sound. Now you are quote mining from scripture to say that yours is correct.

 

Now you are trying to accuse me of what you have been shown to do: applying modern concepts of evidence and historical analysis to a culture that is far far removed from our own.

 

LNC these interactions with you have grown tiresome. These encyclopedic posts have becom a waste of time.

 

If you have anything you want to post in response to me pick one thing. Please limit quotes of me to one thing. Say what you need to say in one or two paragraphs. Then I will reply.

 

Of course you can respond as volumously as you desire. I will only respond to one comment/retort/observation. And I will pick the one I want to respond to.

[agnosticator]

Now you are trying to accuse me of what you have been shown to do: applying modern concepts of evidence and historical analysis to a culture that is far far removed from our own.

 

Yes! I've had this in the back of my mind ever since he has posted numerous pontifications on "faith". If LNC would live in the Middle East, he might get a taste of just how far away they were! You've presented your case in detail, and have gone the extra mile. My hat's off to you!

[LNC]

In Heb 1 - 10 there are at least 60 citations of old testament passages.

 

Then, moving forward from Heb. 11:1, over the remaining three chapters there are around 20 citations and allusions to Old Testament passages.

 

So Hebrews is drenched with dogma and narrative. The writer is trying to strengthen the faith of his readers by appealing to the Old Testament (dogma) for doctrinal support and the heroes of the Old Testament (narrative) for inspirational support.

 

So, to you I guess history is the equivalent of dogma? Or, is it just some history that you consider to be dogma? If you differentiate, on what basis?

 

]Of course this is the pattern in the New Testament. 1) the "word" (narrative of faith) is preached 2) the word is heard 3) some hearers respond in faith . That's the biblical model of faith. Your conception of "faith flows from evidence" is an extra-biblical requirement that just does not exist in the new testament.

 

There you go with the word "ad hominem" again. You don't know the biblical meaning of faith and you don't know the meaning of the phrase ad homimem. Ouroboros has tried to clarify that issue with you. I see it has not set in with you yet.

 

I did not engage in an ad hominem attack on those poor Christians of days gone by. I made no evaluations of pre-modern, non-critical epistemologies. I certainly did not call them imbeciles. I used scripture and some highly reputable lexical sources to show that your definition of the biblical words for faith contains extraneous and unnecessary baggage.

 

I think the willy-nilly tossing about of a word like ad hominem shows just how desperate you are to remain entrenched in a flawed hermeneutic and apologetic approach.

 

Again, you simply assert this standard, "narrative of faith" to bolster your beliefs, you have not given any support that you are making anything more than a bald assertion based upon your presuppositions. You have not proved that these are not historical figures who saw historical events that produced the convictions of their beliefs. You have simply given your "narrative" to support your "dogma" to support your "faith."

 

l think that I have given plenty of support to the meaning of faith as used in this passage.

 

LNC

 

 

 

[LNC]

LNC likes to call fallacy quite often. Do you know there is a fallacy for that?

 

Fallacy Fallacy

Alias:

Argumentum ad Logicam

Fallacist's Fallacy

Type: Bad Reasons Fallacy

Form:

Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.

Therefore, C is false.

 

Exposition:

Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.

 

It's easy to come up with fallacious arguments for any proposition, whatever its truth-value. What's hard is to find a cogent argument for a proposition, even when it's true. For example, it is now believed by mathematicians that the proposition known as "Fermat's last theorem" is true, yet it took over three centuries for anyone to prove it. In the meantime, many invalid arguments were presented for it.

 

Exposure:

It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist.

 

Fallacy Files

 

Oh noes...I did it too! Well, the snake will soon reach it's own head and vanish.

 

I wonder if there is a Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy?

 

A fallacy can be committed in many different ways which is why, as the Fallacy Files show, that there are so many different types of fallacies. Yes, people can misapply fallacies, just as people can misuse logic. However, when that is done, one can simply point that out and show why that is the case. Simply to make statements regarding fallacies generally doesn't suffice. If you have a problem with my identification of certain fallacious arguments used, you are certainly free to point that out and to provide your explanation as to how and why you think I have misidentified the fallacy. However, I am also free to point out fallacious reasoning when I see it.

 

LNC

[LNC]

 

I took some courses in argumentation and logic, and my impression of modern style of argumentation is that it's less formal than it used to be. LNC still subscribe to the old fashioned formal logic kind, and unfortunately, you can almost always find a fallacy of some kind in every argument. That's why I poke him so much. Any kind of inductive inference is a form of generalization. Is a generalization valid or not? It's not always quite clear, and most of the time it's based on culture, values, and popular opinion rather than logic. That doesn't mean fallacies are useful, but they should be applied with care and not in a monkey-throwing-shit-around fashion (unless it is a specific syllogism that is under analysis, then you would apply every fallacy you can find). It's not of any value to apply formal logic to informal arguments, while restricting the use on syllogisms. It should be reversed.

 

I recommend that everyone on this board look into Toulmin, and his ideas of a model for modern argumentation.

 

I am only pointing out what I consider to be flagrant abuses of logic and ignoring minor errors in logic. However, I don't know that there has ever been a change in standards of logic, especially in argumentation as is occurring on this site. I mean, if people here want to simply make statements that are logically problematic and consider that they have made a valid argument, that is fine; however, although it may make them feel self-assured, it doesn't make their argument true or valid. The question is whether one wants to pursue truth or a feeling of self-assurance. If the former, then pointing out faulty reasoning is valid and necessary, if the latter, then one can assert anyone he/she wants to make him/herself feel better to achieve that end. I operate on the former standard, and if you consider that out of date or outmoded, then simply say so.

 

You say that any form of inductive inference is a generalization, which itself is an inductive inference. Is that statement valid or not? Is that statement clear? Is that statement derived from your culture, values, and/or popular opinion? I think you meant to say "That doesn't mean fallacies aren't useful". But yes, they should be applied with care, and are always open to being challenged. The same could be said of logical argumentation itself, it should be done with care and not simply be assertion thrown around carelessly. When that latter occurs, it should be pointed out and reason given as to why they were careless (i.e., fallacious).

 

Regarding Toulmin, I agree that people should evaluate these types of models to determine whether they are practical and applicable. I have a question for you, should Toulmin's standard always be preferred and applied?

 

LNC

[LNC]

Interesting question. It depends. I would say that if we wish to claim certainty in our minds about something so we can assure ourselves we are correct, and take comfort from that self-assurance, then that puts us at risk of having that comfort destroyed once we have new information that comes along and unseats that belief in our certainty. Just ask any one of the 5000 members on this site if they understand what that means.

 

I believe that kind of certainty that comes from thinking we have the correct mental understanding of something, gives the illusion of comfort and can in fact breed a certain stagnation by forcing you to limit what you are willing to be exposed to in knowledge. You will in fact limit your growth by being married to only safe things that don't threaten that assurance. Again, ask any one of the site here if they understand that.

 

But, I do believe there is a certainty that we can have that doesn't depend on having the correct interpretation, or evidence, or any such thing that has to do with reason alone. It can be a knowledge beyond reason, an assurance of the heart, and from that it is open to reason and knowledge of the mind without fear of it.

 

This is the exact opposite of LNC who claims 'faith' (to use that word) "flows from the evidence". Just on an argument of logic alone, how can one start with evidence and find "God" like he was discovering the existence of a Yeti? It reduces the Transcendent to a thing, and that could not be God.

 

We are discussing one particular use of a word that is translated into English as "faith", and the proper understanding of that word. There are other Greek words that are translated as "faith" in the NT and those have a different understanding. So, let's not generalize too much here. The point is the meaning of pistis, not whether faith always means one thing or the same thing all the time. We simply must understand the Greek words in their context, rather than generalizing based upon the English translation of those words based upon our modern understanding of those English words.

 

LNC

[LNC]

All humans can suffer and die. All humans feel pain and have emotions,and react emotionally within themselves to stimuli. These are the objective facts of the human makeup. Humans think about their circumstances, and choose their own actions. Since these actions affect others, humans enter into a relationship with those around them. This is morality.

 

The fact that humans react to stimuli does not equate to objective morality. Some people react positively to things such as torture, rape, murder, and other stimuli, while others react negatively to these same stimuli, how do we adjudicate between them without an outside standard that indicates that one reaction is "right" and the other "wrong"?

 

The basis of human morality is the objective human animal. The emotions expressed that affect other humans within relationships, are also part of the objective basis. Without all this, there can be no morality.

 

People who cause unnecessary suffering and death have a direct impact upon other humans' makeup. The reason they cause pain, suffering, and death, is a lack of empathy and fairness towards other humans. This is not a natural occurrence. IOW, nature is not the instigator of this suffering and death; these individuals are. In order for humans to survive and thrive, they create laws and rules to prevent these people from harming others. Since all humans share an objective base of existence, each individual should be treated with fairness and equality.

 

Now you have inserted an outside standard, "unnecessary suffering and death" which you have not grounded in your previous standard. You have not defined "unnecessary" nor explained why suffering and death, or which suffering and death is wrong. IOW, is all suffering wrong? What about the suffering a person goes through for schooling or at the doctor or dentist? Is all death wrong? What about death that comes about via self-defense? Would you consider abortion to be wrong since it causes death of the fetus? You have also brought in empathy as a standard which you again have not grounded. Who says that empathy is a natural thing? It seems that animals in the wild often exhibit no empathy, which is why it is said that nature is "red in tooth and claw." Empathy is also not even necessarily a norm in human society as we look at the statistics of violent crime. Still, you have not explained on what basis we should prefer empathy over selfishness. Plato said that we cannot move from particulars to universal. IOW, we can look at what is to determine what ought to be.

 

Finally, you have a non-sequitur in your final statement. Just because humans all objectively exist, IOW, we exist independent of whether we think we do, that in no way justifies your statement on fairness and equality. Existence is a different category from fairness and equity. We could say that humans and paper cups both have an objective basis of existence, but we don't treat each with equality or fairness. I don't treat the paper cup on my desk the same way that I treat another human being. I will toss the cup in the garbage when I am done, I wouldn't consider doing that with another human. We must ground morality in more than simply looking at how we behave toward one another and making norms into universals. That is a dangerous proposition when you think about the fact that slavery, subjugation, and even murder of humans of certain "classes" and races was once a norm.

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

Interesting question. It depends. I would say that if we wish to claim certainty in our minds about something so we can assure ourselves we are correct, and take comfort from that self-assurance, then that puts us at risk of having that comfort destroyed once we have new information that comes along and unseats that belief in our certainty. Just ask any one of the 5000 members on this site if they understand what that means.

 

I believe that kind of certainty that comes from thinking we have the correct mental understanding of something, gives the illusion of comfort and can in fact breed a certain stagnation by forcing you to limit what you are willing to be exposed to in knowledge. You will in fact limit your growth by being married to only safe things that don't threaten that assurance. Again, ask any one of the site here if they understand that.

 

But, I do believe there is a certainty that we can have that doesn't depend on having the correct interpretation, or evidence, or any such thing that has to do with reason alone. It can be a knowledge beyond reason, an assurance of the heart, and from that it is open to reason and knowledge of the mind without fear of it.

 

This is the exact opposite of LNC who claims 'faith' (to use that word) "flows from the evidence". Just on an argument of logic alone, how can one start with evidence and find "God" like he was discovering the existence of a Yeti? It reduces the Transcendent to a thing, and that could not be God.

 

We are discussing one particular use of a word that is translated into English as "faith", and the proper understanding of that word. There are other Greek words that are translated as "faith" in the NT and those have a different understanding. So, let's not generalize too much here. The point is the meaning of pistis, not whether faith always means one thing or the same thing all the time. We simply must understand the Greek words in their context, rather than generalizing based upon the English translation of those words based upon our modern understanding of those English words.

 

LNC

I'll try to be clear. I really don't care what the writers of the NT "really" meant, other than in the interest of an historic artifact. The importance would be in how they may have perceived things back then, and then to evaluate it from an understanding we have today. You see, I see things as progressive and dynamic. We are growing, evolving, becoming more aware (hopefully).

 

But to you, you start with the premise that somewhere in our past someone had the Answer, and now its a matter of arguing and debating what that person's words meant truly, so we might too have and share that Truth, he supposedly had. You look backwards, supposing the Answer lay back there in our past, rather than looking within and forward. Regressionism, would be a good word for that, a form of Romanticism.

 

It is utterly silly to argue over word meanings in such hope of finding that sort of truth. You can no more understand or apprehend spiritual truth through academia, than arguing which type of pigments Monet used will make you an artist yourself. Paul had a perception, but what do YOU see? I will bet you that is never a question you ask, because you look to authorities to be able to tell you how to be this or that, or think this or that.

 

I can appreciate what those of the past may have thought, and those of the past may in fact have a great many insights and wisdom that has value today. No doubt. But we also have that. We also are part of that same living, dynamic world, and it is as much a part of us as anyone who has ever lived. I do not accept anyone as Authority.

 

You do however, and that is where you will never apprehend it for yourself, to become part of us, and to use the metaphor you're familiar with "A light". At best, to claim being grounded in truth by claiming another as your authority, is like sketching your interpretation of their light, not being one yourself.

 

Argue away about what Paul may have meant. In the end, it would be how he thought, and not Authority. The whole Biblical authority thing contradicts everything that growth is about. You cannot rely on your understanding, as your own Bible says. And this is only one reason why. If you claim evidence, than you are contradicting the core principle of this.

 

Are you ready to swim out without your paddle board yet?

[LNC]

You do read the posts others are putting up in here? I believe we agree that morality is objective, in that it is greater than the individual. That was discussed at some length by us. It was in those posts where I talked about how you avoid any discussion that leaves behind the safety-net of your tower of evidence you anchor your faith in. This make four times you've avoided that discussion. (No surprise actually).

 

Sorry, I have not seen the objective grounding of morality from a naturalist viewpoint. I'm not avoiding anything, I am just looking for a substantial argument. I don't always respond to posts that are not directed to me, sorry, but I can't respond to everything due to the volume of posts.

 

Now, if you believe that you have objective grounding for morality from a naturalist (defined as: all that exists is the natural/physical world), the maybe you can make that argument. I don't think I have seen that done so far, but maybe I did miss something. No intention on my part to avoid this argument, on the contrary, I look forward to engaging in this discussion.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Oh OK, so if your god exists, then it was OK for me to have been abused most of my childhood and I got no help, because it was best for me? What sort of morality is that? Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. What sort of sick god or person for that matter because it is YOUR god concept, would believe that someone, esp a child, that is being abused should be because there is "no choice" due to that being what God says is best for that person? Give me a break! That is not a god concept I wish to have. No, again it is humans who must stop another person from being abused. There is no god who is going to put an end to the abuse. Only humans can do that.

 

I'm sorry that you were abused during your childhood. Humans can be tremendously sinful. I didn't say that it was best for you to be abused, nor did I say that this was why you didn't experience the answer to prayer that you desired. I'm am not in a position, as I mentioned earlier, to determine God's reasons for your situation. All I can say is that it is not an argument against God's existence. God could logically exist and allow humans to use their free will to perform all kinds of evil, including the brutal murder of his own Son. He didn't intercede to stop that crime either. Your morality problem is not with God, it should be with the person(s) who committed the heinous acts against you. The question is, which acts should God intercede to stop? How much of human freedom should God interfere with to stop? Again, I am sorry that you went through the trauma that you did.

 

In MY worldview? Well, if you are asking for my personal view, it is because such things harm others (this includes other animals) and I am highly sensitive to the pain of others and do not like seeing others harmed. In all honesty, when others are in pain so am I and I want to stop it if I can. This is called mirror neurons and I apparently have a lot of them to be able to feel what others feel when they are hurting. One does not need a god concept in which to have a desire to make the pain stop. This is not a personal opinion, but rather pure empathy. I'm not talking about some fictional character like Deanna Troi or Lwaxana Troi, in which one can read some or all a person's thoughts, I'm talking about being sensitive to others- their pain, their needs, and all that good stuff. This is something that comes from within myself, not something that is out there outside myself. I can read people's body language and sometimes I can read what they don't say- like someone I know, but not personally, emailed me once. We email each other quite often and she didn't say a word about feeling bad, but somehow I sensed something was wrong- she admitted to having a headache. I read little clues- both from body language and little other things when I don't see them. I am very sensitive to others. So much so that even though my sons didn't say a word, I knew when they had an ear infection and oddly enough I had an earache too- pediatricians have a word for this, but I forgot what it was. The same goes when someone is not happy, I feel that too. If I can, I try to help the person feel better, which in turn makes me feel better. It goes both ways.

 

How does it apply to all people? I don't know that it should. I cannot say that it is the best thing in the world to empathize with others so greatly or to be so sensitive to other people. I feed off other people and I do not think that is always a good thing. Why should I impose such things on others UNLESS they are hurting others? If they are hurting someone, then yes, I am going to do what I can to stop it. I don't like to see other people in pain- emotionally or physically. However, these mirror neurons are not something from outside myself. It is all within me and developed due to how I was treated growing up. Do I think everyone should live this way? Yes and no. Yes in that we should not allow humans or other animals to be harmed by others. Yes, in that when we see suffering we should do what we can to help. In this way, we are bettering ourselves and others. No, in that sometimes being highly sensitive to others is not always a good thing and sometimes very painful, either emotionally or psychologically physically painful.

 

Here is a metaphor for you, if it helps: Joseph Campbell once said, "Now in the Gnostic tradition, we are ALL Christ crucified." Every day we as a society "crucify" each other. Other humans are doing harm to others (not just to humans, but other animals) and IMO, that should not be. If you can picture this, being highly sensitive to others is almost like having a form of "stigmata". Something I would not wish on anyone, but even so, I believe we all need to work together to relieve other people's suffering- both mental and physical suffering. In doing so, I think we would better ourselves as a society. Some people need more empathy while others need less. Pity for you though, IF Christ's crucifixion had been real and I had been there, I would have tried to stop it. (Go ahead. Say what you want about that. I've heard it before and personally I find that disgusting and sick.)

 

Now here is something else you might not be aware of or even comprehend and it concerns other animals: Sometimes, in times of great trauma, other animals, such as pets, can be very sympathetic. So much so that one can feel at one with them (feel transcendence) and all the pain of the trauma is temporarily alleviated. Again, this is all neuro-chemical and has nothing to do with any deity. It has all to do with being connected to each other and everything on earth. Other animals are not oblivious to a child or even an adult who is suffering in some fashion and even they will do what they can to help, even if it is just showing some love to the wounded person. I know this, because I have experienced it many times in my lifetime. They are a lot like us. They do what they can and sometimes even work as a team, in order to survive. That is what it is about- survival. If we do not work together, then we cannot survive. Humans are social animals, just as other animals, mammals in particular are. This is why you see wolf packs- a lone wolf doesn't survive very well by himself. You see prides of lions and even when you don't see several wild cats together, the offspring stays with their mother for a while in order to learn to survive. It is also not a myth that you see a mother of another species find an orphan of different species and raise them.

 

 

Again, it is called survival. Pay attention to the leopard. There was no god involved in any of that. It was purely empathy and sympathy. Suffice it to say, there is no god who will save us. We must save ourselves and to do that, we must work together. Prayer will not do anything to help us survive. At best it is like meditation and does nothing more than to help us relax and/or calm ourselves. The only thing that will do any good to better society is if people take action.

 

So, there you go. Hopefully that answers your question. If not, I don't know what to tell you, except get your head out of your butt and face reality.

 

Mriana, you sound like a very empathetic person and I applaud that . You apparently have been through a lot of pain in your life and I'm sure that makes you sensitive to others, whether other people or animals. I too am an empathetic person and try to treat other people and animals with kindness. I recently did some research on the topic of animal suffering as it is a problem in many parts of the world. Still, you seem to be going back and forth as to whether and how morality is objectively based. You seem to want it to be in certain ways, but also want to leave some relative applications. The question still remains, if there are certain things that should never be done (i.e., cause unnecessary suffering), on what is that based? As I said in another post, we cannot base it on norms, since norms change and therefore are not objective (slavery was once a norm, abortion is currently a norm and both cause unnecessary suffering). We also cannot base it on feelings/sensibilities as you have and had different feelings and sensibilities from those who abused you, yet how do we and who decides which feelings and sensibilities are right and wrong and on what basis (it seems that that standard has to be external and transcendent of human feelings and sensibilities).

 

So, even though we bring in terms like pain and suffering, we cannot say that all pain and suffering are wrong (I feel pain and suffer when I go to the dentist). We cannot say that it is based upon our reactions since everyone reacts differently and there has to be a standard to adjudicate between those people. IOW, we need a transcendent standard that is not based or grounded in subjective feelings or situations.

 

LNC

[The-Captain]

We also cannot base it on feelings/sensibilities as you have and had different feelings and sensibilities from those who abused you, yet how do we and who decides which feelings and sensibilities are right and wrong and on what basis (it seems that that standard has to be external and transcendent of human feelings and sensibilities).

 

How about saying positive morality is based on what is beneficial to people (what causes them to flourish) and negative morality is that which denigrates or destroys? That would be a standard outside of us, though we wouldn't be the best judges of what is best from our limited perspective.

[Antlerman]

The question still remains, if there are certain things that should never be done (i.e., cause unnecessary suffering), on what is that based? As I said in another post, we cannot base it on norms, since norms change and therefore are not objective (slavery was once a norm, abortion is currently a norm and both cause unnecessary suffering).

First, I'm happy to see you acknowledge that the commandments of God in the OT are morally subjective, social norms in other words ascribed to God for the purpose of social order.

 

But here comes a little controversy into the soup to address your arguments. You are right about norms. And if it at one point in the history of the world a society cannot sustain an over-abundance of population (we're talking the past for the moment for the most part), things like infanticide were considered morally correct. Was there suffering? Sure, to one degree or another. Was it "unnecessary"? Not to them. It served a purpose.

 

For argument's sake, were you to take an outside notion from another society about their ideas of Absolutes (which is what you are trying to make in your arguments about "objective morality"), and impose it upon them without supporting infrastructures, the loss of that practice could in fact cause greater suffering and a potential threat to their overall existence. The practice of infanticide to them had stood as objectively moral. It was making sacrifices for the greater good. To us today it would be objectively immoral to kill a living child, since we have other means available to spare that child. Others have the means to support that child when the parent themselves may not. (Abortion is an entirely different moral question due to numerous other considerations - I will not derail this point getting embroiled into that).

 

Objective morality is not Absolute morality in the sense of codes of conduct being applicable to all societies, all places, all times, in all cultures. But it is objective and not solely subjective as you and those who make these sorts of arguments wish to frame it. Objective is that it exists outside the individual. It is something that the individual interacts with, and that has an affect upon the individual. It is outside themselves. It can be looked at, measured, and examined. Is its source subjective? Partly so. It is intersubjective. And as such it is greater than the individual, and outside all of them. It is objective reality. But there is a difference between that and Absolute reality.

 

Is there an Absolute Reality on which to base all actions of society and the individual? That is your real question (of which you will then argue you have that Answer - which you don't, IMHO). In how I believe I would perceive that there is a tendency towards compassion the greater the depth of mind evolves, a lessening of of egocentricism, ethnocentricism, sociocentricism, and movement towards globalcentricism and world compassion. So I would say that if we are able to integrate our social structures sufficiently in order to fully support that deeper structure, should the individual apprehend that, then our basis for objective morality will allow it to be more greatly fulfilled and expand.

 

But the issue I see in where you are coming from is that to cite some Absolute like God (or Godhead), you are attempting to impose it as a standard on which to judge others as in-God or out-of-God, with no in between. Yet, we see this exact same shift in objective morality within the Christian/Jewish history as any other culture in the world. I mention the OT morality of taking virgin girls as slaves/wives after killing their family as one example of it clearly seen. In my belief, people grow into "God", but cannot be judged by that as moral or immoral. The minute you do that, you have made yourself on the spot to be judged the same way by those beyond you in that growth. In their eyes they were acting morally. That practice to us today is immoral.

 

In my belief, everyone is in-God, and to one degree or another is either more or less aware. But we all, regardless of where we are, are on rungs of that ladder. But just because you may be on rung 5, another on rung 3, or others on rung 80, they are all on the ladder. A child who sees the world as ruled by magic creatures in trees or in the sky, is just as much a living mind as you who see's it ruled by one deity instead of many, or me who sees it differently than that.

 

Each rung is a level of reality for those on it, and the world they interact with at that level IS reality to them. It is objective, to them. But it is not Absolute. Not until you are actually on that top rung of Infinity, actually living there, actually seeing the Whole from that, living their morally, then can you say or claim Absolutes for all below.

 

There is no way for you living on rung 5 to be able to fathom, process, or morally apprehend level Infinity. You cannot read about it in a book and grasp it, anymore than a 5 year old can read about philosophy and get it without have lived anywhere near that level. There is insufficient context. Even if the words from that higher level exist and are available to them. Reading, and interpreting, getting a grasp on the original language, etc, etc, will NOT give them the moral context to understand it, let alone judge others by it! Read my signature line by Emerson, "What we are, that only can we see".

 

The only way to judge, or have objective truth for others, would be on your level, not to those below, nor to those above.

 

Does this help?

 

Addendum: Expanding on the example of the ladder, I would envision more as a double-helix, with ascending and descending pathways. In other words, its more dynamic than linear.

[oddbird1963]

In Heb 1 - 10 there are at least 60 citations of old testament passages.

 

Then, moving forward from Heb. 11:1, over the remaining three chapters there are around 20 citations and allusions to Old Testament passages.

 

So Hebrews is drenched with dogma and narrative. The writer is trying to strengthen the faith of his readers by appealing to the Old Testament (dogma) for doctrinal support and the heroes of the Old Testament (narrative) for inspirational support.

 

So, to you I guess history is the equivalent of dogma? Or, is it just some history that you consider to be dogma? If you differentiate, on what basis?

 

]Of course this is the pattern in the New Testament. 1) the "word" (narrative of faith) is preached 2) the word is heard 3) some hearers respond in faith . That's the biblical model of faith. Your conception of "faith flows from evidence" is an extra-biblical requirement that just does not exist in the new testament.

 

There you go with the word "ad hominem" again. You don't know the biblical meaning of faith and you don't know the meaning of the phrase ad homimem. Ouroboros has tried to clarify that issue with you. I see it has not set in with you yet.

 

I did not engage in an ad hominem attack on those poor Christians of days gone by. I made no evaluations of pre-modern, non-critical epistemologies. I certainly did not call them imbeciles. I used scripture and some highly reputable lexical sources to show that your definition of the biblical words for faith contains extraneous and unnecessary baggage.

 

I think the willy-nilly tossing about of a word like ad hominem shows just how desperate you are to remain entrenched in a flawed hermeneutic and apologetic approach.

 

Again, you simply assert this standard, "narrative of faith" to bolster your beliefs, you have not given any support that you are making anything more than a bald assertion based upon your presuppositions. You have not proved that these are not historical figures who saw historical events that produced the convictions of their beliefs. You have simply given your "narrative" to support your "dogma" to support your "faith."

 

l think that I have given plenty of support to the meaning of faith as used in this passage.

 

LNC

 

 

LNC.

 

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you actually trying to make a point by arguing against the gospel message and Old Testament accounts as being "narratives?"

 

Did you even consult a dictionary? Do you know what a narrative is?

 

By calling the gospel message or the Hebrews author's retelling of OT accounts "narrative of faith" I am not saying anything radical or liberal or, as you would have us believe "post modern."

 

I'm merely using the normal meaning of the word to describe the content of people's faith in the bible:

Narrative: a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.

 

(From dictionary dot com.

 

If you really have trouble with me calling biblical accounts "narratives of faith" then you, obviously, have never read anything with an open mind. Have you ever read anything just to read and enjoy it? It seems you have little grasp of literature of any kind. Do you only read things with the intent of proving your unique twists on christian theology.

 

There is no burden on me to prove the characters in the bible stories are not historical. There is simply no reason to believe they were. It is something unprovable. The accounts are dogma because they are passed on from generation to generation based on the authority of parents and religious leaders

 

Again from dictionary.com :

 

 

Dogma -

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.

3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.

4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

 

I believe my usage of the word dogma is consistent with items 4 and 2 in the quote, mostly 4.

 

So, your objections about my depiction of the OT stories referred to by the writer of Hebrews as dogma and narrative is unfounded, if you understand the English language. Your statement that my statements are bald assertions are not only bald assertions in themselves but factually incorrect.

 

Do you actually answer the question "Were the Old Testament accounts passed on from generation to generation based on the authority of parents and religious leaders?" with a "No" response?

 

Sure, in their minds 1st century believers thought of Adam & Eve, Abraham, Noah and others as historic figures. But that does not make them historical in the modern sense of the word. And if you cannot understand that there is a modern 19th - 21st century meaning to the word "historic" that is much more stringent in its demands than any first century idea of "historic," then there is a major oversight in your thinking.

 

The fact is, first century believers and their Jewish predecessors were not the investigative powerhouses that you seem try to depict them as. Like most people do in their religious upbringing they accepted things as facts based on the credibility conferred onto parents, religious leaders, personal friends. If persuasion was needed, then there was an accepted style of rhetoric and personal charisma that preachers, teachers and esteemed peers and civic leaders possessed. Add to that the personal yearnings of the individual and the way in which acceptance of the narratives of faith being shared with them meet and satisfy those yearnings, then you have the basis for a faith response.

 

This is how it has always been in matters of religion. This is how our great grandparents received and passed on their faith and this is how most of us received it.

 

You are trying to take faith and wrap it in a modern myth of historicity. That is the unique aspect that you are trying to inject into the word "pistis." And that is where you fail, lexically, to prove your point.

[Mriana]

I'm sorry that you were abused during your childhood. Humans can be tremendously sinful. I didn't say that it was best for you to be abused, nor did I say that this was why you didn't experience the answer to prayer that you desired. I'm am not in a position, as I mentioned earlier, to determine God's reasons for your situation. All I can say is that it is not an argument against God's existence. God could logically exist and allow humans to use their free will to perform all kinds of evil, including the brutal murder of his own Son. He didn't intercede to stop that crime either. Your morality problem is not with God, it should be with the person(s) who committed the heinous acts against you. The question is, which acts should God intercede to stop? How much of human freedom should God interfere with to stop? Again, I am sorry that you went through the trauma that you did.

 

I never said it proved or disproved any deity, but IMHO why would I want to believe in such a deity who did not stop such things, esp if s/he/it had the power? Any decent, protective, and morally upright parental figure, which was what I was taught said god was, would have stopped it as soon as they knew without a doubt abuse was happening. It sounds to me like you are trying to justify your beliefs, which doesn't prove the existence of said deity either. It sounds to me like a struggle with the existence of said god concept, which is what all concepts of a deity are- human concepts.

 

Of course my issue is not with a god, because such a thing, IMO, doesn't exist or if it does, I cannot conceive of such a thing nor would I want to even fathom such a deity. It lies squarely on the humans involved.

 

Mriana, you sound like a very empathetic person and I applaud that . You apparently have been through a lot of pain in your life and I'm sure that makes you sensitive to others, whether other people or animals. I too am an empathetic person and try to treat other people and animals with kindness. I recently did some research on the topic of animal suffering as it is a problem in many parts of the world. Still, you seem to be going back and forth as to whether and how morality is objectively based. You seem to want it to be in certain ways, but also want to leave some relative applications. The question still remains, if there are certain things that should never be done (i.e., cause unnecessary suffering), on what is that based? As I said in another post, we cannot base it on norms, since norms change and therefore are not objective (slavery was once a norm, abortion is currently a norm and both cause unnecessary suffering). We also cannot base it on feelings/sensibilities as you have and had different feelings and sensibilities from those who abused you, yet how do we and who decides which feelings and sensibilities are right and wrong and on what basis (it seems that that standard has to be external and transcendent of human feelings and sensibilities).

 

I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying about morality. IMHO, it is all internal and cannot be external. What good is morality based on something external? It is meaningless IMO. When you allow others to do you're thinking for you, then you follow along like a Borg drone. That is not morality, IMO, but allowing others to think for you, so you don't have to do it yourself.

 

So, even though we bring in terms like pain and suffering, we cannot say that all pain and suffering are wrong (I feel pain and suffer when I go to the dentist). We cannot say that it is based upon our reactions since everyone reacts differently and there has to be a standard to adjudicate between those people. IOW, we need a transcendent standard that is not based or grounded in subjective feelings or situations.

 

LNC

 

Yes we can say all pain and suffering is wrong. Physically, if you have pain, then something is wrong and something must be done about it. The same goes for the emotional too. You cannot separate the mind from the body. What affects the mind also affects the body and vice versa. Pain is a sign there is something wrong and to ignore it only creates more problems. We do not need any transcendent standard for anything when science can tell us many things. To say something external to the universe is involved is to do nothing, which is VERY wrong IMO.

 

How about saying positive morality is based on what is beneficial to people (what causes them to flourish) and negative morality is that which denigrates or destroys? That would be a standard outside of us, though we wouldn't be the best judges of what is best from our limited perspective.

 

I agree, Captain. I think you said it very well, except I think we could be the best judges given that we can observe the end results and can see if we succeed or made things worse.

[Shyone]

I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying about morality. IMHO, it is all internal and cannot be external. What good is morality based on something external? It is meaningless IMO. When you allow others to do you're thinking for you, then you follow along like a Borg drone. That is not morality, IMO, but allowing others to think for you, so you don't have to do it yourself.

 

These words are wise, but I must disagree with one part.

 

Choices of behavior are entirely internal. Plus, we can individually decide what is moral. That much I agree with.

 

But to some extent morality is simply what "we" decide is acceptable behavior. To use the extreme example, if one person decides on his own that child rape is moral, it does not make it moral. There has to be some consensus. That is our guide.

 

Admittedly, this way of determining morality, while it is the basis for law and society, may be flawed. Burning witches was once "moral" by agreement. I'm sure the witches thought otherwise. It also suggests, however, that somethings "we" consider moral now may not stand the test of time. The death penalty for example.

 

So it is a mixture of personal opinion (conscience) and external judgement.