Faith and modernity

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Reza Aslan is universally discredited as a historian and faux NT scholar who has inflated his credentials and claimed university faculty positions he never held. His work is not simply not accurate.
Sources? It would be a good joke if a half-cooked conman comes closest to the truth re Jesus the resurrected Christ versus the historical Jesus. On the other hand...

Joking aside.. what he says is nothing new. Did you read his book(s)? What research did you yourself do on the historical Jesus, what are your sources, which books did you digest? Anything of Geza Vermes? From what position of authority does thou speak?
I have a BA in Biblical Studies and a M.Div., which are better qualifications than Aslan's MFA in fiction and Ph.D in Sociology with a thesis on Jihadism. Aslan does not even read Greek. Qualifications are not everything, but biblical literature is exceptionally nuanced with centuries of academic commentary. Koine Greek is peculiar. Its genitive case and the ease of confusing prepositions have caused numerous errors and disputes.

Aslan is like a mathematician writing about physics. Writing out of one's field can be treacherous, even if there are some similarities.

When an author cannot read the original sources, has no professional training in the field and does not even cite/consider previous academic work his output is going to be limited at best. I can't waste time on Aslan's amateur attempt just because Aslan finagled his book into a NYT best seller. N.T. Wright has 1700 pages on Paul and the Faithfulness of God on my desk. Wright gets my time when it comes to Jesus, not the Muslim sociologist.

I'm sure Aslan put together a believable story. He is a trained fiction writer; that is what they do.

Google reviews of Aslan's book and you will not find a qualified historian who takes him seriously. The search for a historical Jesus essentially ended with Schweitzer. There are a few token efforts, but the quality of ancient literature simply does not allow for it to be generally used as a modern history.

Selectively editing out explicitly Christian reviews:

http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles ... sus-wasnt/

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/a ... lan-review

But obviously most of the best New Testament scholars are Christian. Few non-Christians will devote a career to studying Christianity. You will find professional, academic, detailed and devastating criticism from Christian scholars on google.

Bart Ehrman, an outstanding biblical scholar and Christian apostate is a great source but most of his content is behind a paywall. However, Ehrman's free introductory remarks are enough to establish that Aslan is about as good as Dan Brown for accurate interpretation of Christian history.
http://ehrmanblog.org/aslans-zealot-start/
Thanks. You will have to forgive me that I will not spend (waste) my time on Jewish and Christian metaphysics where historic fact, stories, philosophies, commentaries, interpretations and interpretations of interpretations all mix and run amok into a mushrooming library of the most intimate and brilliant... nonsense. ;)

The distinction between the metaphysical resurrected Christ and Jesus the Man.... I would say is an important one, for starters. And it is quite telling that the amount of writing about the metaphysical one is a multifold much bigger.. than Jesus the Man. Jesus the Man has long been dehumanized into this celestial resurrected being... so anyone making an effort to bring him back into the fold of human normalcy is really welcome. Will continue later, holy food is on the table.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I'm sure Aslan put together a believable story. He is a trained fiction writer; that is what they do.
As for Reza Aslan's book, I'm sure it is not perfect and that there is information available that counters to a degree his bare bone version of Jesus as a pure Zealot with a political agenda. Though I'm not sure yet that this is exactly how he wants to portray him; rather the Romans saw him as such and an equal nuisance once he came out the wood work into the center of political and religious power, Jerusalem. But that is all just detail. I will listen out his audio-book. If he is factually wrong, inaccurate... I'm sure some people will take the effort to point it out.

As for your qualification of Reza Aslan as a trained fiction writer. That is truly lame to the point of comedy. He probably can't match up to a guy like Geza Vermes... but what matters is there is a renewed interest in the historical Jesus. Which is good. Personally I never thought of Jesus the Man as a bare bone Zealot with a political agenda.. but I'm not convinced that this is how Azlan is potraying him exactly. Will see. I read two books of Vermes and of another writer I can't remember, and I did read the NT, some bible study groups when I was a teenager. Never felt that Jesus the Man was a complicated man with a complicated teaching. Virgin birth, miracles and resurrection: possible but unlikely... and not that relevant. Moral, spiritual refreshment together with social reform, with love as the only force that can bring this about and in rejection of political power and violence. Belief in your Creator if you feel that way, lest it does not torture your reason and intellect.

Writing fiction is of course the prime occupation of the religiously inclined to begin with. The bulk of High Core Theology is fantasy, the interpretation of fantasy and the application and practical derivatives of various fantasies into society.

The resurrected Christ at its core is a fictional character (has to be; there exists no proof that he resurrected) and from then on trained fiction writers and preachers have dedicated their lives adding more of it, interpretations and interpretations of interpretations ad infinitum. I am sure one can become a very learned scholar and be @home in this metaphysical forest and give a good analysis of the genre.. say very learned things about it that are even very "accurate". As it is possible to learn a lot about schizophrenia and be accurate about it. Problem with studying schizophrenia is when it is done by schizophrenics. More interesting when it is done by somebody with eyes that look differently! ;)

As I said in the other thread about Boko Haram, this distinction matters in the context of modernity:

1. human being <- Holy book
2. Holy human being -> book

Modernity moves from 1 to 2. Holy books, books, more books... will loose their significance in the daily experiences of people. A normalized human Jesus the Man fits better. The Metaphysical Fantasy Christ... more an outlier. To entertain a combination of the two simultaneously.. demi-God Jesus Christ the Man.. for those who find either version in isolation just too hard to live with. But 2000 years of pimping up a resurrected fantasy Christ... created a deficit on the human side of Jesus the Man.

That somebody like Reza Aslan "nose dived" into the quest for the historical Jesus should be understood in that context. Can't really blame him for that! He may not come out with the best version of Jesus the Man... but it gives a nice balancing contrast to the much more outrageous version of the metaphysical Christ, which is for the most part.. insane anyways.

Sorry for being blunt. ;)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6170
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

I like blunt. Best way to communicate online IMHO. Intellectual challenge is a compliment, not an insult.

The search for the historical Jesus has been an academic pursuit since the enlightenment, but every time we look down that well we see our own reflection. The historical Jesus always ends up reflecting the needs of its time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_ ... ical_Jesus

My point is that, according to the reviews, Aslan ignores most of the work of the many authentic scholars who have tried to find the historical, non-metaphysical Jesus, and then he cherry picks verses to support his amateur theories while ignoring everything to the contrary. Trying to pass that off as scholarship is deceptive and dishonest.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I like blunt. Best way to communicate online IMHO. Intellectual challenge is a compliment, not an insult.

The search for the historical Jesus has been an academic pursuit since the enlightenment, but every time we look down that well we see our own reflection. The historical Jesus always ends up reflecting the needs of its time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_ ... ical_Jesus
I beg to differ, somewhat more. It is quite possible to reconstruct a sort of most likely Jesus and without drifting away into too much speculation. I know him, and he agrees with me. 8-)

It rather is the opposite of what you are saying. It is the post-Jesus Messianic Resurrected Christ in which people see themselves, project their hopes and needs on. Read a book of a Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx forgot which :oops: , but what I remember and got from it was that for him the metaphysical risen Christ especially mattered a lot. There is very little value in just a good guy who got killed by the Romans. A resurrection in the flesh or spirit however.. is a new party. Something like that. Enough for me to know that such a Christ is not my cup of tea at all.
My point is that, according to the reviews, Aslan ignores most of the work of the many authentic scholars who have tried to find the historical, non-metaphysical Jesus, and then he cherry picks verses to support his amateur theories while ignoring everything to the contrary. Trying to pass that off as scholarship is deceptive and dishonest.
I do believe Aslan tends to select and amplify certain things.. or posibilities..in order to paint the Jesus he thinks was closest to the orginal.. or wants to be closest.. but for sure his critics suffered same by amplifying, selecting.. talking suggestively.. about Reza Aslan. I like in that respect the comment of the Jewish Rabbi you linked. He didn't say too much there.. other than being angry/insulted how Aslan potrayed certain Jews and their rituals as stinky and vulgar in the Temple. The Rabbi mentioned things Aslan didn't mention.. without really constructing a case of what it means. Of course the initial Fox interview was hilarious. :)

Aslan portraying Jesus as an illiterate. That surprised me too. On the other hand.. the fact that Jesus sometimes referred to Jewish scripture... and (Luke?) it is mentioned that as a young boy he studied scripture.. does itself not prove he was academically very trained. Any Jo or Ahmed, as you know, can quote a few verses and claim to speak in the name of God Awmighty already. What sticks out with Jesus though.. is how he constructed his own stories, parables and adding new meaning. Therefore I don't think he was an academic at all. Illiterate would be a bit too strong, but a creative story teller... yes. A bit like Reza Aslan :o :)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Torchwood
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:01 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Torchwood »

Most people are religious because that is what they are brought up in, they don’t question it, the dogma stops you having to think for yourself, and it provides a comforting and supporting community. Most people don't think for themselves

For those who do, there are two ways for a thinking person to look at religious stories:
- they are just fairytales. Objectively, with a scientific approach, that is correct. Son of God, or a first century Rabbi (ideas mainly in the air at the time, see Rabbi Hillel) converted by St Paul into a dying-and-reborn Roman god? As for a 7C illiterate warlord getting divine dictation(warning: reading this might get you killed :mrgreen: )
- They are myths which might help one, through prayer or meditation, to loosen the hold of the ego, and experience reality in a different way. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case, although capriciously and unpredictably. Those myths are in a literal sense untrue, but act as archetypes in a Jungian sense.

The secular minded understand this best through Buddhism, because the mystical tradition is at its core and it makes no assumptions about God, although that has elements which are clearly untrue (there is no evidence for a law of karma).

Yahweh and Allah are old fashioned nasty gods of power, and seem unpromising material for this “perennial philosophy” . However Christianity transformed Him into a god of love, although sadly the old Yahweh tended to resurface and dominate throughout most of history. Allah seems an even more improbable basis – the spiritual content of the Koran is close to zero – but it did so through Sufism, heavily influenced by contact with Buddhism and Hinduism.

What is tragic but not so surprising is that the religious revivals are mainly for Yahweh and Allah, not the universal god of love. They are actually very literally minded Western thinking, all yang not ying, either/or instead of both/and. The enemy is the power god of Science, so they are in denial to the latter’s reality, that has to be a losing battle in the end. It is telling that the Salafis hate Sufism with even more vehemence than they hate the kufr.

The only Christian apologetics which has ever made the slightest sense to me is C.G. Jung's "Answer to Job"

I am hoping that science exploring brain states may help close the gap, but it's hard work - we haven't got beyond alpha and theta waves, and we have no idea what consciousness is, and pace Godel, we may never be able to know (how do you explain consciousness using consciousness?) . But then, are mystical states an illusion:

Harry Potter at King's Cross, talking to a dead Dumbledore:
Harry: Is this real, or just in my head?
Dumbledore: Of course it's just in your head, Harry, but why should that not make it real?

The Buddhists accept the truth of mystical states, but state that the ego is an illusion. The West, the opposite. More sensible to assume that both are true.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Fixed . . .

Post by Marcus »

Torchwood wrote:Harry Potter at King's Cross, talking to a dead Dumbledore:
Harry: Is this real, or just in my head?
Dumbledore: Of course it's just in your head, Harry, and that's what makes it real!
Perception is reality. The question is whether our perceptions correspond to an objective, metaphysical reality or whether they are solely the product of material processes.

Is the dying God a fairy tale or runes written into the fabric of the cosmos?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Fixed . . .

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Torchwood wrote:Harry Potter at King's Cross, talking to a dead Dumbledore:
Harry: Is this real, or just in my head?
Dumbledore: Of course it's just in your head, Harry, and that's what makes it real!
Perception is reality. The question is whether our perceptions correspond to an objective, metaphysical reality or whether they are solely the product of material processes.
From the scientific point of view, the material processes you see in the world out there are in fact representations themselves that arise in the brain. CAVEAT; also "the material brain" as observed is itself a perception/representation. So what is it that it represented in the brain and perceived as "the material world with a material brain embedded in it"? How would you call that original source material that we only know of in terms of representations?

My suggestion, Marcus, is to not use ever again the word "metaphysical" in this context, because it confuses and obfuscates the matter, obviously. This confusion can also be found in the way you construct the question.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Reza Aslan is a Liar, In Deed a Lyin' Lion & JackAss....

Post by monster_gardener »

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I like blunt. Best way to communicate online IMHO. Intellectual challenge is a compliment, not an insult.

The search for the historical Jesus has been an academic pursuit since the enlightenment, but every time we look down that well we see our own reflection. The historical Jesus always ends up reflecting the needs of its time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_ ... ical_Jesus
I beg to differ, somewhat more. It is quite possible to reconstruct a sort of most likely Jesus and without drifting away into too much speculation. I know him, and he agrees with me. 8-)

It rather is the opposite of what you are saying. It is the post-Jesus Messianic Resurrected Christ in which people see themselves, project their hopes and needs on. Read a book of a Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx forgot which :oops: , but what I remember and got from it was that for him the metaphysical risen Christ especially mattered a lot. There is very little value in just a good guy who got killed by the Romans. A resurrection in the flesh or spirit however.. is a new party. Something like that. Enough for me to know that such a Christ is not my cup of tea at all.
My point is that, according to the reviews, Aslan ignores most of the work of the many authentic scholars who have tried to find the historical, non-metaphysical Jesus, and then he cherry picks verses to support his amateur theories while ignoring everything to the contrary. Trying to pass that off as scholarship is deceptive and dishonest.
I do believe Aslan tends to select and amplify certain things.. or posibilities..in order to paint the Jesus he thinks was closest to the orginal.. or wants to be closest.. but for sure his critics suffered same by amplifying, selecting.. talking suggestively.. about Reza Aslan. I like in that respect the comment of the Jewish Rabbi you linked. He didn't say too much there.. other than being angry/insulted how Aslan potrayed certain Jews and their rituals as stinky and vulgar in the Temple. The Rabbi mentioned things Aslan didn't mention.. without really constructing a case of what it means. Of course the initial Fox interview was hilarious. :)

Aslan portraying Jesus as an illiterate. That surprised me too. On the other hand.. the fact that Jesus sometimes referred to Jewish scripture... and (Luke?) it is mentioned that as a young boy he studied scripture.. does itself not prove he was academically very trained. Any Jo or Ahmed, as you know, can quote a few verses and claim to speak in the name of God Awmighty already. What sticks out with Jesus though.. is how he constructed his own stories, parables and adding new meaning. Therefore I don't think he was an academic at all. Illiterate would be a bit too strong, but a creative story teller... yes. A bit like Reza Aslan :o :)
Thank You VERY Much for your posts, Nonc Hilaire & Rhapsody Parodite,

From my experience of him, Reza Aslan is a deceiver and not just here.

I recall getting into it with the departed & unlamented iBS over Reza Aslan trying to cover up that what started horrible religious violence in India was Muslim fanatics burning Hindu fanatics on a train which resulted in other Hindu fanatics taking revenge on the local Muslims fanatics or not.... :roll:

Reza Aslan described the initial incident as "a fire broke out on the train" as if it were an accident or spontaneous combustion rather than the deliberate violent act of evil Muslim religious fanatics which sparked even more violence. :roll:

I think the Jewish scholar who Nonc linked is quite correct in his suspicion that Reza Aslan has a religious & political agenda to promote Islam and diss Judaism & Christianity that IMHO colors his work to near uselessness except as disinformation in the service of the Muslim cause and a money maker for Reza Aslan :mrgreen:

So my attitude about Reza Aslan ;) is that he is a Lyin' Lion :twisted: quite unlike Aslan the Lion ;) of the Narnia Books who does not lie.... ;) :twisted: :roll:

Actually, given all the deconstruction of Aslan's inflated Lyin' ;) claimed academic qualifications, I believe he is really somewhat like Puzzle, the Donkey in "The Last Battle" of the Narnia series who wore a Lion skin to conceal the fact that he was a JackAss ;) :twisted: :lol:

In this case a Malicious Muslim one.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Fixed . . .

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . what is it that it represented in the brain and perceived as "the material world with a material brain embedded in it"? How would you call that original source material that we only know of in terms of representations? . .
Good question, Rhap, and one that entertains only two possible answers: your "original source material" is either entirely the product of totally materialistic processes or it is the product of creation ex nihilo by a transcendent God. Take your pick . . either answer excludes the other.

Nor is it possible to consider the question honestly and intelligently without reference to metaphysical categories like aesthetics, love, and such.

Check this when you get a moment: http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_webl ... i_on_.html

Hope this finds you well . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Why Not Material Forces Normally With Miracles Allowed.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . what is it that it represented in the brain and perceived as "the material world with a material brain embedded in it"? How would you call that original source material that we only know of in terms of representations? . .
Good question, Rhap, and one that entertains only two possible answers: your "original source material" is either entirely the product of totally materialistic processes or it is the product of creation ex nihilo by a transcendent God. Take your pick . . either answer excludes the other.

Nor is it possible to consider the question honestly and intelligently without reference to metaphysical categories like aesthetics, love, and such.

Check this when you get a moment: http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_webl ... i_on_.html

Hope this finds you well . .
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Marcus,
Good question, Rhap, and one that entertains only two possible answers: your "original source material" is either entirely the product of totally materialistic processes or it is the product of creation ex nihilo by a transcendent God. Take your pick . . either answer excludes the other.
Hmmmmn.....

Why not a combination of both.....

G_d created the Universe & the Laws & materialistic processes that run it under most circumstances....

The Judeo Christian G_d not being the Control Freak on Steroids :roll: that Ghazali asserts that Allah is with Allah making cotton catch fire every time Allah makes someone touch a match to cotton :roll: :roll:

Not that G_d is prevented from doing miracles if He so chooses....

But normally we humans and possibly other beings should not count on that even though we may pray for miracles....
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Fixed . . .

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . what is it that it represented in the brain and perceived as "the material world with a material brain embedded in it"? How would you call that original source material that we only know of in terms of representations? . .
Good question, Rhap, and one that entertains only two possible answers: your "original source material" is either entirely the product of totally materialistic processes or it is the product of creation ex nihilo by a transcendent God. Take your pick . . either answer excludes the other.
Marcus, before I can live with that, please clarify. The "totally materialistic processes" as we know them is a representation of that "source material" or "source process" (I prefer using "process" over "material").

So there is the unknown (not directly accessible) source process and in the brain arises a representation of that source process which we call the material world. In a simple representation this means:

1) input: source process - > 2) process: brain - > 3) output: representation i.e. "the material world as we know it" / consciousness/ spirit/you name it.

So in the above it is clear that mind=matter and vice versa. You can't separate the-material-world-as-we-know-it, from the representation aqa conscious experience "of it" because they are the same, i.e. the output at 3). So neither the mind is a product of matter, nor is matter a product of the mind since they start from the false premise that there is a dichotomy. So anyone who blabs about the physical or metaphysical world without even being specific in the above sense is lost from the get go (IMHO).

Your question of causation, where you suggest there can only be two possible answers (ex-nihilo or from endless causal process ), is interesting. I think there are more than those two possibilities, especially when you take a critical look at what we can possibly mean with causation.
Nor is it possible to consider the question honestly and intelligently without reference to metaphysical categories like aesthetics, love, and such.

Check this when you get a moment: http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_webl ... i_on_.html

Hope this finds you well . .
I don't consider categories like aestithics, love etc to be metaphysical at all because I don't agree there exists, as I tried to explain, a dichotomy between the physical and the metaphysical to begin with. So I'm afraid it is a non-issue for me. ;)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Fixed . . .

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . what is it that it represented in the brain and perceived as "the material world with a material brain embedded in it"? How would you call that original source material that we only know of in terms of representations? . .
Good question, Rhap, and one that entertains only two possible answers: your "original source material" is either entirely the product of totally materialistic processes or it is the product of creation ex nihilo by a transcendent God. Take your pick . . either answer excludes the other.

Marcus, before I can live with that, please clarify. The "totally materialistic processes" as we know them is a representation of that "source material" or "source process" (I prefer using "process" over "material").

So there is the unknown (not directly accessible) source process and in the brain arises a representation of that source process which we call the material world. In a simple representation this means:

1) input: source process - > 2) process: brain - > 3) output: representation i.e. "the material world as we know it" / consciousness/ spirit/you name it.

So in the above it is clear that mind=matter and vice versa. You can't separate the-material-world-as-we-know-it, from the representation aqa conscious experience "of it" because they are the same, i.e. the output at 3). So neither the mind is a product of matter, nor is matter a product of the mind since they start from the false premise that there is a dichotomy. So anyone who blabs about the physical or metaphysical world without even being specific in the above sense is lost from the get go (IMHO).

Your question of causation, where you suggest there can only be two possible answers (ex-nihilo or from endless causal process ), is interesting. I think there are more than those two possibilities, especially when you take a critical look at what we can possibly mean with causation.

Nor is it possible to consider the question honestly and intelligently without reference to metaphysical categories like aesthetics, love, and such.


I don't consider categories like aestithics, love etc to be metaphysical at all because I don't agree there exists, as I tried to explain, a dichotomy between the physical and the metaphysical to begin with. So I'm afraid it is a non-issue for me. ;)


Rhap, not sure I completely understand you, but you might be moving the goalposts when you assert, a priori, "totally materialist processes." We don't know that, do we? Yes, apprehension takes place within a material cosmos, but that's all we can safely say.

As Michael Polanyi asserts:
  • "science . . is not the use of 'scientific method' but rather consists in a discipline imposed by scientists on themselves in the interests of discovering an objective, impersonal truth. That such truth exists and can be found is part of the scientists' faith (emphasis added). '
I think I understand your objections to consideration of aesthetics, love, art, etc. as metaphysical categories, but to deny such is to again, a priori, assert, as a matter of faith, a totally materialistic cosmos and deny all possibility of transcendent anything.

My assertion remains . . there are only two possible answers. We begin our thinking in terms of one or the other, and all we see confirms our presuppositions.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Why Not Material Forces Normally With Miracles Allowed..

Post by Marcus »

monster_gardener wrote:. . G_d created the Universe & the Laws & materialistic processes that run it under most circumstances....

"For in him we live and move and have our being." —St. Paul to the Greeks
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus, not sayin it's your fault, could be my bad but I do know you just don't understand what I'm saying aqa what I'm trying to say. I've tried same a number of times on this board but it is rather useless :P

Back to Belgium - Argentina, its half-time there! Exiting game..
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:Marcus, . . I do know you just don't understand what I'm saying aqa what I'm trying to say. . .
You could be right, Rhap, but maybe not. Let me take a stab at it. You are, as I hear you, trying to construct a case for the non-existence of anything transcendent/metaphysical, and you are doing it by assuming, a priori, what you're trying to prove. You assume the material/physical is all there is and then assert the truth that transcendence is a myth because the cosmos is entirely material.

Nor can such argumentation be helped. All such claims of ultimate truth eventually devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority. In your case, if I'm understanding you, your self-authenticating source of authority is the material cosmos—validated as such by your faith/belief.

Exactly the same obtains for my Theism.


. . . best wishes, and I hope your team wins . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:Marcus, . . I do know you just don't understand what I'm saying aqa what I'm trying to say. . .
You could be right, Rhap, but maybe not. Let me take a stab at it. You are, as I hear you, trying to construct a case for the non-existence of anything transcendent/metaphysical, and you are doing it by assuming, a priori, what you're trying to prove. You assume the material/physical is all there is and then assert the truth that transcendence is a myth because the cosmos is entirely material.
This is not at all what I'm saying, trying to say, thinking, believing, non-believing.
Nor can such argumentation be helped. All such claims of ultimate truth eventually devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority. In your case, if I'm understanding you, your self-authenticating source of authority is the material cosmos—validated as such by your faith/belief.
Couldn't be further away from what I try to say.
. . . best wishes, and I hope your team wins . .
Thanks. After penalties against Costa Rica, they did! Was a thriller.. the win was totally deserved though overall the game. In the semi final the Dutch meet Argentina with the worlds best attacker Lionel Messi, but with a somewhat disappointing team. Gonna be a very edgy match.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

MG, as for Reza Aslan. What he does is much less outrageous than how you make it look like. He said nothing much new, used existing research and sources.

The bits and pieces available to reconstruct a historical Jesus leave enough space to fill in and complete the puzzle with pieces of ones own desire and design, chunks of speculation, applied with more or less reasonable deduction and building on matter of fact in as far as facts are available.

Razlan completes the puzzle ending up with a Jesus that is basically a social and moral reformer who speaks to and for the poor, the rejected and forgotten of society.

Others complete the picture ending up with Jesus primarily as a Rabbi, teacher and wonder-doer.

There are those who even apply Sigmund Freud, and end up with a boy who grows up without a father, and who seeks a new Father figure in Heaven and gets all obsessed with the idea of being a special Son.

Then, last but not least, there are those who end-up seeing Jesus as a resurrected demi-God who now hovers over the earth's surface saving souls here and there where- and when ever he can.. before his Father goes clean sweep again this rotten world during Rapture-Rupture.

I would say.. just do your pick. ;)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . a Jesus that is basically a social and moral reformer who speaks to and for the poor, the rejected and forgotten of society.

. . ending up with Jesus primarily as a Rabbi, teacher and wonder-doer.

. . end up with a boy who grows up without a father, and who seeks a new Father figure in Heaven and gets all obsessed with the idea of being a special Son.

. . end-up seeing Jesus as a resurrected demi-God who now hovers over the earth's surface saving souls here and there where- and when ever he can.. before his Father goes clean sweep again this rotten world during Rapture-Rupture.

. . just do your pick.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” —C. S. Lewis
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . a Jesus that is basically a social and moral reformer who speaks to and for the poor, the rejected and forgotten of society.

. . ending up with Jesus primarily as a Rabbi, teacher and wonder-doer.

. . end up with a boy who grows up without a father, and who seeks a new Father figure in Heaven and gets all obsessed with the idea of being a special Son.

. . end-up seeing Jesus as a resurrected demi-God who now hovers over the earth's surface saving souls here and there where- and when ever he can.. before his Father goes clean sweep again this rotten world during Rapture-Rupture.

. . just do your pick.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” —C. S. Lewis
Yea, fascinating how some people get all binary and bipolar about it. Either the Son of God.. or the Devil himself. :shock:

This type of mental trap is not uncommon among the bedeviled believers on this planet ;) But don't worry about it Marcus, we are all here as brothers and sisters to catch each other when we fall...
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Idol Memories :-) Catch My Fall...

Post by monster_gardener »

Parodite wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . a Jesus that is basically a social and moral reformer who speaks to and for the poor, the rejected and forgotten of society.

. . ending up with Jesus primarily as a Rabbi, teacher and wonder-doer.

. . end up with a boy who grows up without a father, and who seeks a new Father figure in Heaven and gets all obsessed with the idea of being a special Son.

. . end-up seeing Jesus as a resurrected demi-God who now hovers over the earth's surface saving souls here and there where- and when ever he can.. before his Father goes clean sweep again this rotten world during Rapture-Rupture.

. . just do your pick.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” —C. S. Lewis
Yea, fascinating how some people get all binary and bipolar about it. Either the Son of God.. or the Devil himself. :shock:

This type of mental trap is not uncommon among the bedeviled believers on this planet ;) But don't worry about it Marcus, we are all here as brothers and sisters to catch each other when we fall...
Thank You Very MUCH for your post, Rhapsody Parodite...
to catch each other when we fall...
You brought back an idle memory... ;) oops I mean Idol memory..... :lol:

EiMFvx43vpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiMFvx43vpw&feature=kp

"Catch My Fall"

I have the time so I will sing yeah
I'm just a boy but I will win yeah
Lost song of lovers fellow travelers yeah
Leave me sad and hollow out of words

It could happen to you so think for youreself

If I should stumble
Catch my fall yeah
If I should stumble
Catch my fall
Catch my fall
If I should stumble
Catch my fall
If I should stumble

I've traveled and unwound my own truth yeah
I've laid my head on the rock of youth yeah
i've trusted and then broken my own word
Just to keep me free in this mad, mad word

It could happen to you so think for youreself

If I should stumble
Catch my fall yeah
If I should stumble
Catch my fall
Catch my fall

It could happen to you so think for youreself

If I should stumble won't yoc catch my fall yeah
If I should stumble catch my fall yeah
If I should stumble would you catch my fall
If I should stumble catch my fall

BILLY IDOL Lyrics
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyido ... yfall.html
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

That's cool, MG :)

Let me end with my "verdict" about Jesus: I will always give him the benefit of the doubt.. no matter what others say 8-)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

The Emeth Rap.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Parodite wrote:That's cool, MG :)

Let me end with my "verdict" about Jesus: I will always give him the benefit of the doubt.. no matter what others say 8-)
Thank YOU VERY MUCH for your reply & the Kind Words, Rhapsody Parodite....
That's cool, MG :)
Glad you enjoyed it.
Let me end with my "verdict" about Jesus: I will always give him the benefit of the doubt.. no matter what others say 8-)
Then perhaps like Emeth in "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis, perhaps you are one of His even though you don't know it..... :idea: :)

http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/Emeth

http://emeth.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/e ... -cs-lewis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeth
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

I don't know MG... I really don't ;)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Narnia Books....

Post by monster_gardener »

Parodite wrote:I don't know MG... I really don't ;)
Thank You VERY MUCH for your reply, Rhapsody Parodite.

And for your honesty......

I would suggest giving the Lewis' Narnia books a read.....

Most of them are highly entertaining with the philosophy there but not impeding the story.....

IMHO the best are "The Magician's Nephew, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Horse & His Boy ;) , and the Last Battle....

Who knows..... ;)

You may have a better chance of getting through the Gate to Aslan's Country at the end of the Last Battle than me..... :shock: :roll:
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Post Reply