[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob K:
[b]Metacrock:

Metacrock:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model I like best is the personal experince model and its point of departure is that of Frederick Schleiermacher and his "Feeling of utter dependence." This is a pre-cognative, pre-given intuative consciousness of God in the universe; religious doctrines are verbalizations of this consciousness. There is no booming voice, no writting word for word. The message is in the experience and the text is influenced,"inspired" by the experince. This sort of model invites us to have our own experince.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You apparently had a religious conversion because you had a personal experience.


Meta =>Where did I say I had a personal experince? Try some reading comprehension. I said the model of revelation goes by "feeling of utter dependence." Now do you think the booming voice out of the clouds model of revelation doens't also embody an experince? Do you think the author in that model doesn't "expernice" inspiritation in a dramatic way? What's the difference?
_______________________

Kierkegarde [sp?](try "Keirkegaard" hey it's not often I get to correct someone elses spelling)

essentially described a similar experience he called "the leap of faith" as a description of what prompted many people to become theists.

Meta =>Sk's "leap of faith" is not a partiular experince, it's just a refernce to any descion to bleive. One can make a leap of faith with no experince at all.

There's a problem with all this, however.

I define reality to be the people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and thus exist in contrast to being the content of ideas/mental representations.

Meta =>Why do you define reality in such a limited and arbitrary way? Where do you get the idea that pencils are part of "reality" but the ideas we write about with them would not be part of "reality." You are confussing concete existence with reality. Reality would be the state of affiars that obtains in "the real world." It doesn't have to be limited to concrete objects.

A thing is an object, a unity which retains its identity over a longer period of time than a related event.


Meta =>How do events lose their identity over time? How do ideas lose identity over time? Do you think we can't keep ideas stairght?

Example: Jane, Dick and a ball are all things.

Meta =>But why limit reality just to "thingness?"

An event is a relationship among things.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick; there is thus a relationship among Jane, a ball, and Dick.

Meta =>If an event is a relationship between things, and things don't lose their identities over time, than why would a relationship between things that don't lose identiy over time lose identitiy over time?

Causality is people/things/events as causes causing/creating new people/things/events as effects.

MEta =>that's a circular definition; causality is causes in other words.

Example: Jane's throwing the ball is the cause of the effect of the ball traveling to Dick (and, hopefully, the ball being caught by Dick).


Meta =>It's the efficient cause but it's not the total causal package.

A concept is a mental representation/idea of a thing.

Meta =>Is it? Is Blue a thing? I have a concept of blue. And if concepts are representations of things, and not things than themselves, than how can we have a cocnept of concepts? That would require concepts being things sice you can only have a concepet of things right?

A principle is a mental representation/idea of an event (of the causality {causal relationships} among people/things/events).


Meta =>Really? I have a pincple of justice. Is justice a thing? Really? Where's it kept? Can I go look at it?

I define philosophy to be a collection of concepts and principles describing the things/events of reality.

Meta =>O what a limited defition. Your philosphy is no fun. It would eleminate Heidegger, Sartre in fact most philosophers because most of them don't just describe "events" or things. In fact that defition would elmeinate all schools of philosophy except Natual philosphy. So now that you've put us back in the 18th century, want to bring back powerdered wigs?

I define religion to be a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods.

Meta =>so phil = description of things and events, and religion is philosophy so religion is a description of things and events. That would pretty much elmeinate everything that comparative religionists study. IT would also eleminate theology. I think that's a prety cramped defition.

The fundamental question concerning religion is this: Do gods exist?

Meta =>Why is that the fundamental question? That would eleminate Buddhism, Toaism, Jamism, and many other religions. I would think a more fundametal question would be "what is the basic problem of being human?" Why is that not the basic question of religion? Several religions don't have gods but all religions seek to deal with the human problematic.

I define proof to be (1) physical evidence as people/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted; (2) eyewitness reports and corroborating reports from credible people, defined as people judged to be sane/not insane and who have no motives other than presenting their description of truth by their reports of the people/things/events they believed they saw/heard/touched/smelled/tasted (physical evidence); (3) logical arguments in which the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified (by physical evidence) and which lead to conclusions which are true if the premises are verified/true (most false logical arguments suffer from unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified premises).

Meta =>Why do logical arguments have to be verifed by empirical results. If an argument is a priori it would not have to have verified by a postorioir means. So that's ludicrous. and why do we have to have proof? who let proof in as the agis of religious belief?

Feelings do not prove anything.

Meta =>So what? Why do they have to?

Feelings are reactions to realizations of desires.

Meta =>Not according to Schleiermacher, who says that the affects of expernice are proof since there must a co-determinate of the experince. Moreover there are several other things wrong with that argument:

1) It's based upon the modernist pretense of objectivity which is just that. a pretense.

2) most of our assumptions about the reality of the world are based upon experience and that is all we have, we cannot prove the world is real or that other minds exist all we can do is follow the consistency of experince

3) you are misreading the nature of the statement. I'm not talking about the reader having to have any epxerinces. The reader accepts the revelation on faith becasue its part of his tradition. It is the form of revelation to the author that is experential.
4) You are misread what that means becasue the feeling of utte depednence is a from of consciousness not a "feeling" in the sense of the way the feel about things or sentiment or big experiences. I said that in the original post too.

No!

Thus, a feeling is a reaction to a realization of a desire.

Many people use the term "feeling(s)" incorrectly, as in "I feel that ..." or "the feeling of utter dependency."


MEta =>Ok first of all, you are one of those people. Because its not "dependency" but dependence. Why say "cy" at the end of it. Secondly, you are clueless as to what it means. Thridly, it's Schleiermacher's defition not mine, he was a major thinker, influenced Heidegger, so you can't just dismiss that as though I made it up myself.

"I feel that ..." is not a feeling: it is a judgment, a decision made after considering proof (physical evidence/eyewitness&corroborating reports/logical arguments).


Meta =>who defines the Feeling of utter dependence in that way? Schleiermacher also called it "God Consciousness." So it's a form of awareness, not a sentiment or experince.

"The feeling of utter dependency" is not a feeling: it is a judgment, a judgment that one is utterly dependent upon someone or something for some perceived reason.

Meta =>No it's not a judgment, it's a form of consciousness, that's why he called it Unconditioned pre-theoretical consciousness of God.

These judgments are often based upon delusions.

Meta =->. You dont' even know what delusions are. How can a conscious awareness be a delusion? To be a deslusion it would have to assert that reality is oppossed to what others see it as. It's not an assertion about the agreed upon nature of reality but a subjective or intersubjetive apprehension of reality. It's not someone one can imposse upon others. You can't say it's a misapprehension because it isn't defined by anything objective enough to disprove.


Meta =>You are confussed. If you obtain a consciousness of being dependent than you have warrent for belief that you are. If you assert that one is not dependent than you are begging the qeustion because you have not the warrant for denying that but are merely asserting without any reaosn that it can't be true.

If he cannot answer THAT question fully, then his judgment is delusional.

Meta =>NO that is a silly Kantian bS reading of Katnian dualism. The Katian theory of knowledge which Schleiermacher designed his view to side step in the fist place. First. the beleiver does not have answer to anything. He has the defesable reason for beleiving it's the sketpics burden to show that it's inadquate. Secondly, it's not an argu so there's nothing to disprove. How are you going to argue "no you don't feel dependent." That's absurd. Thridly its missing the whole point which was that this is a model of revelation, not an argument for the exitence of God.

Meta =>No I dont' think you understand the concept. The notion of "dependence" is that of contingency. It's like the cosmological argument, it's a phenomenological apprehension of one's contiency and that of the universe upon God. it's not got anything to do with proof, it's not arguing for God's existence, its totally defeasable, it has to do with pre theortetical givens in an intersubjetive consciousness. The point is to offer an object of theological discourse, not to prove anything.


Meta =>You just totally have the wrong end of stick on this dependence thing and you are totally and empiricially wrongt and your foolish and ignorant assertion is disproven by about 25 stuies which I have prestend on the exist God board. First, "depeendence" has nothing whatsoever to do with acheivement in life, needing someone to help you, feeling alone in the world, or any such thing! It is totally and entirely abbout the philsophical concetp of the contingency of eixstence upon a higher cuase. SEcondly, these studies show that people who have religious epxeriences are actually better achievers, more motivated, more capable and more intelligent than non-experincers. Some of the studies speicifically measured depriviation of the experincer and found that religious expernice does not grow out of any since of deprivation. Specifically this is the Wirthnow study and Maslow. Also see Hood, Baker, Luckoff and Lu, and others.

We thus come to the fundamental question concerning religion: Do gods exist?

This question requires proof (physical evidence/eyewitness&corroborating reports/logical arguments) of some kind, which, if not conclusive, at least leads to reasonable belief.

Meta =>No it doesn't. Its absurd to expect God to have a physical existence. This topic belongs on the existence of God boad and I refuse to discuss it here. You are merely guming up my thread. I'll debate you on the special debate board if you wish, but this is totally off topic.

The problem herein is determining what people/things/events serve as reasonable proof of the existence of gods.

Feelings are not proof of the existence of gods.

Meta =>They are too, but I didn't say they were, that's not the point. This is not about proving God, it's a model of how Biblical inspriation works, don't need to prove God's existence for that.

Feelings are personal experiences. You feel your feelings, I cannot, neither can anyone else.

Meta=>Shcleiermacher wasn't talking about those kinds of feelings, and I did point this out in the orignial post. But that has nothing to do with it because it was about the nature of Biblical inspiration not about proving God so off topic.

Feelings cannot prove any proposition/assertion.

meta =>where did you get the idea that proving something had anything to do with this?

Why in the hell do you think I"m talking about proving God's existence? Can you read? did you not read the post?

This too is off topic. This thread is about how inspiration works and why redaction of Biblical texts is not a bad thing. It has nothing to do with proving God's existence.


Come to my boards and I'll answer your question.

http://ezpub18.ezboards.com/bhavetheologywillargue

Meta => That's absurdly beging the question. There's no way you can prove that they are merely tall tales that they don't have actual witness to bear for the events and they are not anonymous. They are not singed by the authors, but that doesnt' mean that no one ever knew who wrote them. and John is cerainly not anonymous. The effisian elders bear witness and put their stamp of approval on it to show that it is the work of the "BD." He was known to them. Just because he's not known to use doesn't mean he wasn't know to them. All the communities that produced the Gosples knew that they were the communities testimony, that's why they don't have signatures, they weren't the work of any one person, but doesnt' mean they had no eye witnesses involved.

Meta =>You are just impossing modern standards upon an acient text and pretending like there's some reaosn to take that seriously. the communities that produced the works were filled with witnesses to the original events and they are bearing witness throgh the tradition.


Meta -=>No that's an unfounded assuption. It comes from impossing your own modern standards of authorship upon an ancient text. They had different views of authorship. We can't say they "had no respect for another man's work." It wasn't any one man's work, it was the testimony of hte community itself than they were part of the community and probably working on the communitie's behalf. They weren't tring to make things up they were arranging the material so it would be kept in a repository and not forgotten. They were also working for the benifit of the community in arraging sermonic lessons for novices and so forth. So it was not like distorting what someone else said, it was like a modern preacher will lace his sermons with examples and anecdotes and these were taken from the body of works and orals traditions that the community knew by heart.


Meta =>That just stems form a total misunderstanding of what a religious tradiiton is. First of all, why shouldn't it be an assution? That is so totally self serving, idoelgoical and blind to to realize that all argumetns, world views and view points proceed from assuptions. It is the disnonest one who treis to hid that and the honest one who admits them up front. Secondly,in arranging the material to refelct community needs they were not being dishonest at all. It would still be over 1000 years before history as an academic discipline was invented. Josephus and Tacistus did the very same ting in terms of writting to prove points and to benifit groups. No one had a concept of documentation or proof or history or keeping the events in order for posterity, it was all oriented toward the spiritual betterment of the community. That was the point, not proving things, and not writting history. You are just impossing a modern view ponit upon the text.



Meta => O pray tell what do we know about how such "tales" were promulgated? That is BS. We do know that even though they didn't have a concept of history they did have a basic notion of the teaching keeping the teachings stairght, and those teachings included the basic historical facts of the crcuifiction and resurrection. that's why there are no alternatate verisons. That is a very important point. the story didn't proliferate into other myths as mythology always does and that's because some of the basic facts of Jesus' life were part of the teachings that they had to keep right. Even though they didn't understane doing that as historians, they still understood not chaning basic facts like how he died, who found the tomb ect. Those 11 points I make in the post on "No Alternate Versions." Now that means we have Jesus' teachings, we have the basic story line, that is all we need for salvation. The rest is for historians to be employed to figure out.


Well, this wouldn’t matter except that the Gospels pretend to be narratives of Jesus’ life, and the truth of Christianity depends on these narratives being accurate at certain critical points.

Meta =>No they don't pretend to be narratives. No where do they say "this is a narrative." And there is pretty much agreement that his death came after his birth so there's no reason to assume they got that wrong. Some things are obvious.


The pericopes being out of order tells us that the authors (or redactors – who knows?) were not interested in literal accuracy.


Meta =>No it doesn't! It tells us that they weren't modern historians and they didn't have a concept of historical documentation but we should know that. And so what? does that mean they made up the empty tomb? NO there's no reason to assume that. Why did they beleive that there was something speicial about Jesus in the first palce if people weren't claiming to have seen the empty tomb? Why did they venerate it if there wasn't some story about it being empty? Why did they keep the story about him being cricified and not change it to being killed in other ways, which we see happen in other myths? Becasue they knew the basic facts. What difference does it make if he turned the water into wine beofre or after healing the lepers? They got the basic facts of his death and resrrection right what more do we need?


They made things up. But you are confident that, in spite of the clear evidence that the authors invented some stuff out of whole cloth, they were scrupulously accurate about other stuff. On what grounds?


Meta =>How do you know they made things up? Give me one shred of proof that they made anything up?

The main problem you have is that, while you can make up a story about how the Gospels came to be in the form we find them in today, I can make up another, and Pete over there can make up a third. All of them are consistent with the known facts. And all of them are almost certainly false. There’s no way to tell what the truth is.


Meta ->That is juvinle Madylin Murry O'Hairbrian BS! There are ways to tell, I've presented some of them--within a probablity. We've been arguing about them. IT's your burden of proof and you have none. There is basically no reaosn to assume anything other than that the communites witnessed the basic evetns. they said they did, show why they didn't!

When you can’t tell what the truth is, the sensible thing to do is to pick the most plausible explanation of the known facts (which, remember, are not the events narrated in the Gospels, but merely the fact that the Gospels as we have them were written and have survived), and then remember that you’re probably wrong. And the most plausible explanation does not involve a man walking out of his tomb after being dead for two days.


Meta =>Show me why there are no other versions of how he died, of how he resurrected, no alternatives to the empty tomb, no other versions of the time of day of the day itself of the basic caste of characters. Clment knew Peter, Paul knew Peter and James and Andrew, and Ignatious knew John, Papias knew several deciples, why should we not take these things into account? We can see that the Passion narrative was written just 18 years after the event all kinds of witnesses would still be around. IT's clear that the basic facts were set in stone from an early day. The details of when he did certian things are shaky and no doubt some embellishment has taken place, but there is no reason to assume that there is no probablity of basic set of events being based upon fact.

If you want to believe in a man walking out of his tomb, I can’t stop you.

Meta =>O yes, what a shameful thing! O I am so embarrassed. PLease forgive me for having faith? It's so foolish to believe in things, I should be a big brave atheist who purposely doubts and denys the facts and makes up his own facts and imposses modern views on the ancient world because it makes it so much easier to just assume it's all bull shit than to realy try and figure things out!

If you want me to believe that this is rational, that’s another matter. The mere fact that something might conceivably be so doesn’t make it so. I might have won the Virginia lottery in spite of never having bought a ticket. But if I believe that I did merely on the grounds that I can make up a story of how it might have happened which is not inconsistent with any known facts, I will be hauled off to the booby hatch.
Yes. Remarkable, isn’t it?


Meta -> What's remakrable is your igonrance, your arrogance your stupidity, your fooishness, your refusal to look at the facts your prtetense that you are really thinking when all you are doing is nursing an ideology. All of your objections are ideological and nothing else. "O a man couldn't rise form the dead, my outmoded enlightenment 18th century notion of mechantiistic materialism tells me that so it must be ture." That's not reaosning, that's stuborn refuseal to think. That's what being a 'free thinker" is!

You must have the reading comprehension skills of a small child. LEt's see, I said that I was elated becasuse he tore up the Bible and than puzzelled as to how he could beleive it. NOw where in the hell do you get the idea that I was "looking for a God." I think you guys are dumb. I think you are very ignorant ptensious and not very sharpre.

Moroever I think your whole basis of unblief is pathethically emitional and it is part of pretense and self deniel that you kid yourselves into believing that you have rational reasons for it. You have no rational reasons. All your rationality really comes down to is, you suspect everyone elses motives if they disagree with you, you deny the facts whatever they are and refuse to learn anything about the field of Biblical studies and pretend that you know all about it.


I was a better atheist than you are because My atheism was really based upon not buying the evidence not just pretending because I didn't care abut the evidence. and if that wasn't the case and the turth or veracity of my atheism would not be an issue. You are threatened by the fact that an atheist can open his eyes and see the truth and that causes you to have to deny that I was an atheist. Kid yourself all you want .

[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 30, 2001).]

Meta =>

1) You have totally misconscieved of what I am saying. You somehow have understood it as an argumnet for the truth of the bible. That is not what it is at all. It's not saying that they had experinces which prove that what they say is really form God.

It's merely saying that the method of how inspiration works determines one's view the nature of the end product. And if you have a view of inspiration which calls for verbal penary (that is all the words directly form God) than you will think there can't be redaction can't be mistakes. If you have a view that allows for human input in the process than you can have those things. That's why redaction is not bad, doesnt' negate the process.

2) As for the "God pod" Or the God part of the brain, that in no way disproves religious experince. Not the least little bit. One of the major reserachers says in the Newsweek article that it makes sense that God would communicate by linking through the physical part of the brain. The major serachers, New berb I think doens't deny God ro disvalue religious experince. That is not a disproof of anything. But that doesnt' matter becasue this was not an argument to prove God or the Bible. So this comment is totally off topic.


And I think the God pod really prove the existence of God because it's the next best thing to a designer label. IT's like looing at the human brain and seeing a lable that says 'people by God."

Bob K:

I can answer your post in regard to Christianity.

The evidence touches Christianity in so far as certain events in history can be characterized. So, I offer the following scheme, freely open to criticism.

Historical part:
Jesus of Nazareth died and came back from the dead as the Christians believe.

Metaphysical part:
That Jesus of Nazareth had supernatural power is confirmation of the supernatural nature of his message. He has fiat to define a metaphysic because he is a unique witness to ultimate things.

Existential part:
Our response to a true belief is not only to know but to do; to live as if it is true. Our response to a right command is not only to know but to do; to obey as if it is right.

Only in the sense of the historical part is Christianity obviously falsifiable... however, I find difficulty finding convincing arguments against the second part and the third part seems like a shared belief between the two of us.

If you want someone to show you the historical money (is it counterfeit or not? you have to decide, and be aided by the scientists in the disciplines touching the questions), no doubt somebody will. It seems like that is what you are asking for.

What part of the money do you feel has not been shown to you?

Cheers,
Dan

Regular posted May 30, 2001 01:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Metacrock: I liked his books The Primative Chruch at first because I thought he particularly tore up the Bible. One day as I read through the book again after several readings I came across a statement to the effet "we see the light of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ shining through any of these textual difficulties." I was stunned. How could it possibly be tha the actaully beleived after so effectevly tearing up the Bible? Hadn't he proven that it is all redacted? Hadn't he proven that they just told the stories over and over in the coumminity and pasted them together form different versions? Doesn't taht eleiminate the possibility that it could be the word of God?

rodahi: Why do you presume a god had anything to do with the JC Bible? Could it not have been inspired by human imagination?

You sound like a person who was looking for a god and found precisely what you wanted, in spite of the evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock: You must have the reading comprehension skills of a small child.

Pure Christian apologetic tactic: Ridicule anyone who opposes or questions your presuppositions or views. Thank you, Metacrock, for making that point so well.


Metacrock: LEt's see, I said that I was elated becasuse he tore up the Bible and than puzzelled as to how he could beleive it. NOw where in the hell do you get the idea that I was "looking for a God."

I think you were looking for what you think you found.

Metacrock: I think you guys are dumb. I think you are very ignorant ptensious and not very sharpre.

This is another perfect example of a Christian apologetic tactic. Again, Metacrock, thank you for making it so obvious.

Metacrock: Moroever I think your whole basis of unblief is pathethically emitional and it is part of pretense and self deniel that you kid yourselves into believing that you have rational reasons for it. You have no rational reasons.

Thanks for your psuedo-psychological analysis; however, it is you who believes the irrational absurdities contained in the JC Bible, not I.

Metacrock: All your rationality really comes down to is, you suspect everyone elses motives if they disagree with you, you deny the facts whatever they are and refuse to learn anything about the field of Biblical studies and pretend that you know all about it.

It is very rational to base one's views on available evidence. That is my position. As to your comment about "Biblical studies," I can read the Bible as well as you can. The difference is, I don't have to believe the absurdities are historical like you do. I don't have to apologize for my views.

Metacrock: I was a better atheist than you are because My atheism was really based upon not buying the evidence not just pretending because I didn't care abut the evidence.

I have no belief in the supernatural. Label me whatever you like. I don't think looking for historical accuracy has anything to do with "atheism." I think it has to do with just wanting to know what actually happened. I think the evidence is all that matters.

Metacrock: and if that wasn't the case and the turth or veracity of my atheism would not be an issue.

I think you were looking for a god and found what you were looking for.

Metacrock: You are threatened by the fact that an atheist can open his eyes and see the truth and that causes you to have to deny that I was an atheist. Kid yourself all you want.

I am not threatened by the JC Bible or Christian apologetics. I am very familiar with both. I don't know if you were an "atheist" or not, but I think you were looking for a god to believe in. Unfortunately, you found a literary character or two to put your faith in.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:

So you are actually saying that if it was written a long time ago, that in itself is reason not to beleive it?

I thought I had answered this before but perhaps it was a different thread.

My statement was not against historical beliefs but the extreme degree to which some people take those beliefs.

Do you beleive in ancient Rome? How do you know it existed?

Sure, I believe it existed. The evidence for Rome is vast. A more pertinent question would be: How much do I believe Rome existed? How much would I bet on it? Would I bet the life of my child? A million dollars? How about just a limb - say an arm or a leg? I'd bet a lot that Rome existed, but how much would I bet on some particular aspect of Roman civilization thats not as well documented? Would I be as set in my belief? Hardly. The closer we attempt to get at detailed claims the weaker my belief becomes. Whereas it seems in this forum (not just this thread) there's the belief by some that if someone can prove a thing is possible or slightly likely, than its settled and that thing should be accepted whole hog. (And lots of the "proofs" are appeals to authority - not particularly strong arguments)

All the records from people who were there are at least 1800 or so years old?

Shoot, you don't even have to go back that far. How about Abraham Lincoln? THe evidence for his existence is vast, so I believe pretty strongly that he existed and would bet quite a bit on it. But how secure am I that he wrote the Gettysburg Address? Did he really walk two miles to return 2 pennies? (or however much it was) Did he really think black people were fully human?

The point of all this being that, in my opinion, how much we believe an historical claim is just as important as any other factor. For instance, I believe Jesus existed (relating to the latest debate), but how much I believe it is as pertinent a point as the question itself. If I had a million dollars I'd probably bet as much as $600,000 of it that he did. (But I'd feel queasy doing it.)



[This message has been edited by madmax2976 (edited May 30, 2001).]