abe smith

Well said, ThorQMada! [ yrpost 29 jan} "..he[Pope} is personally responsible..." Awhile back someone at another thread "add Damn lies" {I think it was OOlon, if I spell that correctly? ] asked me in response 'why do the Church's lies matter?" since bright guys like us don't fall for those? That is the answer, [why the Church [the so-called 'Holy Roman Catholic Church" }'s lies DO MATTER! = Because politicians & legislators, afraid of losing their seats of power & control over US, if they offend the believers's Authorities, PREVENT , legislate against human FREEDOM. "Deposuit potentes de sede...." How long ,o Lard? Cheers, Abe

DMB

One might think so, but the catholic church has been operating censorship and shamelessly burning books (to say nothing of people) for centuries. They thought of it long before the Nazis.

IvanK

Actually I've heard Catholic priests admit that a biography of Jesus of Nazareth could not be constructed since the "facts" in the Gospels are too scanty and impossible to prove. What that seems to mean though is that the Gospel stories are true whether they're "facts" or not, so we should take them all on faith. Why? It's a mystery. Especially to me.

Amos

Actually Ivan the bible is written in such a way that it is impossible to prove the physical event which never did happen in the literal meaning of the word. This physical absence points at the symbolic reality of the myth because it would be wrong to believe because "we have seen." The point here is that we must become the undergoer of the event instead of just the believer of the ancient event.

Amos

IvanK

I guess we agree there; if a particular event never did happen then it should indeed be impossible to prove that it did.

That I think I've heard before: whether it's possible or not to verify the events described in the Gospels, they do describe a deeper reality that lies behind (or undergirds or whatever) the world as we know it. Are you saying we ought to believe this deeper reality precisely because we can't prove anything about it? My questions then are, what other things might there be that can't be proven but that we should believe in anyway? And, is there a set of criteria we are able to use when deciding whether or not to believe in something on faith?

An example: a man comes up to me in the street and offers to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge for US$400. He shows me a deed that looks legitimate in every respect. Should I take it on faith that he owns the bridge and can sell it to me? Why or why not?

Again, if I let go of a bowling ball and observe that it falls in a downward direction am I wrong to believe that that's what happened? Are there criteria for deciding when to believe based on the evidence of perception and reason and when to believe based on faith alone?

I'm honestly interested in knowing what you think the distinction might be here between being an "undergoer" and a "believer." Fair warning, I'm going to stop talking with you again if you stop making sense.