From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 11:58:17 GMT
Hi MSH,
> msh says:
> I thought we were talking about empirical assessment. If so, I can
> think of counter examples from my own life. A few years ago I was
> walking in a "bad" neighborhood well after dark. I passed an alley
> entrance and heard someone moaning, then a barely audible whisper for
> help. I could see what appeared to be a person collapsed in the
> alley. Now, if Witt is right, I would have run to offer assistance,
> no empirical assessment required. Instead, I looked and listened for
> other activity around me and in the alley. I called out to the
> figure to see If I could get a response and thus more information.
> Only after I convinced myself that no one else was around, and that
> the person who appeared to be in need of help was what he appeared to
> be, did I enter the alley.
>
> But even if you want to say scientific assessment, I think the
> Emergency Medical Techs in an ambulance, and certainly the doctors
> and nurses in the emergency room, rely heavily on scientific
> assessment before drawing conclusions about a patient's condition.
>
> So I'm not sure I agree that we regular make "faithful" leaps to
> certainty, about anything.
Re: the EMTs, are they simply applying rules? I think I may have got into this aspect of the
discussion on the wrong premise. What are we disagreeing about?
> msh says:
> I think that myths may or may not be historically or, as you say,
> factually true, but that the factual "truth" is not important anyway.
> If it turned out that the historical Jesus Christ was not, in fact,
> resurrected, if you could go back in time and see for yourself that
> the tomb was not empty, and the body was starting to stink, would
> this undermine your faith as a Christian? Would you be unable to
> continue your work as a priest? I'd be surprised if you answered yes
> to either question.
I've often thought that Jesus was buried in an unmarked grave, along with other criminals, and his
"body" decomposed. I don't know if I still believe that, my thoughts are a little in flux, but
certainly my understanding of resurrection entails that it is not resuscitation, and so the precise
end-point of the physical body is an open question. (I'm unorthodox on this point, to a minor
extent). On the other hand, if I came to believe that (for example) the resurrection was a put-up
job by some of the disciples, designed to manipulate the masses for some other purpose, such as
preserving his blood-line through a marriage to Mary Magdalene et cetera - then that would
completely undermine my faith as a Christian, and it would make me unable to continue my life as a
priest. So I would maintain that there are factual elements in the faith which are essential, and
which cannot be compromised if something is to remain 'Christian' - as traditionally understood.
> msh says:
> The only thing I can refer to with any authority is my own experience
> being raised a catholic, in the 60's, in southeast Los Angeles, USA...
<snip>
> So the question remains: "Why
> would the brass up at the holy end of the bureaucracy permit such a
> state of affairs, unless they really do want to discourage thinking?"
Well, one thing I would say is that what you describe is pre-Vatican 2. I don't know for certain,
but I'm pretty sure that what you received would not be taught today. It certainly isn't in (most
of) the Episcopalian tradition.
Pre-Vatican 2 the RC did indeed teach that science was wrong. But didn't the Pope apologise to
Galileo etc for all that?
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 02 2004 - 13:31:00 GMT