Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Bible: What is the Truth? Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 18:41:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 123 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Marty Helgesen In article , MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes: > It is important to know which beliefs are correct. Not only is > the recognition of truth recognized as a value in our culture, > but it is a question of great practical importance. Many reli- > gions assert that there is a life after death and that the way we > will spend the next life is affected or determined by the way we > live this life. If this is true, it is essential to know it now, > while there is time to use the information. Hi, Marty! The attempt to defend one's faith by means of logical argument is a noble cause, IMHO, but please be warned that there are some standard pitfalls to such practice. Ultimately, belief in any religion comes from FAITH, not from a logical deduction; thus, a logical defense of, say, Catholicism, shouldn't be expected to win over converts (though it's gratifying when it does)... it should be expected only to refute criticism leveled against the Church, and/or to satisfy one's one personal need to state one's self-perceived truths of the Church. In other words: don't expect apologism to be a vehicle through which converts will flow; you'd be certain to be disappointed, especially when talking to an audience which ranges from neutral to hostile where the Catholic Church is concerned. Having said that... I will, if you'll excuse the attempt, play the Devil's advocate for you, so that you can see some typical opposition that your arguments will bring; that way, you can revise your arguments in light of these objections, and make them more airtight with each such revision. (Besides, I *love* debates... :) ) (Note: please take all of my comments with a grain of salt; since this is a friendly mock-debate, I don't mean them seriously.) > The question is, which position is true? One can start by look- > ing at those religions that claim to be based on divine revela- > tion. Then one can see what evidence each offers to support the > claim. 1. You've made the assumption that at least ONE of the current religious beliefs is "true"; not only is this logically unwarranted (i.e. the existing religions might ALL be false, and a totally [as of yet] unknown God-concept might be the accurate one), but it's hard to say that a religion (a *very* complex set of beliefs) is "true" or "false"; it's quite easy for a faith to be correct in some of its assertions, and incorrect in others. 2. It has not been shown that religions *not* based on Divine Revelation would be false; there is, then, no reason to restrict one's search for a "true" religion to "revealed" faiths only. > I can't speak for any other group, but Catholic apologetics > starts with the Bible, especially the Gospels, and the rest of > the New Testament. Although the Church believes and teaches that > they are the inspired word of God, in apologetics we prescind > from inspiration and look at them just as ancient documents. Up to a point. To go *fully* into the view that they are merely ancient documents would place them in the same category as the Declaration of Independence and such, which would invalidate some of your points made below (since "ancient documents" have no authority to claim that Jesus's Divinity was true). > They tell of a man named Jesus who, among other things He taught, > claimed to be God. He identified Himself with the Lord God of > Israel. In various ways He showed that this claim was true. That is not strictly correct; rather, it should read: "In various ways He convinced some people of the time that this claim was true." > These books also show that He founded a Church to teach in His > name and with His authority. This Church, as shown functioning > in the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of St. Paul, etc. is > essentially identical with the Catholic Church of today because > they are one and the same church at different stages of its > development. The official teachings of the Church are therefore > guaranteed true by God. :) Whoops. I'm afraid that this doesn't work, logically. First of all, your reasoning for calling the Church of today "identical" to the Church of yesteryear is what's called a "circular argument". You've said, "Today's Church = Yesterday's Church" because "Yesterday's Church = Today's Church", which isn't effective, logically. Certainly, if x=y, then y=x (given that we're talking about the same "equals/equivalence" that we all know and love...), but you have to prove one in order to prove the other; at this point, you've proven neither of them. Secondly... even if your statement of "yesterday's Church = today's Church" *were* true, this would in no way prove that the Church teachings are God-guaranteed and infallible; it would prove only that those ancient teachings (which would have been proven to endure through the ages, as per your statement) were THOUGHT to be true by Jesus and His followers. Jesus did not *prove* that He was God, logically. (Side note: belief that Jesus is God is an article of FAITH, not one of logic; thus don't be too worried that Jesus's claim to divinity hasn't been logically "proven"... it doesn't *need* to be.) He proved (or, at least, convinced His friends and followers) that He could do some incredible things... and that's all. === "Devil's Advocate Mode" off === :) Again, don't be shaken in the slightest by the fact that logical arguments can be attacked and brought low; they aren't important, in the long run, where God is concerned. Belief in God, belief in Jesus, and belief in Catholicism (and other faiths) are all matters of faith, in which one accepts or denies them, HEEDLESS of logic. Just as one's doesn't need logic in the slightest when falling in love with another human, so one doesn't need logic to "fall in love" with God! After all... if all this could be logically proven, they wouldn't call it "faith"! ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu