RE: Herodotus' Mice and the need for historical verification

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 09:02:15 EDT

  • Next message: PASAlist@aol.com: "Re: Reasons to reject concordism in Genesis 1?"

    Blake wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
    >Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:20 AM

    >Yes, but martyrdom is not equal. As I said before, in
    >part (there are lots of other reasons), I believe in
    >Christ because he showed a way that is in some
    >important ways, in my opinion, counter to the way that
    >we are naturally inclined to look at the world.
    >Particularly, the radicalness of his other centered
    >love, even unto death on the Cross.

    Why must the truth be counter to the natural way of viewing the world? Isn't
    that contra Ockham's razor? One certainly can't claim that what is true is
    that which is contra-natural because most of what we know about the world
    goes along with the natural way of viewing things.

    >
    >The lives of the apostles in the Church, are not
    >stories of conquest and triumphal fighting to conquer
    >pagans and heathens. Like their Lord, there example
    >is love unto death and a refusal to be alloyed to the
    >institutions of power to compel and coerce belief.

    But see you miss my point. Of course the acts of the apostles aren't stories
    of great conquests, as were the early Islamic apostles. But once again, to
    merely claim that Christianity is true without some REASON other than that
    it ain't Islam seems a grand case of petitio principii.

    >(This of course changed, many would argue for the
    >worse and to the detriment of Western christendom,
    >upon Constantine's conversion).

    If I recall my church history correctly there were some pretty lascivious
    bishops with lots of concubines long before Constantine.

      This is the opposite
    >of recent martyrdom examples which are about a
    >conquering God smiting infidels. That is not Jesus'
    >message and I find the message of Jesus more
    >compelling because of it. So, you have to
    >differentiate between types of martyrdom. Neither is
    >the example of the apostles a flamboyant
    >self-abnegation, such as someone immolating
    >themselves. Indeed, the early Church went to great
    >pains that that sort of suicide -- forcing the
    >authorities to martyr you, was not martyrdom.

    There are many accounts of people trying to be martyred early in the Church.
    Agapius 306 AD
    But this wrestler of piety was first summoned by the tyrant, then demanded
    to renounce his purpose with the promise of liberty. With a loud voice he
    declared that he would cheerfully and with pleasure sustain whatever he
    might inflict on him; not indeed for any wickedness, but for veneration of
    the God of the universe. Saying this, he combined actions with his words,
    and rushing against a bear let loose upon him , he most readily offered
    himself to be devoured by the beast after which he was taken up yet
    breathing, and carried to prison. Surviving yet one day, he had stones
    bound to his feet, and thus was plunged into the midst of the
    sea."~Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
    1955), p. 358-359

    Germanicus AD 155
    "Germanicus, a young man, was being thrown to the wild beasts. When the
    Proconsul told him to consider his youth, Germanicus 'violently dragged the
    beasts toward himself.' Upset that a youth would do that, the crowd yelled
    for Polycarp to be martyred."~Sherwood E. Wirt, Faith's Heroes,
    (Westchester: Cornerstone Books, 1979), p. 12-13

    Martydom A. D. 250 Palestine
    "In the persecution of Valerian, mentioned above, three men of Cesarea in
    Palestine, who shone gloriously in their confession of christ, were honored
    with divine martyrdom by becoming the food of wild beasts. Of these, one
    was called Priscus, another Malchus, the third was named Alexander. These
    it is said lived at first in the country, pretending to be careless and
    indifferent; but when occasion presented itself from heaven to them, already
    burning with desire to obtain the prized, they would then cease, with the
    view that they might not be too forward in seizing the martyr's crown. With
    these purposes, therefore, they hastened to Cesarea, and advanced to the
    judge, and obtained the sentence mentioned."~Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
    History, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 285

    snip

    >> Because of this, I don't see empiricism as being so
    >> much on thin ice as you
    >> paint it.
    >
    >Within the ambit of what is empirically testable,
    >sure. But I question how many things that are
    >personally important are empirically testable.
    >
    >Likewise, the only way that empiricism succeeds is
    >through the belief that once we ascertain that grass
    >isn't fire engine red, that will always hold true.
    >Inductive logic has limits and it is only be not
    >realizing that can you rule out "miracles" or say that
    >because we know something about how the laws of
    >physics work that that means God has nothing to do in
    >the world.
    >
    >> So what if I can't prove every true
    >> statement? Goedel proved that
    >> was impossible with axiomatic systems. The inability
    >> to do that doesn't give
    >> us free rein to travel in any direction ignoring the
    >> parts of empiricism
    >> which do work.
    >
    >I have never suggested this. Empiricism works within
    >its ambit. What it does not do is give you a reason
    >to believe that empiricism alone is the only way of
    >knowing. Indeed, empiricism gone amok leads to
    >contradictory statements by folks like Russell,
    >Dawkins and Wegner that there is no such thing as
    >freewill, it is illusory.

    Agreed, but then they didn't (and don't seem to understand nonlinear systems
    either.

    snip

    >The historical truth of Genesis as it may be
    >determined or checked by us, however, is not the only
    >evidence that God is the creator. Nor would the
    >falsity of Genesis prove that God, even the God of
    >which the Hebrews spoke of in Genesis.

    Then of what evidence do you speak? I know of no natural evidence that
    points to God being the creator rather than Krishna.

    snip

    >
    >I don't believe empiricism alone can recommend one
    >religion over another. It can only give us greater or
    >lesser reasons to be skeptical of its claims.
    >
    >I think you give the draw of love less credit than
    >perhaps it is due. Tentatively, I will assert that
    >the proof of religion, such as it is, is the degree to
    >which it transforms its adherents.

    Then I would suggest that Islam is more transforming.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 01:04:09 EDT