+/- I

(Positive or Negative, part 1)

It has been said that everybody believes in something.

It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.

Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?

Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.

There are at least three categories that EVERYONE uses about EVERYTHING: (1) "I like that (it's good);" (2) "I don't like that (it's bad);" and (3) "I don't care about that either way (it's neutral)." Of course there are usually innumerable subtle gradations of value within each of these (such as, "I don't know much about that but I'd like to learn more," or "I think that is weird in a pleasant (or unpleasant) sort of way"). There are also two other categories everyone uses: (4) "that's TRUE (whether I like it or not)" and (5) "that's FALSE (whether I like it or not),"--although not everyone admits to using them. There is a word that describes people who don't use categories AT ALL: they're called "comatose."

This process of categorization involves a faculty of the mind called judgment, and every thinking person uses it. Those who claim not to judge, label or categorize anything actually have an extraordinarily LARGE "I don't care" category and JUDGE that most people and things they encounter go into it. Either that, or they aren't very honest (either with themselves, or others, or both).

We--individually or collectively--are not always accurate in our judgments about things (we are frequently mistaken--e.g. "Just go through that puddle--we can make it ..."), but that doesn't change the objective nature of the thing(s) in question. People who refuse to accept or admit that most things have some kind of objective character that is independent of one's feelings toward them are usually considered "insane" (or disconnected from reality). A person might claim he can "define his own reality," but in reality, he does so at his own peril. (Or perhaps his self-defined "reality" consists merely of a number of outrageous claims that are difficult or bothersome for others to verify one way or the other, so people generally leave him alone, unless he becomes a recognizable danger to himself or others.) For example, if 99 people observe that object X is bright white, hard and rough, and 1 person says the same object (at the same time) is dark blue,soft and musical, the others would rightly judge that there must be "something wrong" either with his perception, judgement, mental process or honesty--and the rest may choose, depending on circumstances, to either "make allowances" for his exceptional claim, or take positive steps to correct it. (This is neither merely a case of majority rule nor a debate about the labels in conventional use, but a consideration of the nature (or objective character) of object X.)

OK, is everybody on the same page?

(To be continued...)

Why I am a Catholic (Part 2)

The Bible

The Bible is actually not one book, but rather a collection of several books (73 to be exact), a veritable library, which has been gathered together and (usually) put in one cover. But who made this collection, and why were these books included and others excluded?

The Old Testament books (those written before Jesus’ time) were written by (or are at least attributed to) Moses and numerous later members of the ancient Jewish/Hebrew religion (prophets (or their followers), kings or other leaders, and perhaps one or more anonymous writers). They consist of the Hebrew canon of 39 books, which are generally accepted by Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike: (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra (or I Esdras), Nehemiah (or II Esdras), Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (or Canticle of Canticles/Song of Songs), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (sometimes included in Jeremiah), Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea (or Osee), Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), and the 7 Deuterocanonical books, which are generally accepted only by Catholics and Orthodox: (Tobit (or Tobias), Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Baruch and I & II Maccabees)—these 7 are frequently (but erroneously) called "Apocrypha" by Protestants. All of these 46 books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures used and quoted by the Apostles and all of the early Church fathers. They accepted them all as canonical, which is why the Catholic Church does so to this day.

The 27 New Testament books (written after Jesus’ time) were written by some of the 12 Apostles and some of their close collaborators, which are generally accepted by all Christians: (the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts (of the Apostles), Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, James, Jude and Revelation (or the Apocalypse of St. John)).

Some people (e.g. some, but not all, atheists, agnostics & neo-pagans) dismiss the Bible as "myth," fanciful stories made up, they claim, by various primitive peoples to explain the unknown, or for other, perhaps political, reasons. They can't be historical (they say), they contain such far-fetched things, "miracles" and such—just like the magic one encounters in ancient Greek mythology!

The books of the Old Testament are written in various genres, just like the variety of books one finds in a modern library. There are books of history, poetry, "wisdom" literature (e.g. Proverbs), even what we today might call "historical fiction," and perhaps a few styles we are unfamiliar with today. These differing styles of writing were all common and readily recognizable in the time in which they were composed. The trick in modern Biblical exegesis (interpretation) is knowing which book (or portion of a book) belongs in which category. For example, the deuterocanonical book of Judith appears on the surface to be straight history, but in all likelihood, is actually an elaborate parable, an allegory (symbolic "historical fiction"). The historical works, while they cannot compare to our modern standards of historical documentation, compare quite favorably with other non-religious ancient works in establishing the historical record. Frequently their claims are ("Surprise!") verified through modern archeology (e.g. the modern discovery of the Hittite race). Prophetic works are verified through the historical fulfillment of the prophetic utterances. And so on.

The historical books of the New Testament (the 4 Gospels and Acts) also measure up as good history when compared to contemporary examples, such as the works of Josephus and Tacitus. They place the events they recount within the framework of history by references to various rulers and other contemporary persons and events recognizable by the original readers/hearers (and in large part verifiable today by archeological and other secular documentary evidence), and by conscientious reliance on eyewitnesses. The letters (epistles) also fall nicely into the contemporary historical context. None of this can be said of Greek or Nordic mythology. There is no compelling reason not to accept them as authentic and reliable.

EXCEPT for all those miracles (and the bad science).

Well, the Bible makes no claim about teaching science. The events it describes which some people sometimes try to interpret as science are descriptions of real events as they appeared to the people who witnessed them. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 were passed on through oral tradition perhaps over several thousands of years before writing was even invented. We might call them "folktales" that describe essential truths about God and our relationship to Him (that He created the universe out of *nothing* by a pure act of will, we are His creatures, He created us not out of necessity, but out of love, and owe Him worship as the creator). They can still be accepted as true, but in a philosophical or allegorical sense rather than a strictly scientific (empirical) sense.

My guess is that people who reject the accounts of miraculous events described in the Bible do so simply because they deny the possibility of miracles at all. To their way of thinking, a claim in favor of a miracle must be made up fantasy or delusion, because (by their definition) miracles do not exist and cannot happen, period. "Since miracles do not occur in the natural course of events, and I admit only natural events (thus eliminating anything 'supernatural'), miracles cannot exist or occur, by definition." Those who deny the existence of miracles must not have witnessed one. But many other people have witnessed miracles (verified by the scientific community as having no natural explanation) and have come to believe as a result. Examples are the numerous miraculous cures documented in the files of the medical bureau at Lourdes, France; the eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy (the host (bread) that visibly changed into bleeding human flesh at the consecration--and remains preserved to this day); the miracle of the sun that was witnessed by many thousands of people--and was reported in the secular newspapers at the time--on Oct. 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal; the incorruptable (not mummified, but fresh) bodies of several saints who've been dead hundreds of years; and innumerable less publicized (but no less authentic) miracles that occur periodically right up our own time.

Believers agree that a miracle requires a special intervention by a supernatural power (God) in natural events. That’s what it means to be a miracle. The only difference is that believers accept the existence of God and the possibility of His intervention, and non-believers don’t. (I’ll get into reasons for faith/belief in later installments.)

So I (and other believers) accept the Bible as a reliable document and use it as a rule of faith. As I said above, the Apostles and their disciples used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament scriptures. (Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean world, including Palestine. The Jews spoke Aramaic and Hebrew amongst themselves but communicated with others (like the Romans and other foreigners) in Greek.) From the Septuagint they taught that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. Jesus claimed at various times and places that He was God (John 8:53-59; 10:30-38; etc.). In fact, this is the very reason the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him and turned Him over to the Romans for crucifixion (Mark 14:61-64, 15:1).

He demonstrated through his miracles and His teaching that he had power from God, and when He raised Himself from the dead, he demonstrated that He WAS God. Was His resurrection simply an elaborate hoax as many have claimed throughout history? His followers believed in Him and gave their lives for this faith. Men may go a long way in promoting a hoax, but how many are willing to DIE for a hoax? But the first several generations of Christians happily died in the numerous periods of intense persecution as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ. They believed, and I believe on the word of their testimony.

Jesus established a church (Matt. 16:18) and gave it authority to teach and work miracles (to demonstrate their divine authority) in His name (i.e. with His own authority as God) (Luke 10:1, 9, 16, 17; Matt. ch. 10; 28:18-20). But Jesus did not write a word of scripture. As I said in Part 1, Jesus' teaching authority and power continues to this day through His Mystical Body, the Church (I Cor. 12:27) which He established for this purpose. With the exception of the visions recorded in Revelation, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. The New Testament scriptures were written by the authority of this Church and were derived fron its existing oral tradition. The authority of the New Testament rests on the authority of the Church, not the other way around. (Cf. I Tim. 3:15—it is the Church, not scripture, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth; I Thes. 2:13—the oral preaching of the Apostles, not only written scripture, is the word of God.) It was the bishops of the Church that determined which books were to be included in the canon of scripture. Some of the books we accept today were disputed well into the 3rd century, e.g. III John and Revelation—and there were many other disputed books that never "made the cut." Anyone who accepts the inspiration and authority of the Bible at all, receives it on the authority of the Catholic Church alone.

For this reason, the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Along with the written scriptures there must also be the oral Apostolic Tradition to which the scriptures themselves give witness (John 21:25; I Thes 2:13; II Thes 3:15; III John 13-14) and the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, which guarantees their proper interpretation. These three support each other like the legs of a milking stool. If you take any one of them away, the other two must fall.