How Do We Think About the Bible From a Philosophical Point of View?
I raise this question, as one which is aside from the metaphysical one of the existence of God. However, for many people questions about God's existence and life after death are answered with reference to The Bible. Therefore, I wonder how, from a philosophy point of view we may approach and understand this book, or collection of books.On one hand, there is theology, and, on the other, there is the philosophy of religion.
One aspect of thinking about The Bible involves consideration of how it was put together. I believe that the canon of The Bible arose in the early centuries of the Church Fathers, and that Origen played a crucial role in deciding what was included and what was excluded. The texts in The New Testament, which were considered to be Gnostic were left out, and came to surface in Nag Hammadi. However, in many ways, 'The Gospel of John' and 'The Book of Revelation' can be seen as having a certain Gnostic slant.
I don't know to what extent people on the forum consider the understanding of the Bible, including the Old Testament and The New Testament as being relevant to the philosophical questions about religion, but I certainly do. I don't find The Bible easy to read or understand at all. I began reading it as a teenager, and got stuck on the passage about 'the unforgivable sin' and trying to read 'The Book of Revelation'. As a result, I don't read it much at all, but I do see it as being important to any understanding of Christianity.
I am aware that Christianity is only one of many religions, so any focus on The Bible is about Christianity, although I believe that others, such as those within Islam, think that the Bible is still an important text. I am asking what people think about the Bible, in relation to philosophy, and, certainly, it played a crucial role in the development of philosophy in Western society. So, I am raising this topic for those who are interested, including theologians and atheists, as well as everyone else.
One aspect of thinking about The Bible involves consideration of how it was put together. I believe that the canon of The Bible arose in the early centuries of the Church Fathers, and that Origen played a crucial role in deciding what was included and what was excluded. The texts in The New Testament, which were considered to be Gnostic were left out, and came to surface in Nag Hammadi. However, in many ways, 'The Gospel of John' and 'The Book of Revelation' can be seen as having a certain Gnostic slant.
I don't know to what extent people on the forum consider the understanding of the Bible, including the Old Testament and The New Testament as being relevant to the philosophical questions about religion, but I certainly do. I don't find The Bible easy to read or understand at all. I began reading it as a teenager, and got stuck on the passage about 'the unforgivable sin' and trying to read 'The Book of Revelation'. As a result, I don't read it much at all, but I do see it as being important to any understanding of Christianity.
I am aware that Christianity is only one of many religions, so any focus on The Bible is about Christianity, although I believe that others, such as those within Islam, think that the Bible is still an important text. I am asking what people think about the Bible, in relation to philosophy, and, certainly, it played a crucial role in the development of philosophy in Western society. So, I am raising this topic for those who are interested, including theologians and atheists, as well as everyone else.
Comments (411)
Interesting topic. I would say that in the first instance it should be borne in mind that the Church Fathers applied various levels of meaning, such as literal, moral and allegorical, when interpreting the Gospel texts. This allows for a wide range of interpretation and conclusions, theological and philosophical, that may be drawn.
Correct. Applying different levels of meaning goes back to Plato and other ancient philosophers and this tradition was continued by the Church Fathers who had enjoyed education and training in established philosophical centers like Alexandria and Antioch and were familiar with this method.
Further rules that have been applied for example in grammatical interpretation are:
1. Definition of a word.
2. Usage.
3. Context.
4. Historical background.
5. Logic.
6. Precedent.
7. Unity.
8. Inference.
Hermeneutics: How To Interpret The Bible
Thanks for your link on the hermaneutical interpretation, which points to different ways in which the Bible can be approached. Of course, it does appear that the source is a Christian one. That is extremely useful though, and I do believe that some of the analysis is still applicable even if the Bible is interpreted outside of the Christian viewpoint.
I originally thought about this yesterday, and mentioned it in a thread which has been closed. I have been reading 'Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris: The Four Horsemen(The Discussion That Sparked An Atheist Revolution, 2019), in which Harris points to The Bible as being one 'epistemological gold standard.' So, this lead me to wonder where the Bible lies in the entire debate about theism, atheism and other religious questions central to philosophy. Many consider the existence of God, in terms of proof or lack of proof. However, it can become too abstract and I do believe that the Bible, and, how we interpret it must be relevant. But, I am also aware that The Bible is a very long book, but it has had such a large role in the shaping of culture and philosophy that I do believe that it is worth thinking about.
I do agree with you that the literalist interpretations of the Bible are the most unhelpful. I think that many people from religious backgrounds would agree with you. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities. For example, the question of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, and the 'facts' of the Gospels.
It is unlikely that the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, and the authorship of the these is uncertain. It does seem that Paul had a very big role in the development of the Christian church, so I am sure that this came into play. Also, it is likely that the early Church was expecting a potential end of the world. In some ways, the 'Book of Revelation' can be understood in that context. There was an ongoing attempt to try to equate 666 with an actual person, and it seems to me that the beast may be symbolic. But, all these aspects of thoughts have been apparent behind the scenes of history and literature, including the thinking of Dante, John Milton and William Blake.
Interpreting the Bible literally means just lack of respect for it, because it implies a decision to ignore its historical context and force it to enter inside the frame of our contemporary categories and ideas.
It seems to me that, for the biblical authors in general, truth was not a mathematical concept, but an existential one. This is very close to what Pierre Hadot revealed us about the ancient Greek philosophers, to whom philosophy was not just a rational, intellectual activity, but a way of life able to touch our inner life.
In thinking of comparing the Bible with other perspectives we have to begin from the way in which the Bible has been the starting point for Christianity as a worldview, and the many different traditions, ranging from Roman Catholicism, Protestantism,the Church of England, Methodism, and far more divergent ones, including the Quakers and the Mormons. The most literalist interpretations can be seen as the fundamentalist ones.
I certainly believe in understanding the historical contexts of beliefs, ranging from the earliest times of Christianity, the understanding of the philosophies of God developed by Augustine, Kierkergaard, and Kant, to the many aspects of thinking about religion in the twentieth first century. I don't believe that any person's thinking takes place in a cultural vacuum.
I think that you are correct to say that it is unlikely that truth was a mathematical aspect. I would be interested to hear more about how you think that an existential understanding fits into the picture here. I think that it is important to be aware of the fusion between ideas in the development of Christianity, as in the way in which Augustine and Aquinas interpreted the Bible but with reference to the Greek ideas, especially Plato and Aristotle.
I think that there is a fundamentalism which tries to interpret the ideas of the Bible as if it can be understood as a newspaper account. I think that this is not helpful at all, and any interpretation has to take into account the difference in the overall worldview of the authors in the Bible. They lived with a belief in the world being flat and with no knowledge of Darwin's ideas. Also, another aspect which I think is useful to consider is the tension between the esoteric and exoteric traditions.
I agree with looking at the Bible beyond the Christian viewpoint. Most definitely, it is important to be aware of Judaism and varying aspects of this tradition, ranging from ideas in the Torah and the more mystical aspects of thought, such as the Kabbalah. I believe that the ideas of the OT are probably derived from various traditions, including the Greek and Egyptian.
My own thinking is based on the starting point of having been raised as a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I was raised with specific interpretations of the Bible, especially a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the idea of transubstantiation, which means the literal and not symbolic transformation of the communion wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
However, I have questioned the Catholic beliefs and those of Christianity. I don't really come from a fixed position, and I am interested in the various approaches to the Bible, and how they connect with the philosophy of religion.
Correct. It is a vast field of inquiry and it is easy to lose sight of the wood for the trees. I do believe that it is useful to ask questions like (1) what is the source of the material contained in it, (2) its purpose, (3) who it is addressed to, etc.
Accordingly, it may be said that (1) the source of the Bible is a higher intelligence (that may be human or divine), (2) its purpose is to direct us to a higher perspective, knowledge and experience of life, and (3) that it is addressed to those who have the capacity to understand its message and the will to put it into practice.
If we take the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" (John 8:12), which reminds us of Plato and Plotinus and their comparison of the universal intelligence with the sun.
Then, if we go to the other Gospels, we find the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus where Jesus and three of his apostles ascend a mountain and, on reaching the top, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice from heaven (assumed to be God the Father), which symbolizes the achievement of the status of "son of God" i.e., perfect, deified or godlike being, radiant with the light of higher knowledge, that the teachings of Jesus enable us to achieve:
"They will shine as bright as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears let them hear" (Matthew 13:43).
Again, the three apostles may be interpreted as representing the three aspects of man, viz., body, mind, and spirit or the three Platonic aspects of the soul, whilst Jesus himself is the nous, the divine spark within us that connects us with and can lead us to the Cosmic Intelligence or Mind of God.
In other words, this describes a spiritual journey of ascent to the highest realms of philosophical thought and spiritual experience indicated by philosophers like Plato and Plotinus. Of course, other passages such as those containing analogies and parables may be said to have a moral message that serves as a guide in everyday life. Others may have wider social and political implications, etc.
It may be worthwhile considering that Christianity in the Gospels is not referred to as "Christianity", but as "the Path of Righteousness", "the Path of God", and "the Path of Truth". By walking in the ways of Jesus, the embodiment of righteousness or virtuousness, the "Light of the World" that illumines our inner world and our path in life, we establish the Kingdom of God on earth, a society characterized by righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:7) and attain to God and Truth. Discovering Truth is the very core of philosophical inquiry.
So the Bible is an extremely rich source of spiritual, philosophical, and ethical ideas that may be extracted from it according to each reader's interests and inclinations, just like a work of Plato or other ancient philosophers.
I think that The Bible can be a rich source, but I do think that it is so extremely difficult to interpret. Yes, I think it is important to bear in mind the particular intended authors and the purposes of specific texts. I have not read much theology at all, but have downloaded one book on contextual theology. This seems wider than some others and I do have an interest in comparative religion, as well as the ideas of religion developed by William James and Carl Jung.
I think that the Bible can be used to back up so many ideas, and can also be used in a negative way, and for specific political ideologies. I can see the basis of Freud and Marx's critiques. I am familiar with many fundamentalist Christians who spend so much time reading The Bible, and who think that philosophy is a waste of time. I prefer reading philosophy, but do believe that it is worth thinking about the Bible within the broadest context of thinking that the underlying problems of philosophy. I really wrote the thread because there is such debate about theism, atheism and life after death on the forum, and I am sure that the Bible is relevant on some level to such discussion.
Of course, it is possible to not mention The Bible, and I am sure that it is not essential to philosophy. But, I do think that it is hovering in the background, with people coming from specific interpretations of all aspects ranging from ideas about what really happened to the body of Christ and the resurrection, to ideas about the afterlife and any end of the world scenario.
But, even though I am bringing in the Bible, I don't come with any specific agenda, and I do think that it is possible to approach The Bible like any work of literature or texts like 'The Tao de Ching'. But, I am aware that others may not see it that way, and, sometimes, mention of the Bible can in itself appear loaded, because of the whole complicated role of the Bible in history.
Yes. I would imagine it quite possible to discuss the Bible or Christian philosophy without mentioning the Bible - or philosophy.
But here are some interesting verses from the Koran:
"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).
“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them!” (9:30).
“Surely, disbelievers are those who say: ‘Allah is the third of the three.’ But there is no God but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them” (5:73).
And, of course, it should also be interesting to look into an analysis of the topic from the viewpoints of Marx and Freud. Or other great philosophers like Stalin and Mao Zedong.
I think the Bible can serve as a starting point in exploring philosophical questions; it certainly did for me, and probably has for a lot of people raised in the Church. If anything, it still acts more as an irrational specter in the back of my mind when I address philosophical questions. I still find myself thinking in it's terms; "I'm too selfish", "I judge others too quickly", "I don't love others enough", etc.
As other people pointed out, whatever philosophical information one might be able to glean from the Bible is generally couched in a lot of interpretation; in other words, it requires rigorous interpretation to get anywhere. There is actually a lot of very rich stuff to be found; The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter is a fascinating exposition on that topic and is still to this day an influence on how I create music as an artist. Stories from the Old Testament such as Job, Jacob wrestling with the angel, and God cutting in half sacrificial offerings made to him (which is interpreted Messianically in Christianity) are deeply rich with suggestive meaning and can hold their own with not only other religious texts but with philosophical texts and great art as well.
So I think it's possible to glean valuable stuff from the Bible, in the same way other religious texts have value. It just carries such an ideological weight with it in the Western world that a middle position such as the one you're attempting to hold is rare and often attacked from both sides.
I've recently been obsessed with learning about Nag Hammadi and early church history. Fascinating to what extent there appears to have been a political bent or power struggle that gave birth to orthodoxy. The Gospel of Thomas in particular has some interesting statements, such as "do not tell lies and do not do what you hate." Sounds good to me...
I really was opening this discussion with a view to looking at it from various angles, ranging from the Christian to the Marxist and any other angles. I am glad that you mentioned the Koran as well, because I do believe in approaching religion from the various viewpoints. Strangely, there does not seem to be much from an Islamic view on this forum, and this may be related to who decides to become part of a philosophy forum.
I am just rather puzzled how, in many discussions about the existence of God, or atheism, discussion of The Bible does not seem to play a large part. The reason why I am so surprised is because in my own experience of talking to people in real life, views about The Bible seem to be central to thinking about these issues.
I also see The Bible as a starting point for thinking about religious questions, and think that it is basis for deeper analysis, rather than clear answers. I have read some of the writings in the Gnostic gospels, and some of the ideas of Elaine Pagels. I think that it is helpful for making sense of the symbolic nature of the world described in the Gospels. Of course, some of these writings were excluded from the Bible, but I am sure that this was interconnected with the political dimensions of the early Church.
I do believe that the symbolic nature of religious experience is central to understanding of The Bible and Christianity. I also have a strong interest in Jung, and he was extremely interested in the ideas of the Gnostic writers.
It is a quest for immortality trying to find something that was lost long ago
I became fascinated by 'The Book of Revelation' in sixth form, and art based on it. But, I do think that literal interpretations of it are extremely problematic. Later, I joined Christian Unions and came across so many people who came with very literal approaches, and I got extremely muddled up. I questioned Christianity, and have read as widely as possible. I got a bit lost in reading new age ideas.
I have found that interaction on this site has helped me to think more clearly, but I do believe that allegory and symbolism are extremely important, and that thinking about the Bible is very useful. I believe that looking at religious experience in this way may enable going deeper into the underlying aspect of arguments about the existence of God. I don't think that it is possible to prove or disprove God's existence, and is about the underlying unknown or numinous experiences. But, I am not sure that this approach would seem to be what many consider to be important within philosophy. It is possible to be an atheist who appreciates the numinous, and some theists don't pay much attention to this dimension at all.
I agree with @Noble Dust and wish you well in maintaining this seemingly balanced position to include all aspects.
Quoting Noble Dust
Quoting Noble Dust
I am glad of your post and the angle taken. The Bible as a source of artistic creativity.
It reminded me of Muriel Sparks' novel 'The Only Problem' which entranced me a while back.
The Book of Job being the rich source tapped:
Quoting NY Times: Book Review
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/15/books/review-muriel-sparks-the-only-problem.html
To regard the Hebrew Bible as "the Old Testament" is to prejudge it. Significantly, you do not even mention Judaism. What is often overlooked is the extent to which the Hebrew Bible is about human beings and their ways, both straight and crooked. Very little is said about nature. There is no concept of human nature, only ways that can be chosen. The natural world is secondary, for it is regarded as the work of God and subject to his control.
As for explaining why God the Bible came to be supposed to be true, that is another matter:
The ancients found themselves here and not there,
Yet to fathom earth, fire, water, and air,
Asking why life was not square, as unfair—
Thus invented the Bad Role Model’s Care.
They looked unto their calamities,
Their powerful rulers and enemies,
At their olden family structure’s way,
Of strict father, and mother with no say.
The Father Notion they based on themselves,
As the best answer that was ever delved:
The demanding Male Mind who was called ‘God’,
An idea for some to this day, well trod.
Answers were needed for them to persist—
They extended the Notion with more myths
And legends into lore layered upon,
Inventing all the scrolls of scripture on.
‘God’ brought both fear and comfort in those days,
Making people better through fearsome ways,
Although worse for others—unchosen tribes—
Protecting their notions, as taught by scribes.
A wasteland of superstition plod—
Instantiating a meaning for ‘God’.
Emotion e’er sets up a firm blockade
When thoughts fired more build a stockade.
There were various modifications,
Yet the Creator concept remained one;
But natural understandings progressed,
Leaping ahead of the dogmatical rest.
Thousands of years came to pass, in stories,
But then we solved much of the mystery,
Irrefutable now, as gone beyond,
Utterly not by a magical wand.
The basis is fore’er, no creation—
Energy being the primest potion—
And Entirety is seen that it can be
No way but than it is, eternally.
Claims of Revelation in Genesis
Of all of Nature’s species made, as is,
Have been demolished, obliterated,
By evolution and data liberated.
Nature finds no requirement for a ‘God’,
Growth naturally forming from the sod.
The organic ‘comes of the mud and slime,
Formed within billions of years of sweet time.
A trillion lights shine through, of depths of the deep,
Stars afire, with us the souls from their keep.
Man oft spouts the ‘truth’ of a Creator,
As did proto-men near the equator.
Scrolled into scripture, ‘God’ brought rapture,
Enough for sad hearts to wholly capture;
Yet, there can’t be First Complexity’s shove,
For composites can't be First; all's simple of.
I see your point of view about calling the Old Testament as 'Old' comes from a specific interpretation, and it is simply the way I have seen it worded in Bibles. I am not in any way biased against Judaism and I think that such an interpretation of the Bible is important too. So, I welcome the Jewish interpretation as well.
Thanks for your link about Muriel Spark. I read 'The Book of Job' after reading, 'Answer to Job' by Jung. However, I have to say that, 'The Book of Job' stands out for me because it is such a distinct discussion and reflection on why human beings suffer.
I can appreciate the idea of there being a pathway in the evolution of truth. The only one query which I would have is whether each new step is actually progress, or simply the most accurate one based on current views. Also, there are so many perspectives throughout the world. In a way, this seems to be a form of relativism, but I think that in the information age we are able to draw upon all the divergent ideas for a more synthetic approach to truth.
Thanks for your poem. With regard to your remark about 'divine inspiration' we may ask what that may entail. In the most simplistic explanation, we may find an answer like: God wrote the Bible. That is projecting the source of inspiration outside of the human sphere, and dividing the 'sacred' into a separate category. I think that it is worth replacing the word 'divine' and thinking about creative inspiration.
It is not a personal accusation. It is a Christian bias. It is not a question of it being old but it being superseded.
In the perspective of the Bible, steps are improvements because they are guided by God. Actually there is also some explicit or implicit criticism about God in the Bible. We can find it in the book of Job, but also, for example, when we read that God regretted having created man and then regrets again having sent the deluge. Besides, if we read very analitically the story of the Adam and Eve’s “sin”, we can see that it contains some implicit criticism about the situation that God created to Adam, so that it is not so clear who is the real responsible of the “sin”. The Psalms as well contain criticism or, at least, blaming against God, from the perspective of the sufferer.
So, it seems to me that the Bible is not so closed minded about God; nonetheless, I think it remains optimistic because, despite God’s contradictions, which the Bible doesn’t ignore, the relationship with God gives a spiritual esperience of life that is considered worth to be followed, cultivated. We might think something similar about philosophy: from certain perspectives, it can be considered as taking us nowhere, no real improvement, no progress, but, nonetheless, its activity is able to touch and enrich our soul, if it’s practiced deeply, as a part of our life.
I believe that it is important to remember that Christianity is a new religion, hence "New Testament" or "New Dispensation".
Even Judaism has undergone many changes throughout history, from polytheism to monotheism to Second Temple Judaism to Hellenistic Judaism to Reform Judaism, etc.
So, I wouldn't say it is "Christian bias" to regard Christianity as a new and different religion.
Doesn't much matter, for either way, the ABCs of the Bible came out wrong as could be, as a polar opposite of what's been found. As for the xyzs, they are then quite suspect, but for some accounts of history and locales. Although the Bible is as a Fairy Tale, it has some good poems in it, such as in the Song of Solomon, which is also a sexy poem. Some good illustrations, too.
Thanks for the useful links about Judaism.
Not at all. You can thank Wikipedia. Very useful source. And it is always useful to know a bit of history.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're critiquing a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is pretty well known to be an extremely minority view among Christians, so it's sort of a straw man to discard the Bible on that basis.
I think that The Bible has been and can be interpreted in various ways and angles. Even though many approach it as a work of literature, I am not sure how widespread this view is. I believe that it can provide comfort or distress for individuals. It is probably the most influential book in history, although I don't know how it would rank in relation to The Koran.
In Christianity, a Bible is even seen as a sacred item, especially as oaths involve The Bible. As a child, I accidentally vomited in class and this went onto a classmate's Bible . I felt really terrible at the time. I wondered what it signified, although no one ever told me off, and I think I gave my own Bible to the boy beside me.
Quoting Noble Dust
I was intrigued by your mention of this book and looked it up:
https://www.academia.edu/40370735/The_Art_of_Biblical_Poetry
It is lengthy. I scrolled down to the pages concerning the Book of Job.
Approx. pp 92 -138 in Chapters 3-4.
Too much for me to absorb but I can see the fascination. Just wondering how it influenced creativity in your case - any specific examples ?
In thinking about the way in which The Bible incorporates ideas about the relationship between God and human beings, I think that Jung's emphasis on the development of the image of God in the Bible is important.
The concept of Intensification is the one that's influenced me the most. I use it sometimes to create rhythmic structures in music, to the point that I sometimes write intensified structures subconsciously nowadays.
Thanks. I have absolutely no idea what that would even feel like consciously never mind sub.
So many creative spirits in TPF...
Truly amazing where a discussion on the Bible can lead.
I think I must return to Alter's Chapter 3 'Structures of Intensification' as related to Job.
To try and see what you mean...
Yes, but for the many Evangelical Fundamentalists many looser Christians don't take much stock in the Bible's proclamations or go into denial. The Philippine Catholic Bible has an asterisk on Genesis that notes that the farmers and the sheepherders were at odds with each other, one of these being the Cainites.
Regardless, some just really want God to be fact, anyway, not even saying 'maybe' or 'perhaps' to reflect the hopes and wishes of faith …
Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
For, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.
Nevertheless, biological and cosmic evolution gets rid of the made-up events in the foundational Genesis. There can hardly be a bigger fail of the religious underpinnings than that.
Some Christians realize the above downfall, coming up with crazy schemes to save the proclamations, such that the Bible should no longer be seen as "plain words for the common man" but as an obscure rendering requiring an theological expert to interpret…
Honestly it's been so long since I've read that book that I probably need to revisit it. I'm sure the way I use intensification is a pale comparison to the richness of it's use in Hebrew poetry. Basically what I do is take a musical time signature such as 7/8 (7 eighth notes per measure grouping) and then gradually "intensify" it by peeling off eighth notes; so the time signature would change to 6/8 for instance, and maybe all the way to 5/8 before shifting back to 7/8 or maybe even eventually expanding to 9/8.
Quoting Noble Dust
Don't be so sure...isn't the creative spirit all good...hmmm, maybe not ?
[Sorry veering off topic I know
OMG. I have to tell ya', I am laughing my head off. Having just finished reading another piece of incomprehensible text...on another thread...
It's all too much. I swear :lol:
Go on. Send me. A quickie. A wee listen-in...please... ]
I'm not sure what argument you're making, if any. Hazy generalizations don't get us anywhere.
Ha, I can try to dig something up. The better examples are works in progress still.
How Do We Think About The Bible From A Philosophical Point Of View?
Quoting Jack Cummins
So then, the Bible's 'creative' and inventive literature gets much worse in its 'making up', beyond the crumbling of its foundation in Genesis, and continues its teriffic decline via its presentation of a God who is not a good role model who could be followed, emulated, imitated, etc., we thus easily outthinking the One who breaks His own 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' directive in the Great Flood, and so much more bad role model behaviors that we have wisely made civil and moral laws against.
Want to see a concise poetic description of, um, His mysterious (cover-up for 'insane') ways? It's good literature.
My approach is the the conditional approach - if, by some chance, you have come to believe in God and the Bible as God's word or if it contains God's word or something like that, then what is the relationship between faith in the Bible? Does it make sense to discuss the Bible with those who believe it is a fairy tale? I for one am not interested in discussing Hans Christian Anderson.
For me, much fruitful discussion lies in the field of logic and reason. How does logic and reason, which is the heart of science, be applied to religion, to preserve the same intellectual rigour that is demanded of that field of knowledge? I believe it can, but the intellectual discussion on faith and reason seems to be still in its infancy. Just witness the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate. What in the world was that?
I'm surprised to find a number of old posts of mine about "The Bible" since I do not consider it particularly germaine with respect to discussing theism (I try not to bother with "god").
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504325 (re: the church made the bible, the bible did not make the church ... or power politics of canonizing scriptures)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504281 (re: critical & ethical source of atheism)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/345156 (re: history of the bible)
Apologies if I come off as dismissive, but the only "role in the development of Western philosophy" the Christian Bible has played is, as far as I can discern it, as a whet-stone upon which freethought has been honed into a precision scalpel for cutting-out metasizing superstitions, delusions, dogmas, misogynistic customs, canonical rationalizations for child rape, apartheid, chattel slavery, ethnic cleasing, genocide, divine right of kings, just (holy) wars, missionary (evangelizing) colonization, etc ... Medieval scholastic 'logic shops' churned away night and day in blinkered cloisters erecting the scaffolds – not only for building foundational supports for "faith with rationality" as the "learned ignorant" had hoped for – by which Enlightenment freethinkers (& deists) would systematically take down the mountainous pile of biblical dogma brick by brick for the next half-millennia. In Hegelian fashion the Christian Bible had generated it's own antithesis: modern philosophy (along with natural sciences ... and historical sciences and secular arts); but Adorno was right, it's (only) a 'negative dialectic'...
Great description! :up:
I have looked at you old posts, and I can see problems arising from The Bible, and its application. I have certainly experienced preaching from others, in a negative, unhelpful way.
However, I do wonder if the underlying problem is more about human nature. We can blame The Bible for war and oppression, but this is the application of ideas. It is a bit like thinking of science in relation to nuclear weapons and climate change. The problem is how ideas are translated into practice. Of course, we have a mixture of religion and science coming together, with the addition of human nature, which may be a toxic mix indeed.
Regarding the idea of the ineffable, I can see that it has a basis in The Bible, but I think that it is in many traditions as well. I am in favour of trying to demystify the ineffable.
I have tried not to get too far into discussion of Genesis because I am aware that there is another thread on the topic. However, I will make one comment here, because it is central to my understanding of The Bible. I am surprised by the fact that some people do still take Genesis as a possible factual account. I discovered recently and one of my friends believes that a literal Adam and Eve existed.
I can remember struggling with the idea of evolution when I was age 10 and my parents believed in the Genesis account. However, I did begin to see the problems with the Genesis creation story. It was not as if human beings witnessed the beginning of the world, so any attempt to describe it could only be a story, or the two stories within Genesis.
As for God as a role model, I would imagine that this would be about living like Jesus Christ. This was attempted by many through the centuries, as the idea of 'The Imitation of Christ', as expressed by Thomas a Kempis. Some became martyrs and many remained sinners. I remember as a child, sins could almost be forgotten once declared in confession. But, really, I believe that on a deeper level, Jesus and the Buddha are examples for higher ideals, especially compassion and concern for others.
:up: E.g. Witty's TLP. Beckett's Trilogy (or "Godot"). Miles Davis' "Shhhhh/Peaceful" ...
I think that Jung's interpretations of the Bible are fascinating, because they suggest deep connections with our psiche, and this is precisely also the weakness of his theories. We can't assume a theory as good just because it is fascinating or because it suggests interesting connections. I'm not saying that Jung's theories should be just ignored: I recognize them as highly valuable, but today we try to be much more scientific and severe in dealing with theories. This is similar to what happened with Freud: his teachings are of the highest importance, but today psychology is much more severe, critical about theories, scientific.
I think that, in this context, philosophy applied to the Bible is able to be more fruitful than old psichology, because philosophy is able to be much more critical and severe than old psychological theories.
The most important overlap as I see it is in ethics. To an extent, the New Testament is a foundational moral theory, completely revolutionary, that has mostly stood the test of time. It's sort of the Newtonian mechanics of morality: yes, we've moved on (or at least the secular world has), but what a first stab!
In all other respects, it's weak to middling. It is a historical document (which tells us things) but not a history text. We can learn things about the time it was written, but ideally you'd cross-reference it with contemporaneous texts from that region, and there aren't a lot of them. Its actually historic accounts range from the dubious to the outright nonsensical. The history _of_ the Bible is probably more telling than the actual Bible.
Metaphysically, it's like all metaphysics: if you believe it, it's right for you; if not, it's completely unjustifiable.
Quoting Apollodorus
Well, anything _may_ be said, but that doesn't make it true. What we can say for sure is 1) that it was written, editted and collated by humans, whatever the nature of their inspiration, 2) it was meant to create a canon of texts for a religion that already existed in divers forms (essentially criteria for saying "You are wrong", 3) that its actual content is largely irrelevant, since those who created it have historically not been bound to it, nor have been keen on others reading it.
I think that a lot of people do see Jung's ideas of the psyche as outdated. However, I think if you read his writings he really goes beyond psychology, with more of an analysis of thought, even though he is not a philosopher strictly speaking.
Philosophers have drawn upon the science to deconstruct some of the notions in the Bible, including the idea of the soul. But, finding meaning in life is so much harder. I do believe that in many ways we create our own meaning. But, this is so variable, and it may require a lot of philosophical searching for many to be able to do this fully.
I think that you are correct to see the Bible as having a basis for ethics and metaphysics. We can say that we have the ten commandments and Jesus emphasised the specific idea of loving your neighbour as yourself. The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself was probably the essential foundation for the categorical imperative of Kant.
It is interesting to think about the metaphysics of the Bible. There was most definitely a belief in a God underlying nature, and, it is probably on the basis of people not believing this, that many don't believe that the Bible is as important as they did in previous ages. Apart from this, I do think that there is a different underlying thinking about mind and body. I am not sure that it is simply idealism, and I wonder if it is more in line with the thinking of Eastern philosophy.
Also, in the thinking about life after death,we could say that there were two possibly contrasting approaches arising from the Bible. One was the idea of an immortal soul, and one was the idea that the physical body is resurrected at the end of the world. I believe that these were very different, and even contradictory, but this may have been blurred together by many people.
I do believe that philosophy is useful for thinking about accuracy and, finding a way through philosophical fog which remains from uncritical thinking about The Bible.
I very much agree. And I believe it is also instructive to see how Christianity viewed Islam and, above all, how it viewed philosophy itself.
Most of Arabia's neighbors, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, were largely Christian and historical and archaeological evidence shows that there were several Christian (and Jewish) tribes in Arabia itself as well as missionaries and monks, some of whom are mentioned in the Koran.
Now, whilst the Jews traced their tradition to Abraham’s son Isaac, Muslim Arabs traced theirs to Isaac’s half-brother Ishmael. Therefore, the Muslims called themselves “Ishmaelites”.
The Christian Church Fathers were intrigued by this Ishmaelite movement which they regarded as a heresy. The main writer on Ishmaelism a.k.a. Islam was the scholar John of Damascus. He was born in 675 CE, not long after the Muslim conquest of his native city Damascus, so his account of early Islam and how it was viewed by Christian leaders is of particular interest.
Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was close to some of the Christians living in Arabia, e.g., Uthman ibn al-Huwayrith and Waraqah ibn Naufal, of Mecca. Muslim tradition says very clearly that Waraqah who was a cousin of Mohammad's first wife was a learned Christian (possibly a priest) who had translated the Bible into Arabic and used to read from it (Sahih Bukhari 4.55.605). Therefore, it seems that Mohammad got his knowledge of scripture from Christians (and Jews) as the Church scholars found after investigating the claims about Islam.
The point John of Damascus was making was (1) that since according to Muslims themselves Mohammad had acquainted himself with Jewish and Christian teachings, there was no need for those teachings to be revealed to him by some supernatural source, (2) nor was there any evidence to back that up.
Therefore, St John concluded that “A false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst (among the Ishmaelites). This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration” […] Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’— they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams)” (On Heresy, Ch. VII).
The Bible says very clearly: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves …. And many false prophets shall rise and shall deceive many" (Matthew 7:15; 24:11).
"False prophet" - Greek ????????????? (pseudoprophetes), Latin pseudopropheta - is the phrase used by the Christian Church for the founder of Islam from that time into the 1900s.
But St John’s Fount of Knowledge also has a chapter on philosophy which I believe is a good starting point for the present discussion:
“Philosophy is knowledge of things which are in so far as they are; that is to say, a knowledge of their nature. Philosophy is a knowledge of divine and human things. Philosophy is a study of death, both that which is deliberate and that which is natural.
Philosophy is a becoming like God, in so far as this is possible for man. Now, it is in justice, sanctity, and goodness that we become like God.
And justice is that which is distributive of equity; it is not wronging and not being wronged, not prejudicing a person, but rendering to each his due in accordance with his works. Sanctity, on the other hand, is that which is over and above justice; that is to say, it is the good, the patience of the one wronged, the forgiving of them that do wrong, and, more than that, the doing of good to them. Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences, for, since through philosophy every art is discovered, it is the principle underlying every art. Philosophy is love of wisdom. But, the true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God—this is the true philosophy" (On Philosophy, Ch. LXVII).
What I find particularly striking is that this is virtually identical to the views of Greek philosophers like Plato and Plotinus.
What is that ethic and how was it revolutionary when compared against the OT ethic that predated it? How has its ethic better stood the test of time in comparison to other ethical theories? Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't follow this comment. If the New Testament was a first stab, why is it called "new" (as that would imply an old stab that it replaced) and it contradicts your prior statement where you called it revolutionary (as that would require a revolution from an old system).
Good point.
Why would an OT ethic be the thing it replaced?
Quoting Hanover
By having more correlates in modern ethics than others.
Quoting Hanover
You know it's almost 2000 years old, right?
Yes, and even just average good humans still put the 'God' of the Bible to shame, which again suggests the making up of the Biblical 'God' as wishful thinking at best.
You identified the New Testament as providing a revolutionary new ethic. In order for it to have been revolutionary, it would have had to overthrow the prevailing ethic of the time, whatever that might be. The OT ethic was at least one of those ethics pre-existing the NT ethic, so I asked what distinguished the NT ethic from the OT one that it would have had to replace following this revolution in ethics.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I'd need a definition of "modern ethics" then to understand this comment because many of the ethical systems practiced currently originated long ago, some prior to Christianity. My question then would be whether the ethical system of Orthodox Judaism (for example) is a modern ethic, considering it is currently still being practiced, or do you mean by "modern ethics" recent religious doctrines (like Mormonism) or secular doctrines like Utilitarianism or Kantianism.
It seemed from your initial post that you were giving the nod to Christianity as having uncovered some previously unrecognized ethical truths that have proved themselves correct through some type of external evaluation. I'm just asking what that is more because I'm curious than trying to be critical of what you're saying.
Or put another way, what is it about Christian ethics that makes a true follower of it more ethical than one who does not? I'm not suggesting that you've argued that no one is ethical other than Christians, but I'm trying to uncover what special element Christianity contains that makes it of special value.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't follow how this is responsive to my comment. You indicated that the New Testament was a good first stab at an ethical theory, and I pointed out that it couldn't have been the first stab if it was newer than a prior ethical theory.
Here I guess you're pointing out that 2000 years isn't "new" because 2000 years is a pretty long time when it comes to the age of human literature, but that has nothing to do with my comment that the NT cannot have been the first stab if the OT predated it and took a stab at it before.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
NT aka "Platonism for the masses" – really? :chin:
Not the Torah (re: Hillel the Elder's "golden rule")?
Not the Nicomachean Ethics?
Not Epicurus-Lucretius? Not Seneca & Epictetus?
It doesn't follow that the OT encoded the dominant ethic that Christianity overturned. This just makes absolutely no sense.
Quoting Hanover
an. Indefinite article. I think you're reading this as "any" or "all"? Otherwise again this makes no sense to me.
Quoting 180 Proof
Happy to hear the counter-argument in which Nicomachean Ethics became the foundation of most of the world's morality. Philosophers are a very thin end of a very big slice.
Quoting Jack Cummins
which includes ethics.
Or the West's.
I had a busy day so haven't really been involved in the discussion on the thread today, but I do believe that interpretations of ideas in the Bible have been central to ethical traditions in Western society. But I think that the important links of this were the theologians and the Church, because these were leading authorities. Also, I am sure that there were so many varying political factors throughout the world, and we are also speaking about a period of 2000 years. It is the entire history of Christendom.
I disagree, but appreciate why this view is (still) dominant. Ethics in the West, I think, developed in contrast to, or despite, Biblical theology (theo-idiocy).
I think that criticism and looking behind the surface in the ideas and writings in The Bible is very important. I remember going to commentaries in libraries when I was a teenager and so worried about the passage about the unforgivable sin. I found that looking at commentaries was like peeling back layers of meaning. It may be that the history of religious ideas, even before Christ, was full of dialogue and heated exchanges of ideas on many levels.
I know that some people do think that some of the ideas in The Bible were made up. It is so hard to know on what level many of the ideas were believed literally, because in some ways they may have been written as works of literature. The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. But, I do believe that it is hard to know the facts behind the texts, but I am wishing to read and discover more fully.
It was the Church who collated and edited it, and who spread... whatever bits of it they wanted known, however modified. Very successfully. The dominant modern Western ethic is very much founded indebted to the New Testament, in part because it was a revolution within an expansive power, in part because it's been forcefully spread, however un-Christian that was, to most of the planet. That's not to say there's anything original about it, which I think was 180's point maybe.
As such, its ethical character is unavoidable in assessing the Bible, specifically the New Testament, from a philosophical perspective. I think perhaps the most potent feature is the ethics-focussed change in the relationship between people and God: a creator that loves its creation, wants its creation to succeed, forgives it its failures if forgiveness is sought. Theoretically this is a shove from a new metaphysics in the direction of a new ethics, but really it's bending metaphysics to ethical ends: the creator is a father figure, a judgemental but forgiving loved one you'd not want to disappoint, and would want to be forgiven by if you did. But also it moves the role of the judge from God to people: the onus on forgiveness is a call to validate yourself before the final judgement, and most of judgements prioritise social behaviour over divine box-ticking.
I agree that forgiveness was important but I don't think that it was always that simple. For example, I believe learning in history that in the Catholic church there were 'indulgences' in which people were expected to pay for their sins to be forgiven, even though tasks such as building bridges. I also believe that it is likely that the rich and powerful still oppressed the poor. I imagine that behind the scenes of the church and the rhetoric of Christian ethics there was so much oppression. In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power.
Oh definitely, see: "however un-Christian". I don't like the Church of today either, however "liberal" its worst members think it's becoming. The fairly recent protectionism and enabling of paedophile priests lays to rest any viable claim to moral authority, or even any moral praiseworthiness. Nonetheless, however it did it, for whatever selfish reasons, it did spread a relatively positive moral philosophy: a virtue ethics promoting self-judgement and social values. I'm not sure that forgives the Church anything; I was focusing more on the importance of it rather than whether it should have happened.
If anything, by this list of particulars, the Christian Bible maldeveloped ethics in Western societies for at least the first millennium of Christendom.
It does seem that there have been dark ages in the past, and it almost makes me feel optimistic about our current times, despite conflicts in the world and the worry about climate change etc.
I think that there is always such a mismatch between ethical ideas and practice. The ethical ideal in Christianity was of 'perfection',especially in the writings of Paul, but living up to the ideals seemed only possible for the saints.
But there is fundamental bad in Christianity as well. Hell being the obvious one.
Quoting 180 Proof
Well a lot of that was later. Anti-Semitism was really middle ages to... 20th century by my reckoning.
Yes, we should definitely not overlook the way in Anti-Semitism only last century and we don't know what is in our midst. The central problem is human nature. I think that the problem is not The Bible, or other sacred texts, but how these can be abused, as a way to back up and enforce negative ideologies.
The Church was what held the faith and society together.
Organized religion may have disadvantages. But what is the alternative? Cultural fragmentation and disintegration followed by takeover by another faith (religious or political).
The more the human population grows, the more there seems to be a need for a belief system to hold society together.
Christianity emerged at a time when there were huge population movements across continents, primarily into Europe, such as Germanic, Slavic, and many other tribes, and the formation of large urban populations.
It is hard to know what would have happened if the Church had not existed. As far as I can see the Church, despite its negative effects, did form the underlying structure for Western civilisation, for better or worse.
John Lennon sang, 'Imagine no religion..' and it is debatable whether the loss of religion leads to cultural fragmentation. As much as thinking about The Bible in the historical context, it is interesting to think what role it will play in the future, and this may depend on what level it is understood and interpreted. I think that one important aspect is the need for demystifying many of the ideas. Perhaps the philosophers can help people understand it better, and try to enable it to be understood in such a way that it is less likely to be used in an oppressive way.
That's a fairly pollyannish view of history, Jack. Without "The Church" Western societies almost certainly would have been more ... civilized. And without Church-sanctioned library burnings, inquisitional censorship & clerical terrorism plunging the Meditteranean Basin countries into "dark ages" lasting several centuries, Western social systems, sciences & technologies would be, more likely than not (ceteris paribus), 500-1,000 years further developed than they actually are now. For all the so-called "good" done in the name of "Christ", I think, none of that compensates for the deluge of atrocities, crimes & ignorance also unleashed in "His" name as a matter of course by Holy Mother Church (& her belated Reformers).
There are no counterfactuals, so this can't be proven, nor can the opposite. But it is a fact that historically, the societies that developed the fastest from a scientific standpoint were either Muslim or Christian.
You have examples?
I don't think that it is possible to say what would have happened if the church and The Bible had not played a significant role. I find the history as being extremely interesting for all it teaches, and it probably says so much about human nature. The question which I see is whether we can learn from the past mistakes, with or without The Bible.
Since before then til present day, they've worshipped a Semite as a deity, likewise his mother, and honoured the Semitic posse that founded that religion. I don't think that's particularly anti-Semitic. I know there was a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment at the time, derived in part from Judaism's relationship with Rome, and obviously Jews found the NT generally objectionable, but I don't see anything anti-Semitic in it, nor in how Christianity in general has arrived to the masses today. Particular theologians are notorious but this has as little impact on the modern Western ethic as moral philosophy, less probably.
The Bible is, inter alia, an anthology of the lives of prophets (messengers) - their genealogy, their historical roles, and above all else, their message passed on to them from God via revelation, and before I forget, faith is a cornerstone of the Bible like it is in all religions.
Philosophy immediately crosses swords with the Bible on two counts - revelation and faith - for philosophy is, all said and done, about reasoning, proof, and evidence. The Bible and philosophy are simply too different from each other in terms of their attitude (skepticism/faith) and methodology (reason/revelation) in re reality for them to be reconciled in any sense of that word.
However, despite the mutual animosity at the level of first principles, the centuries of cohabitation in the minds of philosophers and priests alike, resulted in a synthesis of sorts - the contents of the good book became philosophical points of contention i.e. logical argumentation entered the arena. The Bible continued to be regarded as essentially revelation but the idea was to present its claims as capable of standing up to logical scrutiny. This is the philosophical turn the Bible went through but was it a curse/blessing?
In my humble opinion, it was a bit of both. Theists put up a number of very convincing arguments a Google search will take you to and atheists refuted them as best as they could. Some of these arguments are still alive and well though they've been adapted to a modern, scientifically-literate, audience. The downside was theists were on the backfoot. They were on the philosopher's home turf - rationality - and playing by their opponent's rules (logic) and trying to reason about what was at heart unreasoned (revelation). The theist's slogan was unreasoned, yes, irrational, no.
That the converse - the biblification of philosophy - didn't occur is something to ponder about.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The Bible can be thought of as a treatise on (im)morality vis-à-vis God (sin). Philosophy deals extensively with morality but only studies sin in a theological context.
One of the main premises of the Bible was the entire message of people being sinners. This was developed strongly in history, with the mythology of the fall of the Lucifer, the lord of light and the consequent fall of humanity, in Milton's, 'Paradise Lost.' For many centuries in the history of the Church theology and philosophy overlapped strongly.
At the moment I am reading on the Gnostic gospels, and we have a different perspective. The human side of Christ is more apparent, although the Gnostic understanding of the body is complex, and in some ways the body was regarded with disdain. There is even some thought that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's lover, but I don't know if this is really factually true at all. But, the idea of the sacred prostitute is an interesting symbol.
I have read a book by Manly Hall on the wisdom of all ages, but not the specific one about the development of Christianity. However, my reading of Elaine Pagels on gnosticism is that particular views on the life and death of Jesus Christ were central to the development of Christianity, especially the emphasis on a physical resurrection.
The Gnostics spoke more in terms of individuals experience some contact with a spiritual encounter with Christ whereas the orthodox Christian's were firm in stating a physical resurrection. The Gnostics were regarded as heretics. However, Pagels suggests that the doctrine of a physical resurrection was used to justify certain developments in the social order. The hierarchy of the church was believed to reflect the hierarchy in the heavens, or the divine order.
This was a way of justifying the status quo in the political order. Pagels also suggests that the Gnostics placed far more emphasis on the feminine principle and the value of women. In this way, the Gnostic thinkers were regarded as heretical for questioning the patriarchy and the subordination of women.
I am interested in your view because I think that while there were dark ages in the past, the erosion of religion will not necessarily prevent future dark ages. You correctly point to the examples of Hitler and Stalin.
The belief that we are born of sin if from Paul. It is not found in the Hebrew Bible (OT). In Genesis there is a choice, to sin or avoid sin. With Paul it cannot be avoided, hence the whole idea of the necessity of Jesus dying for man's sins.
The evidence either way is very slim, but if I had the time I would do the following researches:
Research project 1: plot the number of violent death caused by religions, then compare it with the number of violent deaths caused by other ideologies than religious throughout history.
Research project 2: calculate the percentage of major scientists throughout history who were educated in a Christian institution as a child.
I do agree that the idea of being born from sin is mostly derived from Paul rather than Christ. In many ways I believe that so much of the thinking within Christianity goes back to the thinking of Paul. I think that the role and importance of Paul is often overlooked, and his own experience was that of being a non believer, who went through a major conversion experience.
Your research ideas may be useful, but looking , but it does appear to me that people can find studies on Wikipedia on the internet increasingly to back up just about any view they wish to argue. I am in favour of research but I think that it can be used in just the way that ideas in The Bible were used and abused. I am not wishing to dismiss empirical evidence, but just believe that it is not straightforward, and the role of observer and researcher are of critical importance.
But, of course, saying this may throw me back into the hermeneutical levels of evaluation of the Biblical texts. However, I do believe that ideas and the way they come into play in life is so intricate.
You said "One of the main premises of the Bible ...". It is not a premise of the Bible. This is another example of seeing the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the New Testament.
Quoting Jack Cummins
In my opinion, Christianity is the religion invented by Paul in the hopes that Gentiles could be saved before the end of days, which Paul believed would happen in his lifetime. When it didn't his followers believed that their generation would be the last. Eventually they moved the date to some unspecified future.
Quoting Fooloso4
It is a valid Christian perspective.
Quoting Fooloso4
Nobody doubts what your opinion is. However, for Christians, Christianity is what they believe their religion to be according to the Gospels and the Church Fathers.
Feel free to consult the OP:
Quoting Jack Cummins
[quote=Wikipedia]Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth.[/quote]
Food for thought: we're not described as evil rather we're all sinners.
The notion of original sin is intertwined with mortality/death.
[quote=Wikipedia]Despite describing death as having come to all men through Adam (original sin) [...][/quote]
Point to note, what's the penalty for heinous crimes aka sins? Capital Punishment also reserved for high treason (Adam & Eve betrayed God).
You might also find this book an interesting read: The Trial (Franz Kafka). One thing is certain (or not?) we're all being executed. Why?
It appears that there's nothing about original sin that doesn't square with how we've structured our lives in re morality and justice.
It all boils down to a plain and simple truth - we're worried to bits about thanatos and have [s]reasoned[/s] rationalized it as a punishment for something and sin seems to fit like a glove.
Mind you, this is more psychology than theology but that maybe precisely the point!
Quoting Jack Cummins
Lucifer is just a more powerful version of Adam accesorized with horns, a pitchfork, and a pointy tail. Nothing more need be said.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sadly, for some reason, while there's a sacred prostitute, prostitution isn't sacred! Jesus must've been completely bewildered by Mary Magdalene. There you go, a paradox!
Better yet i think i found it . im not 100% sure (still listening to it as I type this) but so far I think this is the right video. Quite fascinating when you listen to it because it's a perspective that at least I've never heard of
https://youtu.be/v5uR75rxgks
Good point. Your comment made me think of early church history and how it were simply mere mortals who decided what's to be included/excluded from the Christian Bible. We know Spinoza's stuff was excluded, as well as the referenced Gnostic teachings as well as lost gospels/Apocrypha and so forth. Accordingly, for all we know, certain information relative to human sexuality could have been purposely silenced because it somehow seemed inappropriate at the time. It may seem one has to remember that the Christian Bible is not a medical science book nor a physical science book for that matter.
Broadly speaking, it is worth repeating how ego and rationality seem to overshadow many things, including all of the allegorical & metaphorical benefits/interpretations thereto. Folks seem to forget (particularly Fundi's) that the Bible is inclusive of not only the foregoing errors and omissions, but the inspirational walk of Jesus as a model of humility and love... . And let's not forget translation & interpretation issues, as well as Religious exclusions (the book of Sirach-which is an awesome Wisdom Book- is left out of the King James/Baptist Bible, but included in the Catholic Bible). Then, of course you have rituals that are generally no longer applicable to those of us in the west/sacrificing certain animals.
In spite of those things, perhaps the question there is whether one should dichotomize that information (The Bible) and throw the baby out with the bathwater? The Golden Rule is still applicable. The Book of Ecclesiastes was arguably the genesis of Existentialism. Pragmatically, the Wisdom Books/OT are wonderful, practical guidance for those codes of conduct/ethical norms (not moral) that mirror early Greek moderation standards. Greek philosophy and OT/Christian philosophy borrowed from each other. Overall, for the discerning spirit, I submit both Greek and Christian philosophy has more good than bad.
It is also worth repeating the negative influences in Christianity coming from the religious-right/ Fundamentalist literal interpretations of judgement and damnation, along with supporting the many so-called antiquated thought patterns that are simply not applicable today. In the west, sociopolitical factors vis-à-vis basic human rights and freedoms have clearly evolved. For example in the Church, women's rights have evolved, etc. etc.. And of course science itself has evolved too. And shame on those who embrace extremism... .
Gee, was I being too opinionated Jack :joke:
I was beginning to think this thread was turning into some kind of platform for evangelists and other fundamentalists. Thanks to your considered intervention, however, balance has been restored. Quite, possibly, you have even succeeded in convincing the anti-Christians (or most of them). Even 180 appears to have become more ponderous with pious thought and a faint sparkle may be detected in his eye as his gaze silently turns to the divine.
Hahahaha....funny you mentoned that A. Since we're talking about human behavioral kinds of stuff, I was just telling a friend (viz man-women relationship kinds of things) that while we can't necessarily change people (by and large they have to do it themselves), we do have the ability to positively or negatively influence their behavior.
But hey, that would mean that logic has some benefits too :joke:
Oh well, back to the bottomless chasm of dichotomous contradiction :razz:
The nerve of them for excluding something that was written more than a thousand years later!
Those sons-a-bitchin/bastuds :razz:
LOL
An accurate summary.
The tension between Paul and the disciples of Jesus began with an invention of Paul's - two Laws, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus taught obedience to the Law as it is written. Paul said that the Gentiles could follow what is written in their hearts. Circumcision and keeping kosher was not necessary. Jesus' disciples struck a deal with Paul that he could preach his message but he had to go elsewhere. As tension between these groups grew the Jewish followers and all other Jews became the enemy.
I think that your response is a very interesting one because it does raise the continuum from the fundamentalist to the Gnostic, and funnily enough Elaine Pagels suggests that in their time the Gnostics were regarded as atheists. I have stood at many places on this continuum because I was raised as a Catholic, but looked at The Bible and Christianity from different angles. I remember when I was writing a dissertation on Carl Jung, I went to an evangelical church and a couple of people there told me that I should not study or write about Carl Jung. They were fundamentalist and regarded Jung's ideas as the work of the devil.
This was really puzzling for me at the time and I think that it is such a confusing area. I have never considered myself to be an absolute atheist and do question how to interpret The Bible. I probably would not have written the thread at all if I had a clear definite conclusion. I tend to go more in the direction of the symbolic because it makes a lot more sense to me and my own ego concerns.
I also come with a certain amount of anger towards St Paul because I had a friend who killed himself by throwing himself out of a college window after going to an evangelical event and getting in a bad state over the writings of Paul. So, in a way, I am in the odd position of needing to forgive St Paul. The death of this friend was one of the key triggers which lead me to challenge my Christian, or Catholic, background.
Generally, nowadays I do tend to more symbolic thinking but I do still believe that the underlying teachings of Jesus are extremely useful, although I think that there are parallels between these and the teachings of the Buddha. I think that there is such a difference between deeper reading of The Bible and the way institutionalised religion is enforced. I think that I have seen both the negative and the positive sides of Christianity and The Bible. A couple of my closest friends go to church every week, and I do go to church with one of them at times, but I do get stressed in church because I am aware of extreme views, especially fundamentalism. I also discovered a few years ago that my English teacher from school has written a book on the complex relationship between Catholicism, sex and psychology.
The Gnostics believed we had God within us, similar to the Atman/Brahmin thing in India. Jung shared this as well. That is why Christians, who believe in a literal father in heaven, don't like these more advanced methods of spirituality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think Christians are anti-sex at all. They think it should be in marriage only but dont people have a lot of sex in a marriage? The idea that having many partners in your life is a good goal is not consistent with most spiritual systems. Many groups in India say that sexuality is the first thing to have an awakening about before you can become more spiritual. That would apply to those in marriage as well who put their marital sex life as the center of their life. The problem in the West with non-Christians is primarily pornography and make it it into a Platonic ideal
And damn those preacher's like Paul, who afterall, was just a man. Unless of course he somehow overshadowed Jesus :razz:
If you can, please share more about this. This is very tragic, and speaks to the Fundy concerns... . As I've alluded to Fooloso4, Paul was not Jesus; he was just a preacher man.... .
You say that we are simply sinners in Christian thinking but I do believe that many people do worry that they are evil. There is also the potential fear of eternal hell, which could be seen as more to worry about than nonexistence. I never really worried about original sin, because it applied to everyone.
You probably remember the thread I created towards the end of last year about how worried I was when I was about the passage about the unforgivable sin, the mysterious 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.' I have only ever met 2 people who have really said they have worried over this. I do plan to read Kierkergaard at some point because I read that he worried about the unforgivable sin. So, really, I think that it is possible to worry so much about The Bible, although I remember how when I was working night shifts so many staff sat reading their Bibles, which they said gave them great reassurance.
I can't say for sure that my friend committed suicide just on account of Paul, because I didn't see him in the 2 weeks before he killed himself. But, on the last time I saw him he was talking about not being able to live up to the example of Paul and had smashed a mirror as a result. As he was studying in a different town I never got to see him again. I think that it is likely that he had a lot of problems I didn't know about, so I can't just put it down to Paul.
However, I am also aware of so many people who have developed religious psychoses, including 2 people who I went to school with. I am talking about them having delusions about being a fallen angel and another of being the antichrist. So, I do have a strong interest in trying to understand the psychology of religion, as well as thinking about it as a philosophical issue.
Of course, I realise that Paul was just a preacher. In a way, he is an extremely interesting one because he began as a non believer and had a dramatic conversion experience.
Philosophically, I personally want to know if the stories are true. In order to know that, we must first know what makes a story so. True stories are accurate accounts/reports of what's happened or is happening.
The creation story in the Bible is not an accurate account of how the world/universe came into existence. I've come to that belief as a result of knowing that our current knowledge base leads to conclusions that the world and universe are much older than what the stories in the Bible claim.
The notion of sin in the Bible is incredulous as a result of God punishing Adam and Eve for doing wrong before they even knew the difference between right and wrong.
The notion of God being the source of morality(doing what's good) is incredulous as a result of knowing that what so so much of what God commands throughout the Bible is not good.
The notion of God being a loving God is incredulous as a result of his creating a place of suffering for all of eternity as a place to put his disobedient children. Not my idea of how to treat someone you love. Seems a bit abusive to me.
The notion of Mary, mother of Jesus, being impregnated without being asked for permission... well...
Surely you get the point here. Philosophically speaking, the Bible is bereft, to put it mildly. I could go on and on, but need not.
There do appear to be parallels between Indian ideas about Atman/Brahman and Gnosticicism. One other esoteric tradition which draws upon this is Celtic Christianity.
The relationship between Christianity and sex/sexuality is interesting. I am sure that it is variable and I actually went to a church youth club briefly as a teenager and there was a lot of drinking and affairs. It was too wild for me at the time. One other aspect which I am aware of is how some people have retreated into the church to escape sexuality. I know one gay man who spent time as a monk and another who was a priest, but they did leave eventually.
There is a puritanical aspect to Christianity. However, I am sure that most struggle with it nowadays. I don't think many people find it easy to live the lifestyle of Immanuel Kant.
Maybe it has indeed. And what better place to find that out than a prestigious philosophy forum like this?
Paul thought that the body was the root of sin. Later Augustine said much the same and introduced the concept of original sin. Judaism in general, on the other hand, has always followed the blessing to be fruitful and multiply.
I also see the resemblance of Vedanta to Gnosis, the descent midwifed, perhaps, through (Neo)Platonism. At least in Western civilization, gnosticism is the Ur-conspiracy theory, or template of (ultimate) 'suspicion of reality'. Thus, idealism (i.e. antirealism, along with spiritualism & mysticism), which culminates in nihilism (Nietzsche), is the dominant tradition in post-Socratic philosophy versus the realism of the counter-traditions (e.g. atomism, naturalism, physicalism, pragmatism).
Oh my gosh, lmao, now that was just plain funny!!
Well at the risk of even more redundancy I think it was William James ( The Varieties of Religious Experiences) who said: Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.
In a similar kind of way Christianity doesn't seem to care to talk about things like what it means to be Spiritual. In philosophy, I believe the concepts of spirituality are described in Existential ism/Schopenhauer theories of metaphysical will and related human sentience and angst (from The book of Ecclesiastes)... . Even Einstein said that if it wasn't for human sentience there would be no need for the concept of religion. I think that squares with God and a conscious Being known as Jesus who apparently had thoughts and feelings about Love.
However, I would take it a step further and say without self-awareness and human consciousness itself, we would not possess the (metaphysical) will to wonder about things like causation, and abstract metaphysical structures (Kant) and the like. Much like the mystery behind mathematical and musical genius, I wonder what Darwin said about the Will?
Sure, but much like a lot of newbie converts, perhaps he got caught up in the fundamentalist paradigm. Ironically enough it may have much to do with the sin of pride AKA exaggerated self worth-ego.
Nothing new under the sun there!
In a way, Paul's writings are a source for fundamentalism but I think that it questionable how many of those writings attributed to him were written by him. I have just been thinking that, strangely, I have barely read any. I read the Gospels and The Book of Revelation several time, but, somehow, skipped the writings of Paul, and that was before my friend got in a terrible state about Paul's writings.
'The Book of Job' is one of my favourite books in The Bible, and if you look at it closely, Job does waver and question why he is suffering. I think that the saying 'the patience of Job' is a bit too simplistic, because the character Job has quite a moan really. But, the reason why I like the book is because it is such a human approach to suffering and how life often seems so unfair.
I can see why you see Gnosticism as antirealism, but from my reading of some Gnostic texts I think that there is some variation among authors on how the various writers viewed material reality.
Paul was a master rhetorician and founder of a religion.
Of course he was the founder and master rhetorical , although based on my reading about texts he only wrote about half of the writings attributed to him. However, there does appear to be more certainty about him having written some of the texts than about who wrote the Gospels.
Yes, it is generally agreed that he is the author of some of the texts. It is also generally agreed that none of the texts are not authored by the people whose names are attributed to them.
Yes, my understanding is that the Gospels were written a long time after the death of Jesus, and that the authors are different from the names of those of mentioned in the titles.
I reckon that's a good thing. Quoting Jack Cummins
Prima facie, eternal hell seems to gum up the works. Death isn't as bad as eternal hell. Why did our ancestors think death was the ultimate punishment and not eternal hell? What about suicide which is premised on there are fates worse than death? If people take their own lives, it implies death can be a relief rather than a burden.
My logic is simple. Death is, all said and done, the gateway to hell (if one has sinned). In other words, death is the worst possible penalty for the simple reason that a life in hell becomes likely given we're all sinners.
This gibes with the notion of original sin. Adam & Eve's actions condemned all of humanity - we inherited the proclivity to sin and we became mortal, double jeopardy! Now, not only are we more likely to sin, we also die thereby fulfilling all necessary conditions (sin + death) to be sent off to the fiery pits of hell!
It's like inheriting the "likes a drink" trait from one's parents (Adam & Eve) and you're bar hopping, downing glass after glass of Adam's ale and God, by making us mortal, is simply making arrangements such that your wild night/day ends with a cop and a breathalyser. What follows is hell of course.
I think that's a stretch. There was plenty of anti-Judaic sentiment in the Roman Empire already, and that seems triffling in comparison. Nor is anti-Judaism --> holocaust very compelling... Jews at the time were just as, more, anti-Christian.
Quoting 180 Proof
That's rather circular: it's an interpretation based on the desired conclusion. The Christian Bible is rare insofar as it does acknowledge some of the primary texts of another religion. You could equally spin that as great respect. In reality, it was probably just a necessity.
A book of ideologies, traditions and fairytales that exaggerate its importance when trying to compete with other religions.
I believe 180 threw in the towel. It's a shame, I expected more from him... .
Quoting tim wood
In Jack's OP, it would be sweet Jesus peace :razz:
Hey Jack, do you read the old testament wisdom books much? (It's good Christian philosophy.)
I read as widely as possible, but have probably not paid that much attention to the Old Testament writings. At the moment, in conjunction with the thread which I have started, I am reading Karen Armstrong's 'The Bible: The Biography'. Karen Armstrong(1921-2006) spent time living as a nun, but eventually left the religious order. I am out in a a cafe, reading this book, as I think that it is useful, and plan to look at the discussion in a few hours time.
Great, please share any Christian philosophy there... . I would also recommend delving into those old testament wisdom books (Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. they are easy reads) as there is a so-called treasure trove of information that mirrors Greek philosophy & Existentialism.
I definitely plan to write later today, but I am staying with my mother, who gets so cross with me writing so much. But, I definitely wish to develop the thread further because I do believe that it is an important aspect of philosophy, which is worth exploring. Really, I would like to do as much reading and research as possible because I think that is important to any full philosophy discussion. Ideally, I would like this thread to develop over a couple of weeks, rather than just be one that fizzles in a few days, because the ideas within Christianity are at the core of thinking in Western culture.
Does that mean a something that transcends logic and consciousness :razz:
This discussion is a bit different to the debate about God's existence in logical terms, because it is about looking at The Bible, as a source for thinking about these ideas. One aspect which I believe is interesting is the thread which you wrote about 6 months ago on how we understand the experience of suffering, and how Christianity viewed this matter.
I think that it can be problematic if the focus within thinking is upon death too strongly. This is possible within a religious context, or any discussion stemming from it. I do remember thinking how, when I was reading on the topic of life after death, how I may be in danger of focusing on the area of life after death to the extent that I lose sight of this one. My own father emphasised the importance of thinking beyond this life, on the basis that we are dead for eternity. I am able to see his point, but I do think that this life is extremely important, because it may be all we have, depending on one's conclusions about these matters.
Really, I try to read The Bible with a view to finding ethical insights, and I think that the importance of thinking about others is especially important. Of course, so many people may live in a hypocritical way, as suggested in the mode that The Pharisees. But, I think that the idea of The Good Samaritan is important, and we do not need any particular metaphysics for thinking about this.
In thinking about suicide, which I raised in this thread, I am not sure that it is about relief, but more about rash decisions in a state of panic.The worst scenario which I am aware of is is when someone has taken an overdose of Paracetamol. The person often wakes up, after initial unconsciousness, is so glad to have survived, only to discover that they may be dying slowly from liver complications. Even though people may wish to die on some level, it is questionable whether this is a lasting perspective, beyond the immediacy of a particular moment in time.
I am not in favour of seeing The Bible as 'special' but trying to understand these ideas, as part of the ongoing developments of metaphysics and philosophy. I do believe that the tracing of such ideas is important for any philosophy and thinking about the history and future of ideas.
Agree 100%. I've personified life and just as it makes sense to ask, "how are your classmates treating you?" I feel it makes the same amount of sense if not more to ask yourself every so often, "how's life treating you?" The answer may be profoundly life-changing. Is the deal between you and life good (live longer) , bad (contemplate suicide), neither (meh) , both (confused)?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Frankly, I feel Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are both part of Bibilical ethics. The decalogue is basically duty ethics and heaven and hell have a hedonic character.
I do believe that so much of our thinking is based on the thinking of The Bible, in superficial and deeper aspects of thinking. I do think that Kantian ethics and utilitarianism can be traced back to the Bible. It has been such an essential aspect of philosophy and thinking behind the scenes of so many ideas and ideologies. That is why I am trying to draw its importance as a central aspect for thinking within philosophy.
.
Good point. It seems plausible that in most cases it comes down to rash decisions motivated by overpowering emotional states that the person in question is unable to control. For example, grief over the loss of a loved one, unrequited love (or infatuation), shame, guilt, etc. If this is so, then presumably a lot of people would act differently if given a second chance. Only that, of course, there is no second chance.
It is interesting that Christianity actually banned suicide and, viewed from this perspective, it was the right thing to do. I suppose that it also had to do with the biblical injunction against killing and with "bearing one's cross" in imitation of Jesus.
But I think this can also go too far in the opposite direction. A ban can make us prisoners of society and seems to suppress the idea of free will. So, I tend to believe that a blanket ban is unreasonable. It should be left to the individual to decide to what length he or she is prepared to "bear the cross" and I think that society can act in ways that can only be described as cruel if it insists on applying a general prohibition in every single case.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That seems like a reasonable expectation. After all, with all its downsides, Christianity has given mankind quite a lot. I think it would be interesting to explore the connection Christianity has had with social justice movements because many early socialist and communist thinkers were also committed Christians and saw their movement as an expression and fulfillment of the Christian faith. For example, the 1844 Communist Credo (which inspired the Communist Manifesto) read, "What is the goal of Christianity? The salvation of all men through love, freedom, and justice". And, of course, it was not atheists like Marx and Engels that had the greatest influence on the social justice movement but Christians who felt that their faith obliges them to take an interest in social issues.
I think it would also be interesting to look into Christian philosophy itself because some seem to be under the false impression that either Christianity has no philosophy or that it is just Platonism with some minor modifications. The misconstruction of Christianity as a purely religious system that has nothing to offer to philosophy and its dismissal as somehow "defective" if not fundamentally opposed or inimical to philosophical inquiry, certainly seems unwarranted and out of place.
Christian Philosophy - Wikipedia
In some ways the Bible may help.for some people, but it is questionable to what extent The Bible provides a foundation in metaphysics and ethics. I am not sure that The Bible does provide this, but in considering The Bible, and alternative perspectives, I do believe that we do need to think about how such basics can be established.
I may not have have forwarded my answer properly to you, so please see the answer in the post above.
Correct. The writings of the Church Fathers also make interesting reading and it is instructive to see the close connections between Christian and Greek philosophy and how Christianity largely understood philosophy in Platonic terms.
The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: ????????? "love of the beautiful, the good", from ????? philia "love" and ?????? kallos "beauty") is a collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by spiritual masters of the Eastern Orthodox Church mystical hesychast tradition. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life".
Philokalia - Wikipedia
Obviously, the Philokalia is something for those who are more mystically inclined. But I think it is important to bear in mind that Christian philosophy is far from mere intellectual pursuit but, like Platonism, it aims to bring us closer to God or Ultimate Reality which, incidentally, also ought to be the final objective of philosophy in general IMHO.
Philokalia PDF
I think the Bible does provide some metaphysical as well as ethical teachings but they tend to be in an undeveloped form which is why it is important to see how the Church Fathers viewed these matters.
Christian ethics - Wikipedia
The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers - academia.edu
Quoting 180 Proof
The first quote claims ethics did not develop as the result of Biblical theology, but the second criticizes (actually condemns) Christianity specifically, so I'm not sure if this is an attack on Judaic ethics as well (as it is a biblically based theology), Christianity specifically as it is set forth in the NT, or Christianity as it has been developed by the church.
I do think it's often overlooked that Judaic ethics are considerably different from Christian ones on a foundational level, despite the self-contradicting term "Judeo-Christian ethics " and both having a root source in the OT.
Judaism does not believe people are born in sin or that they are in need of salvation. People are born in God's image, with a divine soul, perfect creations of God. To the extent someone sins, he gains forgiveness not just by asking God, but by also asking the person who he has sinned against for forgiveness. The person is purged of all sin each Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) assuming he has followed the process (teshuva, the act of repentance, literally meaning returning to God) . Human sacrifice for the absolution of sin (ala Jesus) is antithetical to Judaism (recall Isaac not being slaughtered). To the extent there is a "hell," it is a place where a person is purged of his sin through forgiveness posthumously, for a period not exceeding one year (odd, I know). The point being, there is no eternal damnation.
The self-loathing, the meekness, the belief we are all wretched creatures in need of some savior is not something in the Judaic tradition. In fact, the messianic beliefs in Judaism refer to humanity reaching a perfected state without suffering, either gradually or suddenly, not through some cataclysmic war, but through the good and kind acts of humanity.
All of this can be taken very literally or entirely figuratively, but none of it can be taken to be akin to Christianity. Just thought I'd point this out, considering the comments that ethics do not derive from the Bible or that Christianity is the only way one can evaluate a biblically based ethical system.
"The Christian metaphysic is rooted in the biblical metaphysic of God as "Maker of Heaven and earth".[5]:25 Philosopher Mark Smith explains that, in the Bible, a fundamental ontology is embodied in language about power, where the world and its beings derive their reality (their being, their power to exist, and to act) from the power of God (Being itself). Theology and philosophy professor Jaco Gericke says that metaphysics is found anywhere the Bible has something to say about "the nature of existence".[26]:207 According to Rolf Knierim, the Bible's metaphysic is "dynamistic ontology" which says reality is an ongoing dynamic process.[26]:208 In this view, God "gives the universe its basic order", and its "formal statistical patterns", generally referred to as natural laws, but also allows them to develop organically with minimum interference."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics#Metaphysical_foundations
This is a very profound statement. Wisdom has always been the philosopher's holy grail and that, to my reckoning, includes, not as an auxilliary but as a central component, knowledge of right and wrong. Morality is all-pervading, its scope is universal. It's dominion is coextensive with that of reason itself, the two work together, complementing each other, and one making up for the flaw in the other.
Almost all philosophers seem to have lost sight of this fact - morality is what moral philosophers think about not metaphysicians, epistemologists, logicians, etc. do. Philosophers are, the bottom line, people and when they exit there ivory towers and go out into the real world, they're constantly using their moral compass to guide their thought, actions, and speech. Yet, the moment a metaphysician meditates on metaphysics or an epistemologist mulls over knowledge, the moral compass I talked about does a disappearing act. This, to me, is to overlook one-half of wisdom viz. morality which would've acted as a guide to the other one-half, reason, and the world would've probably been a better place than it is now.
Firstly, such an attitude and practice fly against the very essence of philosophy as an earnest quest for wisdom (reasonable & good) and secondly, it indicates a congitive dissonance that if not corrected could have major ramifications for the world at large.
Correct. Hence the cardinal virtues of (1) Temperance, (2) Fortitude, (3) Prudence, and (4) Justice or Righteousness, shared by both Platonism and Christianity. In fact, the development of the virtues was seen as a preliminary step to philosophical training proper.
Knowledge of right and wrong, or righteousness (dikaiosyne) was absolutely central to Greek philosophy and philosophers were concerned with right and wrong as much as they were with knowledge and ignorance or truth and falsehood.
"The four cardinal virtues appear as a group (sometimes included in larger lists) long before they are later given this title. Plato identified the four cardinal virtues with the classes of the city described in The Republic, and with the faculties of man. Plato narrates a discussion of the character of a good city where the following is agreed upon. “Clearly, then, it will be wise, brave, temperate [literally: healthy-minded], and just.” (427e; see also 435b) Temperance was common to all classes, but primarily associated with the producing classes, the farmers and craftsmen, and with the animal appetites, to whom no special virtue was assigned; fortitude was assigned to the warrior class and to the spirited element in man; prudence to the rulers and to reason. Justice stands outside the class system and divisions of man, and rules the proper relationship among the three of them."
Plato's Four Cardinal Virtues - Gutenberg PDF
It may also be worthwhile noting that physical training was also part of a philosopher's life, as was physical work among the Christians, later encapsulated in the phrase ora et labora "pray and work".
Well said... .
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but anything in the 500BC to 200AD range works well with early Greek philosophy/Christian philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelian moderation, Zeno Stoicism, etc.), as the OT/Wisdom Books I think were written by similar Sages from that era... (?). In any event, I think (it's safe to say that) there were cross influences.
Absolutely. One current of thought would have it that the OT is purely Hebrew or Jewish but this has little to do with historical fact. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Hebrews were a small nation wedged between powerful and influential civilizations such as Egypt, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. The OT itself relates how the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt (Canaan itself was under Egyptian rule for several centuries) and how they were later deported to Mesopotamia. And, of course, there was Persian influence and as the OT says, there was the influence of other ethnic and cultural groups with which the Hebrews shared their territory, such as the Philistines.
The Philistines were apparently from the Aegean space (Crete?) but there were close commercial links between the Greek world and the Levant and, especially after Alexander's conquest of the region, there was substantial cultural influence that was officially promoted by the Greek rulers. There were ten Greek cities (Decapolis) in Syria-Palestine and Greek cultural and linguistic influence was particularly strong at the time Christianity emerged.
St Paul was born in Tarsus (Syria), an important center of Greek culture and philosophy alongside Antioch (Syria), Alexandria (Egypt) and other places. His teacher Gamaliel trained his students in both the Greek and Jewish tradition, and as the NT relates, Paul was sufficiently fluent in Greek and in Greek philosophy to debate with the philosophers of Athens where he also preached in the synagogue (Acts 17:16-34).
In addition to Greek being widely spoken throughout the Middle East including in Palestine, Hebrew and Aramaic had more than 3000 words of Greek origin, in addition to undergoing other changes in phonology, syntax, phraseology and semantics under Greek influence (G Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine).
The NT was not only composed in Greek, but we find Greek concepts such as Hades used by Jesus himself:
“And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" - Matthew 16:18
"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades" - Matthew 11:23
But even going further back, we can see close parallels between Greek and Hebrew religion. For example, God (Zeus/Yahweh) was regarded as the king of the gods, was associated with a sacred mountain, and was represented as driving a chariot across the sky. Temple architecture shows alignment with the sun, animal sacrifices described in the OT could equally describe similar practices among the Greeks. Even the concept of afterlife as a shadowy existence in the underworld (except for heroes and the initiated) was virtually identical among Greeks and Hebrews, etc.
Edit. By the time of Jesus, Jewish religion had also come under the influence of Hellenistic religion which, like its Egyptian counterpart, believed in a divine judgement after death which would result in the soul either entering paradise or being condemned to a shadowy existence in the darker realms of the other world (see Phaedo, etc.). And this is found in Christianity, too.
I think that it so interesting to think about the fusion of thought which underlies the Christian worldview. I believe that many people have not taken this into account in thinking about Christianity and the ideas which arise within this specific traditions of thought which arise in that tradition. My own view is that acquaintance with the ideas and ideals which were central to the philosophies and ideologies arising within Christianity is of central importance in demystifying the underlying assumptions if the ideas and ideals, and of looking behind the surface of the thinking of religious beliefs derived from the Bible. It is about looking behind the surfaces of beliefs, and approaching the ideas within the Bible from a deeper and critical perspective.
.
That is a very good observation. It is often overlooked that the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire that included Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, was a very cosmopolitan region.
Jesus' hometown of Nazareth was in close proximity to Hellenistic-Roman cities where Greek culture was dominant. The city of Sepphoris was only three miles from Nazareth on the road to Galilee.
How do you view the possibility that Jesus spoke Greek, in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew?
I do believe that there is so much going on in the ideas behind the ethics of Judaeo- Judaeo- Christian thought about human nature. To what extent are human beings hopeless and beyond redemption.I think that this question can appear as ridiculous on the surface, but in some ways is extremely important, because human beings are struggling to find the best way forward despite obstacles, especially those arising in human nature.
So where do you think Jesus fits in here?
Quoting Hanover
I think this was an invention to deal with the crisis that followed the death of their messiah. I also think that Jesus would have been appalled to learn that he had been deified and God was believed to be his father in the literal sense rather than in the Jewish sense found in the Hebrew Bible.
The idea of speaking in many languages is interesting to me, mainly because I am in the position of only speaking English. As a philosophical possibility, I do see the idea of command of many languages as such an advantage and have to admit my own deficiency as being only able to speak English, and I am sure that this goes way beyond the idea of the ineffable. I would love to be able to communicate and think of ideas in a far greater way beyond my present capability and understanding.
I find that very interesting too. Of course, in religious terms, if Jesus was the son of God, then there would be no reason why he shouldn't speak several languages, especially such as were spoken at the time in Roman Palestine.
But I think in cultural terms it is also interesting to consider that when Jesus sat down with his disciples at his last meal or supper, he was probably not sitting on a chair as later imagined by artists, but he and his group were reclining on couches in the Greek fashion that was also popular in other parts of the Roman Empire.
This was accurately shown in early frescoes but not in later medieval depictions which actually reflects the changing culture and loss of awareness of historical fact.
Jesus Reclined To Dine
And, of course, that was exactly how Greek and Roman philosophers reclined during a symposium.
I fully agree with that. Language is an expression of culture. And as Scott Gleaves and other NT scholars have observed, Greek culture and language were highly influential in Roman Palestine. So there was certainly a very interesting and obviously productive fusion of cultures that in turn gave rise to a new culture that has lasted for two millennia into the present. This is one of the reasons that make Christianity an interesting and important area of study.
That is an idiosyncratic Christian question. It's not a question in Judaism. In fact, such talk, even if aimed at yourself would seem possubly forbidden as evil speech (lashon hara). http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/insights-into-lashon-hara-about-yourself
That is, what right does one have to criticize God's creation, regardless of whether it is your own self's creation you criticize?
This meekness, self depreciation, unworthiness, bowing before the Lord as a hopeless sinner is not a universal suffering, but a symptom of a very specific belief system.
He's a necessary remedy for the inherited sin brought from Adam's original sin. He suffered and absorbs our sins as long as we accept him on faith as our savior. It is through this ultimate grace of God that he gave his only son to die for our eternal salvation.
Or so the story goes.
The last supper was on Passover. Jewish law requires that you recline when eating on Passover to celebrate their freedom from slavery from Egypt. Only royalty would recline in those days, and reclining is an act of freedom.https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1707/jewish/Reclining.htm
Jesus was Jewish. He reclined as a Jew. .
What I am asking about is Jesus the man, not the mythology.
Quoting Hanover
This is what I was getting at. Christians were for the most part pagans. I do not think Jesus would have approved of their making a pagan god out of him. The story of being born of a god and a human is not something he would have allowed.
Well, from a Christian viewpoint Jesus was the son of God so it would be difficult to establish to what extent, if any, he was Jewish.
There is no evidence that he reclined exclusively at Passover.
Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"
JEWISH ASSOCIATIONS IN ROMAN PALESTINE:FIRST CENTURY EVIDENCE FROM THE MISHNAH
Eating in a reclining position was probably introduced from Persia from where the Greeks also adopted the custom. As this was widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, Jesus and his group were still reclining in the same or similar manner.
And of course you spoke to him and he told you exactly how he felt about it. Therefore you know. Makes perfect sense.
It is generally accepted he lived as a Jew. https://dioceseofjoliet.org/discover/content1.php?secid=5. He would have reclined on Passover. It's a basic rule of the Seder.
I don't doubt that reclining by royalty or even the aristocracy was a custom of other cultures, but any portrait of a Jew reclining at the Passover Seder can't be understood as anything other than the performance of a biblical commandment.
Strange double negative. We have no evidence he didn't recline on only Passover. Do you have evidence he did recline on a date other than Passover? Seems if you don't, your only evidence is that he reclined only on Passover.
That is quite possible. However, reclining at triclinia in the Roman/Greek manner was also practiced among Jews in Roman Palestine. Why would Jesus have been an exception?
"It seems more likely that reclining became normal because this was customary throughout the civilised world when associations met for a sacrificial meal, and that it only became a “Jewish” custom after they had followed this Greek custom for hundreds of years." See link provided above.
Reclining at Passover was compulsory but Jews were reclining at other meals like everybody else, not only at Passover.
I do think we agree though that the custom of Jews reclining while eating as symbolic of their freedom arose from the Greek tradition you describe.
OK, but as to the question, why was Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, the answer is because he was required to.
Compulsory reclining at Passover may not be as old as it is thought.
"The earliest evidence in m.Pes.10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century"
"In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)"
(link provided above)
Edit. I'm not sure he was actually required at the time. But even if he was, it was a Jewish custom to recline at meals, particularly, at special meals, just like their Greek and Roman neighbors from whom they adopted the custom.
Genealogy of Jesus – Wikipedia
So, the accuracy of describing Jesus as "not royalty" seems rather doubtful.
'Jesus himself remains an enigma. There have been attempts to uncover the figure of the "historical" Jesus, a project that has become something of a scholarly industry. But the fact remains that the only Jesus we really know is the Jesus described in the New Testament, which was not interested in scientifically objective history. There are no other contemporary accounts of his mission and death. We cannot even be certain why he was crucified. The gospel accounts indicate that he was thought to be the king of the Jews. He was said to have predicted the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven. In the literature of the Late Second Temple period, there had been hints that a few people were expecting a righteous king of the House of David to establish an eternal kingdom, and this idea seems to have become more popular during the years leading up to the war. Josephus Tacitus and Suetonius all note the importance of revolutionary religiosity, both before and after the rebellion. There was now keen expectation in some circles of a meshiah(in Greek, christos), an "anointed king of the House of David, who would redeem Israel. We do not whether Jesus claimed to be this Messiah _ the gospels are ambiguous on this point. Other people rather than Jesus himself may have made this claim on his behalf. But after his death some of his followers had seen him in visions that convinced them that he had been raised from the tomb_ an event that heralded the general resurrection of all the righteous when God would inaugurate his rule on earth.'
:halo:
Quoting 180 Proof
I still feel that it is important to know about the nature of the historical Jesus, in order to think about and contextualize Christian thinking and The Bible, but, of course, that is my own personal perspective.
Very good observation. I'm not sure if there are any Jewish records of a revolutionary called "Jesus" which one would expect to find if this had been the case.
But, at the end of the day, we can only go by the evidence we have and by what Christianity sees as the truth. And the ultimate truth, of course, is spiritual or metaphysical. We can only find it by experiencing it within ourselves.
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16)
Hence the practice of prayer and meditation or contemplation as an extension of religion and philosophy in many traditions, not only Christianity.
I think that understanding of any set of ideas is aided by thinking about the person who wrote them, because the ideas arise in the context of a person's life. I am interested in the lives of the Buddha, Kant and Nietzsche in connection with their work. Also, I feel that reading about Jim Morrison's life helps me to understand the music of The Doors, and this applies to Bob Dylan, Prince and so many others.
There's hardly any recorded history on Jesus outside of the bible because he was ( originally) just a symbol a kind of place holder in the story but thanks to how stupid mankind seems to be and are lovely inherent habit to misunderstand and in force said misunderstanding we have turned the bible in to this fallacious literal thing that would look absolutely ridiculous to a people that have never seen or heard of it before and the only reason we justify are belief in it is do to indoctrination and the biological drive to survive so seeing others believe in something subconsciously makes us lean toward believing in it .
Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. But, I do think that a critical reading is also important, especially in some of the books is useful, especially the books which are harder to understand. I know some people who have read The Bible from cover to cover.
One other tradition which I find interesting is the legend of the grail, but I do believe that this is probably a symbolic quest.
There are some people who believe that Jesus did not even exist at all. But, my own understanding is that of him being one of a wandering Jew, and that there were many such people in his time. There are also some books which suggest that Jesus spent time in India, but I am not sure that there is any real basis for thinking that.
I think that the people who take so many of the ideas in The Bible miss the symbolic level and esoteric aspects. I do believe that what was taught to the inner circle of disciples was different to that which was taught to the wider circles of people. But, another part of this is the way in which meanings of the texts has probably varied and been changed a lot in the various translations.
I think Armstrong is absolutely correct. Contemplation of Bible passages is an established practice. Of course critical reading is important especially from a philosophical perspective.
However, at the end of the day, we can't get anywhere without practice, so we may choose a passage that we understand or appeals to us for contemplation, and look into others when we are not engaged in contemplation. That way, we kill two birds with one stone and hopefully make some progress not only intellectually, but also spiritually. I don't think that would be a bad thing.
By the way, I think you did mention the subject of ethics which I thought was important. If you were to construct a moral philosophy based on the NT, what would you say is the best way to go about it?
Armstrong's interpretation of the ethics of the NT is the idea of my own. My own view is more about how there is a basis for compassion, especially avoiding judging others detrimentally. The joke of that is that people often claim that Christian's can be so judgemental and narrow minded. But, of course that is more the hypocrisy that Jesus criticised the Pharisees for. I think that one important parable is that of the good Samaritan, and I am sure that is where the organisation to help the suicidal, got its name, The Samaritans, from.
I think that the centre of any ethics of from the NT has to be that of loving others as oneself. Sometimes, I think that people forget that a starting point for loving others is to love oneself. Also, I don't think loving oneself and others is a simple task. One aspect of this is how we have so many neighbours. One idea which I think is useful for thinking about this concern for others is what the sociobiologist, Edward O Wilson, described as the extending circle. One begins with the idea of thinking about the needs of family and friends, gradually moving outside of this to the concerns of the more remote sphere of others.
I can't see why inserting philosophy leads to confusion, especially as the have a shared history. You say that the main purpose of philosophy is about language, and I think that is a focus within contemporary philosophy, but there are also the fields of metaphysics and epistemology too.
There is a lot of controversy on the internet about the historical existence of Jesus and the battle is usually done by using historical documentation about it. Among these, there are first of all the Gospels, obviously, with all the reservations required by their attitude of faith; there are also the "apocryphal" gospels, and then there are the references that can also be found in documents outside the Bible. This research, however, fails to be convincing: for some people we have enough documentation to make us consider Jesus a historical figure, for other people this documentation is absolutely insufficient, as well as vitiated by an attitude of faith. So we are back to square one.
In this debate, however, a fundamental problem is overlooked: what are we talking about? What is the subject of the debate? In fact the "Jesus" imagined, for example, by the scholars of the Sacred Scriptures, does not coincide one hundred percent with the Jesus imagined by the average of believers, because their way of evaluating the stories of the Gospel is different.
So, to put our ideas in order, let’s go on by a criterion of "stripping" the Gospels, that is, we start from the poorest and simplest elements that are told to us.
The Gospels tell us that a man existed two thousand years ago. Is there any reason to be suspicious about this news? If anything, the opposite news would be suspected, that is, if someone told us that two thousand years ago there were no human beings in Palestine. Similarly, we can add the name “Jesus” (as it is usually transposed in English). Is there any suspicion on the information that two thousand years ago there was someone named Jesus? Here, too, the opposite information would be more suspect, that is, if they told us that two thousand years ago there were no people in Palestine named Jesus; it is as if they told us that in New York there are no people named John, or Bob: there would be a lot to suspect. We can go on, by adding more and more details to this man: that he went around Palestine preaching, that he had a group of disciples, that he was killed by the cross. Even on these last three pieces of news that I have added, we are in the same situation, since two thousand years ago in Palestine dozens of people went around preaching, dozens of people had their group of disciples, hundreds of people were killed through the method of the cross. We would therefore be suspicious if someone wanted to tell us that two thousand years ago in Palestine no one was preaching, no one made disciples, no one was ever put on the cross. So far, therefore, the problem becomes quite different: we are forced to ask ourselves not if Jesus existed, but if anything, how many Jesus existed in Palestine two thousand years ago, with characteristics more or less similar to those we find in the Gospels.
The question changes if, in this progressive increase in the attributes of Jesus, we begin to add miracles, the supernatural. At this point, however, the correct question becomes: has historical science ever admitted the existence of supernatural phenomena or supernatural people? The answer, of course, is no, since the very word "supernatural" is meaningless to science. This last reflection forces us to take another thing into account: in the question of whether Jesus existed or not, it is necessary to keep in mind who we intend to address it to: the result of addressing it to a scientist will be different from the result of addressing it to somebody else, for example to a poet.
Conclusion: asking in a pure and simple way whether Jesus existed or not is a question that doesn’t make sense, because it does not take into account two essential elements: 1) what we are talking about, that is, which attributes we intend to refer to the person who are we calling "Jesus"? 2) To whom do we intend to address the question?
In other words: the question whether Jesus existed, formulated in a hasty way, is suitable only for certain television broadcasts, in which the purpose is to have heated debates, but without ever clarifying anything, rather creating the maximum possible confusion, because otherwise the show ends and there is no more fun.
:up: I can't see anything negative about philosophy either. Besides, it's a personal choice. I for one, would introduce philosophy into politics, arts, and all aspects of life. Isn't this what true philosophy is supposed be about?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I've read Ms. Armstrong and she clearly does not mean philosophical contemplation (i.e. critical-hermeneutic à la Spinoza, Hume, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Bultmann ...) when she says "contemplation".
I think you hit the nail on the head there. St Augustine in City of God points out that you can't truly love others unless you love yourself because only self-love and knowledge of what is good for you can teach you how to love and be good to others. And vice-versa, as Socrates would have put it, you are good to others because that is good for you.
But as Augustine says, in order to properly love yourself, you must first love God. And Socrates would have agreed because God or the Divine (to theion) is Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as well as Justice and Wisdom. By learning to love those qualities you learn how to love them in and for yourself and in and for others.
Here Augustine makes an important observation:
"Thus, if a man knows how to love himself, the commandment to love his neighbour bids him to do all he can to bring his neighbour to love God. This is the worship of God; this is true religion; this is the right kind of devotion" (City of God, X 3).
This is why Jesus said: ''You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).
The Law includes the Decalogue or ten injunctions to love your father and mother, abstain from committing murder, theft, adultery, perjury, etc. It may not seem like much, but I think it can be used as a good foundation for a basic moral philosophy.
I think the point was that NT passages may be approached in different ways at different times. Sometimes through contemplation, other times through critical reading. Two different things, no?
A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. What is known as the problem of "Athens and Jerusalem".
However, the two are not mutually exclusive. There have always been philosophers who practice religion and religious people who practice philosophy. The Church Fathers are a good example. Christianity brings Athens and Jerusalem together.
I think that the issue of the supernatural is one of the aspects of The Bible which many people have difficulty with, including miracles. However, there are people in modern times who claim to have experienced miraculous dealings. The example which I am thinking of is those who have experienced healings in the holy waters at Lourdes. Of course, many visit Lourdes and are disappointed because they don't get healed but, on the other hand, people have spoken of healings there and that is why the place has become renouned. But I am aware that many people would argue that miracles are not possible scientifically, and would suggest that there must be some other explanation.
So, I think that both people, those who want to proof and those who want to disproof miracles, miss something essential, that is humanity, the richness of human soul. I think that the important question is not if a miracle happened or didn’t happen: the only utility of such discussions is just to reveal who is scientifically severe and who isn’t. But myths, stories, fantasies, are for me like a treasure that can unveil our humanity.
Well for one the name Jesus couldn't of existed untill 1535ish because the letter j didn't exist untill around 1535. So there's a good possibility that the name Jesus was fabricated at the time of the making of the original king James bible .
I think that the ten commandments can be seen as a basis for laws, as derived from Moses. Jesus was emphasising the importance of the first two commandments. Writers such as Augustine can be compared to Socrates in emphasising wisdom and being pious. However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering.
I don't think that it is particularly helpful to focus on proving or disproving miracles, and any experience of these which people have are probably best appreciated on a subjective basis. I also agree that the mythic dimension of life do provide treasures and I think that this aspect of life is undervalued by many. It is probably most understood and appreciated within the arts.
Just as a general observation, I don’t think the original was Hebrew, more likely it was Aramaic or even a Hellenized form of it. In any case, the NT has the Greek version ?????? I?soûs (something like Yeh-soos/Ee-soos in Modern English pronunciation) that was rendered as Jesus in Latin and other West European languages.
But I agree that, whilst being cautious about obvious cases of "superstition", we should keep an open mind about reports of miracles and show respect for what people feel to be genuine experience. Miracles have been reported by intelligent and educated people, not just the ignorant and the superstitious.
Aramaic was the everyday language. Hebrew was used for religious purposes. So, the name is more likely to have been Aramaic even if it was Hebrew originally.
For example, if an English person has the English name "John", then John would be an English name even if originally (many centuries ago) it was a Hebrew one.
In any case, the NT was written in Greek, so it has the Hellenized or Greek version of the name.
Lol I think "only" was inserted by your good self.
@Jack is an open-minded kind of person with a wide range of interests and perspectives. And as I said, he was referring to "contemplation" and "critical reading" as two equally important, yet different, approaches to the NT text.
But you're more than welcome to jump back on the bus. After reciting some prayers and engaging in the vita contemplativa for an adequate period of time, of course.
I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers.
Only a couple? @180 might be disappointed to hear that. But I'm sure he'll be hopping back on the bus at the next opportunity. At any rate, I tend to think that detours are what makes a bus journey, and life, more interesting. So, do continue reading and inform us of your new findings that we can discuss in due course :up:
[quote=old skoOl ...][i]The blue bus
is calllin' us ...
Driver
where are you
takin' us?[/i]
I want it, I want it, I want it, I waaaant it ... (You caaaaan't have it!)[/quote]
Good decision. It seems that this is turning into more of a full analysis of the Bible:
Quoting Jack Cummins
This could be the longest thread ever - the 'specific ideas of writers' contained within:
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp
Quite the ride...
First stop, the Creation of Philosophical Concepts, Genesiis 1.
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp#Genesis_1_-_The_Creation_of_Philosophical_Concepts
We can always be tourists:
'Hop-On, Hop-Off' as the mood takes ya' :wink:
Quoting bigbus tours/ hop-on-hop-off- London
Wouldn't recommend the London one - stuck in polluted traffic jams. Best to explore on foot or public transport. Just like Rome...you see the best bits D.I.Y. with a Roman :cool:
Mais, chacun à son goût...bon voyage...
Thanks for the links, I have just woken up but I will read them. I don't know how far this thread will go because I only started it about 5 days ago. Going back to Proof's idea of the bus it depends on which passengers get on and off. I would have thought that some analysis of The Bible is worthwhile as there are threads devoted to the works of Plato. It is not as if I am approaching the topic with a set agenda, and I do like to encourage discussion from those of varying viewpoints because I think it builds balanced dialogue.
I will probably not be writing much on the thread today because I am going on the train back to London this afternoon. I am hoping that my thread can last for a few more days at least, but this does depend on who is engaged, as in a way all these threads are a bit like mystery tours.
I am hoping for some discussion from outside of mere textual analysis of The Bible. I am not a theologian and have more of a humanities and psychology perspective. I do have some ideas which I do wish to contribute but it will probably be some time tomorrow, because I am busy most of today and the books which I wish to look at are in my room in London. I will put in an entry some time tomorrow because I do need to look at a book or two to see what is appropriate for the thread. I am wishing for any discussion to be critical in nature, but it does depend partly on the various angles of anyone who engages in the thread.
Besides, it seems obvious to me that Jack and other people have no intention to explore every detail and every problem related to the Bible and to philosophy: it should be clear that the aim of this thread is not to be an encyclopedia. Rather, it can be very fruitful in exploring some essential, crucial and indeed very interesting questions about some connections between philosophy and the Bible.
I think that I probably have a slightly wider view of philosophy than you do because even I look at philosophy texts I do believe in drawing on ideas from related fields. I don't think philosophy can be boxed off. Also, I do think that the line between contemplation and critical thinking is absolute because we engage with writing and ideas on an aesthetic level. For example, I think that the ideas of Nietzsche work better as an art form rather than simply at the conceptual level.
Of course, I and, I am sure others don't have time to build an encyclopediac thread . I will look at it, and I am hope to try to draw out ideas which are worth discussing in the thread, in conjunction with any who engage in it while it lasts.
That's not what I saw. Perhaps read on...
Quoting biblical philosophy
Quoting biblical philosophy
Quoting Angelo
Yes indeed. Life is too short even for angels :halo:
Yes, I am probably on a wider path of reading in my own life, beyond the forum itself. The way which I see any ideas which I draw upon from any other disciplines here is with a view to drawing out the relevance of those ideas to the philosophical discussion of The Bible.
Also, you must bear in mind, that what happens in the thread is partly in relation to the way others pursue those ideas as well. Having initiated the discussion, I see my own role as stearing the flow to some extent, but it is not as if I control the thread. I think that what is most important is for various people who are engaged in it to be able to engage in a way which enables them to think about the topic. Also, I do wish the thread to work in such a way that anyone who looks at it can find some discussion worth reading, hopefully.
Anyway, going back to the idea of the bus, the one funny aspect of this is that on several occasions I have been busy writing replies on this site on busses and have missed my stop...
Yes, I think social justice is very important. But if we are to construct a consistent moral philosophy based on NT teachings, we need to find a definition for it, look at what place it has or should have within Christian ethics, how it relates to the two great commandments and to the Decalogue, etc.
Incidentally, regarding the Decalogue, there is this interesting passage in Matthew:
1“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying ….
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:17 – 20) https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/5.htm
It is tempting to think that by "the Law", Jesus meant the Jewish Law in general. However, the Jewish Law (Halakhah) was much more than the Decalogue. There are 613 basic laws and further rabbinic laws that together constitute Jewish Law. A lot of these are not applicable to non-Jews, for example, the prohibition against eating pork which would have been unacceptable to other cultures like the Greek and Roman ones.
As the Son of God and the founder of a new world religion, Jesus could not have referred to the Jewish Law, but to the Eternal Law of God that has existed from the beginning of the world and that is applicable to the whole human race.
Incidentally, the Decalogue consists of laws that were in force among another nations, not only the Jews. Even the first law or commandment, "you shall have no other gods before me" may be interpreted to mean that we should not put any other god first or above the Supreme God or Deity, i.e., that we should have and worship one God above all other divine or spiritual beings such as gods, angels, etc.
This would be consistent with Greek and Roman religion which had one supreme deity (Zeus, Jupiter) over others and even with Ancient Canaanite and Hebrew religion which had one main god (El, Elyon, Yahweh). In Ancient Greece, Socrates was accused of impiety toward the gods of Athens and of introducing new deities. So, such prohibitions were not an exclusive feature of monotheistic religion.
Therefore, it may be said that the core of this Eternal and Universal Law of God, according to Christianity, would be the two commandments given by Jesus, followed by the Decalogue. We have seen more or less what the two commandments are. But what about the Decalogue, how are we to interpret and apply it in a Christian sense?
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven, on earth, or in the water; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
4. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. You shall remember it and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
As can be seen, the first four refer to God and relate to Jesus’ first commandment (“love God”) and the following six refer to man and his neighbors and relate to Jesus’ second commandment (“love thy neighbour”).
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Ten Commandments
In particular, how should we define, interpret, and evaluate liberation theology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
Definitions in Philosophy, as per:
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Glossary/Glossary.asp
According to the author: Franklin E. (Ed) Payne
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Title%20Explanations/About_Author.asp
This is a Glossary which acts as a 'mini-overview' of a Biblical and Christian worldview.
Quoting biblical worldview - Glossary
Quoting biblical worldview - Glossary
Quoting Jack Cummins
So, a different viewpoint from the way 'Justice' and 'Welfare' are defined in the Glossary ?
Can you provide sources from both theology and philosophy of religion ?
One way is to look at Philosophical Reviews of the Bible in the 'Philosophy Now' magazine.
I found this response to a review:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/Philosophical_Reviews_of_The_Bible
Quoting Michael Langford
Unfortunately, I can't access Issue 99 - 'The God Issue' - having used up all of my free 4 articles per month allowance. Perhaps someone else can... if interested.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/99
Jesus does not say this, Paul does. What is acceptable to other cultures is not thereby acceptable to those who, like Jesus, follow the Law given to God's chosen people; who are to be a light to other nations. (Isaiah)
I think you are confused. Christians are not Jews and Christianity is not Judaism.
Mark 7 says very clearly:
"5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions ....
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=NIV
Quite possibly, some Jewish followers of Jesus continued to adhere to Jewish dietary and other customs, but others obviously did not. St Paul, who was a Jew, was one of them. And as an increasing number of non-Jews joined the movement, Jewish laws were no longer required nor adhered to.
I remember this video I watched this guy was explaining difficulties of translating different languages and gave an example this time he was over in Asia I can't remember exactly where but it was a community where they mainly relied on boats for everything and he was talking to the translator in front of people and said a Passage in the particular book that they were discussing and he said the person was on the fence about a situation (in the book)
And the interpreter stopped and looked at him and kind of paused and then turn back to the audience and said a word and the audience laughed so he asked the interpreter "why did they laugh? It's a serious situation and he can't decide what to do next an interpreter told him that they don't have a word for fence because there are people that live in and on the water so the closest thing to "being on the fence" was something like "so he stood with his legs in separate boats wishing they were together"
What you can imagine would be an awkward silly situation to be standing one foot in one boat the other foot in the other and as you're starting to do the Jean-Claude Van Damme splits you're complaining that they're not one boat
so I can imagine you would completely missed the entire point of that scenario because you'd be envisioning some goofy situation where John Claude Van Damme is doing the splits across two boats lol.
and in the bible it seems as if names are important god supposedly emphasizes on it as well as Moses asks specifically for his name and the reader kinda gets the impression that you can't just nickname god or his son/mini me/self Because names are important
And yet here we are calling gods son by a name that didn't exist at the time that he supposedly was on earth and to make the situation even more awkward and confusing this name that we call him by that he new nothing about at the time isn't even the English translation of the Hebrew
Because supposedly his name was Yeshua which is best translated as salvation which sounds nothing like Jesus to me , but that could just be me and there of course was his other name which was more of a title than anything and that was The Christ The Anointed One
Which comes from Christo's so in English hos name and title/ spiritual job/ position was " Anointed Oil Of Salvation"
And it seems kinda funny to name a baby something like Salvation
but it makes more sense when you read the stories under the context of The Story characters are merely place holders and that the real meaning hidden within the story it's different than the story itself.
I'm not attacking you or challenging your Viewpoint just having conversation that's all.
We could go round and round as you are so fond of doing. If you take the Sermon on the Mount as the words of Jesus andwhat he says about keeping to the letter of the Law, it is clear that it is addressed to everyone:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.(Matthew 5:17-20)
Using a gospel that is influenced by Paul is question begging.
Well, maybe you should try reading other people's posts before commenting? I already quoted your quote and explained why "the Law" only referred to what was universally applicable to all believers, not just to Jews.
Quoting Apollodorus
If Jesus had intended for his teachings to be just for Jews, he would have made sure that only Jews became followers and there would have been a Gospel for Jews in Hebrew or Aramaic, not in Greek.
Jesus preached to all who would follow the Law. Paul knew that the gentiles would not, and yet he felt compelled to "save them".
IMHO that's rather irrelevant as you have no evidence for your claim. In the final analysis, all we have got is the NT text and the teachings of the Church Fathers. This is what the OP is about, not fanciful and unsubstantiated speculations.
On the contrary. There is the Sermon and what Paul himself says.
I've just told you:
Quoting Apollodorus
Jesus' disciples did not live according to Jewish tradition. Mark says so.
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, I'm afraid that's the only NT we've got. You are at liberty to write your own if you so wish. Maybe in 1st-century Hebrew or Aramaic ....
Fear not. Paul tells you everything you need to know. He invents a new religion in which Jesus' admonition to follow the Law does not hold.
Well, as I said, you are at liberty to invent your own religion. Either that, or you could always convert to Judaism. Who is stopping you?
Thanks for your link to 'Philosophy Now' magazine. I do read it sometimes, in paper form, but have not read the particular issue on God, I think that it was a little while before I discovered the magazine. I think that some of the content is coming up on my phone, so I will try to use some of the ideas as a basis for some further discussion. Hopefully some others will be able to access the links because I am not really able to make links on my phone. Sometimes, I can't access some people's links on the site but your ones seem to show up, and it is probably due to signals and transmissions.
With some sources such as these the thread may turn into a miniature encyclopedia. I do also plan to refer to some books which I have in my room, because I do a certain amount of reading online but I do read paper books still. I have been out all day, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, and follow it through by adding some further ideas. Once again, thank you for your input because I am wishing to keep the topic focused within philosophy.
The Jesus Cult (Nazarenes) was clearly Jewish whereas The Pauline Church (Christians) was Gentile. The latter survived to become the victor and, as you know (& others deny), self-servingly "canonized" (the) anti-Judaic not-history. Biblical archaeology has corrected many of the 'NT & patristic falsifications' in the last century or so.
One of my favorite bands! Unfortunately, recording quality back then was very poor, practically non-existent.
Well, such is life. Jews kept their religion and Christians founded their own. Isn't that what the Jews did before? I can see nothing wrong with that. It's called religious freedom.
The Bible does not prove the belief in God or defend it, it presumes it.
I just logged in to the site before going to bed, and I noticed you have written your first post, so welcome to the forum. I realise that the thread question which I have written is extremely broad and, of course, I am not expecting it to be fully answered. I really chose the idea of thinking about The Bible as an approach to the philosophy of religion with a slightly different focus rather than the typical atheist vs theist dichotomy.
If you are interested in the discussion at all you may find links in the thread which may be useful. I can assure you that I am interested in many aspects of philosophy, and my thread is not intended to make any set of assumptions. The aim is to look at The Bible as a text, and I do welcome your ideas.
I have never come across the band, The Jesus Cult, but I am familiar with The Jesus and Mary Chain. My favourite Biblically inspired track is one by U2, called '40' and it is based on the 40th psalm.
It is true that the authors of The Bible presume a belief in God but this does not mean that everyone who reads it has to come from that angle. People can approach it from all kinds of philosophical perspectives.
It's old school. Real old school. Back before your time, back like when the other guys in the battle of the bands were saying it was the end times.
Judaism might hold that Jesus was the Antichrist and got his power from Satan. Maybe Satan even gave Jesus his soul back in order to rise. Ancient miracle claims should be doubted though, and anyway we can't know where a miracle comes from
I have not heard of that being the main view within Judaism. My own understanding is that many Jews simply did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah.
I didn't say most Jews say Jesus was evil but that its possible that this is their most consistent position logically
But the image of the antichrist has its roots in Judaism. Early antichrist folklore centered around evil Roman emperors such as Nero.
The oldest Hebrew version of it is the Pharaoh in Exodus.
I'm sure the Egyptians had their own savior kings or Messiahs and their adversaries or Antichrists.
But I doubt that Jesus is in any way comparable with Nero.
They didn't have any experience with being underdogs.
The antichrist is an evil king who pits himself against gods chosen ones.
The idea transferred from Judaism to Christianity and quickly became associated with the pope.
Oh, they did. The Egyptians went through invasions and occupations like everyone else. Not to the same extent as the Hebrews. But they certainly had kings fighting to reestablish righteousness in the land and foreign kings opposed to them. They also had gods fighting evil, etc. who served as models for righteous kings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos
One of Egypt's righteous kings who fought the Hyksos invaders was Ahmose I
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ahmoseI/
Yea whatever.
I do think however that as nuanced as these topics are it is best to address very specific topics and issues so as we may come to find very nuanced specific answers to those questions. Otherwise we are circling around a yet to be defined grey area which does not set any new foundations of relevant boundaries.
That being said, as I stated previously, yes the Bible does address many philosophical issues humans have needed to confront, but I see nothing special about the Bible's ability to do so successfully. Many or most of the same issues were discussed and written long before the Bible came into being and I have not found anything particularly progressive or groundbreaking in finding the answers to those questions within its texts that other cultures and scripts did not already address.
Quoting neoshaman2012
First of all, welcome to TPF. Your input is already valuable. I think this advice is the way forward.
What specific topics/issues do you think would be of most help in understanding the role of the Bible and philosophy of religion as they meet current challenges in humanity ?
I have looked at the definitions of 'Justice' and 'Welfare' in the biblical worldview Glossary. I doubt this necessarily reflects the current views held by 'Christians' - another wide term covering a host of beliefs and interpretations. If you can update with your knowledge that might be helpful.
Here:
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
@Jack Cummins - interested to hear your thoughts. I think it clear that the definition of e.g. 'Welfare' provided is biased and narrow, but of interest re political stance.
This comes back to your wish not to bring in theism v atheism issues.
I doubt this is avoidable, given other discussions in TPF !
--------
Next up
Reference to Philosophy Now articles mentioned here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557465
Quoting Michael Langford
Quoting Jack Cummins
Good. I think it would be useful and productive to follow advice such as @neoshaman2012's.
Otherwise, there is a danger of:
Quoting Jack Cummins
Here's hoping not !
Quoting neoshaman2012
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
Looking at the Bible as a text is fine. But what is happening here is perhaps too much of a focus on quoting Scripture and the historical aspects ( as fascinating as they are).
A new focus is welcome - there remains the ever present theism v atheism debate - this thread is a challenge and I hope that it can progress in a fruitful and constructive manner, thanks.
I have just looked at the Michael Langford article and it is fairly useful, in looking at the genres in The Bible,and I am hoping to be able to look at a couple of articles in 'The God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', as I have accessed 2 of my 4 allowed. I am hoping to be able to address @neoshaman2012s concerns as well. I am trying to think of a more specific focus and one particular book which I wish to have a look at is one which I have in my room by Gabriel Josipovici, which is the best philosophical discussion of it that I can find presently. So, I plan to read some of this and write a fuller entry afterwards, later today.
Excellent. I hope I'll be able to access that soon !
Quoting Jack Cummins
Thanks for update and I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts later :smile:
Many thanks for your reply, and definitely the extent to which the ideas in The Bible are read literally is of critical importance. This does bear particular relevance to the ideas which I am reading presently, 'The Book of God: A Response' by Gabriel Josipovici. In this book, the author focuses on the texts as expressions of human thinking.
In particular, Josipovici speaks of 'the need to utter', saying, 'Without the recognition of man's need to utter, no matter what, in moments of crisis, of triumph and despair, the Bible would have been quite other than it is.' However, he goes on to stress that in the Bible, 'the bedrock is of course dialogue. This dialogue is between humans and God. The framework of The Bible is in that context of thinking.
But, this is where the essential argument may lie, in the framing of perspective and authority. In some religious perspectives, there is belief that the authority comes from God, whereas others view the authority in terms of the human need to make sense of life. An essential aspect is how we read The Bible, especially the mindset involved. Josipovici points to the way in which there can be 'so much anxiety attached to the reading of religious documents that the natural processes of reading are interfered with by external notions of what it is one should be looking for far more than other writings'
This idea resonates with me because I know that when I was growing up and up until a few years ago, I always looked to The Bible as divine revelation, and felt profoundly anxious for specific answers. So, the underlying philosophical question is about the idea of the authority of The Bible and how we conceive this. We can ask what is 'divine revelation' ? Josipovici suggests that,
'Kierkergaard, trying to rescue Christianity from a vague Romantic ethics, argued that it is not so much what is said in the New Testament that is important as the authority of the speaker. '
I believe that the question of the way we understand the question of authority is stepping slightly aside from that of the literal, but how we consider the nature of authority is important for the whole way in which we consider and try to draw conclusions from The Bible.
I agree. I think The Bloodline of the Holy Grail by L Gardner makes interesting reading.
But, in historical terms, no evidence has been found that can conclusively link archaeological remains to King David or Solomon and this has led some historians like Ralph Ellis to suggest that as Canaan was under Egyptian rule for several centuries and the OT says that the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt, there is a strong possibility that many of the early Hebrew kings were in fact Egyptian pharaohs.
I know you are very busy at the moment but here is a very good article that takes less than 5 minutes to read:
Are tales about legendary king Solomon completely made up? – Daily Mail
And, of course, the Christian belief in divine judgement after death resulting in resurrection in paradise for the righteous and eternal damnation or death for the unrighteous, was an Ancient Egyptian belief rather than OT-based Jewish religion.
So, it can be clearly seen that Christianity is a fusion of several strands of spiritual wisdom that blended together in the cosmopolitan culture of the Hellenistic Middle East. If God or anyone else wanted to found a new, universal religion, then Christianity was ideally suited for the purpose and Greek the ideal language through which to promote it.
Thanks for your reply. I have to laugh a bit at the idea of me being so busy now because in some ways I have more free time than usual. If I manage to get a job, I can imagine spending my breaks logged into this site.
I don't usually trust the authority of mainstream newspapers but the idea in your link appears credible. I do often wonder about archaeology in relation to questions of historical evidence relating to The Bible. I also wonder about the idea of the flood at the time of Noah. I try to read about such ideas because I find them interesting.
I do think that Christianity may be a fusion of many blends of thinking. That is why I think that esoteric sources of thought are worth thinking about, as underlying developments behind the surface. In many ways, we are in a secular age now, and I am also interested in what lies behind this. I do believe that there is so much behind the surface of ideas, on an ideological level.
I think the authority of the Bible comes from the belief that what you're reading is the actual word of God, written down by sages. So, the authority comes from the personal beliefs of the reader, and the assumptions that you have when reading.
Another important observation is that when you have finished reading the Bible partially or completely, you may have additional beliefs. And it is very likely that you adopted them because of the authority you assign to the source material, that is the Bible.
Also, these new beliefs can be called divine revelation, as they were adopted because of the reading and perceived authority of a religious text.
And your personal beliefs about the authority of the Bible have then indirectly caused you to accept its contents. This indicates that what an individual considers divine revelation depends heavily upon their initial beliefs.
A possible answer to the question of authority, then is that the authority of the Bible comes primarily from assumptions you have when reading.
Sorry if what I said is redundant.
I just had a look at the'God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', and most of it appears to come down to the debate between theism and atheism. However, in one article,'Theism, History and Experience', Timothy Chapel explores the idea of moaning to God.
I think that this is an interesting idea, and it certainly makes sense think of, 'The Book of Job', which I see as involving a lot of moaning and groaning. It also makes me wonder about the way in which The Bible holds an emphasis upon the power, or force, lying behind life. There is a sense of awe generally, and of wishing to praise this source. However, this is mixed with a sense of being in a relationship with God, and of being uncertain of how God will respond to the human plight. Part of this seems to involve fear, especially of punishment, and of reward in heaven too. As far as I can see, the worldview in The Bible is of human beings having an intimate relationship with some power behind life and nature, and, generally, this at odds with most thinking of our time, including most contemporary philosophy perspectives.
Well, I don't usually trust mainstream papers either. I only posted the DM link because I thought it presents the issue in a clear and convincing way without resorting to too much speculation. There are other articles in National Geographic, Biblical Archaeology and other publications.
The point has been made by other historians and Egyptologists who have observed that when two populations share a geographical and cultural space, their national memory may to some extent coalesce to form a common narrative and in most cases the smaller and less powerful population tends to adopt the narrative of the larger and more powerful or influential one.
Certainly, the sumptuous palaces and temples described in the OT are more consistent with what you would find in Egypt than in a small Hebrew kingdom. King Solomon's legendary wealth, his many wives including the Pharaoh's own daughter (1 Kings 3:1), etc., tend to lend credence to an Egyptian interpretation of some OT accounts.
But I agree that philosophers, and people in general, should try to see what is behind the surface of mainstream narratives and in many cases the findings are very interesting and enlightening. And I believe that this is what philosophical inquiry is about, even if sometimes it takes "detours" to the general bus journey to realize it.
F4,
While it is accurate to say philosophy itself lives in reason, not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... .
Quoting neoshaman2012
The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure.
Of course, Jesus was known to be part God and had a consciousness like humans. Christian philosophy becomes relatable to the human condition in many ways. Most of which of course is illogical and/or transcends logic itself. It's certainly a consistent paradox, using reason, that we find the descriptions and explanations of the physical world beyond reasonable explanations.
Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. The irony is that over 75% of philosophical domains in philosophy posit same. Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. If nothing else, it's a criteria or axiom. Unity of opposites, etc..
Is that the case for the Les Reid 'Review of the Bible' ?
The article I posted was only the response to his - the original review that I would like to read...
I will try to look at the original Les Reid article, , because I have one left in what I am allowed to log into. So, I am being careful about accidentally logging into other articles accidentally. I am going to reply to a couple of other posts and try to access the Les Reid review, if I can, this afternoon.
I agree that not all of Biblical accounts are about revelation, and there is indeed a curious mixture. I also think that the idea of God being part human and part man is an interesting aspect of The Bible. In this way, the idea of God in The Bible is so different from ideas in other religions and sacred texts, in the specific idea of God being incarnated as an actual living human being, in Jesus.
The wisdom books were written long before Christianity. There is in them some influence from or common to Greek thought, but there is also resistance. When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord it means something quite different from the Greek notion that depends on reasoned thought and argument.
Quoting 3017amen
The existence of Jesus the man is something very different from the claims of his divinity. There was no need to prove that Jesus the man existed, it was not doubted, but in any case stories about him prove nothing.
quote="3017amen;558014"]Of course, Jesus was known to be part God and had a consciousness like humans.[/quote]
This was not known, it was believed by his pagan followers. It was also believed that others were half god half man, children of gods carried by human women.
Quoting 3017amen
There is no more need to invoke or posit God than there is to posit the gods.
Quoting 3017amen
The existence of evil and the existence of Evil as an entity are two different things. As it is used in the Hebrew Bible it means bad, adversity, affliction, calamity, and so on.
No worries. It will soon be July, a new month :wink:
:100: :up:
Quoting Fooloso4
Why do you suppose that is... ?
Quoting Fooloso4
Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.)
Quoting Fooloso4
They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed.
It's been argued that that is one of the appealing things of Christianity v. other 'religions'. I personally embrace other religious philosophy like Taoism, but they don't have quite the 'human condition appeal' and the relatable angst... .
I have just managed to look at the Les Reid article, so I will draw out the main ideas. He argues that 'statements and attitudes in the Bible are expressed in the Bible that are troublesome in themselves, without reference to facts and opinions derived from other sources.'.He also says that there are no agreed canons, in the interpretations. Reid suggested that, 'If the great spirit is really concerned about humanity, as it is claimed, then one would expect communications to be open, regular and clearly genuine. If there really was a benevolent spirit looking over us, its communication would be as clear as the sun in the sky'.
Reid also suggests that,'Yahweh is a biased God. As Hume pointed out(Enquiry S.10) Biblical assertions that Yahweh favoured one tribe over above the rest of humanity..' He also queried the change from the Yahweh of the Old Testament to the New Testament, whether it would mean that God is changing. His overall conclusion is that, 'The religious paradigm was a human invention and its central narratives are fictions.
I am aware that I looked at the discussion of the original article, so I will look at the review again. One idea which I am aware of is how Reid questions whether God is actually changing, which I am aware was one arising in the perspective of Jung in, 'Answer to Job'. But, here I am just laying out the ideas expressed by Reid, with a view to how they contribute to the debate about thinking of the Bible from a philosophy viewpoint.
Thank you for this. Drawing out the main ideas relating them to your own understanding.
Most helpful :smile:
I think that we are back with an underlying philosophy problem. Some people appreciate the position of the idea of God, and Christ, as expressed in the Bible. Some appreciate a perennial wisdom underlying various religious perspectives, and others reject religious and spiritual philosophies at all. So, we are back to the central problem of objective vs subjective truth, as well as personal preferences.
We could question how much our own thinking about the Bible is based on our own subjective realities, and even what lies behind the subjective realities. How much is psychological, or is there a greater reality behind this?
I have drawn out the basic ideas, adding a couple of ideas of my own,although the article is much longer. Of course, the view of Reid is only one, so it will be interesting to see if anyone reads and challenges that view because I am sure that his perspective is open to criticism and challenge.
I think it has something to do with the idea that since we do things to maintain or change our environment there is some human like being or beings that do the same on a lager scale; and that when they are angered and cause evil they can be appeased by offerings, or become well disposed to us by offerings, or swayed by us by our pleas.
Quoting 3017amen
They are included because of the belief that there is a connection rather than complete break between the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the NT. After all, that is where all the Laws that Jesus talked about could be found.
Quoting 3017amen
The historical record does not stand or fall on the basis of whether these stories are believed to be a true and accurate account of what happened.
You say that,
'The historical record does not stand or fail on whether these stories are believed to be a true and accurate account of what happened.' I think that many people do question the accuracy of such ideas, but I do believe that for many people the question of accuracies and inaccuracies of certain aspects of the Biblical narratives are important. We may have moved into a secular age, but not entirely, and I certainly believe that for many people the central ideas in The Bible, whether agreed with, or opposed, are at the centre of so much philosophical thinking. This probably includes ideas about Jesus, but also, so much thinking in the Bible, before his time as well.
Like many, many, things in this world, apperception consists of both the subject and object. The concept of a God is no different. The concept of God is both an objective and subjective truth:
1. Ontological argument= Objective truth
2. The William James religious experience= Subjective truth
3017 claimed that the gospels prove that Jesus existed, and if they don't then history books should not be believed. My point is that the believability of history books in independent of any one history book, if for the sake of the argument one takes the Bible to be a history book.
No exceptions taken. I think it further supports, temporal-ness, finitude, and other kinds of human existential angst. Similarly, I always liked the metaphor about our inability to know everything and be perfectly perfect (in paraphrase): my mind wills one thing; my flesh another.
To that end, perhaps an intriguing philosophical question(s) there: how does that paradox of the Will exist and what is the will's purpose. Does the will have Darwinian survival advantages when instinct is all you need to survive in the jungle.
Quoting Fooloso4
Can you elaborate a little on that please?
The believability of history books is independent of any one history book.
Thanks. Are you trying to say that a collection of history books that seem consistent with one another is more believable than just one history book?
Not necessarily. They may have had access to evidence, e.g., miracles, visions, etc. that we can no longer access except if we start from an attitude of faith. If I understand Christianity correctly, Jesus reveals himself to those who have faith in him.
That's why ?????? pistis or "faith" is central to Christianity and the Creed of the Apostles starts with the words "I believe (??????? pisteuo)".
I definitely think that the facts of the Bible and history are an extremely useful aspect to this discussion. But, the religious experience, as explored in William James writings is extremely important. I have read some of James's writings and I think that the whole realm of religious experience is followed up by Ninian Smart, within comparative religion, and in the psychological experience of Jung. I also believe that the experiences of the idea of numinous experiences is important and one writer, Rudolf Otto, stressed the understanding of the numinous dimension of experience.
We could begin to think about the experience of Moses, amidst the burning bushes. Also, we may think about those who spoke of the having seen the risen body of Jesus. How do we begin to think about such experiences? Some may speak of delusions, but I think that this is far too much of a dismissal, because delusions usually refer to ideas which do not make sense on a collective level. In contrast, the ideas of Moses and of the resurrection, while open to question, have been valued and have been such an important aspect of historical development of ideas.
However, what I think is important is the breaking down of ideas: ontological questions of God's existence, historical aspects of religion, in relation to facts of history , and the experiences of individuals, including visions and revelation. I do believe that Christianity is only one aspect of this area of thought, but I do think that it is important in thinking about how the divergent aspects of thought come into play. However, I do believe that any full consideration involves thinking about these aspects, and the way they are juxtaposed. I think that we are left with a difficult task really, but I hope that philosophy can enter into this, rather than dismiss it.
No. I was referring specifically to what you said. The credibility of history books in general is not dependant on any one or group of books in particular.
George Washington existed in the history books, and there was a gravesite in Virginia. Jesus existed in a history book(s) and there was a corresponding gravesite... (?).
:up: :100:
I'm a Jungian fan for sure!
Quoting Jack Cummins
It does. Hence over 75% of P-domain's posit a concept of God. Conversely, if they posited "Whatever", then we would parse the concept of whatever. Either way, philosophy has much to say about these concepts. Who ( or what) invented philosophy and the need to philosophize, I wonder(?).
:grin:
I believe that looking for reliable information and accounts in history is extremely important. However, I don't think that it is an easy task because we are up against what remains suppressed in certain periods, as well as the biases of our own times. I wish to explore this, as far as I can within the limits. I do believe that it involves going beyond the superficial, and the information of the internet, which in itself involves biases of those who compile information, and I think that fuller effort is required.
We probably also have to recognise the potential limitations of our task, while exploring. I am sure that many people may think that looking at the aspects of religious experience and history are futile, but I do believe that this can apply to most other aspects of philosophy and aspects of human life and culture. It does come down to the need to make sense of our lives, and there is no one with the definitive answers, and we have to choose the paths of thought to include ot exclude for ourselves.
One aspect which I may introduce into this discussion is one book which I have read on a Jungian interpretation of 'The Book of Revelation'. I believe that the symbolic dimensions of life is such an important aspect of reality, but I am aware that is simply my perspective. Of course, I am aware that is my own view, and I am open to having that challenged. I may put in an entry based on that view tomorrow, but I make no definite plans, because while I have created the thread, I think that it goes beyond my own personal viewpoint. I wish to go with the flow, and I definitely wish to keep the discussion within the scope of philosophy.
Cognitive science has much to say about the why's of existence. Similarly, those that were psychologists who then turned philosopher, they too have much to say (James, Maslow, etc. etc.) from their work experiences. I would stress that it's all good, in that it is incumbent upon us to do all the necessary research even if it comes from unexpected sources.
Of course, to inquire, is one goal of philosophy.
I completely agree, and I do believe that any thinking about religious experience is connected to the experience of those individuals. Unfortunately, the Bible does not go into that much depth about the experiences of Moses, Jesus and Paul, amongst others. We may have to allow for imagination in filling in the gaps, and I do believe that these individuals may have been people who questioned in the way that we do. I do believe that the existential aspects of these thinkers may have been missed and that we have been encouraged to think of these people in such a way that it misses out essential aspects of their deeper searching and philosophical quests.
I don't think it is just yours. Symbolism is central to Christianity and to Classical Philosophy. The word "symbol" itself which is of Greek origin is extremely important and has many important meanings on different levels in Christian tradition. The Apostles' Creed in Greek is ???????? ?????? Symbolon Pistis, "symbol, sign, or covenant of faith", the Symbol of Life which is also the secret and mystery of being.
Symbols or signs enable us to go beyond words and access realities that are inexpressible in language. In fact, some would say that true life only begins when we leave words behind and enter the realm of symbols which is the gateway to higher levels of experience, which are the true mysteries or secrets of life. Poetic symbolism can give us a glimpse of that but religion and philosophy even more so.
I do believe that the symbolic dimension is an important aspect of life which is sometime missed in the emphasis upon reason. Reason and imagination are both extremely important and not necessarily opposed to one another when viewing texts, such as The Bible, but it may be that reason needs to pay attention to the imagination and symbolic dimensions. Perhaps, imagination has to be taken into account fully in the interpretations of texts, especially those involving reasoning about the Bible.
Absolutely. Even words sometimes merely point to things without actually naming or describing them.
Symbols do this even more because they can be read, interpreted, experienced or lived in many different ways and on many different levels, which is why they are much more powerful and "alive" than words because they are closer to life itself.
The Logos, the Word of God (which is another name for Jesus) is such a symbol, in fact it is the Symbol of Life, the Mystery of Being, and the Secret of Eternal Life which is the only true reality which expresses itself as infinite Wisdom, Light, and Love.
How should be more philosophical? I am not entirely clear, as I do believe In looking from many viewpoints, reason and symbolic. Can we step outside of these entirely, and on what basis?
On the contrary. Philosophy without tennis nets is philosophical inquiry sans frontieres, i.e., true philosophy unfettered by political correctness and other neo-Stalinist devices.
:up: Yep. Down with the tennis (or other) nets. You were talking about liberation theology. How about a theology and philosophy of liberation? The Liberation of Philosophy!
I definitely don't wish to go beyond words, and enter the dimensions of the unspeakable. But, I I don't play tennis, so I need some kind of new net or boundary, because boundaries and naming is so difficult, especially in the realm of the sacred. How do we think of religious experience in connection to political correctness. Part of this would be about accepting everyone's views, but how would this come into play in the subjective interpretations, especially in the interpretations of the Bible?
I have to admit that I have only a very limited knowledge of liberation theology. I will look further at it in the book I have on contextual theology. But, I have probably written about the maximum number of posts I can really write in one day, so I will probably look at this discussion further tomorrow, to see where it is going and what is most relevant for thinking about.
Yes. It's all over the place. Even given the previous advice re some focus - Jack is tripping.
Going with the flow is fine up to a point. But this is a runaway bus...full speed ahead...no longer for me. Any remaining 'passengers' hold tight - you might need sick bags for all the dizzying twists and turns.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Too much going on in your head at once...and the thread encompasses too much for it to be easily followed. Again, just my view...there could easily be at least 6 different threads out of all this 'matter'.
I hope you see this as constructive criticism.
:100:
:sparkle:
Is that another Einsteinian emotional response, or are you a player without a racket? Surely you're not throwing in the towel again in yet another match :razz:
You may want to start an angry atheist thread and see who wins :joke:
Okay, I will look at your previous posts, because I wish to go forward but don't wish to go off on a magic bus. I will look further tomorrow because I think that I must have written more than about 10 posts, and I don't wish to write complete gobbledgook. I will read through my thread tomorrow morning, and read it with a fresh perspective.
Well, to be quite honest, I think to make Bible interpretation subject to political correctness would amount to knowingly sabotaging your own effort. Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round.
But, anyway, as long as you have expert traffic wardens to guide your bus journey, or even drive your bus for you, I'm sure it will all have a happy end. I do not wish to interfere.
Well said. Religious philosophy obviously not only influenced Greek philosophy... , and the American currency :cool:
Here's an interesting thought, I wonder if atheists should lobby to get In God We Trust removed from our currency(?). I would love to hear the arguments, especially in light of the foregoing influences :razz:
Kind of reminds me of Ronald Reagan Jr. (atheist) whining about politics.... :snicker:
Good point. Obviously, if we were to allow religion and philosophy to be conducted on political lines, that would amount to making them into instruments of vested interests which is antithetical to both religion and philosophy, both of which aim to discover a higher truth that is independent of political concerns.
Imagine practicing religion or philosophy according to one set of political guidelines for four years, and according to another set for the next four years, and so on. Totally ludicrous IMHO :grin:
I think most rational people can see the distinction. If some people had visions or other experiences of something or somebody they were convinced to be a divine being, then there is little we can say about it now when no hard evidence is available.
But the strange thing is that seemingly intelligent and educated philosophers like Socrates, Plato and their followers have spent many centuries talking and writing about God or things connected with the divine. Perhaps this reflects a deeper human need or desire for knowledge of things beyond matter. By investigating the ultimate composition of matter, science in a way is attempting to do the same thing.
I believe in certain countries like Syria, their politics and religion are not separated. Likewise imagine a Catholic becoming president and how Protestants, Calvinists, Lutheran's, Baptists, ad nauseam might react (?). I've always said man-made religion give God a bad name; in Christianity I wonder if Jesus supported Catholicism :razz:
But back to philosophy, currently the Greeks use the term metaphysics which originally meant, that which comes after physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was Aristotle's definition.
Apparently metaphysics means the study of topics about physics as opposed to the scientific subject itself, and/or the nature of reality. To quote Paul Davies:
"Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin nature and purpose of the universe how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them or any meaning of life questions."
Is there a better way to bridge the empirical sciences gap? Some would say cognitive science is but one means & method in trying to discover and uncover some sense of one's own reality. Otherwise philosophically, asking metaphysical questions about things-in-themselves is always an intriguing exercise (Time and Eternity, the Will, etc.).
:grin:
Is that like the Ontological argument ?
:razz:
Hahaha. Have you thought about opening an angry atheist thread :joke:
(In logic) is that an ad hominem fallacy?
:razz:
I thought political correctness was over in ethics.
After all, that's what it's about, regardless of what the wording may suggest.
Religion should inform politics? About what?
(..., 2013, 2016, 2019, 2020, ...)
That's precisely why in antiquity there was something like a state religion. Every city-state among the Greeks, Phoenicians, etc. had its own religion where one deity was above all others. Plato suggested something similar for the ideal city-state. The Roman empire had something like a state religion and that tradition continued after the introduction of Christianity, with the Orthodox Church based in Constantinople ruling in the east and the Catholic Church based in Rome ruling in the west. Of course things got more complicated after the reformation but all Christian denominations have some basic principles in common that they can agree on, and of course, the largest denomination would take precedence over smaller ones.
Yes, "things-in-themselves" have always intrigued philosophical minds from the time of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics says:
"What on earth do they mean by speaking of a thing-itself? assuming that the definition of man is one and the same both in man and in man-himself; for qua man they will not differ at all, and if they do not, neither will what is good and the good-itself differ qua good".
I suppose this was why Plato introduced the concept of Forms, a kind of universal patterns that consciousness uses to organize itself in order to produce determinate cognition. But if you go beyond the Forms you find consciousness itself, the Cosmic Intellect (or Mind of God) that creates all things. That's about as far as the human mind can go in discursive thought (dianoia). After that, a different form of direct, non-discursive or intuitive perception (noesis) takes over and at that stage there are no thoughts and no language in which to express the experience or communicate it to others. Words seem ridiculous and pointless.
This is why all philosophical systems, both in the West and the East, have turned to mystical experience when philosophizing about ultimate reality couldn't take them any further. It was one of the reasons why Greek philosophers embraced Christianity. Where reason no longer helps, faith and devotion might just push you that bit further and help you achieve your philosophical goal which is not to know truth intellectually, but to actually experience it.
Well, I suppose you could put it that way. A Collective or Universal Mind that is the source of all thoughts and experiences. But still a divine or suprahuman, not a human one. Plato and Aristotle wouldn't have disagreed.
About ethics, what is right and what is wrong. Politics is about power, ethics is about how to use that power.
Belief until personally experienced. After that, matter of fact evidenced by one's own personal experience.
Religion should inform ethics? No. Divine command theory, theological voluntarism, ...? No. Accountability to an imaginary friend rather than your fellow humans? No.
Quoting The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics
:rofl:
:up:
I am sure that the Bible has some role in this aspect of thinking, but I don't wish to exaggerate this. I think that views about the Bible are important, but in the context of other ideas. No idea stands in isolation. Saying that, it is late at night, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, with a view to what can be carried forward, in thinking about the Bible, ideas, and the development of our own thinking.I could write off the debate about the Bible, but I am not convinced that this aspect of philosophy is settled permanently, so I am willing to pursue it further with other people.
Lol I'm afraid that is not a Christian source.
This is more like it:
"Christian ethics derives its metaphysical core from the Bible, seeing God as the ultimate source of all power ... Christian ethicists use reason, philosophy, natural law, the social sciences, and the Bible to formulate modern interpretations of those principles; Christian ethics applies to all areas of personal and societal ethics ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics
I will look at it tomorrow, as I am hoping that this thread is not finished immediately, because I do believe that it involves important questions about the history of Christianity and the way people think in our times, which may be regarded as a secular age.
The Westminster thing is better, though.
Seems like political correctness is ethics, or moral philosophy, oughts, pre/proscriptive.
Well, every religious or philosophical system, indeed, every person has their own conception of ethics. There is not much we can do about it.
And, no, accountability would not be to "an imaginary friend". If you do anything that has an impact on the community you live in, then in the first instance you are accountable to the community. First you get judged by fellow men in this life and then by God in the hereafter as the case may be.
'The Book of Revelation has been all things to all people, a cornucopia of delight for scholars, theologians, crackpots, and madmen. It has never lost its magic power to arouse strong emotions; though we can read contradictory meanings into its words, the words continue to fascinate.'
I have read 'The Book of Revelation' more than any other book in the Bible, with a mixture of fear and fascination, and I am sure that many have done so as well. It is an extremely difficult book to understand. Robertson offers the following thought about it,
'Revelation is the last book in the New Testament of the Bible. It stands as a bridge between the record of the Bible and the unknown times ahead. It is a vision rather than a history, because it records a stage of consciousness which cannot yet be actualized in reality.'
Many people have tried to work out direct ways of thinking about John's vision, in imagining an apocalyptic scenario, but I think that the symbolic approach is an extremely helpful way for looking at it.
That statement might be the beam of light to take us out of the wilderness and bring us (back) to the right path.
I agree with @Angelo that better organization, if not on paper at least in our mind, might help. As long as you organize it yourself and don't let others organize it for you, because otherwise you can't tell where you end up.
But in any case, as long as you don't lose sight of the NT compass, you should be just fine.
And really all philosophical explorations are really psychological explorations and expressions.
I illustrated it once for a lark. Those with '666' on their foreheads can't be killed right away, for they have to be tortured for six months or so. Typical made-up human notions of a mean 'God'.
A recurring Biblical theme is of 'God' trying to repair or cull the very nature that He Himself perfectly put into Angels and humans in the first place as intended.
I did art based on the 'Book of Revelation' when I was on an art therapy course. I am better at drawing devils than angels really, and Blake said that Milton was 'in the devil's party without knowing it' because he was better at describing the demonic rather than angelic.
But, the idea of 666 and the idea of the antichrist has been drawn upon so much within heavy metal symbolism. I read Marilyn Manson's autobiography and he said that he went through a stage in which he really thought that he was the Biblical antichrist. However, Manson also read Jung's writings and came to the conclusion that the idea of the antichrist was symbolic. But, I find a lot of Marilyn Manson's music a bit too much to listen to. I prefer a track by The Inspiral Carpets, 'The Beast Inside', which states that, 'A man is no man if he has no beast inside.'
The fact remains that the idea of 666 has been a puzzle for many, with attempts made to equate it with specific individuals, and a lot of superstition around the number. Similarly, there is so much superstition around the idea of the number 13, as Judas was the 13th apostle, and this thread may end on page 13, as symbolically significant. The Book of Revelation has lead to so much speculation, especially with ideas such as the first and second beast.
Speaking of angels, I think they play an important role in Christianity. How would you say they should be interpreted or analyzed philosophically?
And what about the role of prayer and the activities of the apostles and saints?
I found this paper on Philosophical Analysis of Petitionary Prayer quite interesting.
I think that the ideas of angels and demons is extremely interesting indeed. I may end up being accused of going off topic, or even 'tripping' again, but angels and demons is central to the Bible, especially as messengers from God. They figure strongly in both Testaments. In this way, I do believe that they can be seen as figures from the unconscious.
However, some people, including Emmanuel Swedenborg, have thought of the angelic kingdom as an actual realm of existence, including the fall of the angels. I was taught this idea, which definitely has a basis in Milton's writings, but I am not sure if there is much evidence for it in the Bible. I believe that some people think that the account of Genesis describes a 'fall' which implied that human beings were thrown into a different form of existence. I am familiar with the idea of people being thrown into a state of mortality itself, as opposed to immortality in some descriptions of the Biblical story of the fall, connected with eating from the 'tree of knowledge.'
I just looked at the paper you linked in, or part of it, because the text was so small on my phone. What I thought was interesting in was the idea of the hidden. Many think that the idea of the hidden is philosophically ridiculous. In the paper, the idea is that it is 'the powers of darkness' which obscure and make certain aspects appear hidden, which is an unusual slant for thinking about. It reminds me of William Blake: 'If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.'
I think that's exactly it. We may say "doors of perception" or, as Plato does, "instrument or organ of perception":
"It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for by it only is reality beheld (Republic 527d - e).
The way I understand it, the faculty of sight has three basic aspects:
1. Everyday visual perception through the physical organ of sight, i.e. the eye.
2. The inner eye of the mind through which we see things internally as in imagination, dreams, and in particular, lucid dreaming.
3. The eye of the soul, whereby we perceive metaphysical realities.
In reality, it is one and the same organ or faculty operating on different levels of perception.
So, the "door" or "organ" of metaphysical perception, a.k.a. the Platonic "eye of the soul" or "eye of the heart" mentioned in Ephesians 1:18, etc. and of which Augustine and other Church Fathers speak, seems to be what philosophy together with the prayer you have just mentioned aim to cleanse, awaken, train and fortify in order to enable the soul to perceive metaphysical realities.
And chief among these metaphysical realities apart from Ultimate Reality itself, would be the various heavens or realms of spiritual existence together with their inhabitants, viz., the various classes of celestial beings such as the angels.
In 2 Cor 12:2 Paul appears to be referring to a "third heaven" which is the location of what goes by the name of "paradise". And, since presumably, paradise is something that all Christians, including philosophers aim to experience or attain, I think it wouldn't be entirely out of place to look into it and see how it may be understood, analyzed, or explained in philosophical terms. And maybe also look at parallels with Platonic descriptions in the Phaedo and other texts.
(Thanks A, for the other parts of your post) and considering the foregoing quote, what are your thoughts about how the Gnostics were influential in Spiritualism and/or Mysticism? I hate to keep dropping his name, but Davies' posits that thought in the last chapter of his book The Mind of God.… . Meaning, he advances a theory that suggests having revelations in science have something to do with the mystical experience.
Of course, we can analogize to musical genius, and even Einstein's revelations about things that were completely novel at that time...
I'd rather not go into Gnosticism as I hear I am already on the mods' black list and I'm sure some think that this thread isn't something that should have happened in the first place .... :smile:
However, if we take a realistic and pragmatic look at the facts, one thing becomes immediately apparent, namely, that neither philosophy nor science knows what ultimate reality is, and neither of them seems to be making much progress in the direction of finding a definitive answer. The only system that claims to have some idea is mysticism.
Now, if we take the three together, we notice another important fact, which is that in all of them consciousness is of paramount importance.
If you look at something by means of, say, an electronic microscope or some other scientific instrument, you may be able to observe something that may ultimately be reduced to particles or fields of energy as constituents of matter.
Even that observation ultimately depends on a conscious subject in order to be observed. Matter itself ceases to be something solid and strangely transforms itself into something rather immaterial, hard to grasp, pin down or describe. Very much like consciousness itself.
This being the case, it seems reasonable to direct our attention to consciousness, to that on which all experience ultimately depends and, in particular, see if consciousness is able to examine itself and to tell us something about how experience such as perception, comes about. At what point does consciousness make the transition from indeterminate to determinate cognition and how?
I believe that this was what ancient philosophers like Plato aimed to achieve. If consciousness is able to observe and analyze physical and intellectual perception in increasing degrees of subtlety or abstractness, then ultimately, it must be able to observe itself. This is the logical conclusion of the philosophers' dictum "Know thyself".
It is at this point that self-contemplation, i.e., contemplation of consciousness by itself, or "mysticism", comes into the picture and takes over from both science and philosophy. Of course, we still need some science and philosophy, or reason, as an anchor and standard of reference to ensure that the new reality we are experiencing isn't something that takes us where we would rather not go or from where there would be no return.
Poetry, music, dancing, and other creative activities that tend to dislodge consciousness from the strictures of everyday experience seem to take us in the same direction of "rapture" or "ecstasy" which is nothing else than a state of being "outside" ourselves, i.e., outside our normal selves, which logically is the only condition in which consciousness or our innermost self can experience itself instead of other things such as mind, body, and the rest.
But whilst such activities may take us outside ourselves and closer to our goal, it seems that contemplation and meditation are best suited for the purpose of turning our attention inward, and for enabling consciousness to experience itself in direct, self-reflective perception. In meditation the mind ceases to be like a distracting spectacle and becomes like a mirror in which consciousness can see itself and from there progresses to an enlightening act of supreme self-recognition or knowing and being itself in itself.
And this is why Christian mystics have developed contemplation and meditation techniques to enable us to obtain a glimpse of the inner realities of consciousness, such as hesychasm.
Hesychasm - Wikipedia
HESYCHASM: THE PHILOSOPHICAL RATIONALIZATION OF TRANSPERSONAL MYSTIC EXPERIENCE
Thank you for that response, as I will be mondering it and will respond accordingly. However, I did want to quickly acknowledge your disappointment in, say, the fanatical nature of some Atheist behavior on this site (I think it's run by several Atheists but am not positive).
Speaking of which, ever wonder why Atheists like to troll Religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:
Are you really on the mods' black list? I have not abandoned the thread, but just having a breathing space. I am also trying to keep the thread on topic, as someone suggested that there was enough material being discussed for about 6 threads. But, I will look at your link on transpersonal experience, and you are definitely a fan of internet research. I have a number of books on transpersonal philosophy and may even create a thread on it at some point, but I am sure that many may oppose such a thread.
At the moment, I am considering possible areas to add to this thread, rather than remain stuck on difficult page 13. I may find something to add to it tomorrow.
A tale I’ve written, invented, yes, hence
An attempt to unite the Christian pense
With the non-belief, in a middle ground,
Somewhere between mystery and good sense:
With flora mystical and magical,
Eden’s botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.
Thus it’s to Eve that we must give our thanks,
For Earth’s variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers we’ve ever known.
Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not God allowed them His mystery.
When they were banished from His bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Eden’s bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.
Mighty God, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in His name—
So He had no one but Himself to blame!
Yet still He made ready His thunderbolt,
As His Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrong—
But then He felt the joy of life’s new song.
Eve had all the plants that she could carry;
God in His wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.
God held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So He threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.
Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This He gave to Adam and Eve, with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.
From His bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And He be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So He laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.
“So be it,” He said, when time was young,
“That such is the life My design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of Me has sprung—
So let them enjoy all the songs I’ve sung.
“Life was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highs—
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!
“There’s no Devil to blame for their great zest—
This mix of good and bad makes them best!
The human nature that makes them survive,
Also lets them feel very much alive.
“That same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!”
… (flower lore)
– Duino Elegies
Thanks for adding the poem, which adds variety to the thread. Your poem rhymes as well, which is almost unusual these days.
:up: :100:
I was reading through the link on Hesychasm, thank you. Quick question, does that relate to speaking in tongues at all?
The bus has been involved in a crash. I think that I saw a motorbike coming along in the mirror. But, I think that there is only a dent, and no one hurt, and just a few people a bit shaken up.
We seem to have reached highway 14 safely. The bus driver is resting for tonight, and hope all the passengers rest safely.
Indeed Jack. Some passengers seem to live in an interminable state of emotional unrest :joke:
I think that we all could do with a glass of wine really. I am not sure how much further the thread will go, but I do wish to keep it as focused as it can possibly get, rather than Armageddon.
I agree, there was some interesting discussion that just started about Gnosticism. I hope it continues. But the current state of emotion ironically enough, only serves to prove the obvious. And that is, we're all talking about something beyond logic :cool:
THE END OF THE EARTH
(Revelation Revised)
The Asphodel sustains the Dis dwellers,
Where they rest beyond that fatal river—
There the wretched shades drink forgetfulness,
And to oblivion sink without distress.
Charon was withered, wan, and skeletal,
Although eternally grateful for his immortal life
And steady job of ferrying the dead across the river Styx,
In their transition from life to death to forgetfulness.
Fireweed grows from Hell’s sulfurous embers,
As does Purple Loosestrife—dead men’s fingers;
But wildflower air revives the dead—and then
Those happy souls can thrive on Earth again.
As Earth was the only planet he’d come across
With such promising higher life forms,
Charon had grown rather fond of its inhabitants,
Even though he only saw but the worst of them;
But even from that he could extrapolate
To the qualities of the best.
Charon did his job well, professionally,
Although it was ever so dreary,
With the endless darkness of wasted lives
And the grim and gloomy skies all around.
The land always had
That same gray and leaden feel.
He ferried on, though,
For his own life was precious to him.
The soon-to-be really really dead never said much,
For what was there to tell after an empty life
That had often turned to deep regret.
Charon, weathered and worn, rowed them on,
Whose forlorn hopes had been long forgotten—
More amused than enlightened by their ploys—
All too soon be erased in this land of no joys.
Charon did not prompt them for information,
For this was not the thing to do
At the time of their passing,
So he was always most
Courteous and kind to them,
Even to the most evil of the darkest,
Doing his task as well as he could.
It was not that Charon was afraid that
His undersized master of the underworld,
Pluto, might be watching,
But that he had the extreme clarity
To duly serve the task at hand—
A testament to his character.
Charon had been quite alarmed lately—
What with the numbers of the hellish-souls-to-be
Climbing into the millions in such a short time,
But he had been through this kind of rush before
With the doomed and damned of other planets
That had been consumed by their suns
Or had undergone other such catastrophes.
He just used larger boats,
And patiently took his time,
For he had all of Eternity.
Of course,
Charon could and did feel deep sadness,
But he didn’t show it outwardly,
Even when the numbers from Earth
Increased a thousand-fold again.
A few of the now billions of depressed Earthling souls
Had enough energy left to mumble a few words,
And so he was able to glean from them
The latest happenings on Earth.
In 2022, the predicted exponential surge
Of melting ice from global warming
Had quickly inundated all of the coastal cities,
Many of them large centers
Of population and commerce.
Everyone who could possibly make it
Had to retreat inland,
Creating the largest mass exodus in history.
As the heat rose to unbearable levels,
Many had begun living in their basements,
As the Earth’s infrastructure
Began its eventual collapse.
Millions eventually headed north
Towards Canada and Siberia,
But had to retreat when the ice caps totally melted
And formed the great Ocean of the North;
Most of them did not make it.
No one but the ignored physicist mathematicians
Had predicted that the end
Could come into sight so quickly.
Then came the dreaded polar shift
That made global warming seem but a small note
Compared to this new and darker symphony.
The Earth was thrashed with storms
The likes of which it had never seen;
Electricity went out completely all over the world,
But for a few nuclear powered areas that didn’t last.
No one could drive very far,
Even on their last tank of gas,
For the roads had melted,
Along with the tires of the vehicles,
And if the vehicles stopped
They’d find themselves mired
In the meltdown of the asphalt.
Food would no longer grow very well,
Even in once lush gardens,
In the amounts that were needed,
And, as the heat rose further,
Into the 140s, plant growth ceased altogether,
Although a new but rare
And expensive form of food pill
Extended life for some of the rich,
For a short while.
Charon had of course,
Seen much of this kind of thing before,
From the many other solar systems
And galaxies on which life had formed.
Earthlings seemed to have
A special charm and hope
Above and beyond the other alien races.
So he rowed and ferried
And deposited them on the far shore,
His job and life forever continuing
In a place with no color,
No joy, and no future—
On the shore of the land
On the edge of oblivion.
Charon had depths of compassion,
But many passengers might
Have thought him stoic,
Although they were mostly
Beyond this capability.
A sign on the opposite shore said:
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here
Billions more arrived
In the gray land all too soon
And Charon learned that
Either madness or desperation on Earth
Had caused a nuclear winter all over the planet,
Bringing on a deep freeze that few could escape.
Perhaps they were trying
To combat the ultimate heat,
Which would have been
But a cool breeze in Hell.
The polar shift had greatly
Added to the deep freeze.
A few of Charon’s still speaking
But chilled customers
Even expressed a longing
For the legendary warmth of Hades.
Charon, stalwart and reliable, rowed on steadily,
Ever steeling himself to the misery.
Finally the masses slowed and dwindled
To a few dribs and drabs over a few years
And then there was no one for several years.
A lone man appeared on the shore near the ferry dock,
And Charon readily approached the man,
Something he had never done before.
They had a long and hearty talk,
For the man was animated
And not at all like any of the other wretched souls.
“How is it,” inquired Charon,
“That you are full of life and seem to be a good man
But have been sent here?”
“I am not a bad person in any way,” the man replied.
“Actually, I just spent some time in Heaven.
“I found out there that my sweetheart
Was sent here to you, for she was a suicide
And so was destined here;
However, I had promised
To be with her forever,
So I chose this place
Over Heaven out of my love for her.”
“Extraordinary,” exclaimed Charon.
“I knew the Earth had
A few good men and women;
I’ve not seen very many clues
Of that elsewhere in the universe.
"Did you colonize space—
Will your species continue and flourish
After your Earth bids farewell?”
“I’m afraid not,” replied the man,
For too many needless wars intervened
And this greatly delayed our space program.”
“A shame,” said Charon,
But is there any hope left on Earth,
I mean, are there any others still about?”
“I am the last,” the man answered slowly.
The first tear of Charon’s long life
Rolled down his cheek;
Nothing had ever made him cry before:
Nothing had ever made him weep.
(Rewritten from Lord Dunsany’s brief sketch)
I think that Gnostism is an interesting part of the debate. But, while there is serious debate, I think that we need to keep a certain amount of humour. On one of the threads of yours, which Baden said had turned into a circus, I thought that there was a funny side. Reading your discussion with various people was like the verses and Tim's as the chorus. But, I don't know if anyone else sees the funny side. But, we will see what happens on the magic bus next, because I think that philosophy is meant to be part fun as well as heavy exploration.
I think that could be a song for the end of todays journeying!
I agree, conversely, some Athiest's here are not able to escape their emotional angst, hence:
Ever wonder why Atheists like to troll Religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:
It makes me wonder about internet exchange because I know atheists and religious people who can spend time interacting. But, I will try to put in an entry tomorrow on Gnostic ideas, but I don't know if the bus will ride safely if everyone is in such heated conflict. We will wait and see, now that we have passed highway 13, and hope that we don't enter into apocalypse and post-apocalyptic wilderness.
In the paraphrased words of the sages from the Wisdom Books/The Book of Ecclesiastes (since this thread is about Bible philosophy and ironically the existential angst rearing its head) : The vanity of vanities. This too is nothing new under the sun.
Well, I'm a haint hoboing along Highway 61 with old hellhounds on my trail ... :fire:
:cool:
Hahaha! I tried your 180 proof medication, but that only led to more existential angst :razz:
Put in a quarter and try again my friend :joke:
I logged out once, but I am back. Obviously, you don't have to join the bus but I do try to see the lighter side of it all. I have my dark moments but I try to not take it too seriously, or myself too seriously, even if I do have my trippy 'psychonaut' days. As far as I can see we need some Doors' songs playing in the background for our journey, and theists and atheists all welcome aboard. I have a rather surreal sense of humour and, of course, I am a bit of a dreamer.
Goodnight to you and everyone else!
PDF:
https://austintorney.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/book-of-revelation-150-dpi.pdf
Thanks for the link and I will look at it tomorrow.
As previously stated, paradise being the ultimate goal of Christian religion and philosophy, it may be useful to see how beliefs about paradise can be analyzed in philosophical terms.
Questions about human life in paradise that span the spectrum of the major subfields of philosophical inquiry, include:
Will human persons in paradise be infallible or omniscient?
Which virtues might they possess, and will they grow in their possession of virtue?
What does justice require regarding who inhabits paradise?
How can bodily resurrection be secured?
What sort of free will might inhabitants of paradise possess?
Would the life of paradise be good or desirable?
Paradise Understood: New Philosophical Essays about Life in Heaven
But I would say that traditional descriptions of paradise also need to be taken into account.
The ancient Egyptians believed that the soul resides in the heart and so, upon death, each human heart is weighed on a giant scale against Righteousness (Maat, represented by an ostrich feather). The righteous souls who balance the scales are allowed to proceed on the journey to the Field of Reeds, where they will enjoy a happy existence for all eternity. Souls burdened by evil tip and fall into the jaws of death (represented by a crocodile-like demon), after which they are doomed to a restless life in the underworld. Paradise was usually located in the east where the Sun rises and described as boundless reed fields, like those of the earthly Nile Delta, or a series of islands covered in fields of rushes.
Aaru - Wikipedia
Greek religion had a rather similar conception of paradise, with a judgement taking place after death, following which righteous souls enjoyed a happy existence in paradise whereas the unrighteous were condemned to a shadowy life in the underworld. Interestingly, the Greek paradise was located in the Elysian Fields or Isles of the Blessed in the western ocean at the edge of the world, i.e., where the sun sets, not in the east where the sun rises as in Egyptian tradition.
In any case, the Greek paradise is described as a place abounding in shady trees watered by pure streams, where the blessed enjoyed musical and other pleasant pastimes. The Greek word ??????????? paradeisos which was used in the Greek version of the OT for the Garden of Eden, is of Persian origin and referred to a green park or pleasure-ground as those maintained by Persian kings.
So, the Greek paradise seems to be a blend of several traditions, and the same seems to apply to paradise in the Jewish tradition according to which the righteous will be seated at golden tables and take part in food, drink, and other enjoyments (Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 25a, Kethuboth 77b, Berakoth 57b).
The Islamic paradise seems to follow the same pattern and, interestingly, the Koran in addition to Arabic janna also uses the term ????????? firdaws which is the same as Greek paradeisos but apparently is borrowed directly from Persian, which again, suggests a blend of traditions that were dominant in the Mid East at the time.
In Christianity, paradise appears to be treated somewhat differently. Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) and NT descriptions of afterlife evoke the image of a wedding feast (parables in Matt 22:2 – 14 and 25:1 – 13). Similar statements include “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God” (Luke 14:15) and “Many will come from the east and the west and shall sit down (at table) in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 8:11).
St Paul is a bit of a spoilsport by appearing to contradict this by stating that “the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink”, and St Augustine (City of God) follows Paul by rejecting the popular view of paradise where souls participate in various forms of enjoyment. Though he refuses to explain his reasons.
My personal feeling is that both Paul and Augustine are hiding something. In the first place, paradise is, by definition, a place of happiness. As suggested by Paul, there is a hierarchy of heavens and this logically implies a hierarchy of happy experiences. This makes it probable that, depending on individual spiritual development and needs, ordinary souls may indulge in ordinary enjoyments such as food and drink, whereas the more evolved ones would engage in more intellectually and spiritually satisfying activities such as philosophizing, singing hymns, meditating, etc.
Of particular interest in my view would be conversing with Angels. (And seeing if Socrates, Plato, and other prominent philosophers are there, too).
I am totally dumbfounded that pagan Europe fell for this Semetic text (Semetic = middle eastern)! Now you got total knuckle draggers Believen that people of European decent are SONS Of ABRAHAM!! This is the biggest shim sham in the universe.. ancient Europeans acknowledged duality and natural forces. Pagans were not ASHAMED of their sexuality (a gift of nature) and realized man must live WITH NATURE (not “King of it”). Abrahamic religion teaches you to feel GUILTY because you have inborn urges.
I can go on and on. But, in order for humans to make the next big leap in evolution, humans must shed these fake clothes and look at TRUE HISTORY. How can you know your future if you don’t know your (True) past!!!!
This is an excellent post.
To add,zarathustra and zorastranism have similiar concepts of monotheism,judgement and paradise.
And some versions of buddhism especially pure land buddhism have a shambolic land of paradise after death.
Would be interesting to hear what hinduism says about these things.
Every culture has an afterlife and paradise narratives.
That's not for nothing!
The idea of paradise, or heaven is interesting but I always wondered to what extent the idea makes sense in terms of a place, or as a kingdom within. You may find my own juxtaposition of ideas as being a little bit odd, but I went to Christian groups, in which people were speaking of meals they would have after the resurrection at the end of the world. In contrast, I am familiar with psyche rock music, like that of Roky Erikson and the Thirteen Elevators and the track by The Psychedelic Furs, which says 'heaven is the home of all hearts'. Perhaps, I am drawing out caricatures of the idea of paradise and heaven, but I do feel a bit puzzled as to how much it is an idea to be established on earth, or as a state of mind.
My Bible:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11248/how-do-we-think-about-the-bible-from-a-philosophical-point-of-view/latest/comment
You don't own the Bible, the Bible owns you if you want to sell yourself to it
The post had a wrong link; here is the right one to the Bible I produced:
https://austintorney.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/bibnew-small-11.25-jpg-150-dpi.pdf
I just opened the links you put, and saw the fantastic artwork. You have said that you do all your art with Photoshop, and don't do any drawing or painting. That is amazing. I have only experimented a little with computer art, preferring do do drawing, but certainly your way has true results, and it does seem that it must come from real inspiration.
So, I recommend anyone who is reading this thread to open PoeticUniverse's links to unveil some wonderful art.
Apart from looking at your art in the link that you provided, I began reading what you have written in the book which you have created. It is a fair amount to read, so I will write a fuller reply in the next couple of days. I hope that others will access your book in the link above, but it may allow for some further discussion. Actually, the thought that this thread had faded about a week ago, so I was rather surprised when it popped up again a couple of days ago. I have also found another book which is relevant for the discussion, which I will read and speak about too.