question bible philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

pilgrimshost
 
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 10:46 pm
@boagie,
Ha, I dont believe the bible at all as such, and I'm not at all a practicing Christian. Once was but not anymore. My view of religion is a divisional tool, that has a 'wall' of dogma which separates itself from infinite progression in whatever area and conflict with any (even themselves) that dont understand the bible the same way they've misinterpreted it.

You dont need to be picky with my statements, this is all in good spirits:)

Major areas of the bible I would say can be taken literally, but as Ive also stated there are areas such as the 'begets' which are in clear error (with too much external conflicting evidence, its indisputable) I would say, which by default also makes the entire Adam and Eve saga some what bollox.

The Bibles early stories which predate Ezra's compilation of the books of the Pentateuch have extensively drawn from other earlier traditions and stories which can be recorded in the earliest civilizations on earth, such as the story of the Ark (noah's), wings on angels, the Nephilim etc. So I would say that the 'mystical' and 'symbolic' are just as relevant because it adds to the bigger picture when their explanations are revealed. There are many such things in the bible, but their interpretation holds the key!
 
boagie
 
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 08:55 am
@pilgrimshost,
Pilgrimshost,

It would seem we are not far apart in our thinking after all.

"Major areas of the bible I would say can be taken literally, but as Ive also stated there are areas such as the 'begets' which are in clear error (with too much external conflicting evidence, its indisputable) I would say, which by default also makes the entire Adam and Eve saga some what bollox."

This is the aspect I was thinking about,do you have to throw out this little story of the garden,I think if you interperet it literally yes,it would be the reasonable thing to do.If the story is read symbolically there is no reason to throw it out.In the garden there is no duality,all is oneness and that is eden,a bite of the apple smashes that reality and now you have all the pairs of opposites,the world is now a duality and God places guards in the enterance to Eden[oneness-non-duality] to insure you do not return.

Funny the eastern traditions focus on the oneness and infer duality is but illusion.The Christians are proud they know the world is duality,and as such more amiable to the judgement of good and evil.Most Christians I find do not know what eden represented,indeed when I started speaking to a friend of mine about non-duality he laughed at it,belongs to some foreign primitive religion he thought.

"The Bibles early stories which predate Ezra's compilation of the books of the Pentateuch have extensively drawn from other earlier traditions and stories which can be recorded in the earliest civilizations on earth, such as the story of the Ark (noah's), wings on angels, the Nephilim etc. So I would say that the 'mystical' and 'symbolic' are just as relevant because it adds to the bigger picture when their explanations are revealed. There are many such things in the bible, but their interpretation holds the key![/quote]"

Yes the bible is very poetic,full of symbolic metaphor,and if read as such a little more accommadating to reason.
 
Baloo72
 
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:13 pm
@boagie,
I am pretty new to philosophy and to this forum, so here's my two cents. Smile

concerning the first post: I do believe that the Bible is truth.

concerning posts 6 & 7: I believe that Matthew 7:15 - 20 is what you were referring to. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." I believe that this passage is not referring to people who proclaim that they are holy, and are inwardly as ravenous wolves. I see this passage as saying that we should look very closely at our teachers and preachers. We will know them by their fruit. Matthew 6:5-6 talks about the people that "like to do good works to be seen by others rather than to serve god": "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For thy love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men."

Concerning post 10: Paul did spend some time discussing philosophy with the Athenians. This account is recorded in Acts 17:16 - 34. Paul was also a follower of Christ.

Concerning post 12: I believe that faith is rational. I have faith, if blind faith, that this chair I am sitting in will hold me up. I believe that the people I talk to are really people that are there, and not figments of my imagination. Faith is a very necessary part of life. The question is who or what your faith is in. I attempt to make rational decisions. There are times that I don't, but then again, everyone has made irrational decisions. Your statement: "I suspect it would hold true that those whom tend to believe are the ones who in general make their decisions on an emotion bases.If this is true,it truely is futile to attempt a rational dialogue with someone whom functions on this level,if they admitted the reality of this possiablity their whole world would unravel." is completely based on speculation. The farther I read into this statement, the more ifs there are. Is making claims on speculation a rational process?
Concerning the PS: Paul did not get laughed out of Athens. The Athenians had a temple built to the unknown god. Their polytheistic society did not want to leave out any of the gods that they might have forgotten. Through the unknown god, Paul proclaims the message of Jesus to the Athenians at the Areopagus. "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, 'We will hear you again on this matter.' So Paul departed from among them. However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

Concerning post 14: I agree that we should not interpret the Bible completely literally. But other parts of it should be interpreted literally. We must take what we are reading into context.

Concerning post 20: Please do not take this as religious spam.

Concerning post 21: "So I would say that the 'mystical' and 'symbolic' are just as relevant because it adds to the bigger picture when their explanations are revealed." I agree with this statement.

Please do not be angry with anything I have said, it is just my opinion. Again, please do not take this as religious spam. Sorry that this was so long.
 
Justin
 
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:53 pm
@Baloo72,
Welcome to the Philosophy Forum Baloo72.

This is certainly not spam. This forum is here for you to speak what's on your mind or in your heart so please do continue.

I have read through these posts and there is a very interesting subject actually because the Bible is a very important part of history and future.

My thoughts on the Bible are very simple. First of all, I consider the Bible to be somewhat of a historical document of times past. Although there are many stories in the Bible to read, I feel the most important of all is that of the story of Jesus. His life story and his message that I interpret are that we sons of man understand that we are sons of God and God is within thee. Like the footprints in the sand. In my opinion, the one and only true message in the Bible is the message of Jesus Christ. In all technicality I feel that if you removed all other content from the Bible and just captured the word of Christ, it would provide all there is to know about eternity. While all the other stories in the Bible are fantastic and great stories, the only one that really rings true is the story of Jesus.

I look forward to discussing this in more depth.
 
Dexter78
 
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 09:18 am
@Justin,
I've noticed that the statements that the Bible is truth are proceeded by the words "I believe", which I think is a close as one can get to saying if the Bible is truth or not. Personally, I do not believe in any of the supernatural events in the Bible, but I do think that there are parts that contain some good moral principles. Since these issues deal with morality, which has no ultimate absolute, I would say the Bible is philosophy.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 04:10 pm
@Dexter78,
Hello all,

It seems to me that belief has no relation to truth,because I believe,fill in the blank,means nothing,A great many things are believed, obviously it is no insurance that the belief concurs with reality.As far as Christianity being a philosophy,that is really stretching it,philosophy appeals to reason,religion appeals to faith.

When one becomes a born again Christian one is asked to take a leap of faith,in other words,to leave reason behind or leave it out.A leap of faith is NOT a rational process.So religion as philosophy is a fraud,philosophy as religion too,would be a fraud.Perhaps the Hindu faith would qualify however,Hinduism is interpreted on a psychological level,embraceing reason,this it could be said,is philosophy,but a religon embraceing reason-----------its the devils work don't you know.Wink
 
Baloo72
 
Reply Mon 14 May, 2007 09:28 pm
@boagie,
Sorry I haven't had time to post for a long time, I have been very busy. But just to continue this discussion, I would like more information on Hinduism. I do not know very much about it. Also I may have implied, but shouldn't have, that religion could be a philosophy, or philosophy be a religion. I did not intend to imply that.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 15 May, 2007 05:30 am
@Baloo72,
Baloo,Smile

Hinduism is perhaps the most ancient religion,I believe its origins are lost in time.Perhaps someone out there could jump in here,as my own knowledge is quite limited.The two forms of text available on it are the vedas and the Upanishads,the most well known of the Upanishads is called,"bhagavad gita," in english it means,"The Way It Is".It is a summation of points covered in early Upanishads--and very enlightening.PS: A bit of a difficult read with all the indian names.Don't worry about what you might have implied,no offense intended and none is taken.One difference to be observed between philosophy and religion might be in the fact that philosophy loves to be challenged,where religion,at least Christianity,is offended by close observation. :eek:

Baloo,glad your back!!
 
Katherine phil
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 09:53 am
@boagie,
I don't like 'religion' either. Been burned by it and have seen people continue to believe ridiculous ideas because they were so strict in it. But a relationship with God has been the most amazing and transforming experience of my life! I read the Bible because it has revealed truth to me in such powerful ways. Truth (I'm a Christian, this is my belief) and philosophy can mix to some degree, I guess. But ultimately if you aren't reading the Bible in submission to God and by His power, aren't you reading in judgement of it? Not in a terribly negative way, but if you come to God with your own ideas of truth, you will not be open to the transforming power that comes from being exposed to the understanding that the Bible reveals.

Now, reason is a gift from God. But I believe the ultimate benefit from that gift is to seek God. I have also noticed in my own walk that seeking God and seeking 'knowledge' will lead you down different paths. But that is a whole 'nother thread. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

A leap of faith, as Boagie said, is not a rational process at all. But what happens is that when we take those leaps (sometimes even baby steps) we begin to see the faithfulness of God, become more convinced than ever of His power and love, which gives us the rational conclusion that God is real, and you can trust Him, and the ultimate result is you are so much better for it that you do it again!
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 10:54 am
@Katherine phil,
Kathrine,Smile

A believer,if indeed he/her does believe without evidence in a god, in my opionion has entered an altered state, an as if state,a pretend state and magic is indeed part of the above formula.One cannot deny that most often such supportive beliefs are good for the individual,who has with some effort escaped reality.Today I think it apparent the world can nolonger afford such mass delusions,these warring mythologies appear to be a threat to all the world.
 
Katherine phil
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 11:17 am
@boagie,
Hey Boagie,

The ultimate difference between our ideologies is that I believe the spiritual realm to be the ultimate reality, whereas you believe it to be the ultimate fantasy.

With the exception of the radical fringe--I say that as a Bible-believing, Holy Spirit baptized, sold-out follower of Jesus Christ Wink --and those who claim to be believers but have not truly accepted the authority of God in their lives, no one can grow in Christ without evidence not only of God, but of His faithfulness and concern over our lives.

Our faith and obedience grow incrementally. We recognize a need, make a tiny step of obedience, then see the results that build our faith. Then we are able to take bigger steps of faith, see bigger results and our faith grows even greater! I would not be a Christian if God hadn't proven Himself to me over and over and over and continually so.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 12:07 pm
@Katherine phil,
Kartherine,

You are quite right,it is a good summation ultimate reality,ultimate fantasy.Actually the process that you discribe,from your discription,one would then think it a proveable connection-------which I have no doubt is not the case.I am serious about such supportive beliefs being good for the individual,unfortunately it is not good for the collective or the world at large.However you are on the winning side, at least in the United States,it truely is god's country,were religionpolitics govern,it is the American Taliban.
 
Katherine phil
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 12:26 pm
@boagie,
Well, at least we have reached some common ground on an individual level. Smile I wonder if you think any person can benefit from such an experience on an individual level if the experience expressed proved to be true?

The problem we deal with on a large scale basis is that we are watching the heightening conflict between opposing spiritual kingdoms. It is wrongly interpreted as religion vs. religion. When in actuality it is Christ vs. the prince of the world. The spiritual kingdom in charge of the world produces destruction. Humanism is the sin of idolatry. We have just made ourselves and our own intellect the idol. It is of the kingdom of the world as much as any other spiritual opposition to God.

The Spiritual Kingdom of Christ brings restoration. Our only hope is Christ. While Christ is winning His people with love and restoration, the opposing kingdom is winning their people with oppresion, conflict and force. You say I am on the winning team--yes, ultimately but that time has not yet come.
 
Katherine phil
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 12:30 pm
@Katherine phil,
Let me go ahead and save you a post . . .

Iraq was a rescue mission and the purpose of the United States is restoration. There is a spirit that opposes the restoration of that country, but it is not the US who is spending 'grazillions' of dollars and American lives to do so.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 12:39 pm
@Katherine phil,
Katherine,Smile

Yes,I do not believe further dialogue would be fruitful for either of us,but as I said in my welcome to you,this place is overflowing with Christians.Good luck and enjoy yourself.Katherine it is nothing personal as you might imagine I have had many many dialogues with Christians in the time I have been here,I do believe I have heard all.

"Well, at least we have reached some common ground on an individual level. Smile I wonder if you think any person would ever benefit from such an experience on an individual level if the experience expressed proved to be true? "

My point would be that it is not necessary for it to be true to have a postive effect,it is much more comforting to believe than not to believe.
 
Katherine phil
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 12:46 pm
@boagie,
**pout**

I was having fun . . . Sad

Thank you for the welcome. And the restraint on Iraq Very Happy
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 01:35 pm
@cut2thepoint,
How did the idea of the original post turn into the war in Iraq???

I really have to read this one now.
 
SU37TERMINATOR
 
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 05:25 pm
@cut2thepoint,
hmm well any religion is a philosophy, its all belief. and followers of the religion will believe it is truth.

personally, the bible is not truth i know that, because it doesnt make sense, and somethings are unnecessarily stated.

for example "i am the only God...dont worship any other God..." its like what the...?

second, its funny to notice that christians have to say "thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal," etc etc, whereas in hinduism, bhuddism, and othr religions, those things come naturally, and they are not stated. just follow teh religion and these things are included.

i am hindu. we believe that "God is", that everything u see in teh world is a manifestation of God, in different forms of course. if u think of it that way, then u can ruleout this intelligent design and evolution crap. we see it as just a change in form. for example, clay is turned into a pot. yet however, it is still clay, just in a different form. u cannot see the pot without seeing the clay, it is impossible (unless of course it was made up of a different material o_O )

but yeah, thats our philosophy, and like to think of it as true. hehe
 
karmapolice
 
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 12:47 am
@SU37TERMINATOR,
Boagie,

How are you certain of God's non-existence?
 
Baloo72
 
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:45 pm
@cut2thepoint,
Sorry to be blunt, but I'm pressed for time.

"second, its funny to notice that christians have to say "thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal," etc etc, whereas in hinduism, bhuddism, and othr religions, those things come naturally, and they are not stated. just follow teh religion and these things are included."

Will you please explain more about what you mean "just follow teh religion and these things are included." I have not studied other religions extensively, and so I am ignorant of the major parts of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Also, in the Bible, when God says that he is the only God, he is saying the only true God. He is not just a pagan idol. That is what it means when it says don't follow other gods: gods that other people follow. Just because someone follows it doesn't make it true. Thanks.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:24:40