Philosophy versus True Religion

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The apostle John said that Jesus Christ is the "true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9), and, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). Therefore, I am not claiming that you are void of the knowledge of Christ, indeed every man enters this world with a portion of His light. The point I'm making ...[text shortened]... life, and that it is a shame to never arrive at the full knowledge of the Truth.

I know you think that. But I, of course, don't believe the bible is the word of a divine being; I don't believe that every man enters the world with a "portion of light", or indeed that there is such a light. I simply see no compelling evidence for such a thing, insofar as I can make sense of it.

And you may think that this is arrogance or prejudice on my part. But the question is: do you have any arguments available that don't assume that god exists, and the Bible is god's word, and that this should be self-evident to someone with an open heart? I suspect not.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay. That goes to the caveat I gave to Kirksey. If you are going to use the name Jesus as synonymous with the pre-existing Logos/Son, then I understand where you are coming from. I tend to use it differently, but both usages seem to have a long tradition in Christian writings. One could say, in terms of the dual-nature, that I tend to use the name Jesus ...[text shortened]... s in the midst of argument.

I frankly only find Chalcedonian Christology really interesting.

i wonder what jesus would have made of your pretentious b.s.? his closest disciples were illiterate fishermen, despised tax collectors for the romans, and so on. he mixed with lepers and prostitutes. he held the scribes and the pharisees in contempt.

paul is responsible for the eventual intellectualisation of christianity, and so no-one has done more for the devil's cause. it was not god that blinded saul on the road to damascus, it was satan.

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
i wonder what jesus would have made of your pretentious b.s.? his closest disciples were illiterate fishermen, despised tax collectors for the romans, and so on. he mixed with lepers and prostitutes. he held the scribes and the pharisees in contempt.

paul is responsible for the eventual intellectualisation of christianity, and so no-one has done more for the devil's cause. it was not god that blinded saul on the road to damascus, it was satan.

Interesting. I think you would have to include the gospels of Matthew, Luke and (perhaps especially) John in there too; they are highly accomplished literary works. I don't know how literate Jesus was, but according to at least one gospel, he could read a Torah scroll (unpointed Hebrew), apparently knew Aramaic and likely Greek as well.

So, in order to ban intellectual pretentiousness, we throw out the gospels except for Mark; we throw out Paul (and Acts and the letter to the Hebrews as well, surely); Revelation surely has to go (I’m certainly alright with that).

That leaves Mark, and the letters of James and Peter (and maybe John). Are there any writings in the Tanach that you find too intellectually pretentious?

I’m game: I’m not personally that particularly attached to any of it.

Originally posted by vistesd
Interesting. I think you would have to include the gospels of Matthew, Luke and (perhaps especially) John in there too; they are highly accomplished literary works. I don't know how literate Jesus was, but according to at least one gospel, he could read a Torah scroll (unpointed Hebrew), apparently knew Aramaic and likely Greek as well.

So, in order to ...[text shortened]... ectually pretentious?

I’m game: I’m not personally that particularly attached to any of it.

Sounds like a good old fashion book burning.

Hmm, what other historical figures liked to burn books? 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Sounds like a good old fashion book burning.

Hmm, what other historical figures liked to burn books? 😉

Please take my post in context with the one I was replying to.

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
i wonder what jesus would have made of your pretentious b.s.? his closest disciples were illiterate fishermen, despised tax collectors for the romans, and so on. he mixed with lepers and prostitutes. he held the scribes and the pharisees in contempt.

paul is responsible for the eventual intellectualisation of christianity, and so no-one has done more for the devil's cause. it was not god that blinded saul on the road to damascus, it was satan.

You're obviously not very familiar with vistesd's posting history, or you wouldn't have made such a baseless and stupid claim.

And do you really think that Jesus recruited his disciples because they were illiterate?

Originally posted by vistesd
Interesting. I think you would have to include the gospels of Matthew, Luke and (perhaps especially) John in there too; they are highly accomplished literary works. I don't know how literate Jesus was, but according to at least one gospel, he could read a Torah scroll (unpointed Hebrew), apparently knew Aramaic and likely Greek as well.

So, in order to ...[text shortened]... ectually pretentious?

I’m game: I’m not personally that particularly attached to any of it.

well, why not just throw the whole lot out? once you get rid of the intellectual bits, it's just mystical mumbo-jumbo (I'd put Revelations in that category, myself) and some ethics of mixed value. but the good bits of the ethics you can get just as well on secular grounds a la Kant. i'm not sure that the Kantian project of grounding ethics in rationality is sound, but it has to be better than grounding it in mysticism.

And i wouldn't count the gospels as intellectualisations, insofar as they purport to be a record of events in the life of JC. The process i am talking about largely occurred because of the contact with Greek philosophy, particularly neo-Platonism.

BTW, i didn't mean to single you out, vistesd - i was really complaining about all who posted in a similar vein here.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
YAnd do you really think that Jesus recruited his disciples because they were illiterate?

I didn't claim that he recruited his disciples BECAUSE they were illiterate - but since you raise the point, I think his teachings would have appealed most to those in the lower socio-economic strata, and these would have tended to be less educated. It would have been those who missed out in this world that the promise of happiness in the next would most have appealed to.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================

Just answer the question and stop being an obnoxious child. Or admit that you have no answer and stop calling Jesus the "Son of God".
==========================================


Read my lips. I CHOOSE not to talk with you.

If you want to break your arm patting yourself on the back that yo ...[text shortened]... Now, tell us how that is all Witness Lee's fault and run along and troll with someone else.[/b]

So much for phony apologies; another obnoxious, "Christian" jerk.

No one forced you to respond to my original post in the first place. Obviously you don't like questions very much esp. ones you can't answer.

BTW, the one trolling here is you as you are not addressing the issues raised in the thread while I am.

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
I didn't claim that he recruited his disciples BECAUSE they were illiterate - but since you raise the point, I think his teachings would have appealed most to those in the lower socio-economic strata, and these would have tended to be less educated. It would have been those who missed out in this world that the promise of happiness in the next would most have appealed to.

So why did he bother debating the Pharisees and Saducees? Was it just to impress the unwashed masses?

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
well, why not just throw the whole lot out? once you get rid of the intellectual bits, it's just mystical mumbo-jumbo (I'd put Revelations in that category, myself) and some ethics of mixed value. but the good bits of the ethics you can get just as well on secular grounds a la Kant. i'm not sure that the Kantian project of grounding ethics in rationality ...[text shortened]... le you out, vistesd - i was really complaining about all who posted in a similar vein here.

Okay, Iron Monkey, I will not let you hanging—

I am, in point of fact, a Zennist. However the so-called “perennial philosophy” does find its expression in other religious/philosophical paradigms (from the relatively simple to the relatively complex). I am also, as I posted earlier here, a student of comparative religion.

I do not use the word “mystical” in the same way you do, but because of confusion, I do not use the word very much at all. When I do, it has nothing to do with the supernatural, the occult, etc.—but has a kind of “technical definition” (pretty well-recognized in the literature, if not in conventional discourse) that, in my own Zen terms, has to do with clear-mind awareness of reality just-as-it-is, before thinking about it at all.

I don’t talk about ethics much at all on here, whether Kantian deontology or Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, Iron Monkey, I will not let you hanging—

I am, in point of fact, a Zennist. However the so-called “perennial philosophy” does find its expression in other religious/philosophical paradigms (from the relatively simple to the relatively complex). I am also, as I posted earlier here, a student of comparative religion.

I do not use the word “mystic ...[text shortened]... ics much at all on here, whether Kantian deontology or Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Be well.

well, my zennist friend, you won't find enlightenment this way. better go find yourself a grumpy abbott to whack you over the head with his staff at just the right moment.

Originally posted by Iron Monkey
well, my zennist friend, you won't find enlightenment this way. better go find yourself a grumpy abbott to whack you over the head with his staff at just the right moment.

LOL! Nicely put.

I dislike the word “enlightenment,” because it seems to cause a great deal of confusion. So—

When a fisherman attains realization, does he cease to be a fisherman? When a mathematician gets whacked by her roshi into an experience of kensho, does she now cease to do mathematics? How about a philosopher? How about someone like D.T. Suzuki? Dogen Zenji?

It is not different from the old Zen saying: “Before satori, chop wood, carry water; after satori, chop wood, carry water.” (I do those activities, too.) But not to get lost again—that is particularly difficult with intellectual play in the world of maya. I grant you that entirely. The world of maya still is; but one also sees through it, becomes aware of the ground as well as the transient manifestations, including this somebody-self-construct called “I”.

Before all these makings of the mind—
thoughts, concepts, theories, symbols and names—
know the one you originally are,
and the myriad makings of the mind
for what they also are; and you can play
in the forest of maya as you will,
without getting lost along the way.

Or—

What you’re looking for is what you’re looking with.
Once you intimately know that
in the marrow of your marrow,
you can still look into whatever you wish.