I would like to expound a little on what it means by scriptural teachings are 'a journey of the heart, not of the mind'.

A journey of the heart refers to developing understanding (or wisdom) which becomes a part of one's life-activity. It is different from a journey of the mind which refers to mental exercises or reason, which in itself is a necessary process towards understanding but not as definitive or comprehensive. This is because reason can differ with circumstances even when the underlying motive is the same.

For example, in the bible, the disciples come to Jesus and tell him of people who've been playing at casting out demons and providing healing in the name of God but they don't seem to be of the same spiritual 'school' as Jesus. So they ask Jesus if they (the pretenders) should be rebuked and he (Jesus) denies their request. The reason for that is later seen when the pretenders meet actual demons and they suffer the consequences of their ineptness. They had managed to replicate actions which reflected certain spiritual connotations but because their faith was not developed (through understanding) their actions could not match up to their intentions. Hence, they were more of conmen than men of God. Jesus saw through their hearts and must have seen that they deceived themselves just as the others (if they did not deceive themselves, they would not have thought to face real demons) and knew that the best remedy was a dose of reality. That reality being that, activity was derived from a corresponding degree of faith (understanding).

To develop the heart (understanding/wisdom), one must be willing to sacrifice time and effort. It is not enough to think and to feel, one must do. And all these parameters take time to mature into significant endeavours, which is why Jesus took his time educating the disciples until he knew that they were ready. And he taught them how to evaluate themselves to know when they would be ready and gave them instructions on what to do and how to go about it.

Also, I think that, as humans, we're always feeling and thinking simultaneously and there is no mastery to be achieved by denying any one in favour of the other. Such an endeavour can only lead to suffering due to an imbalance.

That is not a journey of the mind, it is a journey of the heart. — Rank Amateur

Agreed.

And here is the most important part, than listen to what we are feeling - not thinking - feeling. — Rank Amateur

This is more an emotional journey, than a cerebral one. — Rank Amateur

This, as I have discovered in my investigations, is the kind of notion that leads to bias. In my opinion, the bible teachings demand both right feeling and right thinking. Not one or the other.

I agree with you. I share the same sentiment because I often think what people misjudge as contradictions and inconsistencies easily fade away with the right context.

When siting a verse you at least need to understand the entire chapter. In some cases you may also need the chapters before and after it — hachit

And, do you take the literal or direct translation or do you factor in indirect statements which use some symbolism or infer a larger context than may be expressed in the meaning of a singular word?

If I were forced to chose just one figure from Western history whom I felt exemplified the spirit of Western culture in what was closest to its most pure form — johnGould

I would just like to share my opinion for future consideration (if you would indulge me) - Emanuel Swedenborg. He seems to have had two lives, the first incarnation as a marquee man of science, and the second as a confidante of the heavenly host of angels. Unfortunately, only his spiritual writings seem to have survived intact. Ábout his scientific works, I can only find brief incomplete text references and a few honourable mentions, e.g. http://www.nsbcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Emanuel-Swedenborg.pdf,
or http://spiritualfrontier.org/essci.html

Also, Ralph Waldo Emerson gives a wonderful account of Swedenborg in his 'Representative Men'.


And I heartily appreciate your delineation of the western civilisation/culture. It is very interesting.

This what the bible actually says in Exodus 20:5

" I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." — Andrew4Handel

It's not about a literal translation. Coz then God would be no better than a human when He succumbs to jealousy. The whole statement from which that part is captioned is about God being distinguished from all others. I have read translations which say that the word 'jealous' isn't exactly right since the true meaning should imply that God sets Himself apart from others (in terms of being unlimited).
The part about generations refers to cultural heritage and how it is passed down from parent to progeny. Otherwise, why would God assume that the third and fourth generation would hate him. Or why won't God punish the fifth and sixth generations? It just refers to how negativity are passed down to the succeeding generations who end up suffering because of the mistakes or lack of due diligence of their predecessors in making things right. It also goes on to say that God would show love to a thousand generations of those who love him. I think that's pretty clearly symbolic language. It just means that for those who live right the world is your oyster. The word 'thousand' just implies an unspecific and long amount of time kinda like how we now use 'gazillion'.

The difference between Moses and Ezekiel (and other prophets and leaders in the Bible) is the means they had to achieve their goals which also reflected greatly in the directives they gave to the masses. Moses was trying to instill the 'fear' of the Lord or Law in them (because they were developing their own nation or government) and that was the language he used to express how important obedience was. At the time of Ezekiel, there was a lot of misunderstandings concerning the Mosaic law and there was also influence from the babylonians which means there was outside influence questioning the logic of the israelites culture and religions. So, there was a need to show the israelites what God's justice looked like on a personal basis instead of the outrageous (in the sense that it was meant to coerce through force of emotion instead of understanding) interpretation they had derived from the mosaic laws. And this is something that was often repeated by other prophets including Jesus.

So that is:

- It's a number
AND
- It's greater than any number

The two are contradictory. — Devans99

I think you've created the contradiction. From the definition you've given, the summation should be:
- It's a number
AND
- It's greater than any other number.

It is not a few contradictions it is numerous contradictions on key doctrines which make it totally incoherent. — Andrew4Handel

I think people have an inclination towards laziness. They want those leaders to do everything for them. But as king Solomon says in proverbs, "a person gains wisdom for themselves" (paraphrasing). This means everybody has to develop the capacity to understand life in themselves.

Should people be punished for the sins of their fathers? The Bible gives conflicting answers definitely Yes and definitely No. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, some people will suffer the consequences of those they're associated with. Those who can avoid it, should and often do. It's all a part of being in situations and relations.

Should people be killed definitely yes and definitely no. — Andrew4Handel

Some endeavours e.g. political, could not avoid conflict/violence. Some e.g. religious, could avoid conflict/violence (maybe not always but the propagators often attempted the path of least conflict/violence as best as they could).

Is salvation permanent? Both yes and No. — Andrew4Handel

Those who maintain discipline retain their merits. Those who do not, lose theirs. It also applies to fitness and exercise.

Is marriage a good thing ? Yes or No — Andrew4Handel

Marriage is for those who understand companionship. Those who fill their relationships with negatives (fears, lust, greed, egotism, unhealthy dependence, etc) should not be married. People come together to help each other become better by overcoming personal limitations with the help of the companion, not to drag each other into personal muck.


Neither God nor the bible's teachings stop humans from being and doing what they choose to. The prophets and leaders of the bible were more intelligent than the average of the masses who received those teachings. They seemed to understand the implications of their endeavours (psychologically, socially, politically, etc). For example, when God told Moses that He would send him on the mission, Moses had the presence of mind to question God on his own weakness (stammering) and the strength of the idea (since even the egyptians could perform magic and were stronger politically than the israelites).

Later on, Jesus simplifies the ten commandments into two edicts (something which the religious leaders of the time considered to be heresy of the highest order):

[1.] love God whole-heartedly
[2.] love others as own self

Jesus also taught that the laws were made for man not vice-versa. Unfortunately, this is something we're yet to learn. We're not slaves to our laws (or doctrines), instead, the laws are our servants. They do our bidding. Laws have no power over human will because it's human will which upholds the laws. The ideal is that we should keep transforming laws in such ways that uphold human unity, harmony and freedom. Unfortunately, we are not ideal humans and it takes a while for ideal teachings to attain their respective applications in human activities.

None of the prophets considered their predecessors teachings to be absolute. Instead, they diligently interpreted them with respect to their own circumstances instead of using them as a rigid and unyielding codex. I believe we should learn to do the same. For example, in the mosaic era, God teaches the israelites which animals to eat and which not to. Later on, with Simon Peter, God teaches that everything is suitable as long as God has determined it. Basically, it teaches the need for dealing with situations on a case by case basis according to the merits of the individual aspects instead of a blanket assumption.

Would it include things like putting in a light bulb (hands-on), working on cars (troubleshooting/systems thinking). Or is it in a purely academic sense? — Drek

All sorts of situations mental and physical, academic and simplistic included. But, I don't think we need to worry too much about not being proficient in everything. I think, just good value common sense goes a long way. Sometimes it's not about how good a person is at something, it's about recognising the path of best and realistic value even when it's relatively unfamiliar or unpopular. Because, chances are, if a person recognises their own limitation in a very average or common situation, they will be more inclined to do something about it than if the situation was infrequent or staged.

Is it Donald Trump who has the high IQ or the guys working for him. By himself, he even seems to contradict his own operation.

I think what we call IQ is a combination of certain comparative methods in character/pattern recognition (often in a limited field of study) and memory recall capacity. In my own perspective, intelligence has to be measured comprehensively across all fields of study/knowledge from the abstract (ideas and concepts) to the practical (empirical), from instinctive to acquired, from imitative to creative, etc.

From what I can tell, humans are incapable of determining the absolute scale of intelligence. With respect to a relative scale, it becomes redundant since it is primarily a matter of perspective. We may have a short-term converging account of application of intelligence which cannot hold in the long-term because of changing human needs, wants and endeavours.

Also, I don't know who determined Donald Trump to have a high IQ (he mentioned something about taking a test) but, if it's based on modern methods, I highly insist on a revision.

Perhaps start with basic queries like,

why should the bible be infallible?

is human understanding absolute? If not, how can anyone judge anything to be infallible?

does the bible need to be infallible to offer appreciable teachings?

what are you seeking in the bible?

how/what/who determines truth for you?

Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’
When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

(From Kalama Sutta)

- In the above quote, the Buddha is talking to some people who live near his home country. These people, the Kalamas, are confused by the multiplicity of teachings that they hear. Many teachers arrive, who extoll their own teachings and disparage the teachings of others. And the Kalamas want to know, “Which of these venerable brahmans and contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”


I think the key teaching is when the Buddha says, "when you know for yourselves... ". In other words, you need to determine right and wrong, logical and illogical, fallible and infallible, etc, all on your own so as to determine which path is best for you to walk.

What action should be done with this statistic? — Drek

Nothing but the usual. Keep your guard up, not just against black people but against all types of menace.

What are we to believe? — Drek

The facts as they are, logic as it relates to reality, reason if it's aimed at unity and harmony, practice without ill-intent, words when necessary and appreciated, etc.

Have philosophers of the past and present something to say about it? — FranckFriends

Or you can read "The Prophet" (by Kahlil Gibran) for some very elevated thoughts.

Perhaps instead of looking at the average person, you could try to look into the minds, hearts and possibly lives of the more accomplished people our human heritage has had the pleasure of nurturing.

Have philosophers of the past and present something to say about it? — FranckFriends

I would advise you to read "Beelzebub's tales to his grandson" (by G.I. Gurdjieff).
It is somewhat of a spiritual book but it shows life to have a level of intelligence and deliberateness that makes anyone question their own understanding.

It seems you've become aware of the common part of people's activities in our human association. That's good but there's more to us than that. For example, what about you? Are you as boring as other people?
If people are boring because there's nothing new to learn from them, then, either you have hit the proverbial wall in terms of learning about yourself or are too self-conceited to see beyond your ignorance. That's because we can only recognise in others what we have recognised in ourselves first. So, if there's nothing to learn from others, it would imply there's nothing to learn from yourself. That, in itself, is self-delusion.

Happy New Year! and a happy, merry or scary easter, halloween and christmas, not in that order.

Dear God, my prayer for 2019 is a FAT bank account and a THIN body. Please don't mix it up like you did last year.

My New Year's resolution is to stop hanging out with people who ask me about my New Year's resolutions.

My New Years resolution is 2160p (4K)

He claims that black people commit more crime and are therefore are more likely to commit crime. Following his premises, and he is white, we should fear black people and be suspicious. — Drek

This shows you how small-minded he is. For example, white people commit more racism and white-collar crimes, does this mean we should assume all white people belong to the kkk and are conmen?

I argue that there could be other factors for their reason for being in jail. Racism, environment, mental illness, culture — Drek

You should teach him how to analyse statistics. The problem isn't the information he has, it's the faulty interpretation he uses to extract utility from it. Regardless of race, country, colour, culture, religion, etc, there are different people in different situations and a blanket opinion about all of them based on a distinct and a comprehensively un-representative sub-set is outright wrong.

I think will-power has to be an energy, otherwise why would we refer to it as a 'power'. I consider it as intent or the impulse to cause. In analogy, I would say will-power corresponds to a spark which results in a fire when it is combined with materials that burn. And, just as you can have sparks which don't turn into flames, it is possible to have intent without leading to a cause of action. However, if you consider the spark itself as a kind of combustive action, so also intent, in itself, can already be a caused action.

I don't think people lack will-power per se, it's more that they do not possess the necessary degree of intent to cause certain activities. The capacity to will or to produce intent is present in everybody but, it is more or less progressed depending on how developed it is. I think, sometimes, it is developed by directly training it, other times it develops instinctively in response to circumstances. Therefore, the difference between strong and weak willed people is just the degree to which the capacity to will is developed.

how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

The Christ was a title for "the word" as a 'living' manifestation of God's wisdom. Jesus was a human whom God used to convey divine wisdom, and in that sense, the word was made flesh. Remember, also, as is expressed in the Bible, the word was in the beginning with the father long before Jesus was born.

I think the points of similarity between the word in Greek (logos) and in Christianity (christ) represent a converging concept which may show that reality in the many perspectives it was viewed from remained unified in its fundamental expression. In some esoteric teachings, wisdom is explained as the application or practice of unity (love) and, God being the representation of absolute unity (the one) or love in the greatest form, divine wisdom (the word, logos) becomes interpreted as the endeavours of that absolute unity/love.

It's not just the chinese, it's happening everywhere especially in all the developed countries. The only difference is that China isn't masking the truth of it, or they don't really care to. By and by anonymity will be a thing of the past for the majority of humanity (But, we've never really been absolutely anonymous, have we?). I think only those with exceptional computers (software, hardware) and computation skills might be able to afford themselves a dimension of decent privacy, and increasingly diminishing at that. Eventually, privacy will be extinct, or very difficult (expensive) to maintain.

I personally don't believe it is heretical, but other Christians have condemned it as such and I am just repeated their opinion on the matter. — Walter Pound

I think that's where the problem lies. If the original teacher(s) didn't have a problem with it, why should the students be the ones to determine whether it is logical or not. Why not consult the teacher (or the teachings)?

I believe somewhere in the gospels Jesus gave an answer to what he meant by the son. I don't think the trinity is as literal as most people take it to be. To me, the trinity seems to be a symbolic/poetic representation rather than literal interpretation.

Modalism is a heresy. It is not illogical. — Walter Pound

What about it is heretical?

Firstly, perhaps the better question would have been, "who/what is God?" It may shine a light on how one God can also be represented by three distinct identities.

Secondly, if Jesus is the son, shouldn't we follow his teachings about who/how the father and holy spirit are? Didn't Jesus explain his son-hood?

Thirdly, (from the video) what is wrong with modalism? What makes it illogical (if it is)?

I just think there are more complex forms of activity manifest in animals (especially domesticated ones) that clearly show a level of discernment and reflection beyond the normal instinctive processes.

So we need concepts and deduction to know how to duck from a baseball flying towards our face? Then how do dogs and cats learn to do these things? — John Doe

Good question. Doesn't that mean they (cats and dogs) create concepts? Or that they have some rudimentary form of reason?

Well if you extend the meaning of deduction so broadly that it captures the acquisition of coping skills in embodied know-how — John Doe

No, the coping is separate from the deduction. Someone or some people, at some point in time deduced the nature of certain projectiles and conveyed that information to others. By and by, it became kind of like common sense. But, all that means is there is a degree of reason in the reaction which also implies deduction.

The reason I'm interested in this is because I've noticed a trend where people think science is distinctly different from philosophy on the basis of empiricism. However, I find that to be untrue because there's a lot of empiricism in philosophical considerations just as much as there's conceptualization in scientific endeavours.

When I duck from a baseball about to hit my head I get reality right without having to go to the trouble of deduction. — John Doe

Actually, such reactions are a consequence of prior deduction which conclude a situation to be unfavourable. They may be passed on to us more or less reflexively but, nonetheless, are a product of deduction.

Re the quantificational questions ("how much"/"are they equal"), it doesn't really seem plausible to me to quantify this. — Terrapin Station

I mean in what relation do we perceive and/or conceive of reality. For example, say you observe a phenomenon but cannot deduce any of its characteristic features or the principles governing the expression of the phenomena. Then, how well do you understand the phenomena as a part of reality?
On the other hand, suppose you deduce its characteristics and the principles which govern the expression of the phenomena, do you understand it better in terms of its place in reality?

Another question would be whether our human experiences are such that we attempt to attach concepts to our perceptions and/or, we validate concepts by testing their empiricism acquired through perception. So, when we perceive something, do we naturally seek to conceive of its inner workings? And, when we have a concept, do we naturally seek to put it to practice? Is our understanding of reality dependent on such a relation?

Where in the scientific space-time universe is "two"? — Pattern-chaser

Two (or any other number) is a very specific and distinct condition and relation in the universe (or in reality). We could call it by any other name but the exact significance of that identity can never alter. I think numerical values exist because, otherwise, it would be impossible to account for relativity or the many aspects of reality.

OK, so which part have you recognised as being false? — Pattern-chaser

I no longer think numbers were invented. I'm now inclined to think numbers are an expression of a relationship which has always existed in nature, and which we discovered. From my point of view, I think the significance of mathematics is something inherent in nature or the workings of reality. It's like, from the moment we chose to use numerical language (which seems to be a fundamental mode in reality) we had no choice but to arrive at mathematics in one form or another. That said, I find it to be very complex to use, especially in philosophical expressions.

I assume you apply the same logic to mentally disabled people, who have the same intelligence level as animals. (depending on how far they are on the spectrum). — chatterbears

Yes. In terms of their expectations, perspectives, actions and reactions.

So what if a person is groomed to believe something, or indoctrinated. Women who claim they have choices in societies like the middle east, but more enlightened women know this is not the case. Do you apply the same logic to those people? — chatterbears

Yes. For example, to some people, sex between unmarried consenting adults, in their own privacy, is unethical/immoral while for others it's okay.

There seems to be too much relativity and subjectivity in ethics and morality. I think with time the rules of conduct will converge the more society interacts globally and comprehensively

Nonetheless, I still am not clear what you mean by harmony. So when you say, "between the interacting parties", you are referring to the slave and the slave owner, correct? Not, the slave owner and other slave owners. — chatterbears

Yes. Unfortunately, ethical/moral guidelines depend on the level of intelligence of the participants involved. What I mean is that, for slavery to come to an end, both parties (the slave owners and the slaves) had to realise what was wrong with their interactions. This is because, back then, just as now, there are those who readily accept the circumstances they're in without the proper forethought. This often results in people being okay with inequality, such that, there's appearance of harmony while the disharmony is masked in ignorance.

In the case of ignorance, ethics/morality should not be the foremost query, rather how the relevant information should be acquired. I think such is the case with the relation between humans and animals, or more specifically, the determination of the equality of animals.

Harmony among the majority? Or harmony among everybody? — chatterbears

Harmony/disharmony between the interacting parties.

Here's a link to my personal opinions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/236145

Sorry about that, I meant subjective.

I mean ethical/moral guidelines keep transforming just as we transform as a society.