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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have just finished reading 'The Bible: A Biography' by Karen Armstrong(2007), who was a nun, but left her life in the convent eventually. One idea she points to is how so little is really known about the life of Jesus. She suggests,
'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.'

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 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.

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.
.

I wish that I had enough time and money for philosophy, and in the meantime I am improvising. I would love more time and money to spend on philosophy.I feel that we live in such an upside down world. I think of philosophy as more of a default position or activity for trying to make some sense of it.

I may not have have forwarded my answer properly to you, so please see the answer in the post above.

One aspect of this debate which I believe is important is the prescriptive approach and of more scrupulous analysis. On the surface, it may be that it appears that ideas, especially Christian ethics arrive at certain solutions. However, I am not sure that it is clear at all. The more think about Christianity , and about certain solutionss being apparent answers become increasingly complex.

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 was so puzzled by how many children believed in Santa Claus, when I knew that there was no evidence for such a person. I knew that my parents gave presents to me and the chimneys were blocked. Personally, I find the idea of Santa Claus as one of the most unhelpful ideas, although I do see this as a basis for thinking about the fictionious, especially in the ideas presented to children.

If anything, The Bible may be a starting point for thinking, even if any critique develops in the opposite direction. Therefore, my own position is one in which we ideas of The Bible are important for further analysis and critique of other ideas, from a critical perspective. We may look at the hermeneutics of textual analysis, in relation to metaphysics questions, and even the phenomenological questions. How do all these factors interplay, especially in the way in which we understand the ideas arising in Biblical texts? How do we understand the objective and subjective in relation to historical ideas, especially those which are central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition?

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.
.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

I think that Joseph Campbell is a very useful thinker for enabling people to think about the mythic aspects of existence. I believe that he and Carl Jung do enable people to explore their own subconscious pathways, and become more conscious of deeper aspects of the self. I do think that the more conscious one become of the subconscious, a person is more likely to be able to try to find ways of not being destructive. Jung spoke of becoming more conscious of the shadow, although he did not think that this was an easy task at all.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 definitely think that power is a critical factor. However, I do wonder if it is possible for individuals to develop themselves in such a way that power does not lead to people becoming tyrannical. Some individuals do manage this, and, the ideal would be for a greater number of people of people to hold positions of authority without abusing the power.