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.

Why do you suppose that is... ? — 3017amen

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.

Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.) — 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.

They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed. — 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.

So, we are back to the central problem of objective vs subjective truth, as well as personal preferences. — Jack Cummins

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.

Why do you suppose that is... ? — 3017amen
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.

Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.) — 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. — Fooloso4

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.

They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed. — 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. — Fooloso4

Can you elaborate a little on that please?

Can you elaborate a little on that please? — 3017amen

The believability of history books is independent of any one history book.

The believability of history books is independent of any one history book. — Fooloso4

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?

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. — 3017amen

These are claims as matters of fact. As such it's fair to ask for evidence. Absent evidence, that evidence being requested and not provided, they are not valid as claims of fact. You've been asked before for evidence and not provided it. And I'm asking again now.

Or you can retreat in your use of language, e.g., some people believe Jesus was part God.

Of course if they knew, then we can know too. In that case, what's the evidence, the proof?

if they knew, then we can know too. — tim wood

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 πίστις pistis or "faith" is central to Christianity and the Creed of the Apostles starts with the words "I believe (πιστεύω 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.

These are claims as matters of fact. As such it's fair to ask for evidence. — tim wood

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... (?).

and in the psychological experience of Jung. I — Jack Cummins

:up: :100:

I'm a Jungian fan for sure!

but I hope that philosophy can enter into this, rather than dismiss it. — 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 believe that the symbolic dimensions of life is such an important aspect of reality, but I am aware that is simply my perspective and philosophy — Jack Cummins

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 Σύμβολον Πίστης 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.

Way too much "playing tennis without a net" going on for this thread to remotely be a philosophical, let alone historical, discussion.

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.

Way too much "playing tennis without a net" going on for this thread to remotely be a philosophical, let alone historical, discussion. — 180 Proof

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.

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. — 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.