I am not in any way biased against Judaism — Jack Cummins

I believe that it is important to remember that Christianity is a new religion, hence "New Testament" or "New Dispensation".

Even Judaism has undergone many changes throughout history, from polytheism to monotheism to Second Temple Judaism to Hellenistic Judaism to Reform Judaism, etc.

So, I wouldn't say it is "Christian bias" to regard Christianity as a new and different religion.

creative inspiration — Jack Cummins

Doesn't much matter, for either way, the ABCs of the Bible came out wrong as could be, as a polar opposite of what's been found. As for the xyzs, they are then quite suspect, but for some accounts of history and locales. Although the Bible is as a Fairy Tale, it has some good poems in it, such as in the Song of Solomon, which is also a sexy poem. Some good illustrations, too.

Thanks for the useful links about Judaism.

Thanks for the useful links about Judaism. — Jack Cummins

Not at all. You can thank Wikipedia. Very useful source. And it is always useful to know a bit of history.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're critiquing a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is pretty well known to be an extremely minority view among Christians, so it's sort of a straw man to discard the Bible on that basis.

I think that The Bible has been and can be interpreted in various ways and angles. Even though many approach it as a work of literature, I am not sure how widespread this view is. I believe that it can provide comfort or distress for individuals. It is probably the most influential book in history, although I don't know how it would rank in relation to The Koran.

In Christianity, a Bible is even seen as a sacred item, especially as oaths involve The Bible. As a child, I accidentally vomited in class and this went onto a classmate's Bible . I felt really terrible at the time. I wondered what it signified, although no one ever told me off, and I think I gave my own Bible to the boy beside me.

The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter is a fascinating exposition on that topic and is still to this day an influence on how I create music as an artist. — Noble Dust

I was intrigued by your mention of this book and looked it up:

https://www.academia.edu/40370735/The_Art_of_Biblical_Poetry

It is lengthy. I scrolled down to the pages concerning the Book of Job.
Approx. pp 92 -138 in Chapters 3-4.

Too much for me to absorb but I can see the fascination. Just wondering how it influenced creativity in your case - any specific examples ?

In thinking about the way in which The Bible incorporates ideas about the relationship between God and human beings, I think that Jung's emphasis on the development of the image of God in the Bible is important.

The concept of Intensification is the one that's influenced me the most. I use it sometimes to create rhythmic structures in music, to the point that I sometimes write intensified structures subconsciously nowadays.

I use it sometimes to create rhythmic structures in music, to the point that I sometimes write intensified structures subconsciously nowadays. — Noble Dust

Thanks. I have absolutely no idea what that would even feel like consciously never mind sub.
So many creative spirits in TPF...
Truly amazing where a discussion on the Bible can lead.
I think I must return to Alter's Chapter 3 'Structures of Intensification' as related to Job.
To try and see what you mean...

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're critiquing a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is pretty well known to be an extremely minority view among Christians, so it's sort of a straw man to discard the Bible on that basis. — Noble Dust

Yes, but for the many Evangelical Fundamentalists many looser Christians don't take much stock in the Bible's proclamations or go into denial. The Philippine Catholic Bible has an asterisk on Genesis that notes that the farmers and the sheepherders were at odds with each other, one of these being the Cainites.

Regardless, some just really want God to be fact, anyway, not even saying 'maybe' or 'perhaps' to reflect the hopes and wishes of faith …

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
For, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

Nevertheless, biological and cosmic evolution gets rid of the made-up events in the foundational Genesis. There can hardly be a bigger fail of the religious underpinnings than that.

Some Christians realize the above downfall, coming up with crazy schemes to save the proclamations, such that the Bible should no longer be seen as "plain words for the common man" but as an obscure rendering requiring an theological expert to interpret…

Honestly it's been so long since I've read that book that I probably need to revisit it. I'm sure the way I use intensification is a pale comparison to the richness of it's use in Hebrew poetry. Basically what I do is take a musical time signature such as 7/8 (7 eighth notes per measure grouping) and then gradually "intensify" it by peeling off eighth notes; so the time signature would change to 6/8 for instance, and maybe all the way to 5/8 before shifting back to 7/8 or maybe even eventually expanding to 9/8.

Basically what I do is take a musical time signature such as 7/8 (7 eighth notes per measure grouping) and then gradually "intensify" it by peeling off eighth notes; so the time signature would change to 6/8 for instance, and maybe all the way to 5/8 before shifting back to 7/8 or maybe even eventually expanding to 9/8. — Noble Dust

I'm sure the way I use intensification is a pale comparison to the richness of it's use in Hebrew poetry. — Noble Dust

Don't be so sure...isn't the creative spirit all good...hmmm, maybe not ?

[Sorry veering off topic I know

OMG. I have to tell ya', I am laughing my head off. Having just finished reading another piece of incomprehensible text...on another thread...
It's all too much. I swear :lol:

Go on. Send me. A quickie. A wee listen-in...please... ]

I'm not sure what argument you're making, if any. Hazy generalizations don't get us anywhere.

Ha, I can try to dig something up. The better examples are works in progress still.

I'm not sure what argument you're making, if any. Hazy generalizations don't get us anywhere. — Noble Dust

How Do We Think About The Bible From A Philosophical Point Of View?

The Bible incorporates ideas about the relationship between God and human beings… — Jack Cummins

So then, the Bible's 'creative' and inventive literature gets much worse in its 'making up', beyond the crumbling of its foundation in Genesis, and continues its teriffic decline via its presentation of a God who is not a good role model who could be followed, emulated, imitated, etc., we thus easily outthinking the One who breaks His own 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' directive in the Great Flood, and so much more bad role model behaviors that we have wisely made civil and moral laws against.

Want to see a concise poetic description of, um, His mysterious (cover-up for 'insane') ways? It's good literature.

The success of the Bible and other religious texts rests on the demographics and possibly the social psychology of the human race. Why are certain books and teachings given a special place? Blame history, or maybe evolution. There are scientists who are Christians and who believe in the Bible, so it seems that pronouncements by "Bible-believing" Christians fall on ears that are as deaf as their own when it comes to the theory of evolution. If we have abandoned the ultimate truth then we are discussing opinions and engaging in opinion polling.

My approach is the the conditional approach - if, by some chance, you have come to believe in God and the Bible as God's word or if it contains God's word or something like that, then what is the relationship between faith in the Bible? Does it make sense to discuss the Bible with those who believe it is a fairy tale? I for one am not interested in discussing Hans Christian Anderson.

For me, much fruitful discussion lies in the field of logic and reason. How does logic and reason, which is the heart of science, be applied to religion, to preserve the same intellectual rigour that is demanded of that field of knowledge? I believe it can, but the intellectual discussion on faith and reason seems to be still in its infancy. Just witness the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate. What in the world was that?

I am asking what people think about the Bible, in relation to philosophy, and, certainly, it played a crucial role in the development of philosophy in Western society. — Jack Cummins

I'm surprised to find a number of old posts of mine about "The Bible" since I do not consider it particularly germaine with respect to discussing theism (I try not to bother with "god").

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504325 (re: the church made the bible, the bible did not make the church ... or power politics of canonizing scriptures)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504281 (re: critical & ethical source of atheism)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/345156 (re: history of the bible)

Apologies if I come off as dismissive, but the only "role in the development of Western philosophy" the Christian Bible has played is, as far as I can discern it, as a whet-stone upon which freethought has been honed into a precision scalpel for cutting-out metasizing superstitions, delusions, dogmas, misogynistic customs, canonical rationalizations for child rape, apartheid, chattel slavery, ethnic cleasing, genocide, divine right of kings, just (holy) wars, missionary (evangelizing) colonization, etc ... Medieval scholastic 'logic shops' churned away night and day in blinkered cloisters erecting the scaffolds – not only for building foundational supports for "faith with rationality" as the "learned ignorant" had hoped for – by which Enlightenment freethinkers (& deists) would systematically take down the mountainous pile of biblical dogma brick by brick for the next half-millennia. In Hegelian fashion the Christian Bible had generated it's own antithesis: modern philosophy (along with natural sciences ... and historical sciences and secular arts); but Adorno was right, it's (only) a 'negative dialectic'...

dismissive — 180 Proof

Great description! :up:

I have looked at you old posts, and I can see problems arising from The Bible, and its application. I have certainly experienced preaching from others, in a negative, unhelpful way.

However, I do wonder if the underlying problem is more about human nature. We can blame The Bible for war and oppression, but this is the application of ideas. It is a bit like thinking of science in relation to nuclear weapons and climate change. The problem is how ideas are translated into practice. Of course, we have a mixture of religion and science coming together, with the addition of human nature, which may be a toxic mix indeed.

Regarding the idea of the ineffable, I can see that it has a basis in The Bible, but I think that it is in many traditions as well. I am in favour of trying to demystify the ineffable.

I have tried not to get too far into discussion of Genesis because I am aware that there is another thread on the topic. However, I will make one comment here, because it is central to my understanding of The Bible. I am surprised by the fact that some people do still take Genesis as a possible factual account. I discovered recently and one of my friends believes that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

I can remember struggling with the idea of evolution when I was age 10 and my parents believed in the Genesis account. However, I did begin to see the problems with the Genesis creation story. It was not as if human beings witnessed the beginning of the world, so any attempt to describe it could only be a story, or the two stories within Genesis.

As for God as a role model, I would imagine that this would be about living like Jesus Christ. This was attempted by many through the centuries, as the idea of 'The Imitation of Christ', as expressed by Thomas a Kempis. Some became martyrs and many remained sinners. I remember as a child, sins could almost be forgotten once declared in confession. But, really, I believe that on a deeper level, Jesus and the Buddha are examples for higher ideals, especially compassion and concern for others.

I am in favour of trying to demystify the ineffable. — Jack Cummins

:up: E.g. Witty's TLP. Beckett's Trilogy (or "Godot"). Miles Davis' "Shhhhh/Peaceful" ...

I think that Jung's interpretations of the Bible are fascinating, because they suggest deep connections with our psiche, and this is precisely also the weakness of his theories. We can't assume a theory as good just because it is fascinating or because it suggests interesting connections. I'm not saying that Jung's theories should be just ignored: I recognize them as highly valuable, but today we try to be much more scientific and severe in dealing with theories. This is similar to what happened with Freud: his teachings are of the highest importance, but today psychology is much more severe, critical about theories, scientific.
I think that, in this context, philosophy applied to the Bible is able to be more fruitful than old psichology, because philosophy is able to be much more critical and severe than old psychological theories.

I am asking what people think about the Bible, in relation to philosophy, and, certainly, it played a crucial role in the development of philosophy in Western society. — Jack Cummins

The most important overlap as I see it is in ethics. To an extent, the New Testament is a foundational moral theory, completely revolutionary, that has mostly stood the test of time. It's sort of the Newtonian mechanics of morality: yes, we've moved on (or at least the secular world has), but what a first stab!

In all other respects, it's weak to middling. It is a historical document (which tells us things) but not a history text. We can learn things about the time it was written, but ideally you'd cross-reference it with contemporaneous texts from that region, and there aren't a lot of them. Its actually historic accounts range from the dubious to the outright nonsensical. The history _of_ the Bible is probably more telling than the actual Bible.

Metaphysically, it's like all metaphysics: if you believe it, it's right for you; if not, it's completely unjustifiable.

Accordingly, it may be said that (1) the source of the Bible is a higher intelligence (that may be human or divine), (2) its purpose is to direct us to a higher perspective, knowledge and experience of life, and (3) that it is addressed to those who have the capacity to understand its message and the will to put it into practice. — Apollodorus

Well, anything _may_ be said, but that doesn't make it true. What we can say for sure is 1) that it was written, editted and collated by humans, whatever the nature of their inspiration, 2) it was meant to create a canon of texts for a religion that already existed in divers forms (essentially criteria for saying "You are wrong", 3) that its actual content is largely irrelevant, since those who created it have historically not been bound to it, nor have been keen on others reading it.

I think that a lot of people do see Jung's ideas of the psyche as outdated. However, I think if you read his writings he really goes beyond psychology, with more of an analysis of thought, even though he is not a philosopher strictly speaking.

Philosophers have drawn upon the science to deconstruct some of the notions in the Bible, including the idea of the soul. But, finding meaning in life is so much harder. I do believe that in many ways we create our own meaning. But, this is so variable, and it may require a lot of philosophical searching for many to be able to do this fully.

I think that you are correct to see the Bible as having a basis for ethics and metaphysics. We can say that we have the ten commandments and Jesus emphasised the specific idea of loving your neighbour as yourself. The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself was probably the essential foundation for the categorical imperative of Kant.

It is interesting to think about the metaphysics of the Bible. There was most definitely a belief in a God underlying nature, and, it is probably on the basis of people not believing this, that many don't believe that the Bible is as important as they did in previous ages. Apart from this, I do think that there is a different underlying thinking about mind and body. I am not sure that it is simply idealism, and I wonder if it is more in line with the thinking of Eastern philosophy.

Also, in the thinking about life after death,we could say that there were two possibly contrasting approaches arising from the Bible. One was the idea of an immortal soul, and one was the idea that the physical body is resurrected at the end of the world. I believe that these were very different, and even contradictory, but this may have been blurred together by many people.

I do believe that philosophy is useful for thinking about accuracy and, finding a way through philosophical fog which remains from uncritical thinking about The Bible.

In my opinion, an essential line underlying the whole Bible is criticism. Most ancient texts of the Bible are highly picturesque, while, over time, we can notice more and more criticism emerging in Psalms, Job, Qohelet, that are more recent books in the Old Testament. Jesus is like an apex of criticism, because he criticised everybody and everything and this looks very close to the critic methods adopted in philosophy. Then we discover necessarily a crisis of criticism, so we can rediscover the not so naive positivity of many Biblical stories and this has something to tell to philosophy.

I am glad that you mentioned the Koran as well, because I do believe in approaching religion from the various viewpoints. — Jack Cummins

I very much agree. And I believe it is also instructive to see how Christianity viewed Islam and, above all, how it viewed philosophy itself.

Most of Arabia's neighbors, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, were largely Christian and historical and archaeological evidence shows that there were several Christian (and Jewish) tribes in Arabia itself as well as missionaries and monks, some of whom are mentioned in the Koran.

Now, whilst the Jews traced their tradition to Abraham’s son Isaac, Muslim Arabs traced theirs to Isaac’s half-brother Ishmael. Therefore, the Muslims called themselves “Ishmaelites”.

The Christian Church Fathers were intrigued by this Ishmaelite movement which they regarded as a heresy. The main writer on Ishmaelism a.k.a. Islam was the scholar John of Damascus. He was born in 675 CE, not long after the Muslim conquest of his native city Damascus, so his account of early Islam and how it was viewed by Christian leaders is of particular interest.

Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was close to some of the Christians living in Arabia, e.g., Uthman ibn al-Huwayrith and Waraqah ibn Naufal, of Mecca. Muslim tradition says very clearly that Waraqah who was a cousin of Mohammad's first wife was a learned Christian (possibly a priest) who had translated the Bible into Arabic and used to read from it (Sahih Bukhari 4.55.605). Therefore, it seems that Mohammad got his knowledge of scripture from Christians (and Jews) as the Church scholars found after investigating the claims about Islam.

The point John of Damascus was making was (1) that since according to Muslims themselves Mohammad had acquainted himself with Jewish and Christian teachings, there was no need for those teachings to be revealed to him by some supernatural source, (2) nor was there any evidence to back that up.

Therefore, St John concluded that “A false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst (among the Ishmaelites). This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration” […] Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’— they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams)” (On Heresy, Ch. VII).

The Bible says very clearly: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves …. And many false prophets shall rise and shall deceive many" (Matthew 7:15; 24:11).

"False prophet" - Greek ψευδοπροφήτης (pseudoprophetes), Latin pseudopropheta - is the phrase used by the Christian Church for the founder of Islam from that time into the 1900s.

But St John’s Fount of Knowledge also has a chapter on philosophy which I believe is a good starting point for the present discussion:

“Philosophy is knowledge of things which are in so far as they are; that is to say, a knowledge of their nature. Philosophy is a knowledge of divine and human things. Philosophy is a study of death, both that which is deliberate and that which is natural.

Philosophy is a becoming like God, in so far as this is possible for man. Now, it is in justice, sanctity, and goodness that we become like God.

And justice is that which is distributive of equity; it is not wronging and not being wronged, not prejudicing a person, but rendering to each his due in accordance with his works. Sanctity, on the other hand, is that which is over and above justice; that is to say, it is the good, the patience of the one wronged, the forgiving of them that do wrong, and, more than that, the doing of good to them. Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences, for, since through philosophy every art is discovered, it is the principle underlying every art. Philosophy is love of wisdom. But, the true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God—this is the true philosophy" (On Philosophy, Ch. LXVII).

What I find particularly striking is that this is virtually identical to the views of Greek philosophers like Plato and Plotinus.

To an extent, the New Testament is a foundational moral theory, completely revolutionary, that has mostly stood the test of time. — Kenosha Kid

What is that ethic and how was it revolutionary when compared against the OT ethic that predated it? How has its ethic better stood the test of time in comparison to other ethical theories?

It's sort of the Newtonian mechanics of morality: yes, we've moved on (or at least the secular world has), but what a first stab! — Kenosha Kid

I don't follow this comment. If the New Testament was a first stab, why is it called "new" (as that would imply an old stab that it replaced) and it contradicts your prior statement where you called it revolutionary (as that would require a revolution from an old system).

If the New Testament was a first stab, why is it called "new" (as that would imply an old stab that it replaced) and it contradicts your prior statement where you called it revolutionary (as that would require a revolution from an old system). — Hanover

Good point.