Oh it does... The Church educated Europe. The 'dark ages' are a historical fantasy, a form of nostalgia for an idealized classical era. All the ages are 'dark' in one way or another. You think the 20th century was not dark?

Whatever.

Indeed. Hitler and Stalin were sooo progressive.

I don't think that it is possible to say what would have happened if the church and The Bible had not played a significant role. I find the history as being extremely interesting for all it teaches, and it probably says so much about human nature. The question which I see is whether we can learn from the past mistakes, with or without The Bible.

Look at the "civilized" regions bordering Christendom, particularly the Levant. Muslims were able to recover, preserve and publish (in Arabic translation) much of the "lost" scholarly learning and artistic achievements of pagan antiquity that the Church had failed to destroy or bury in vermin-infested cellars & catacombes because the Holy Inquisition's terrorizing thugs couldn't stop them. Yeah, it's certain, but for the Church, no several centuries-long "dark age". What else might have occurred is, you're right, Jack, idle speculation; but no Church entails no Church-mandated atrocities, crimes & doctrinaire mass ignorance.

:up:

Since 5th/6th century CE ... "for at least the first millennium of Christendom", and then the rapid emergence of counter / secular discourses on ethics. — 180 Proof

Since before then til present day, they've worshipped a Semite as a deity, likewise his mother, and honoured the Semitic posse that founded that religion. I don't think that's particularly anti-Semitic. I know there was a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment at the time, derived in part from Judaism's relationship with Rome, and obviously Jews found the NT generally objectionable, but I don't see anything anti-Semitic in it, nor in how Christianity in general has arrived to the masses today. Particular theologians are notorious but this has as little impact on the modern Western ethic as moral philosophy, less probably.

Therefore, I wonder how, from a philosophy point of view we may approach and understand this book, or collection of books. — Jack Cummins

The Bible is, inter alia, an anthology of the lives of prophets (messengers) - their genealogy, their historical roles, and above all else, their message passed on to them from God via revelation, and before I forget, faith is a cornerstone of the Bible like it is in all religions.

Philosophy immediately crosses swords with the Bible on two counts - revelation and faith - for philosophy is, all said and done, about reasoning, proof, and evidence. The Bible and philosophy are simply too different from each other in terms of their attitude (skepticism/faith) and methodology (reason/revelation) in re reality for them to be reconciled in any sense of that word.

However, despite the mutual animosity at the level of first principles, the centuries of cohabitation in the minds of philosophers and priests alike, resulted in a synthesis of sorts - the contents of the good book became philosophical points of contention i.e. logical argumentation entered the arena. The Bible continued to be regarded as essentially revelation but the idea was to present its claims as capable of standing up to logical scrutiny. This is the philosophical turn the Bible went through but was it a curse/blessing?

In my humble opinion, it was a bit of both. Theists put up a number of very convincing arguments a Google search will take you to and atheists refuted them as best as they could. Some of these arguments are still alive and well though they've been adapted to a modern, scientifically-literate, audience. The downside was theists were on the backfoot. They were on the philosopher's home turf - rationality - and playing by their opponent's rules (logic) and trying to reason about what was at heart unreasoned (revelation). The theist's slogan was unreasoned, yes, irrational, no.

That the converse - the biblification of philosophy - didn't occur is something to ponder about.

got stuck on the passage about 'the unforgivable sin' — Jack Cummins

The Bible can be thought of as a treatise on (im)morality vis-à-vis God (sin). Philosophy deals extensively with morality but only studies sin in a theological context.

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 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.

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.

One of the main premises of the Bible was the entire message of people being sinners. — Jack Cummins

The belief that we are born of sin if from Paul. It is not found in the Hebrew Bible (OT). In Genesis there is a choice, to sin or avoid sin. With Paul it cannot be avoided, hence the whole idea of the necessity of Jesus dying for man's sins.

You correctly point to the examples of Hitler and Stalin. — Jack Cummins

The evidence either way is very slim, but if I had the time I would do the following researches:

Research project 1: plot the number of violent death caused by religions, then compare it with the number of violent deaths caused by other ideologies than religious throughout history.

Research project 2: calculate the percentage of major scientists throughout history who were educated in a Christian institution as a child.

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.

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. — Jack Cummins

You said "One of the main premises of the Bible ...". It is not a premise of the Bible. This is another example of seeing the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the New Testament.

In many ways I believe that so much of the thinking within Christianity goes back to the thinking of Paul. — Jack Cummins

In my opinion, Christianity is the religion invented by Paul in the hopes that Gentiles could be saved before the end of days, which Paul believed would happen in his lifetime. When it didn't his followers believed that their generation would be the last. Eventually they moved the date to some unspecified future.

This is another example of seeing the Hebrew Bible through the lens of the New Testament. — Fooloso4

It is a valid Christian perspective.

In my opinion, Christianity is the religion invented by Paul — Fooloso4

Nobody doubts what your opinion is. However, for Christians, Christianity is what they believe their religion to be according to the Gospels and the Church Fathers.

Feel free to consult the OP:

I believe that the canon of The Bible arose in the early centuries of the Church Fathers — Jack Cummins

You are right that most people don't care or don't trust evidence on this kind of topic.

One of the main premises of the Bible was the entire message of people being sinners — Jack Cummins

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. — Wikipedia

Food for thought: we're not described as evil rather we're all sinners.

The notion of original sin is intertwined with mortality/death.

Despite describing death as having come to all men through Adam (original sin) [...] — Wikipedia

Point to note, what's the penalty for heinous crimes aka sins? Capital Punishment also reserved for high treason (Adam & Eve betrayed God).

You might also find this book an interesting read: The Trial (Franz Kafka). One thing is certain (or not?) we're all being executed. Why?

It appears that there's nothing about original sin that doesn't square with how we've structured our lives in re morality and justice.

It all boils down to a plain and simple truth - we're worried to bits about thanatos and have reasoned rationalized it as a punishment for something and sin seems to fit like a glove.

Mind you, this is more psychology than theology but that maybe precisely the point!

fall of the Lucifer — Jack Cummins

Lucifer is just a more powerful version of Adam accesorized with horns, a pitchfork, and a pointy tail. Nothing more need be said.

sacred prostitute — Jack Cummins

Sadly, for some reason, while there's a sacred prostitute, prostitution isn't sacred! Jesus must've been completely bewildered by Mary Magdalene. There you go, a paradox!

Better yet i think i found it . im not 100% sure (still listening to it as I type this) but so far I think this is the right video. Quite fascinating when you listen to it because it's a perspective that at least I've never heard of

https://youtu.be/v5uR75rxgks

The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. — Jack Cummins

Good point. Your comment made me think of early church history and how it were simply mere mortals who decided what's to be included/excluded from the Christian Bible. We know Spinoza's stuff was excluded, as well as the referenced Gnostic teachings as well as lost gospels/Apocrypha and so forth. Accordingly, for all we know, certain information relative to human sexuality could have been purposely silenced because it somehow seemed inappropriate at the time. It may seem one has to remember that the Christian Bible is not a medical science book nor a physical science book for that matter.

Broadly speaking, it is worth repeating how ego and rationality seem to overshadow many things, including all of the allegorical & metaphorical benefits/interpretations thereto. Folks seem to forget (particularly Fundi's) that the Bible is inclusive of not only the foregoing errors and omissions, but the inspirational walk of Jesus as a model of humility and love... . And let's not forget translation & interpretation issues, as well as Religious exclusions (the book of Sirach-which is an awesome Wisdom Book- is left out of the King James/Baptist Bible, but included in the Catholic Bible). Then, of course you have rituals that are generally no longer applicable to those of us in the west/sacrificing certain animals.

In spite of those things, perhaps the question there is whether one should dichotomize that information (The Bible) and throw the baby out with the bathwater? The Golden Rule is still applicable. The Book of Ecclesiastes was arguably the genesis of Existentialism. Pragmatically, the Wisdom Books/OT are wonderful, practical guidance for those codes of conduct/ethical norms (not moral) that mirror early Greek moderation standards. Greek philosophy and OT/Christian philosophy borrowed from each other. Overall, for the discerning spirit, I submit both Greek and Christian philosophy has more good than bad.

It is also worth repeating the negative influences in Christianity coming from the religious-right/ Fundamentalist literal interpretations of judgement and damnation, along with supporting the many so-called antiquated thought patterns that are simply not applicable today. In the west, sociopolitical factors vis-à-vis basic human rights and freedoms have clearly evolved. For example in the Church, women's rights have evolved, etc. etc.. And of course science itself has evolved too. And shame on those who embrace extremism... .

Gee, was I being too opinionated Jack :joke:

The 'Gentile Christianity' of Paul (re: the Christ) had completely vanguished the rival 'Jewish Christianity' of James (re: the Nazarene) by the time the Church had been established in Rome which, I think, set the table, so to speak, for sanguinary millennia of anti-Judaic persecutions and pogroms (e.g. "blood libel") ... culminating in the Shoah. Pauline Christianity is inherently anti-Judaic as shown by how the "Church fathers" legitimized the antiquity of "the Christ's" lineage by coopting ancient Hebrew scriptures as surpassed (read: incomplete, inferior) "revelations" – repurposed as the "Old Testament" – and appending the OT on to the NT "good news" wherein "the Jews" are depicted as "guilty of deicide" – the evergreen tree of Christendom's anti-Judaic, antisemitic fruits.

Gee, was I being too opinionated Jack — 3017amen

I was beginning to think this thread was turning into some kind of platform for evangelists and other fundamentalists. Thanks to your considered intervention, however, balance has been restored. Quite, possibly, you have even succeeded in convincing the anti-Christians (or most of them). Even 180 appears to have become more ponderous with pious thought and a faint sparkle may be detected in his eye as his gaze silently turns to the divine.

Hahahaha....funny you mentoned that A. Since we're talking about human behavioral kinds of stuff, I was just telling a friend (viz man-women relationship kinds of things) that while we can't necessarily change people (by and large they have to do it themselves), we do have the ability to positively or negatively influence their behavior.

But hey, that would mean that logic has some benefits too :joke:

Oh well, back to the bottomless chasm of dichotomous contradiction :razz:

We know Spinoza's stuff was excluded, — 3017amen

The nerve of them for excluding something that was written more than a thousand years later!

Those sons-a-bitchin/bastuds :razz:

LOL

An accurate summary.

The tension between Paul and the disciples of Jesus began with an invention of Paul's - two Laws, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus taught obedience to the Law as it is written. Paul said that the Gentiles could follow what is written in their hearts. Circumcision and keeping kosher was not necessary. Jesus' disciples struck a deal with Paul that he could preach his message but he had to go elsewhere. As tension between these groups grew the Jewish followers and all other Jews became the enemy.

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.

:100: :up: (If only I was so aptly succinct!)

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. — Jack Cummins

The Gnostics believed we had God within us, similar to the Atman/Brahmin thing in India. Jung shared this as well. That is why Christians, who believe in a literal father in heaven, don't like these more advanced methods of spirituality.

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. — Jack Cummins

I don't think Christians are anti-sex at all. They think it should be in marriage only but dont people have a lot of sex in a marriage? The idea that having many partners in your life is a good goal is not consistent with most spiritual systems. Many groups in India say that sexuality is the first thing to have an awakening about before you can become more spiritual. That would apply to those in marriage as well who put their marital sex life as the center of their life. The problem in the West with non-Christians is primarily pornography and make it it into a Platonic ideal