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. — Jack Cummins

Hey Jack, do you read the old testament wisdom books much? (It's good Christian philosophy.)

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.

Great, please share any Christian philosophy there... . I would also recommend delving into those old testament wisdom books (Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. they are easy reads) as there is a so-called treasure trove of information that mirrors Greek philosophy & Existentialism.

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 believe 180 threw in the towel. It's a shame, I expected more from him... . — 3017amen

You are out of your mind. Anyone can review the debate and see what a lie this is. - and toxic.

You are out of your mind. — tim wood

Does that mean a something that transcends logic and consciousness :razz:

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 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. — Jack Cummins

You may not recognize how many different things your sentence could be saying. As such I'll leave it, because I cannot tell what path to take from it.

But one can look at anything at all as a source of ideas. If you, or anyone, is looking at the Bible as a source (for anything), then it is for some reason or alternatively for no reason. If for some reason, that reason is either personal, a reason for you but no one else, or it is an evidential reason, meaning only that what compels your reason can compel the reason of another. This latter reason inevitably grounded in evidence and reason itself. So the question - and it is not a trick question - why, exactly, do you look at the Bible as a source of ideas?

The idea is that if the Bible is special, that specialness can be explicitly laid out in terms of evidence and reason - and perhaps should be. That not being done, or being incapable of being done, then the Bible has the same authority as a bowl of pudding. I am not proposing that the Bibles in the world be replaced with pudding - although an idea with some merit! But rather that for a reader to understand what he is reading, he needs some more or less explicit reason for his reading based on some understanding of what it is he is reading.

The trouble arises with claims about the Bible that cry out for evidential support, for which there neither is nor can be evidential support. Read on these terms, the Bible ceases to be what it is and instead becomes a vehicle for personal projection, the history of such readings being grim.

Edit: I see you have already answered at least in part. For ethical guidance. Why the Bible? Do you need to stone someone? Or unclear on the advantages of rape in the countryside v. the city?

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.

this life is extremely important — Jack Cummins

Agree 100%. I've personified life and just as it makes sense to ask, "how are your classmates treating you?" I feel it makes the same amount of sense if not more to ask yourself every so often, "how's life treating you?" The answer may be profoundly life-changing. Is the deal between you and life good (live longer) , bad (contemplate suicide), neither (meh) , both (confused)?

ethical insights — Jack Cummins

Frankly, I feel Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are both part of Bibilical ethics. The decalogue is basically duty ethics and heaven and hell have a hedonic character.

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.
.

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 am not sure that it is about relief, but more about rash decisions in a state of panic. — Jack Cummins

Good point. It seems plausible that in most cases it comes down to rash decisions motivated by overpowering emotional states that the person in question is unable to control. For example, grief over the loss of a loved one, unrequited love (or infatuation), shame, guilt, etc. If this is so, then presumably a lot of people would act differently if given a second chance. Only that, of course, there is no second chance.

It is interesting that Christianity actually banned suicide and, viewed from this perspective, it was the right thing to do. I suppose that it also had to do with the biblical injunction against killing and with "bearing one's cross" in imitation of Jesus.

But I think this can also go too far in the opposite direction. A ban can make us prisoners of society and seems to suppress the idea of free will. So, I tend to believe that a blanket ban is unreasonable. It should be left to the individual to decide to what length he or she is prepared to "bear the cross" and I think that society can act in ways that can only be described as cruel if it insists on applying a general prohibition in every single case.

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. — Jack Cummins

That seems like a reasonable expectation. After all, with all its downsides, Christianity has given mankind quite a lot. I think it would be interesting to explore the connection Christianity has had with social justice movements because many early socialist and communist thinkers were also committed Christians and saw their movement as an expression and fulfillment of the Christian faith. For example, the 1844 Communist Credo (which inspired the Communist Manifesto) read, "What is the goal of Christianity? The salvation of all men through love, freedom, and justice". And, of course, it was not atheists like Marx and Engels that had the greatest influence on the social justice movement but Christians who felt that their faith obliges them to take an interest in social issues.

I think it would also be interesting to look into Christian philosophy itself because some seem to be under the false impression that either Christianity has no philosophy or that it is just Platonism with some minor modifications. The misconstruction of Christianity as a purely religious system that has nothing to offer to philosophy and its dismissal as somehow "defective" if not fundamentally opposed or inimical to philosophical inquiry, certainly seems unwarranted and out of place.

Christian Philosophy - Wikipedia

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

Great, please share any Christian philosophy there... . I would also recommend delving into those old testament wisdom books (Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. they are easy reads) as there is a so-called treasure trove of information that mirrors Greek philosophy & Existentialism. — 3017amen

Correct. The writings of the Church Fathers also make interesting reading and it is instructive to see the close connections between Christian and Greek philosophy and how Christianity largely understood philosophy in Platonic terms.

The Philokalia (Ancient Greek: φιλοκαλία "love of the beautiful, the good", from φιλία philia "love" and κάλλος kallos "beauty") is a collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries by spiritual masters of the Eastern Orthodox Church mystical hesychast tradition. They were originally written for the guidance and instruction of monks in "the practice of the contemplative life".

Philokalia - Wikipedia

Obviously, the Philokalia is something for those who are more mystically inclined. But I think it is important to bear in mind that Christian philosophy is far from mere intellectual pursuit but, like Platonism, it aims to bring us closer to God or Ultimate Reality which, incidentally, also ought to be the final objective of philosophy in general IMHO.

Philokalia PDF

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, — Jack Cummins

I think the Bible does provide some metaphysical as well as ethical teachings but they tend to be in an undeveloped form which is why it is important to see how the Church Fathers viewed these matters.

Christian ethics - Wikipedia

The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers - academia.edu

I disagree, but appreciate why this view is (still) dominant. Ethics in the West, I think, developed in contrast to, or despite, Biblical theology (theo-idiocy). — 180 Proof

The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic

• inherited guilt
• vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
• self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
• "blood libel" anti-semitism
• ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
• child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
• missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages" ...
— 180 Proof
If anything, by this list of particulars, the Christian Bible maldeveloped ethics in Western societies for at least the first millennium of Christendom. — 180 Proof

The first quote claims ethics did not develop as the result of Biblical theology, but the second criticizes (actually condemns) Christianity specifically, so I'm not sure if this is an attack on Judaic ethics as well (as it is a biblically based theology), Christianity specifically as it is set forth in the NT, or Christianity as it has been developed by the church.

I do think it's often overlooked that Judaic ethics are considerably different from Christian ones on a foundational level, despite the self-contradicting term "Judeo-Christian ethics " and both having a root source in the OT.

Judaism does not believe people are born in sin or that they are in need of salvation. People are born in God's image, with a divine soul, perfect creations of God. To the extent someone sins, he gains forgiveness not just by asking God, but by also asking the person who he has sinned against for forgiveness. The person is purged of all sin each Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) assuming he has followed the process (teshuva, the act of repentance, literally meaning returning to God) . Human sacrifice for the absolution of sin (ala Jesus) is antithetical to Judaism (recall Isaac not being slaughtered). To the extent there is a "hell," it is a place where a person is purged of his sin through forgiveness posthumously, for a period not exceeding one year (odd, I know). The point being, there is no eternal damnation.

The self-loathing, the meekness, the belief we are all wretched creatures in need of some savior is not something in the Judaic tradition. In fact, the messianic beliefs in Judaism refer to humanity reaching a perfected state without suffering, either gradually or suddenly, not through some cataclysmic war, but through the good and kind acts of humanity.

All of this can be taken very literally or entirely figuratively, but none of it can be taken to be akin to Christianity. Just thought I'd point this out, considering the comments that ethics do not derive from the Bible or that Christianity is the only way one can evaluate a biblically based ethical system.

"The Christian metaphysic is rooted in the biblical metaphysic of God as "Maker of Heaven and earth".[5]:25 Philosopher Mark Smith explains that, in the Bible, a fundamental ontology is embodied in language about power, where the world and its beings derive their reality (their being, their power to exist, and to act) from the power of God (Being itself). Theology and philosophy professor Jaco Gericke says that metaphysics is found anywhere the Bible has something to say about "the nature of existence".[26]:207 According to Rolf Knierim, the Bible's metaphysic is "dynamistic ontology" which says reality is an ongoing dynamic process.[26]:208 In this view, God "gives the universe its basic order", and its "formal statistical patterns", generally referred to as natural laws, but also allows them to develop organically with minimum interference."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics#Metaphysical_foundations

That is why I am trying to draw its importance as a central aspect for thinking within philosophy. — Jack Cummins

This is a very profound statement. Wisdom has always been the philosopher's holy grail and that, to my reckoning, includes, not as an auxilliary but as a central component, knowledge of right and wrong. Morality is all-pervading, its scope is universal. It's dominion is coextensive with that of reason itself, the two work together, complementing each other, and one making up for the flaw in the other.

Almost all philosophers seem to have lost sight of this fact - morality is what moral philosophers think about not metaphysicians, epistemologists, logicians, etc. do. Philosophers are, the bottom line, people and when they exit there ivory towers and go out into the real world, they're constantly using their moral compass to guide their thought, actions, and speech. Yet, the moment a metaphysician meditates on metaphysics or an epistemologist mulls over knowledge, the moral compass I talked about does a disappearing act. This, to me, is to overlook one-half of wisdom viz. morality which would've acted as a guide to the other one-half, reason, and the world would've probably been a better place than it is now.

Firstly, such an attitude and practice fly against the very essence of philosophy as an earnest quest for wisdom (reasonable & good) and secondly, it indicates a congitive dissonance that if not corrected could have major ramifications for the world at large.

Wisdom has always been the philosopher's holy grail and that, to my reckoning, includes, not as an auxilliary but as a central component, knowledge of right and wrong. — TheMadFool

Correct. Hence the cardinal virtues of (1) Temperance, (2) Fortitude, (3) Prudence, and (4) Justice or Righteousness, shared by both Platonism and Christianity. In fact, the development of the virtues was seen as a preliminary step to philosophical training proper.

Knowledge of right and wrong, or righteousness (dikaiosyne) was absolutely central to Greek philosophy and philosophers were concerned with right and wrong as much as they were with knowledge and ignorance or truth and falsehood.

"The four cardinal virtues appear as a group (sometimes included in larger lists) long before they are later given this title. Plato identified the four cardinal virtues with the classes of the city described in The Republic, and with the faculties of man. Plato narrates a discussion of the character of a good city where the following is agreed upon. “Clearly, then, it will be wise, brave, temperate [literally: healthy-minded], and just.” (427e; see also 435b) Temperance was common to all classes, but primarily associated with the producing classes, the farmers and craftsmen, and with the animal appetites, to whom no special virtue was assigned; fortitude was assigned to the warrior class and to the spirited element in man; prudence to the rulers and to reason. Justice stands outside the class system and divisions of man, and rules the proper relationship among the three of them."

Plato's Four Cardinal Virtues - Gutenberg PDF

It may also be worthwhile noting that physical training was also part of a philosopher's life, as was physical work among the Christians, later encapsulated in the phrase ora et labora "pray and work".

Well said... .

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but anything in the 500BC to 200AD range works well with early Greek philosophy/Christian philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelian moderation, Zeno Stoicism, etc.), as the OT/Wisdom Books I think were written by similar Sages from that era... (?). In any event, I think (it's safe to say that) there were cross influences.

In any event, I think there were cross influences. — 3017amen

Absolutely. One current of thought would have it that the OT is purely Hebrew or Jewish but this has little to do with historical fact. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Hebrews were a small nation wedged between powerful and influential civilizations such as Egypt, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. The OT itself relates how the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt (Canaan itself was under Egyptian rule for several centuries) and how they were later deported to Mesopotamia. And, of course, there was Persian influence and as the OT says, there was the influence of other ethnic and cultural groups with which the Hebrews shared their territory, such as the Philistines.

The Philistines were apparently from the Aegean space (Crete?) but there were close commercial links between the Greek world and the Levant and, especially after Alexander's conquest of the region, there was substantial cultural influence that was officially promoted by the Greek rulers. There were ten Greek cities (Decapolis) in Syria-Palestine and Greek cultural and linguistic influence was particularly strong at the time Christianity emerged.

St Paul was born in Tarsus (Syria), an important center of Greek culture and philosophy alongside Antioch (Syria), Alexandria (Egypt) and other places. His teacher Gamaliel trained his students in both the Greek and Jewish tradition, and as the NT relates, Paul was sufficiently fluent in Greek and in Greek philosophy to debate with the philosophers of Athens where he also preached in the synagogue (Acts 17:16-34).

In addition to Greek being widely spoken throughout the Middle East including in Palestine, Hebrew and Aramaic had more than 3000 words of Greek origin, in addition to undergoing other changes in phonology, syntax, phraseology and semantics under Greek influence (G Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine).

The NT was not only composed in Greek, but we find Greek concepts such as Hades used by Jesus himself:

“And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" - Matthew 16:18

"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades" - Matthew 11:23

But even going further back, we can see close parallels between Greek and Hebrew religion. For example, God (Zeus/Yahweh) was regarded as the king of the gods, was associated with a sacred mountain, and was represented as driving a chariot across the sky. Temple architecture shows alignment with the sun, animal sacrifices described in the OT could equally describe similar practices among the Greeks. Even the concept of afterlife as a shadowy existence in the underworld (except for heroes and the initiated) was virtually identical among Greeks and Hebrews, etc.

Edit. By the time of Jesus, Jewish religion had also come under the influence of Hellenistic religion which, like its Egyptian counterpart, believed in a divine judgement after death which would result in the soul either entering paradise or being condemned to a shadowy existence in the darker realms of the other world (see Phaedo, etc.). And this is found in Christianity, too.

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.
.

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. — Jack Cummins

That is a very good observation. It is often overlooked that the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire that included Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, was a very cosmopolitan region.

Jesus' hometown of Nazareth was in close proximity to Hellenistic-Roman cities where Greek culture was dominant. The city of Sepphoris was only three miles from Nazareth on the road to Galilee.

How do you view the possibility that Jesus spoke Greek, in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew?

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 do think it's often overlooked that Judaic ethics are considerably different from Christian ones on a foundational level, — Hanover

So where do you think Jesus fits in here?

Human sacrifice for the absolution of sin (ala Jesus) is antithetical to Judaism — Hanover

I think this was an invention to deal with the crisis that followed the death of their messiah. I also think that Jesus would have been appalled to learn that he had been deified and God was believed to be his father in the literal sense rather than in the Jewish sense found in the Hebrew Bible.

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 think that the question about the languages spoken by Jesus becomes more important if we consider them not just as languages, but as cultures: I think he was in the very special position of living in a time and in a geographical area deeply involved in the mixing of Greek and Hebrew culture. I would say: the philosophical, abstracting mentality of Greek culture and the narrative, colourful and material context of Hebrew culture. This gave him the possibility to develop a kind of message able to say a lot until today.