Even if I might question a particular wording of yours, such as your statement that Man needs G-d "absolutely" (and please feel free to exand on that) — 0 thru 9
you seem to keep your statements open and flexible, imho. This to me is the welcome opposite of dogmatism, and to some it may seem watered-down or wavering. — 0 thru 9
If you look at the cave painting of half human - half animal - I would say this is abstract. There is a 40,000 year old sculpture in mammoth ivory, 6 feet tall, with a lion head and human body. — Thinker
Yes, i would certainly agree with this. It is the whole "literal historical fact vs poetic deeper truth" conundrum that we all know so well. A fervent fan of Star Wars would look at me most puzzledly if i breathlessly informed them that their favorite movies in fact never historically happened and most certainly contains several elements that are physically impossible or plain illogical. Never even counting JarJar. They might take offense at my attempts to convert and baptize them as a new follower of Star Trek, which according to my passionate evangelical view, is at least theoretically possible. ;) Maybe a dose of Joseph Campbell's work would be sufficient to bring down the fever of literalism, while still treasuring the core of meaning.I agree that no one knows what God is like. Characterizations of God are made on the basis of being metaphorical evocations, not of being literal descriptions. I would say.
Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions. — John
Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions. — John
Found a few similar threads with some interesting posts, for those who may be interested.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1242/do-you-want-god-to-exist/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/336/page/p1#OP — 0 thru 9
If you would like to somehow relate Islam to the topic at hand, that would be most welcome and could lead to a fascinating discussion. The topic of this particular thread is "A Case for Ignosticism". Sound good? Thanks!!! (L) (L) (L) — 0 thru 9
It is the whole "literal historical fact vs poetic deeper truth" conundrum that we all know so well. — 0 thru 9
Yes, the thing is that for many who call themselves 'Christian' the belief that Jesus was the unique Son of God is central, and this would seem to necessarily distinguish Christianity form all other religions. Can Jesus' divinity be considered to be a "literal historical fact", though? What could that mean? That it was a fact that He was resurrected?
On the other side, the idea of Jesus' divinity as mystic or poetic truth can be understood to symbolize the divinity of humanity. In this view we are all sons and daughters of God, we are God-as-Son, one part of the Trinity. — John
You're entitled to those opinions; though many Christians would not share them. However, Muslims would agree, they honour Jesus as a great prophet, but consider attribution of divinity to him to be blasphemous, so you are in fine company. — John
Doctrinal orthodoxies are built up over very long periods and under the influence of many great minds. Of course there is no guarantee that political influences are absent in any orthodoxy. Most adherents of a religion simply believe the orthodoxy of that religion; that is why they are called' adherents'.
Sometimes it may be a matter of people being too stupid, lazy or afraid to think for themselves, but when you consider what consensus has been reached by more than two millennia of speculative reasoning by the greatest, boldest minds, you can hardly blame many intelligent people for settling for received wisdom. People nowadays do that as much with science as they do with religion.
So, basically I think your attitude is an unwarranted, simplistic generalization, that probably arises more out of your own fears than it does out of any nuanced rational inquiry. — John
The mystics of every religious tradition, and some of no tradition whatsoever, have inspired me beyond words. — 0 thru 9
Alrighty, then...done and dusted! — John
Most Christians and Muslims are just sheep. They don’t know what they think – they wait to be told what to think. The reason is because most people are intellectual cowards. — Thinker
I think this concept of sheep is misguided. It's such a common notion, but it's not grounded in reality. Imagine a world full of philosophers. It would be a world of total disagreement and intellectual chaos (just take the disagreement on this forum and magnify it to the size of the world population). The assumption here seems to be, classically, that if only the world weren't sheep and understood "the truth" (my worldview), things would be better off. — Noble Dust
As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. — Thinker
What we are in danger of is less and less courage in society. — Thinker
People in the world, especially the US, have become so fat - literally and spiritually – they only see their own hedonistic needs and desires. — Thinker
The intellectually rigorous mind has always been a rare thing. Unfortunately, it will always be uncommon. — Thinker
As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. — Thinker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.