Comments

  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    What do these underlined words mean? — Hanover

    You don't expect him/her to know that, do you?
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    So, I ask you: do you want to see Muslims and Jews converted to Christianity, or not? — god must be atheist

    They already believe in God and they agree with the two commandments. That's good enough to me.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Nowhere does Jesus teach that he was God's only son. This was a belief that developed later. — Fooloso4

    Really? How late is this then?

    “Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” – John 1:49.

    They called him "Rabbi" AND "Son of God".

    The Koran calls him a Prophet.

    I'm sure even you can see that "Son of God" and "Prophet" is not the same as "rabbi" in the ordinary sense. Unless you're related to @god must be atheist which would tend to slightly change the situation, of course.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    So... Muslims and Jews are strong supporters of Christianity, according to you, because they do accept the truth of the two commandments without needing to "Convert" to anything. — god must be atheist

    I've no idea what you're talking about. I never said Muslims and Jews are strong supporters of Christianity, only that those I've spoken to agree with the injunctions to love God and to love our neighbor, like in the same way they believe in one God. What makes you think that's a problem?
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    I wouldn't necessarily agree that people are just arguing because they have nothing better to do, or because their communists. — Sam26

    Well, there are some who seem to think that belief in reincarnation is "irrational nonsense" while failing to show that this is the case. They seem to think that they bear no burden of proof in support of their claims. So, it does make you wonder.

    But I think that in philosophical terms @Bartricks and one or two others have done a good job so far.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. — Sam26

    That's a very big "IF" there. You don't really expect these people to have an "open mind"? Obviously, they're basing their arguments on unexamined assumptions and unfounded hypotheses for the sake of being contradictory because they've got nothing better to do.
  • On anti-Communism and the "Third Camp"
    What I am suggesting is that there needs to be a "third camp". — thewonder

    The "third camp" or "Third Way" are the Fabians. Unfortunately, they are just another form of totalitarian communism. G B Shaw who was one of their leaders said "we must get Socialism out of its democratic grooves".

    Plus, you forget big tech and big bucks who are pulling the strings from behind the scenes. What camp do you put them in and how?

    And, yes, Kolakowski is a very good author. Unfortunately, on this forum he is deemed to be an "idiot".
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    Remaining within the buddhist context, nirvana, for example, what it is to be precise. can't be described in a way that we can get; no third-person point of view of nirvana can accurately and completely describe what it is like to be enlightened. — TheMadFool

    So, you finally got it. Nirvana, like reincarnation, is something that you need to experience to know exactly what it is. You may choose to dismiss it as "subjective", but you can't prove that it doesn't exist and you haven't persuaded anyone. That much should be clear to you by now. But apparently not.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    ↪god must be atheist
    I believe you were talking proselytization. —

    Your belief is one thing. Facts are another. I don't believe in "proselytization", whatever that is, at all. People convert to Christianity only if God wants them to. Jesus and the apostles told people about the word of God and that was it. What people did with the teachings was their problem.

    Plus, most religions would accept the truth of the two commandments without needing to "convert" to anything. Jews and Muslims already accept them. So, you got it totally wrong, I'm afraid. And not for the first time.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    ↪Fooloso4
    They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”

    Well, people addressed Jesus with the title of “Rabbi” as a sign of respect and because he was teaching them as part of his mission as instructed by God, not because he was a professional rabbi.

    Christianity believes in Jesus as the Son of God. Islam believes in Jesus as a Prophet of God. Judaism has no teachings about Jesus. Therefore the idea that he was "a Jewish rabbi" is unsupported by the sources. You may believe whatever you want but people don't need to accept that.

    The only thing that matters is the sources:

    “Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” – John 1:49.

    As for "Jewish", the population of Roman Palestine was mixed. There were Greeks, Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc. Moses, Solomon and many others had non-Jewish wives. Jesus may have been partly Jewish through his mother but on the paternal side he surely was the Son of God.

    The Christian Creed is:

    I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

    I'm not surprised that Marxist-influenced “Christian” schools teach something else but that has nothing to do with the authentic teachings of the Christian Faith.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Rabbi means teacher or leader. Do you believe that Jesus was a Jew? Do you believe he taught adherence to the Law? Put it together and you'll get your answer. — Fooloso4

    lol You do make me laugh. According to Christianity Jesus was the Son of God, the Word of God, etc.

    Where are the sources that say "Jewish rabbi"??? You're making it up as usual, aren't you?

    Even the Koran says he was a prophet.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    How about the way one particular Jew might have understood his own words and how he wanted them to be understood? One thing is certain: he died before the advent of Paul's Christianity. — Fooloso4

    Well, if you're a Jew then tell us what tradition you're representing and what your position is. Then we can discuss. Not a problem for me at all, on the contrary, I tend to get on with Jews much better than with Marxists to be honest.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Are you not familiar with Jesus of Nazareth? Or as you might call him, following Paul, Jesus Christ.I — Fooloso4

    Where does it say he was a "Jewish rabbi"??? First time I hear of that.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    I think Apollodorus is about 14 years old — frank

    You must have done a lot of thinking to come up with that. Don't overexert yourself.
  • God and sin. A sheer unsolvable theological problem.
    If we grant that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it follows obviously and incontestably that we did not create ourselves, do not live nor do anything through ourselves, but only through his omnipotence.—God’s omniscience and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to the freedom of our will.— — spirit-salamander

    Well, God's omniscience and omnipotence is the only thing we can be certain of. Of course man has some freedom of will but that is necessarily limited by God's own omnipotence.

    Personally, I tend to believe that man's "free will" is ultimately negligible if not illusory. The more spiritually advanced a soul becomes, the more it acts in harmony with the will of God. The upper hierarchies of souls such as saints, angels, etc. would be more in harmony with the will of God than the lower ones, so that ultimately, the whole of reality is subject to the will of God. Whether it constitutes a "problem" or not is a matter of perspective. It can't be a problem from the perspective of God and those who live in harmony with him.

    The commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and mind, and soul" means to unconditionally submit to his will. Once we do that, all doubts disappear. As we can't spend all our lives doubting and asking questions, there comes a point where faith becomes more important than reason. This is precisely why many Pagan philosophers, Augustine included, gave in to Christianity. Others embraced Christianity but retained some philosophical methods of inquiry, etc. But it has never been a problem to ordinary believers.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    who you callin' a materialist? — Banno

    The materialists of course. Are you feeling guilty or are you just upset?

    Plus, you still haven't told us who you believe it is that is reincarnated.
  • Is achieving an equitable society a naive aspiration?
    Some organizations, for example, seek equity for Native Americans — TLCD1996

    Well, I must say it wouldn't be bad to see a Native American US President for a change but for some strange reason it looks like other minorities are always given priority in these matters.

    But a more fundamental problem with "equity" seems to be that is is difficult to define and even more difficult to implement. To begin with, who decides? It looks like the group that shouts loudest or gets the support of the media, big tech and big bucks tends to win the day. Of course, I may be wrong.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Your claim was that material well-being is not an essential aspect, You excluded material well-being, but the passages I quote show that it cannot be excluded. — Fooloso4

    You're making that up, aren't you? I never excluded anything. What my whole statement means is that the primary concern is for his or her spiritual salvation. "Primary" means of the first importance, fundamental, first in a series, etc, not exclusive. Are you well?

    It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about. — Fooloso4

    Well, Christianity is a different religion, isn't it? It isn't my fault that you don't like Christians.

    And what "Jewish rabbi" are you talking about anyway?
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    Probably nothing, considering that you've made up your mind that souls don't exist. I was talking about myself though. — baker
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    So if you have a soul, so that you and your soul are two separate things, who burns in hell for all eternity? You or your soul? — baker

    You're joking, right? When we say "we", we normally mean the whole human being, i.e. body and soul.

    As such, we "have a soul". If we were a disembodied soul, then we'd say "I am a soul".
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    But it is quite a stretch to conclude that because some kid in Australia remembered something from a past life, this means that I have/am a soul that gets reincarnated or that religion X is the right one. — baker

    Nobody is disputing that. As I said before, I was talking about reliable accounts, e.g. family, friends, trustworthy persons who're simply relating very vivid experiences without even mentioning religious beliefs or trying to sell you anything. In other words, people who are extremely unlikely to be telling you lies. It isn't "proof" but it makes it credible.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant? — baker

    Well, Platonism is a philosophy more than a religion. It is true that in those days philosophy and religion were closely interlinked but that isn't my fault.

    Plus Plato clearly uses reincarnation (the Story of Er) as a parable illustrating his belief that souls are rewarded in the afterlife according to their deeds on earth. So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. But I can understand if Marxists don't understand.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Luke and Romans clearly show that love of your neighbor means concern for your neighbors well being. Nothing is said about spreading the "good news". — Fooloso4

    Good try.

    However, well-being includes spiritual well-being and that is achieved by following the teachings of the Gospels.

    You seem to forget that true Christians believe that we have a soul.

    But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

    Hence hearing the Gospels is central to Christianity, that's why they're called "Gospels" i.e. "good news or message".
  • Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?
    Could it be said, the Athenian interest in arte and individualism is the opposite of Hegal and "the state is God". Hegel and Sparta are a good match, and for sure, Sparta was not about individual liberty. Democracy in the US is about individual liberty, but without also being about arte and democracy we are advancing anarchy instead of democracy. The US has dropped the Greek philosophy in favor of German philosophy and Nietzsche's superman has become a problem along with Trumpism and favoring authoritarianism. — Athena

    I think Hegel needs to be taken in the right historical context. His "statism" was a reaction to the French Revolution that promoted individualism which many saw as leading to anarchy and chaos. The Germans were different from the French, they preferred stability, law and order to the unbridled idealism and individualism of the French. Plus, they had no choice. In a world system of conflicting imperial interests, they needed an ordered, successful and strong economy and the state and military to promote and defend that.

    Germany was a world leader in science, technology, education and the arts. It wasn't just the Americans who borrowed from the Germans. But I'm not sure "German philosophy" is the real problem in America. Don't forget that Marxism was another Darwinist "German philosophy" that believed in a new type of man to replace the old. I think the problem is that multinational corporations and financial groups have infiltrated and taken over the political system which now runs more and more according to their interests and less and less according to the interests of the people. People can see that after decades of "progress" not much has changed. Even Clinton and Obama with their "Change" and "Yes We Can" slogans left quite a lot unchanged. People are beginning to distrust politicians in general and turn to any populist figure for solutions. Unfortunately, that will never really work unless and until the root causes of it all are addressed.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Oddly similar to how the capitalists and the bourgeois do things. — baker

    That was exactly my opinion. Marxists come up with fantastic stories of replacing capitalism with paradise on earth, only to end up with something very similar or worse.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Are there any Christians and believers here who could speak up? — baker

    That remains to be seen. I'm in no hurry.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    Are you saying disembodied dancing has the same conceptual problem as a four-sided triangle? At the very least it would be metaphysically possible to dance as a disembodied person. — Sam26

    It's a common misconception, understandably held by atheists, materialists and communists, that a soul without a physical body has no body. The fact is that many traditions state that a disembodied soul does have a "subtle" or "astral" body that is visible to other (disembodied) souls. So, I wouldn't take the deniers too seriously. They clearly have nothing better to do.
  • “Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbour”: a Reconsideration in Philosophical Perspective
    Your presenting to a billion atheists and agnostics Christianity without first carving their frontal cortex from their skull will encounter a lot of derisive laughter. — god must be atheist

    I doubt there would be any need for that as many seem to have already been lobotomized by Covid-19 and by reading too many Marxist fairy tales. The number of Christians in Marxist societies like China is certainly growing by the day.

    By the way, Christianity was mostly spread through persuasion, not coercion. Pagan rulers and the educated among the upper classes tended to convert of their own accord as happened in the Roman Empire and later in Russia and many other parts.

    Plus, nobody was talking about "presenting Christianity to atheists and agnostics". The OP is about how Christians and other believers view the commandments mentioned.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    I would have liked to see some comment on the conceptual difficulties I raised, but that's OK — Banno

    I'm not sure what you believe to have "raised" as we haven't noticed anything.
  • Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?
    Generally, I find discussing ideas on this forum, but I am trying to be a bit reserved and cautious about how much I talk about certain ideas, like reincarnation. I have probably shared more in certain threads than I should have done, and I ended up feeling stressed out with some responses I received. I am just saying that because you are new to the forum, and there are some people who can become fairly hostile. Obviously, it is entirely up to you how much you share. At the moment, I am trying to be a bit more cautious than usual. — Jack Cummins

    I don’t actually frequent online forums much, for the simple reason that I haven’t got the time. I only came across this one while I was working with my colleagues on a project about Greek philosophy and its transmission from Plato into modern times. Incidentally, this in itself makes a fascinating subject. It is generally assumed in Western Europe that Greek philosophical texts were somehow “lost” to Europe and were reintroduced through Latin translations from Arabic. But if you said this to an educated Greek, he would smile at your ignorance. The assumption is largely true of Western Europe which was overrun by Germanic tribes but the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) with its capital at Constantinople lasted until 1453 (about a thousand years) and all the original texts were preserved in Greek (Christian) libraries, universities and even monasteries. Meantime, there were Greek or Greek-speaking philosophers in Alexandria (Egypt) and other parts of the Middle East and when Muslim Arabs conquered the region in the 600s, Greek philosophy passed on to the Arab world.

    The Arabs didn’t have the manpower or experience to run the administration, so they largely left the Byzantine administration in place, with Greek-speaking non-Arabs in charge of the conquered territories. For example, St John of Damascus’ father, Sergius ibn Mansur, was one of the many Byzantine Christian officials in Syria retained in the new Muslim Umayyad administration. Under Muslim rule, St John himself was able to write a book in Greek, The Fount of Knowledge, in which he refuted the teachings of Islam (makes interesting reading, by the way).

    Greek civilisation, even under Christianity, was unsurpassed at the time. Constantinople, “the New Rome”, was unmatched and the Muslim Arabs dreamed of making it the capital of the Muslim world. In particular, the Arabs had a keen interest in Greek philosophy. Centres of Greek philosophy had already been established in Persia and Christian Armenia had libraries with Greek philosophical texts. In the 700s, following the Arab conquests, the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur built a learning centre (“House of Wisdom”) at Baghdad and ordered the translation of Greek philosophical works, gathered from the Byzantines, into Arabic. This is known as the “Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement” but translations were also made into Syriac and Persian so that, incredible though this may sound, the whole of the Middle East was re-Hellenized under Muslim rule. It was at this time that Islamic mysticism a.k.a. Sufism made its appearance under the influence of Platonic currents from Alexandria, Baghdad, Harran and other places. The Persian scholar al-Biruni even believed that the word “Sufi” was derived from Greek sophia, “wisdom”. This may not have been entirely true of the word, but it certainly applied to the tradition.

    And so, Platonic philosophers and mystics carried on the tradition, sometimes disguised as Christians in Greece and elsewhere in the Christian world, as Muslims or “Sufis” in the Arab-Persian World and even as far as India where many had already established themselves in the early centuries of the Christian Era.

    Transmission of the Greek Classics – Wikipedia

    Graeco-Arabic translation movement - Wikipedia

    Christian Platonists and Christian Neoplatonists

    What you are reading here is something that the vast majority of people, even those with higher education, know nothing about (except some with knowledge of Byzantine studies and related fields). The same happens with philosophy and spirituality in general. Very little is known, much less is understood, and less still is put into practice and experienced. On the other hand, the saying “seek and you shall find” applies above all to the spiritual path. Half of the time, while you’re looking for something, you may find something else that is of even greater value. The main thing is to keep an open mind and believe in the impossible at all times. And don’t let anyone tell you that reincarnation is a myth.
  • Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?
    As I understand philosophy and democracy they go together. — Athena

    They do indeed. But the main concern in Platonic philosophy is justice or righteousness. The ideal government or political system is one guided by the principle of righteousness. Hence Plato's suggestion that countries should be ruled by philosopher-kings.

    By the way, the notion of "floating around without bodies" is not a Platonic one. In Platonism the soul after death or between incarnations is endowed with a subtle, non-material or "astral" body. The soul also inhabits this astral body in the dream state or out-of-body experiences.
  • How come ''consciousness doesn't exist'' is so popular among philosophers and scientists today?
    ↪Nzomigni


    As I said, I agree. Agreement and consensus and, above all, commonsense are without doubt of the essence.
  • How come ''consciousness doesn't exist'' is so popular among philosophers and scientists today?
    So something exist if it please you ? It fits the common-sense, innate vew point i described earlier — Nzomigni

    That's exactly what I meant. Good to see that we agree.
  • How come ''consciousness doesn't exist'' is so popular among philosophers and scientists today?
    Consciouness isnt the variable of anything. This is more ludicrous to say that consciouness exist than say god exist. Atleast the last would have created the universe. — Nzomigni

    I bet great scientists like Mao Zedong would have said something similar.
  • How come ''consciousness doesn't exist'' is so popular among philosophers and scientists today?
    I don't even have to get into it too deep to see how ludacris that is:
    1. How can you do science if you are not conscious in the first place?     — Eugen

    Extremely ludicrous.

    My guess is that science and society in general are influenced by materialistic and atheistic systems in many different ways.

    As society becomes more and more materialistic, people become increasingly engrossed in material things and trapped in material concerns. This gives rise to an irrational fear of non-material things that science can't explain and people come to feel they must reject, sometimes even violently, anything higher than their physical selves e.g. concepts such as soul, afterlife, God, or anything that doesn't fit a materialist worldview.

    As consciousness is something that can't be measured or defined by science it is either dismissed as a product of the nervous system/brain or its existence is simply denied.
  • Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all?
    However, it is probably better than us reading and thinking about our ideas completely alone, in isolation. — Jack Cummins

    Correct. Humans are social creatures. They learn from each other and learning or study groups do assist in this process. The thing is that people often join such groups for their own reasons, e.g. to socialize or kill time. Others may put too much energy into defending their own positions or promoting their egos, often without realizing, of course. But philosophy forums are good enough places to start as long as we don't forget why we're here. In Platonism, as in other traditions, memory plays a central role on many levels. It is important to understand that life, including learning, takes place on different planes of existence or levels of experience simultaneously, only one or two of which we are normally aware of, and even that incompletely. I find that keeping this at the back of our mind as it were, can open up unexpected avenues of perception and experience.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    In Politeia, Plato presents an account of the adventures of the war hero Er. The story begins as a man named Er, son of Armenios of Pamphylia, dies in battle. When the bodies of those who died in the battle are collected, ten days after his death, Er’s body remains undecomposed. Two days later he revives on his funeral-pyre and tells others of his journey in the afterlife, including an account of reincarnation and the celestial spheres of the astral plane. The account also includes the idea that moral people are rewarded and immoral people punished after death.

    Plato's Er's Near-Death Experience - Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

    Personally, I find the story very interesting but I'm guessing that some people just get upset when they hear unusual stories like this one because they contradict their normal expectations and rattle their habitual thought-processes and the way they are used, or have been conditioned, to see things and interpret the world around them.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    One thing which I have wondered about in thinking about reincarnation memories, is if rather than people remembering specific personal memories, they are tapping into the collective unconscious of memories. However, I am aware that many people on this site find Jung's idea of the collective unconscious as rather unsound. — Jack Cummins

    Well, one thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other. If consciousness can operate outside of and independently from the physical body, then both scenarios are (theoretically) possible.

    One theory I've heard of is that people can pick up "psychic" impressions left by others at their work place, on public transport or other places, which subsequently become activated during dreams, etc. when, like in meditation or contemplation, the mind is relaxed and detached from external objects.

    Living beings can leave minute traces of scent on surrounding objects that can be detected from great distances and sometimes after a long time by other living beings such as dogs, wolves, etc.

    What if thoughts and emotions can also leave similar imprints on the environment?

    And what about out-of-body experiences, telepathy, etc.? As others have pointed out, the cumulative evidence seems to be sufficiently strong to suggest that even scientifically "inexplicable" phenomena may have some truth in them.
  • Philosophical justification for reincarnation
    I don't see how you get more compelling testimonial evidence, it's overwhelming. Do I need to know the mechanism for OBEs in order to know if NDEs are veridical? Do I need to know the mechanism of any experience to know if the experience is real or genuine? Of course not. We have firsthand experiences all the time without knowing the mechanisms involved. — Sam26

    Correct. What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is impossible, irrational and evil, and that any consideration of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means.
  • Marxism - philosophy or hoax?
    ↪Valentinus
    If the guy was that flaky in your view, why bring him up at all? — Valentinus

    It all began with threads like "Democracy vs Socialism" (started by others) where some comments seemed to suggest that socialism, including Marxism is some sort of panacea to all societal ills. In my view, which is supported by historians and other scholars, this is far from being the case. On the contrary, Marxism, in particular, has a lot of inconsistencies in many of its central theories and concepts.

    As already stated, the question that I asked myself was "how is it possible that somebody who had a degree in philosophy, was very well-read and experienced in philosophical and political debate, developed a "political philosophy" that doesn't hold water?" Was this accident or intention? I think it is hard to argue that it was entirely accidental in view of the fact that as noted by historians like Adamiack and others, Marx and Engels sometimes deliberately used suggestive, ambiguous or misleading language that contradicts the claim that their system was "scientific".

    I brought up the issue here because I wanted to find out what others think of the matter and because I thought that a philosophy forum would be more "philosophical" and less argumentative than one where people tend to discuss politics in a more partisan or biased way.

    I agree that @boethius addressed one of the points I was making and I appreciate that he agreed with me. However, there are many other points which, when objectively addressed, might actually lead to the same conclusion. In which case the topic would be justified.
Home » Apollodorus