Air has particles and, glass is not invisible, but is merely transparent, or we would walk through it accidentally, and knock over any empty glasses. I am talking more about the way in which at the present time, neuroscience can detect the underlying basis of brain processes but cannot see the specific images and ideas within our consciousness, because they are invisible to other minds.

When you speak of the non physical, which you do fairly frequently, I often wonder if what you mean is the invisible. For example, so cannot be seen, including processes underlying life, including the transmission of ideas electronically on this site. We can see our devices and the words on the screen, but cannot see the way it all happens. It involves signals, which have a physical basis but it does involve transmission which is invisible, and I believe that this applies to thoughts. They involve the physical brain and chemicals, but what takes place involves processes which are not visible. It also makes me think of Hegel's specific phenomenology.

I think that the ideas of angels and demons is extremely interesting indeed. I may end up being accused of going off topic, or even 'tripping' again, but angels and demons is central to the Bible, especially as messengers from God. They figure strongly in both Testaments. In this way, I do believe that they can be seen as figures from the unconscious.

However, some people, including Emmanuel Swedenborg, have thought of the angelic kingdom as an actual realm of existence, including the fall of the angels. I was taught this idea, which definitely has a basis in Milton's writings, but I am not sure if there is much evidence for it in the Bible. I believe that some people think that the account of Genesis describes a 'fall' which implied that human beings were thrown into a different form of existence. I am familiar with the idea of people being thrown into a state of mortality itself, as opposed to immortality in some descriptions of the Biblical story of the fall, connected with eating from the 'tree of knowledge.'

I just looked at the paper you linked in, or part of it, because the text was so small on my phone. What I thought was interesting in was the idea of the hidden. Many think that the idea of the hidden is philosophically ridiculous. In the paper, the idea is that it is 'the powers of darkness' which obscure and make certain aspects appear hidden, which is an unusual slant for thinking about. It reminds me of William Blake: 'If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.'

I did art based on the 'Book of Revelation' when I was on an art therapy course. I am better at drawing devils than angels really, and Blake said that Milton was 'in the devil's party without knowing it' because he was better at describing the demonic rather than angelic.

But, the idea of 666 and the idea of the antichrist has been drawn upon so much within heavy metal symbolism. I read Marilyn Manson's autobiography and he said that he went through a stage in which he really thought that he was the Biblical antichrist. However, Manson also read Jung's writings and came to the conclusion that the idea of the antichrist was symbolic. But, I find a lot of Marilyn Manson's music a bit too much to listen to. I prefer a track by The Inspiral Carpets, 'The Beast Inside', which states that, 'A man is no man if he has no beast inside.'

The fact remains that the idea of 666 has been a puzzle for many, with attempts made to equate it with specific individuals, and a lot of superstition around the number. Similarly, there is so much superstition around the idea of the number 13, as Judas was the 13th apostle, and this thread may end on page 13, as symbolically significant. The Book of Revelation has lead to so much speculation, especially with ideas such as the first and second beast.

I think that Freud is an extremely important thinker and I even created a thread on his ideas about 6 months ago. Generally, he made such an important contribution to culture, and brought sexuality into focus. But, a lot of people, especially feminists, disagreed with the idea of the Oedipus complex. In addition, a lot of philosophers think that the models of both Freud and Jung are not compatible with current scientific knowledge.

However, my own view is that Freud is worth reading, and makes important contributions to the thinking about the life and death instincts, as well as contributing to discussion about religion. Personally, I regard his, 'Origins of the Uncanny', as well as, 'Totem and Taboo' as important.

Nevertheless, it may be that many philosophers, and mainstream psychologists, do not rank him highly. But, I did courses in psychotherapy and art psychotherapy a few years ago, in which the opposite perspective holds and, Freud remains as the king.

I think that we can think about dividing the mind into parts, such as done by Freud and Jung, but it is important to remember the they are only ways of looking at it. They are conceptual categories and nothing more.

I think that a book title which fits your thread is "The Divided Self, ' by R D Laing which looks at the way people experience splits in their experience on account of the mixed messages in socialisation, especially in the family. The splits can result in breakdowns, so it is likely that we don't want the mind divided up too much on an experiential level, because it is a way towards fragmentation of the self.

For anyone who is still interested after I drove the bus into the wilderness yesterday, I just wish to mention the ideas about the 'Book of Revelation' by one writer, Robin Robertson, who is writing from a Jungian perspective. He suggests,
'The Book of Revelation has been all things to all people, a cornucopia of delight for scholars, theologians, crackpots, and madmen. It has never lost its magic power to arouse strong emotions; though we can read contradictory meanings into its words, the words continue to fascinate.'

I have read 'The Book of Revelation' more than any other book in the Bible, with a mixture of fear and fascination, and I am sure that many have done so as well. It is an extremely difficult book to understand. Robertson offers the following thought about it,
'Revelation is the last book in the New Testament of the Bible. It stands as a bridge between the record of the Bible and the unknown times ahead. It is a vision rather than a history, because it records a stage of consciousness which cannot yet be actualized in reality.'

Many people have tried to work out direct ways of thinking about John's vision, in imagining an apocalyptic scenario, but I think that the symbolic approach is an extremely helpful way for looking at it.

I will look at it tomorrow, as I am hoping that this thread is not finished immediately, because I do believe that it involves important questions about the history of Christianity and the way people think in our times, which may be regarded as a secular age.

I have just looked at the thread this evening, and I think that beliefs are complicated. Some go back to claims of authority, especially the Bible, whereas others are based on intuition. It is a complex matter, and I wish to look at these elements of thought as critically as possible.

I am sure that the Bible has some role in this aspect of thinking, but I don't wish to exaggerate this. I think that views about the Bible are important, but in the context of other ideas. No idea stands in isolation. Saying that, it is late at night, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, with a view to what can be carried forward, in thinking about the Bible, ideas, and the development of our own thinking.I could write off the debate about the Bible, but I am not convinced that this aspect of philosophy is settled permanently, so I am willing to pursue it further with other people.

Okay, I will look at your previous posts, because I wish to go forward but don't wish to go off on a magic bus. I will look further tomorrow because I think that I must have written more than about 10 posts, and I don't wish to write complete gobbledgook. I will read through my thread tomorrow morning, and read it with a fresh perspective.

I have to admit that I have only a very limited knowledge of liberation theology. I will look further at it in the book I have on contextual theology. But, I have probably written about the maximum number of posts I can really write in one day, so I will probably look at this discussion further tomorrow, to see where it is going and what is most relevant for thinking about.

I definitely don't wish to go beyond words, and enter the dimensions of the unspeakable. But, I I don't play tennis, so I need some kind of new net or boundary, because boundaries and naming is so difficult, especially in the realm of the sacred. How do we think of religious experience in connection to political correctness. Part of this would be about accepting everyone's views, but how would this come into play in the subjective interpretations, especially in the interpretations of the Bible?

How should be more philosophical? I am not entirely clear, as I do believe In looking from many viewpoints, reason and symbolic. Can we step outside of these entirely, and on what basis?

I do believe that the symbolic dimension is an important aspect of life which is sometime missed in the emphasis upon reason. Reason and imagination are both extremely important and not necessarily opposed to one another when viewing texts, such as The Bible, but it may be that reason needs to pay attention to the imagination and symbolic dimensions. Perhaps, imagination has to be taken into account fully in the interpretations of texts, especially those involving reasoning about the Bible.

I completely agree, and I do believe that any thinking about religious experience is connected to the experience of those individuals. Unfortunately, the Bible does not go into that much depth about the experiences of Moses, Jesus and Paul, amongst others. We may have to allow for imagination in filling in the gaps, and I do believe that these individuals may have been people who questioned in the way that we do. I do believe that the existential aspects of these thinkers may have been missed and that we have been encouraged to think of these people in such a way that it misses out essential aspects of their deeper searching and philosophical quests.

I think that philosophy will survive probably for as long as humanity does, even though it may be defined and redefined. I do believe that some think that metaphysics has passed its sell by date.However, this is in itself open to questioning, because as individuals, we are still stuck in the position of trying to make sense of our lives, for better or worse. I am not sure that the bigger questions are really redundant, because it may be hard to frame and contextualize our own lives without some relation to the wider aspects of life and the cosmic aspects of existence.

One aspect which I may introduce into this discussion is one book which I have read on a Jungian interpretation of 'The Book of Revelation'. I believe that the symbolic dimensions of life is such an important aspect of reality, but I am aware that is simply my perspective. Of course, I am aware that is my own view, and I am open to having that challenged. I may put in an entry based on that view tomorrow, but I make no definite plans, because while I have created the thread, I think that it goes beyond my own personal viewpoint. I wish to go with the flow, and I definitely wish to keep the discussion within the scope of philosophy.

I believe that looking for reliable information and accounts in history is extremely important. However, I don't think that it is an easy task because we are up against what remains suppressed in certain periods, as well as the biases of our own times. I wish to explore this, as far as I can within the limits. I do believe that it involves going beyond the superficial, and the information of the internet, which in itself involves biases of those who compile information, and I think that fuller effort is required.

We probably also have to recognise the potential limitations of our task, while exploring. I am sure that many people may think that looking at the aspects of religious experience and history are futile, but I do believe that this can apply to most other aspects of philosophy and aspects of human life and culture. It does come down to the need to make sense of our lives, and there is no one with the definitive answers, and we have to choose the paths of thought to include ot exclude for ourselves.

I definitely think that the facts of the Bible and history are an extremely useful aspect to this discussion. But, the religious experience, as explored in William James writings is extremely important. I have read some of James's writings and I think that the whole realm of religious experience is followed up by Ninian Smart, within comparative religion, and in the psychological experience of Jung. I also believe that the experiences of the idea of numinous experiences is important and one writer, Rudolf Otto, stressed the understanding of the numinous dimension of experience.

We could begin to think about the experience of Moses, amidst the burning bushes. Also, we may think about those who spoke of the having seen the risen body of Jesus. How do we begin to think about such experiences? Some may speak of delusions, but I think that this is far too much of a dismissal, because delusions usually refer to ideas which do not make sense on a collective level. In contrast, the ideas of Moses and of the resurrection, while open to question, have been valued and have been such an important aspect of historical development of ideas.

However, what I think is important is the breaking down of ideas: ontological questions of God's existence, historical aspects of religion, in relation to facts of history , and the experiences of individuals, including visions and revelation. I do believe that Christianity is only one aspect of this area of thought, but I do think that it is important in thinking about how the divergent aspects of thought come into play. However, I do believe that any full consideration involves thinking about these aspects, and the way they are juxtaposed. I think that we are left with a difficult task really, but I hope that philosophy can enter into this, rather than dismiss it.

You say that,
'The historical record does not stand or fail on whether these stories are believed to be a true and accurate account of what happened.' I think that many people do question the accuracy of such ideas, but I do believe that for many people the question of accuracies and inaccuracies of certain aspects of the Biblical narratives are important. We may have moved into a secular age, but not entirely, and I certainly believe that for many people the central ideas in The Bible, whether agreed with, or opposed, are at the centre of so much philosophical thinking. This probably includes ideas about Jesus, but also, so much thinking in the Bible, before his time as well.

I have drawn out the basic ideas, adding a couple of ideas of my own,although the article is much longer. Of course, the view of Reid is only one, so it will be interesting to see if anyone reads and challenges that view because I am sure that his perspective is open to criticism and challenge.

I think that we are back with an underlying philosophy problem. Some people appreciate the position of the idea of God, and Christ, as expressed in the Bible. Some appreciate a perennial wisdom underlying various religious perspectives, and others reject religious and spiritual philosophies at all. So, we are back to the central problem of objective vs subjective truth, as well as personal preferences.

We could question how much our own thinking about the Bible is based on our own subjective realities, and even what lies behind the subjective realities. How much is psychological, or is there a greater reality behind this?

I have just managed to look at the Les Reid article, so I will draw out the main ideas. He argues that 'statements and attitudes in the Bible are expressed in the Bible that are troublesome in themselves, without reference to facts and opinions derived from other sources.'.He also says that there are no agreed canons, in the interpretations. Reid suggested that, 'If the great spirit is really concerned about humanity, as it is claimed, then one would expect communications to be open, regular and clearly genuine. If there really was a benevolent spirit looking over us, its communication would be as clear as the sun in the sky'.

Reid also suggests that,'Yahweh is a biased God. As Hume pointed out(Enquiry S.10) Biblical assertions that Yahweh favoured one tribe over above the rest of humanity..' He also queried the change from the Yahweh of the Old Testament to the New Testament, whether it would mean that God is changing. His overall conclusion is that, 'The religious paradigm was a human invention and its central narratives are fictions.

I am aware that I looked at the discussion of the original article, so I will look at the review again. One idea which I am aware of is how Reid questions whether God is actually changing, which I am aware was one arising in the perspective of Jung in, 'Answer to Job'. But, here I am just laying out the ideas expressed by Reid, with a view to how they contribute to the debate about thinking of the Bible from a philosophy viewpoint.

I agree that not all of Biblical accounts are about revelation, and there is indeed a curious mixture. I also think that the idea of God being part human and part man is an interesting aspect of The Bible. In this way, the idea of God in The Bible is so different from ideas in other religions and sacred texts, in the specific idea of God being incarnated as an actual living human being, in Jesus.

I will try to look at the original Les Reid article, , because I have one left in what I am allowed to log into. So, I am being careful about accidentally logging into other articles accidentally. I am going to reply to a couple of other posts and try to access the Les Reid review, if I can, this afternoon.

I just had a look at the'God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', and most of it appears to come down to the debate between theism and atheism. However, in one article,'Theism, History and Experience', Timothy Chapel explores the idea of moaning to God.

I think that this is an interesting idea, and it certainly makes sense think of, 'The Book of Job', which I see as involving a lot of moaning and groaning. It also makes me wonder about the way in which The Bible holds an emphasis upon the power, or force, lying behind life. There is a sense of awe generally, and of wishing to praise this source. However, this is mixed with a sense of being in a relationship with God, and of being uncertain of how God will respond to the human plight. Part of this seems to involve fear, especially of punishment, and of reward in heaven too. As far as I can see, the worldview in The Bible is of human beings having an intimate relationship with some power behind life and nature, and, generally, this at odds with most thinking of our time, including most contemporary philosophy perspectives.

Thanks for your reply. I have to laugh a bit at the idea of me being so busy now because in some ways I have more free time than usual. If I manage to get a job, I can imagine spending my breaks logged into this site.

I don't usually trust the authority of mainstream newspapers but the idea in your link appears credible. I do often wonder about archaeology in relation to questions of historical evidence relating to The Bible. I also wonder about the idea of the flood at the time of Noah. I try to read about such ideas because I find them interesting.

I do think that Christianity may be a fusion of many blends of thinking. That is why I think that esoteric sources of thought are worth thinking about, as underlying developments behind the surface. In many ways, we are in a secular age now, and I am also interested in what lies behind this. I do believe that there is so much behind the surface of ideas, on an ideological level.

Many thanks for your reply, and definitely the extent to which the ideas in The Bible are read literally is of critical importance. This does bear particular relevance to the ideas which I am reading presently, 'The Book of God: A Response' by Gabriel Josipovici. In this book, the author focuses on the texts as expressions of human thinking.

In particular, Josipovici speaks of 'the need to utter', saying, 'Without the recognition of man's need to utter, no matter what, in moments of crisis, of triumph and despair, the Bible would have been quite other than it is.' However, he goes on to stress that in the Bible, 'the bedrock is of course dialogue. This dialogue is between humans and God. The framework of The Bible is in that context of thinking.

But, this is where the essential argument may lie, in the framing of perspective and authority. In some religious perspectives, there is belief that the authority comes from God, whereas others view the authority in terms of the human need to make sense of life. An essential aspect is how we read The Bible, especially the mindset involved. Josipovici points to the way in which there can be 'so much anxiety attached to the reading of religious documents that the natural processes of reading are interfered with by external notions of what it is one should be looking for far more than other writings'

This idea resonates with me because I know that when I was growing up and up until a few years ago, I always looked to The Bible as divine revelation, and felt profoundly anxious for specific answers. So, the underlying philosophical question is about the idea of the authority of The Bible and how we conceive this. We can ask what is 'divine revelation' ? Josipovici suggests that,
'Kierkergaard, trying to rescue Christianity from a vague Romantic ethics, argued that it is not so much what is said in the New Testament that is important as the authority of the speaker. '

I believe that the question of the way we understand the question of authority is stepping slightly aside from that of the literal, but how we consider the nature of authority is important for the whole way in which we consider and try to draw conclusions from The Bible.

I have just looked at the Michael Langford article and it is fairly useful, in looking at the genres in The Bible,and I am hoping to be able to look at a couple of articles in 'The God' issue of 'Philosophy Now', as I have accessed 2 of my 4 allowed. I am hoping to be able to address @neoshaman2012s concerns as well. I am trying to think of a more specific focus and one particular book which I wish to have a look at is one which I have in my room by Gabriel Josipovici, which is the best philosophical discussion of it that I can find presently. So, I plan to read some of this and write a fuller entry afterwards, later today.

I have not heard of that being the main view within Judaism. My own understanding is that many Jews simply did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah.

It is true that the authors of The Bible presume a belief in God but this does not mean that everyone who reads it has to come from that angle. People can approach it from all kinds of philosophical perspectives.

I have never come across the band, The Jesus Cult, but I am familiar with The Jesus and Mary Chain. My favourite Biblically inspired track is one by U2, called '40' and it is based on the 40th psalm.

I just logged in to the site before going to bed, and I noticed you have written your first post, so welcome to the forum. I realise that the thread question which I have written is extremely broad and, of course, I am not expecting it to be fully answered. I really chose the idea of thinking about The Bible as an approach to the philosophy of religion with a slightly different focus rather than the typical atheist vs theist dichotomy.

If you are interested in the discussion at all you may find links in the thread which may be useful. I can assure you that I am interested in many aspects of philosophy, and my thread is not intended to make any set of assumptions. The aim is to look at The Bible as a text, and I do welcome your ideas.

Thanks for your link to 'Philosophy Now' magazine. I do read it sometimes, in paper form, but have not read the particular issue on God, I think that it was a little while before I discovered the magazine. I think that some of the content is coming up on my phone, so I will try to use some of the ideas as a basis for some further discussion. Hopefully some others will be able to access the links because I am not really able to make links on my phone. Sometimes, I can't access some people's links on the site but your ones seem to show up, and it is probably due to signals and transmissions.

With some sources such as these the thread may turn into a miniature encyclopedia. I do also plan to refer to some books which I have in my room, because I do a certain amount of reading online but I do read paper books still. I have been out all day, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, and follow it through by adding some further ideas. Once again, thank you for your input because I am wishing to keep the topic focused within philosophy.

Yes, I am probably on a wider path of reading in my own life, beyond the forum itself. The way which I see any ideas which I draw upon from any other disciplines here is with a view to drawing out the relevance of those ideas to the philosophical discussion of The Bible.

Also, you must bear in mind, that what happens in the thread is partly in relation to the way others pursue those ideas as well. Having initiated the discussion, I see my own role as stearing the flow to some extent, but it is not as if I control the thread. I think that what is most important is for various people who are engaged in it to be able to engage in a way which enables them to think about the topic. Also, I do wish the thread to work in such a way that anyone who looks at it can find some discussion worth reading, hopefully.

Anyway, going back to the idea of the bus, the one funny aspect of this is that on several occasions I have been busy writing replies on this site on busses and have missed my stop...

Of course, I and, I am sure others don't have time to build an encyclopediac thread . I will look at it, and I am hope to try to draw out ideas which are worth discussing in the thread, in conjunction with any who engage in it while it lasts.

I think that I probably have a slightly wider view of philosophy than you do because even I look at philosophy texts I do believe in drawing on ideas from related fields. I don't think philosophy can be boxed off. Also, I do think that the line between contemplation and critical thinking is absolute because we engage with writing and ideas on an aesthetic level. For example, I think that the ideas of Nietzsche work better as an art form rather than simply at the conceptual level.

I am hoping for some discussion from outside of mere textual analysis of The Bible. I am not a theologian and have more of a humanities and psychology perspective. I do have some ideas which I do wish to contribute but it will probably be some time tomorrow, because I am busy most of today and the books which I wish to look at are in my room in London. I will put in an entry some time tomorrow because I do need to look at a book or two to see what is appropriate for the thread. I am wishing for any discussion to be critical in nature, but it does depend partly on the various angles of anyone who engages in the thread.

Thanks for the links, I have just woken up but I will read them. I don't know how far this thread will go because I only started it about 5 days ago. Going back to Proof's idea of the bus it depends on which passengers get on and off. I would have thought that some analysis of The Bible is worthwhile as there are threads devoted to the works of Plato. It is not as if I am approaching the topic with a set agenda, and I do like to encourage discussion from those of varying viewpoints because I think it builds balanced dialogue.

I will probably not be writing much on the thread today because I am going on the train back to London this afternoon. I am hoping that my thread can last for a few more days at least, but this does depend on who is engaged, as in a way all these threads are a bit like mystery tours.

I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers.