I think that some people project so much onto transgender individuals, and that is why they have issues with individuals who are gender dysphoric or wish to transition.

I do think that my own answers to such questions do reflect my own mindset. If I am feeling stressed I often feel negative in my own thoughts about where the world and humanity is going. I find that my thoughts are like waves. But, generally, I do believe that the most important factor is to make conscious choices to overcome destructiveness helps rather than being dragged along by destructive tendencies subconsciously.

I don't know. It just seems that on the forum people project so much onto other groups and that was really why I raised it. But, I did feel that I may appear really stupid asking the question.

I have just moved my discussion to the lounge because it may be too depressing, but t, if I find that people are interested in it I will transfer it back. It may be something which I think about, and perhaps others, but it may be that there is no point talking about it all.

So, maybe my question is a about myself. It actually arose in thinking about atrocities committed by human beings in the dark ages, in the name of religion. I believe that religion is not the key factor, but human nature, because it is not as ìf humanity has been transformed by losing religion. And, if my question is not worth discussing the thread will probably die by the end of the day, or should I say, it will self destruct.

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

It is hard to know what would have happened if the Church had not existed. As far as I can see the Church, despite its negative effects, did form the underlying structure for Western civilisation, for better or worse.

John Lennon sang, 'Imagine no religion..' and it is debatable whether the loss of religion leads to cultural fragmentation. As much as thinking about The Bible in the historical context, it is interesting to think what role it will play in the future, and this may depend on what level it is understood and interpreted. I think that one important aspect is the need for demystifying many of the ideas. Perhaps the philosophers can help people understand it better, and try to enable it to be understood in such a way that it is less likely to be used in an oppressive way.

Yes, we should definitely not overlook the way in Anti-Semitism only last century and we don't know what is in our midst. The central problem is human nature. I think that the problem is not The Bible, or other sacred texts, but how these can be abused, as a way to back up and enforce negative ideologies.

I think that there is always such a mismatch between ethical ideas and practice. The ethical ideal in Christianity was of 'perfection',especially in the writings of Paul, but living up to the ideals seemed only possible for the saints.

It does seem that there have been dark ages in the past, and it almost makes me feel optimistic about our current times, despite conflicts in the world and the worry about climate change etc.

I agree that forgiveness was important but I don't think that it was always that simple. For example, I believe learning in history that in the Catholic church there were 'indulgences' in which people were expected to pay for their sins to be forgiven, even though tasks such as building bridges. I also believe that it is likely that the rich and powerful still oppressed the poor. I imagine that behind the scenes of the church and the rhetoric of Christian ethics there was so much oppression. In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power.

I know that some people do think that some of the ideas in The Bible were made up. It is so hard to know on what level many of the ideas were believed literally, because in some ways they may have been written as works of literature. The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. But, I do believe that it is hard to know the facts behind the texts, but I am wishing to read and discover more fully.

I think that criticism and looking behind the surface in the ideas and writings in The Bible is very important. I remember going to commentaries in libraries when I was a teenager and so worried about the passage about the unforgivable sin. I found that looking at commentaries was like peeling back layers of meaning. It may be that the history of religious ideas, even before Christ, was full of dialogue and heated exchanges of ideas on many levels.

Thinking about the 'Old' and the 'New' Testaments is also probably extremely complex, because it involved the migration of ideas at various places in the world. I am sure that Greek ideas, were important on many ways, but a part which may be overlooked is paganism and various systems of ideas, especially metaphysics, including Hermeticism. I do believe that Gnostic traditions and other esoteric traditions play an important role behind the scenes of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, in shaping the development of the ideas.

I had a busy day so haven't really been involved in the discussion on the thread today, but I do believe that interpretations of ideas in the Bible have been central to ethical traditions in Western society. But I think that the important links of this were the theologians and the Church, because these were leading authorities. Also, I am sure that there were so many varying political factors throughout the world, and we are also speaking about a period of 2000 years. It is the entire history of Christendom.

I think that you are correct to see the Bible as having a basis for ethics and metaphysics. We can say that we have the ten commandments and Jesus emphasised the specific idea of loving your neighbour as yourself. The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself was probably the essential foundation for the categorical imperative of Kant.

It is interesting to think about the metaphysics of the Bible. There was most definitely a belief in a God underlying nature, and, it is probably on the basis of people not believing this, that many don't believe that the Bible is as important as they did in previous ages. Apart from this, I do think that there is a different underlying thinking about mind and body. I am not sure that it is simply idealism, and I wonder if it is more in line with the thinking of Eastern philosophy.

Also, in the thinking about life after death,we could say that there were two possibly contrasting approaches arising from the Bible. One was the idea of an immortal soul, and one was the idea that the physical body is resurrected at the end of the world. I believe that these were very different, and even contradictory, but this may have been blurred together by many people.

I do believe that philosophy is useful for thinking about accuracy and, finding a way through philosophical fog which remains from uncritical thinking about The Bible.

I think that a lot of people do see Jung's ideas of the psyche as outdated. However, I think if you read his writings he really goes beyond psychology, with more of an analysis of thought, even though he is not a philosopher strictly speaking.

Philosophers have drawn upon the science to deconstruct some of the notions in the Bible, including the idea of the soul. But, finding meaning in life is so much harder. I do believe that in many ways we create our own meaning. But, this is so variable, and it may require a lot of philosophical searching for many to be able to do this fully.

I think that it comes down to the complex way in which mind is not just dependent on a brain, but the chemicals arising within the brain, especially the neurotransmitters. In particular, dopamine is believed to be implicated in psychotic disorders and serotonin in depression, and there are probably other chemicals which are involved.

What may be interesting for thinking about the mind and body problem is the way emotions work, especially in mood disorders. Treatment for depression often involves antidepressants, and these seem to be very powerful. I can say this on the basis of working with patients who were diagnosed with depression, and I have also taken antidepressants myself. However, what is interesting is the way in which mood can be affected by drug treatment but also by experiences. Life experiences affect moo strongly, as well as the way we process them, which is the basis for various therapy options.

On a slightly different level, we can think about psychiatry and delusions. It does appear that there is a genetic basis which predisposed people to psychotic disorders, and stress can be a factor. Use of recreational drugs also can be a trigger, especially cannabis. So, there is a definite chemical basis for psychotic disorders. However, it also involves the nature of thinking, which is based on chemicals and the brain. However, ideas come into play, and so we could say that delusions may even be seen as being a philosophy problem.

I have tried not to get too far into discussion of Genesis because I am aware that there is another thread on the topic. However, I will make one comment here, because it is central to my understanding of The Bible. I am surprised by the fact that some people do still take Genesis as a possible factual account. I discovered recently and one of my friends believes that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

I can remember struggling with the idea of evolution when I was age 10 and my parents believed in the Genesis account. However, I did begin to see the problems with the Genesis creation story. It was not as if human beings witnessed the beginning of the world, so any attempt to describe it could only be a story, or the two stories within Genesis.

As for God as a role model, I would imagine that this would be about living like Jesus Christ. This was attempted by many through the centuries, as the idea of 'The Imitation of Christ', as expressed by Thomas a Kempis. Some became martyrs and many remained sinners. I remember as a child, sins could almost be forgotten once declared in confession. But, really, I believe that on a deeper level, Jesus and the Buddha are examples for higher ideals, especially compassion and concern for others.

I have looked at you old posts, and I can see problems arising from The Bible, and its application. I have certainly experienced preaching from others, in a negative, unhelpful way.

However, I do wonder if the underlying problem is more about human nature. We can blame The Bible for war and oppression, but this is the application of ideas. It is a bit like thinking of science in relation to nuclear weapons and climate change. The problem is how ideas are translated into practice. Of course, we have a mixture of religion and science coming together, with the addition of human nature, which may be a toxic mix indeed.

Regarding the idea of the ineffable, I can see that it has a basis in The Bible, but I think that it is in many traditions as well. I am in favour of trying to demystify the ineffable.

In thinking about the way in which The Bible incorporates ideas about the relationship between God and human beings, I think that Jung's emphasis on the development of the image of God in the Bible is important.

I think that The Bible has been and can be interpreted in various ways and angles. Even though many approach it as a work of literature, I am not sure how widespread this view is. I believe that it can provide comfort or distress for individuals. It is probably the most influential book in history, although I don't know how it would rank in relation to The Koran.

In Christianity, a Bible is even seen as a sacred item, especially as oaths involve The Bible. As a child, I accidentally vomited in class and this went onto a classmate's Bible . I felt really terrible at the time. I wondered what it signified, although no one ever told me off, and I think I gave my own Bible to the boy beside me.

Thanks for the useful links about Judaism.

Thanks for your poem. With regard to your remark about 'divine inspiration' we may ask what that may entail. In the most simplistic explanation, we may find an answer like: God wrote the Bible. That is projecting the source of inspiration outside of the human sphere, and dividing the 'sacred' into a separate category. I think that it is worth replacing the word 'divine' and thinking about creative inspiration.

I can appreciate the idea of there being a pathway in the evolution of truth. The only one query which I would have is whether each new step is actually progress, or simply the most accurate one based on current views. Also, there are so many perspectives throughout the world. In a way, this seems to be a form of relativism, but I think that in the information age we are able to draw upon all the divergent ideas for a more synthetic approach to truth.

Thanks for your link about Muriel Spark. I read 'The Book of Job' after reading, 'Answer to Job' by Jung. However, I have to say that, 'The Book of Job' stands out for me because it is such a distinct discussion and reflection on why human beings suffer.

I see your point of view about calling the Old Testament as 'Old' comes from a specific interpretation, and it is simply the way I have seen it worded in Bibles. I am not in any way biased against Judaism and I think that such an interpretation of the Bible is important too. So, I welcome the Jewish interpretation as well.

I became fascinated by 'The Book of Revelation' in sixth form, and art based on it. But, I do think that literal interpretations of it are extremely problematic. Later, I joined Christian Unions and came across so many people who came with very literal approaches, and I got extremely muddled up. I questioned Christianity, and have read as widely as possible. I got a bit lost in reading new age ideas.

I have found that interaction on this site has helped me to think more clearly, but I do believe that allegory and symbolism are extremely important, and that thinking about the Bible is very useful. I believe that looking at religious experience in this way may enable going deeper into the underlying aspect of arguments about the existence of God. I don't think that it is possible to prove or disprove God's existence, and is about the underlying unknown or numinous experiences. But, I am not sure that this approach would seem to be what many consider to be important within philosophy. It is possible to be an atheist who appreciates the numinous, and some theists don't pay much attention to this dimension at all.

I also see The Bible as a starting point for thinking about religious questions, and think that it is basis for deeper analysis, rather than clear answers. I have read some of the writings in the Gnostic gospels, and some of the ideas of Elaine Pagels. I think that it is helpful for making sense of the symbolic nature of the world described in the Gospels. Of course, some of these writings were excluded from the Bible, but I am sure that this was interconnected with the political dimensions of the early Church.

I do believe that the symbolic nature of religious experience is central to understanding of The Bible and Christianity. I also have a strong interest in Jung, and he was extremely interested in the ideas of the Gnostic writers.

I really was opening this discussion with a view to looking at it from various angles, ranging from the Christian to the Marxist and any other angles. I am glad that you mentioned the Koran as well, because I do believe in approaching religion from the various viewpoints. Strangely, there does not seem to be much from an Islamic view on this forum, and this may be related to who decides to become part of a philosophy forum.

I am just rather puzzled how, in many discussions about the existence of God, or atheism, discussion of The Bible does not seem to play a large part. The reason why I am so surprised is because in my own experience of talking to people in real life, views about The Bible seem to be central to thinking about these issues.

Of course, it is possible to not mention The Bible, and I am sure that it is not essential to philosophy. But, I do think that it is hovering in the background, with people coming from specific interpretations of all aspects ranging from ideas about what really happened to the body of Christ and the resurrection, to ideas about the afterlife and any end of the world scenario.

But, even though I am bringing in the Bible, I don't come with any specific agenda, and I do think that it is possible to approach The Bible like any work of literature or texts like 'The Tao de Ching'. But, I am aware that others may not see it that way, and, sometimes, mention of the Bible can in itself appear loaded, because of the whole complicated role of the Bible in history.

I think that The Bible can be a rich source, but I do think that it is so extremely difficult to interpret. Yes, I think it is important to bear in mind the particular intended authors and the purposes of specific texts. I have not read much theology at all, but have downloaded one book on contextual theology. This seems wider than some others and I do have an interest in comparative religion, as well as the ideas of religion developed by William James and Carl Jung.

I think that the Bible can be used to back up so many ideas, and can also be used in a negative way, and for specific political ideologies. I can see the basis of Freud and Marx's critiques. I am familiar with many fundamentalist Christians who spend so much time reading The Bible, and who think that philosophy is a waste of time. I prefer reading philosophy, but do believe that it is worth thinking about the Bible within the broadest context of thinking that the underlying problems of philosophy. I really wrote the thread because there is such debate about theism, atheism and life after death on the forum, and I am sure that the Bible is relevant on some level to such discussion.

I agree with looking at the Bible beyond the Christian viewpoint. Most definitely, it is important to be aware of Judaism and varying aspects of this tradition, ranging from ideas in the Torah and the more mystical aspects of thought, such as the Kabbalah. I believe that the ideas of the OT are probably derived from various traditions, including the Greek and Egyptian.

My own thinking is based on the starting point of having been raised as a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I was raised with specific interpretations of the Bible, especially a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the idea of transubstantiation, which means the literal and not symbolic transformation of the communion wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

However, I have questioned the Catholic beliefs and those of Christianity. I don't really come from a fixed position, and I am interested in the various approaches to the Bible, and how they connect with the philosophy of religion.

In thinking of comparing the Bible with other perspectives we have to begin from the way in which the Bible has been the starting point for Christianity as a worldview, and the many different traditions, ranging from Roman Catholicism, Protestantism,the Church of England, Methodism, and far more divergent ones, including the Quakers and the Mormons. The most literalist interpretations can be seen as the fundamentalist ones.

I certainly believe in understanding the historical contexts of beliefs, ranging from the earliest times of Christianity, the understanding of the philosophies of God developed by Augustine, Kierkergaard, and Kant, to the many aspects of thinking about religion in the twentieth first century. I don't believe that any person's thinking takes place in a cultural vacuum.

I think that you are correct to say that it is unlikely that truth was a mathematical aspect. I would be interested to hear more about how you think that an existential understanding fits into the picture here. I think that it is important to be aware of the fusion between ideas in the development of Christianity, as in the way in which Augustine and Aquinas interpreted the Bible but with reference to the Greek ideas, especially Plato and Aristotle.

I think that there is a fundamentalism which tries to interpret the ideas of the Bible as if it can be understood as a newspaper account. I think that this is not helpful at all, and any interpretation has to take into account the difference in the overall worldview of the authors in the Bible. They lived with a belief in the world being flat and with no knowledge of Darwin's ideas. Also, another aspect which I think is useful to consider is the tension between the esoteric and exoteric traditions.

I do agree with you that the literalist interpretations of the Bible are the most unhelpful. I think that many people from religious backgrounds would agree with you. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities. For example, the question of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, and the 'facts' of the Gospels.

It is unlikely that the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, and the authorship of the these is uncertain. It does seem that Paul had a very big role in the development of the Christian church, so I am sure that this came into play. Also, it is likely that the early Church was expecting a potential end of the world. In some ways, the 'Book of Revelation' can be understood in that context. There was an ongoing attempt to try to equate 666 with an actual person, and it seems to me that the beast may be symbolic. But, all these aspects of thoughts have been apparent behind the scenes of history and literature, including the thinking of Dante, John Milton and William Blake.

Thanks for your link on the hermaneutical interpretation, which points to different ways in which the Bible can be approached. Of course, it does appear that the source is a Christian one. That is extremely useful though, and I do believe that some of the analysis is still applicable even if the Bible is interpreted outside of the Christian viewpoint.

I originally thought about this yesterday, and mentioned it in a thread which has been closed. I have been reading 'Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris: The Four Horsemen(The Discussion That Sparked An Atheist Revolution, 2019), in which Harris points to The Bible as being one 'epistemological gold standard.' So, this lead me to wonder where the Bible lies in the entire debate about theism, atheism and other religious questions central to philosophy. Many consider the existence of God, in terms of proof or lack of proof. However, it can become too abstract and I do believe that the Bible, and, how we interpret it must be relevant. But, I am also aware that The Bible is a very long book, but it has had such a large role in the shaping of culture and philosophy that I do believe that it is worth thinking about.

That sounds good, and it is not as if the answers to the question have to be overnight, because philosophers and others have spent a long time thinking about it all.

I think that the question of God's existence, and the debate between theism and atheism is central to philosophy. It is not about winning or losing , or any of our shortcomings as individuals, and will go on long after you or I, and Amen discuss the matter. So, I think that it is worth looking at the arguments with disregard to any of our past as present faults as human beings. It is a philosophy question and area for debate of central importance.

One aspect which I think is important is that the gospels and other writings of the New Testament were written many years after the time of Jesus's death. I don't believe that we can really sidestep the Bible in connection with Christianity, or any religious texts when thinking about any specific religious viewpoints. Surely, beliefs about God were given a voice through these works.

I don't see how we can really look into characters fully in discussions on the forum, because we don't know know much about other people's lives at all. We are really only able to discuss ideas.