Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Davian]

The Truth. Jesus Christ.

The truth about the truth comes from the truth. Catchy, but circular.

 

[anonymous person]

Is Paul's authorship of those letters something that you would reconsider if new findings were to cast doubt on it?

I would reconsider the authorship of the epistles which bear his name if I had good reasons to do so. So yes.

Are you open to be convinced on this matter?

Yes.

You claim to have approached Paul's letters, and the Bible generally, "with the desire to be objective, honest, and open." While laudable, what does this mean in practice?

I did not approach the bible assuming it was myth or fiction or false. I opened it and read it like I do any other ancient text. I attempt to place myself in the sandals of the authors and see through their writing the world in which they lived and wrote about.

Are you open to questioning whether the Bible is the work of a deity?

Yes.

Are you open to questioning the claims contained therein?

Sure

In what way is your approach to this text "objective, honest, and open," given that you assume you cannot be wrong about its authorship or any of the claims made within it?

I don't assume I can't be wrong about Paul's authorship or the claims made within the epistles which bear his name.

 

[anonymous person]

Who's interpretation of the same?

I don't understand the question.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't understand the question.

Who's interpretation of the truth about Jesus?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would reconsider the authorship of the epistles which bear his name if I had good reasons to do so. So yes.



Yes.



I did not approach the bible assuming it was myth or fiction or false. I opened it and read it like I do any other ancient text. I attempt to place myself in the sandals of the authors and see through their writing the world in which they lived and wrote about.



Yes.



Sure



I don't assume I can't be wrong about Paul's authorship or the claims made within the epistles which bear his name.

This contradicts what you have previously stated. You indicated that you were not open to be convinced, despite earlier claiming that you were (1, 2).

 

[anonymous person]

Well, it would be hard to say exactly what the effect is without knowing your entire life. At the very least though, assuming you have grown up in the U.S., the church has pushed for you to buy into a story/narrative in subtle and not so subtle ways your entire life.

Would you agree?

"the church?"

What do you mean by that phrase?

 

[Davian]

If only I could open a Dodge franchise here.

 

[anonymous person]

This contradicts what you have previously stated. You indicated that you were not open to be convinced, despite earlier claiming that you were (1, 2).

If this was an instance of me contradicting myself I will leave to you to decide. I can't devote the time and attention I would like to to go back and read these conversations. I will say this, I have held views at times in my life that later changed as a result of having become persuaded they should be changed.

 

[anonymous person]

If only I could open a Dodge franchise here.

Yes indeed, one could see me as trying to dodge certain questions. I do my best to answer as truthfully as I can.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If this was an instance of me contradicting myself I will leave to you to decide. I can't devote the time and attention I would like to to go back and read these conversations. I will say this, I have held views at times in my life that later changed as a result of having become persuaded they should be changed.

It was indeed an instance of you contradicting what you had previously stated, as anyone reading along can plainly see. You are again claiming that you are open to be convinced about matters that you previously indicated you were not open to reconsidering.

 

[anonymous person]

It was indeed an instance of you contradicting what you had previously stated, as anyone reading along can plainly see. You are again claiming that you are open to be convinced about matters that you previously indicated you were not open to reconsidering.

Ok.

Did you have another question?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"the church?"

What do you mean by that phrase?

Christian churches...all of them to some degree or another. I'm not going to distinguish between any of them because my statement is true for all of them on some level.

So again...

Would you agree? The fact that this takes so much consideration/clarification for you seems to indicate I was right to begin with. You aren't aware of the the affect this has had on you.

 

[AionPhanes]

Anyone who strives to live the philosophical life and has a love of wisdom can rightfully call themselves a philosopher in my book. Much of modern philosophy has unfortunately been detached from praxis and actual life and turned into mere system building and academic quibbling. An old school Stoic, Cynic, Platonist, Aristotelian, etc... would probably refuse to acknowledge most modern day philosophy PHD's as even being philosophers. They would also have no problem calling a person of little academic learning a philosopher if they actual obtained self mastery, lived in a virtuous manner, behaved in accordance with reason, etc.. Philosophy is a way of life that may include speculation and system building but certainly isn't limited to it. A philosopher is one who actualy lives a virtuous life and not simply a person who can talk about virtue in a refined manner for example. Talk vs action proves the difference between a sophist and an actual philosopher.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok.

Did you have another question?

Yes. How do you resolve this contradiction?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I will send them to the church if you want. Just inform them to be on the lookout for a package from Mrs. Redmond.

I keep getting the run-around from them. I don't think they want to be the middle man, and I realize now I don't want to put them or anyone else in that position.

If you have an explanation about what we discussed on page 36 (posts 712 & 714), I would love to hear it. I would think that such information exists online somewhere.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't rely on scripture as an accurate view of reality.

When it comes to reality, I tend to rely on things that can be objectively verified, as much as possible.

It appears your threshold is based on scripture, written by anonymous authors.

I don't find that to be a credible benchmark.

I understand, because of your personal faith belief, you do need to rely on it though.

What would you like to use as the threshold then? Maybe I will agree to it.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't rely on scripture as an accurate view of reality.

When it comes to reality, I tend to rely on things that can be objectively verified, as much as possible.

Is this effectively saying that you will make no effort to objectively verify the truth of statements found in the bible, because they are found in the bible? If so, can you see how this might look like disconfirmation bias?

 

[oi_antz]

My version of truth requires no magical thinking...it comes down to things like evidence for an idea and what is considered reasonable by that evidence.

OK. I only concern that as discussed with HitchSlap earlier, while waiting for evidence to be sufficient for your satisfaction, some hesitation may has caused an unnecessary deprivation. For an example, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, yet it takes three weeks to obtain definitive lab samples, it is unnecessary to assume it might not be a duck. Only very rarely would it be necessary to treat with such degree of caution, as though it might not be a duck.

Then on the topic of scriptural truths, to assume that Jesus did raise from the dead allows one to view the subsequent writings of those who believed it, granting them acceptance that they speak truthfully. Otherwise, to wait for satisfactory evidence of His resurrection, which maybe you will never obtain, then you are not able to consider the subsequent writings as though these people were saying things truthfully. If however, you expire and meet Jesus and He says "what of the time when St Paul pleaded with you, to respect his testimony because his body was scarred on account of it?" If that does happen, then it becomes true that waiting for objective proof has caused an unnecessary deprivation. I know this presents Pascal's Wager, and that isn't an approach I usually take. So don't take it that way.

But rather, the value is found when you address this question for me: if as was established that gaining objective proof can sometimes be wise and other times unnecessary, in the case of requiring definitive proof for the reliability of the accounts of Jesus Christ, why is it wise to wait for this proof, and why do you consider that not assuming it true in the meanwhile does not cause unnecessary deprivation?

It's not a matter of me becoming convinced as you do...it's a matter of you judging this thing the way you do everything else.

It seems like you've probably assumed of me some double-standard that I am not connecting here. Could you please explain this?

My remark about black and white actually comes from Ignatius Loyola...

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

I don't like that statement. You said that my god could convince me black is white and I would believe it. But this is saying some human has authority to dictate my beliefs.. Very different thing to say!

 

[oi_antz]

It's straightforward enough, just because the author of Genesis wrote about the genealogy from Adam to Noah does not imply that it's historical. Adam, in the first chapters of Genesis, can quite literally translate to "earth creature", much of the myth implies this.

I am not sure whether you are suggesting that since "Adam" can be translated as a description rather than given name, that this means he is not regarded as a single human being. I think there can be no way to read the scriptures as though Adam is not a single human being, except when the scriptures are read in a metaphorical way. If the scriptures are metaphorical, the question is raised - why make genealogies appear so literal?

I said that believing that the stories are historical because of the genealogies doesn't make sense, we have similar lists of ancient figures living for very long time.

Is there anyone who believes these genealogies?

 

[oi_antz]

The Truth. Jesus Christ.

Not all things said in churches and promoted by churches, is true though.