hello <wave> are you Secular Humanist Atheist?

[razeontherock]

I would also mention that there is a distinction between defending Islam and defending everything Muslims do in the name of Islam.

At times I defend Christianity in the same way. Just because someone who is Christian does a poor job in some way of following the Gospel does not mean the Gospel is wrong.

Both these religions have something of a standard for what they teach. If someone is acting outside that standard, it makes no sense to blame the standard itself, particularly where it isn't at all vague.

Thank you! This is why, after much deliberation, I decided not to shun the moniker of 'Christian.'

 

[smaneck]

I'm surprised to see you reading it this literally. that means you maintain that John was derogatory towards Jesus? Jesus was, after all, a Jew.

So was the writer of this Gospel in any likelihood, even if it wasn't the apostle John. But if John had mean the Pharisees etc. he certainly could have said so as the other gospel writers did. It is pretty clear that by the time John's Gospel is written we are no longer talking about competing Jewish sects. The line between Jews and Christians has been clearly drawn with Jews being seen as the 'other.'

Also, when Paul mentions "the Jews," he is no longer referring to the same group, but those within the Church that would impose circumcision, and by extension Torah, upon Gentile believers.

Yes, but Paul is writing at the time when Gentiles were just beginning to become Christian. John's Gospel is written much later.

You appear to be leaving out a very significant part of the history: the Jews weren't innocent bystanders here. They were more numerous than the little offshoot sect that came to be known as Christianity, and at least equally as aggressive.

I'm not sure what the comparative demographics between Jews and Christians was in 100 A.D. What I do know is that Christians were being aggressively turn out of the synagogues at this time, as I indicated earlier. And do think this accounts for John's attitude.

In any case, my point is that Muslims are not innocent bystanders to what is happening to the Baha'is in the Middle East. And unlike the Jews, they have the political power to do much more damage, and they do. But I repeat, were Baha'is ever to treat Muslims the way Christians have treated the Jews, it would be better if Baha'u'llah had not come because obviously this means there would have been no progression whatsoever.

They didn't like having their Temple destroyed, and blamed Christians for it.

I've never heard anyone suggest that. What evidence is there for this?

I'm sorry but this grossly mis-states the situation! To anachronize the statement "wipe them off the map" may be a bit too extreme, but if so, not by much.

Given the fact that the Jews had not the political and military power to do this, its hard to know but I doubt very much if they cared about gentiles becoming Christian.

Again, the Liturgy of James was written down for 100's of years.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Booko]

I think that you'll find that at least some secular humanists are really Christians without Christ. By that, I mean that their ethical code isn't all that different from the main thrust of Christian ethics. They accept the Golden Rule, think "love thy neighbor" is good advice, and see Jesus as a great moral teacher. They may differ on some ethical matters (such as pertaining to the relationship between the sexes), but not more so than Christians do today.

This would've described me somewhat. I may have left the church for atheism, but I thought the essential ethics of Jesus was sound and I didn't leave that far behind.

Some secular humanists (and fellow travellers such as myself who might not regard themselves as "secular humanists") look more towards the Hellenistic philosophers for moral advice. They may have more significant disagreements with the Christian gospel.

I read Hellenistic and other philosophers as well, and while I found that useful and informative, it didn't seem to quite...inspire? Not for me anyway.

Perhaps that has something to do with my eventual return to theism. I don't think it does particularly, but it might be so.

 

[Booko]

Thank you! This is why, after much deliberation, I decided not to shun the moniker of 'Christian.'

LOL it may be why I have shunned bumper stickers that identify my religion in any way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I read Hellenistic and other philosophers as well, and while I found that useful and informative, it didn't seem to quite...inspire?

It isn't usually packaged that way. I would imagine that plenty of Christian theology, taught as theology, wouldn't inspire you either.

Inspiration usually doesn't happen with discussions of ideas. Normally, ideas must be dramatized in stories or art, and involve regular rituals or practices. Religion tends to make good use of such techniques.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

So was the writer of this Gospel in any likelihood, even if it wasn't the apostle John. But if John had mean the Pharisees etc. he certainly could have said so as the other gospel writers did. It is pretty clear that by the time John's Gospel is written we are no longer talking about competing Jewish sects.

Yes, but Paul is writing at the time when Gentiles were just beginning to become Christian. John's Gospel is written much later.

It's odd that you don't realize when it was written and by whom, really doesn't matter.

That doesn't answer my question.

Sure it does, but my typo obfuscated that point. Correction: the Liturgy of James wasn't written down for 100's of years. (AD 450-ish IIRC) This is clearly later than the other you asked it to be compared to.

 

[smaneck]

It's odd that you don't realize when it was written and by whom, really doesn't matter.

I know it was written towards the very end of the first century. Most historians don't believe John wrote all of this gospel but he may be responsible for at least some of it.

Sure it does, but my typo obfuscated that point.

No you didn't. I asked for a link to this text.

 

[razeontherock]

I asked for a link to this text.

Sorry, don't have. If you go to TAW (EO's congregational section) and ask, I bet someone there would know if any such thing exists.

 

[Booko]

It isn't usually packaged that way. I would imagine that plenty of Christian theology, taught as theology, wouldn't inspire you either.

That's true. Some of it interests me, but that's a different thing.

Inspiration usually doesn't happen with discussions of ideas. Normally, ideas must be dramatized in stories or art, and involve regular rituals or practices. Religion tends to make good use of such techniques.

Yes, religion does tend to make good use of the arts to make a point and yes, inspire.

I tend to think of philosophy as leading one to think more clearly, where religion at its best inspires one to act in the service of humanity.

Not that religion and philosophy are wholly unrelated. They can coincide, but philosophy need not be tied to religion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I tend to think of philosophy as leading one to think more clearly, where religion at its best inspires one to act in the service of humanity.

Philosophy can be much more than merely something that helps one to "think more clearly", although it does serve that role. I personally think that this aspect of philosophy is overdone in modern times, and other aspects end up overlooked. (I blame modern academia.)

Ethical philosophy is about values, and it can inspire one to change one's pattern of living. The only limitation is that one needs philosophy-inspired art and stories to make that inspiration available and motivating for most people. Few people are motivated by philosophical argumentation alone, though this does happen.

In classical times, western philosophy was a way of life. It came with spiritual exercises to practice daily, forms of meditation, communities of interested people to learn from and grow with, and other things besides. We've lost this. Or, rather, this was absorbed into monestary life when Christians started to dominate the cultural and intellectual landscape. The philosophy that we see today is a ghost of its former self.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Booko]

I hate my ISP...it didn't look like this posted and now I double posted.



Please move along -- nothing to see here.

 

[Booko]

Philosophy can be much more than merely something that helps one to "think more clearly", although it does serve that role. I personally think that this aspect of philosophy is overdone in modern times, and other aspects end up overlooked. (I blame modern academia.)

I agree. Modern academia hasn't done much for poetry either, other than to drive it into the hands of the people.

Ethical philosophy is about values, and it can inspire one to change one's pattern of living. The only limitation is that one needs philosophy-inspired art and stories to make that inspiration available and motivating for most people. Few people are motivated by philosophical argumentation alone, though this does happen.

It's more likely to happen to people with analytical sorts of personalities, which would be a minority of humanity. This is (sort of) one of my arguments in favor of religion, in that philosophy seems unable to make the appeals that work for most people to inspire them to improve themselves and the world in general.

(Obviously one can talk at length about how religion can inspire people to do the most heinous things, but that is another thread.)

In classical times, western philosophy was a way of life. It came with spiritual exercises to practice daily, forms of meditation, communities of interested people to learn from and grow with, and other things besides. We've lost this. Or, rather, this was absorbed into monestary life when Christians started to dominate the cultural and intellectual landscape. The philosophy that we see today is a ghost of its former self.

This seems to me to be a relic of Western history. I don't assign it to the rise of Christianity though, but rather the rise in a far too literalist view of one religion combined with politics that put religion into opposition with the rise of Western scientific thought.

The laity in the West had ample spiritual exercises they could perform also, in ways not wholly unlike Eastern religions. The East has monasteries also, but most people are not monks. But the East did not have this epic divide between religion and science that produced a materialistic secular philosophy.

I don't view the rise of a split between philosophy and religion in the West as due to any particular theology as much as a confluence of, hrm, a metaphorically-challenged hermeneutic combined with a power structure that was wholly unwilling to cede any political influence.

There is also the accident of the Western vs. Eastern worldview that seems to have been extant since our ancestors spread in both directions from Central Asia. The Western worldview has been known to be kind of heavy on the reductionism. Reductionism sometimes doesn't leave much room for diversity of thought.

In short, I view the reasons for the split between much of philosophy and religion as having the same genesis of the alleged opposition of science vs. religion.

A religious power structure in the West gave little room for intellectuals to maneuver, so they seem to have reacted largely by doing what they were going to do anyway, but outside the Church. They didn't have much other option at the time.

We're left with this relic of our history and it still creates divisions today.

Personally I think it's high time we find a way to heal the rift.

 

[ProScribe]

Philosophy (no link)

World English Dictionary


philosophy (f&#618;&#712;l&#594;s&#601;f&#618 &#8212; n , pl -phies 1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics) 2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes 3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law 4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy 5. any system of belief, values, or tenets 6. a personal outlook or viewpoint 7. serenity of temper [C13: from Old French filosofie, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos lover of wisdom]

 

[Booko]

Yeah, that would be a modern Western definition.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't view the rise of a split between philosophy and religion in the West as due to any particular theology as much as a confluence of, hrm, a metaphorically-challenged hermeneutic combined with a power structure that was wholly unwilling to cede any political influence.

That's not a bad interpretation. This could be the case.

A religious power structure in the West gave little room for intellectuals to maneuver, so they seem to have reacted largely by doing what they were going to do anyway, but outside the Church. They didn't have much other option at the time.

This could be both good and bad at the same time, though in different ways. It's not necessarily a bad thing that intellectuals had to operate outside of the church, though sadly they only recovered half of philosophy.

We're left with this relic of our history and it still creates divisions today.

Personally I think it's high time we find a way to heal the rift.

Agreed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Booko]

This could be both good and bad at the same time, though in different ways. It's not necessarily a bad thing that intellectuals had to operate outside of the church, though sadly they only recovered half of philosophy.

Oh, having to operate outside a religious context has, I think, provided some insights that operating within one could have have done, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing either.

Operating outside a religious context has given us an opportunity to examine more than a few assumptions about the meaning of human existence, and ultimately that's a good thing.