What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[FireDragon76]

Maybe I do smack of religious fundamentalism to some extent, but I think you're just saying that because you can't bend me to your own way of thinking. As for what my views are, they're merely a part of my Hemeneutical view of Christian Eschatology. I could be wrong about it, but I think the biblical prophetic outlook, especially as illustrated in the book of Revelation, is essentially correct.

And can I help it if my own individual studies and life experiences ["individual" being a mis-nomer here, really] have led me to a particular interpretation on one itty-bitty piece of it that explains it all for me?

Get some broader life experiences, perhaps? I am concerned your affinity for apocalyptic literature, essentially interpreted along religious fundamentalist lines, is closing down horizons for you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like you just admitted that we don't know what Good is, and we don't know what God is. In which case, you can't really say "God is good", can you?

Twist and turn as you like, Philo, there's no escaping this one.

No one's twisting. Like I've said before, I'm a Philosophical Hermeneuticist who starts with Existential predilections, and I go from there in my engagement and adoption of the Bible and/or in my parallel rejection of both atheism and whatever in other World Religions doesn't comport with Christian faith.

I mean, how many times do I need to say that I lean toward Existential, Exploratory grounds in my own approach to the Christian Faith and that I feel not only an emotional affinity but also an intellectual one with folks like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, and a host of other names of philosophical import who are not usually named in the typical, everyday Christian household.

But as for your statement about none of us really knowing, this is true, but I think there is a prior question about human epistemological methods that has to be answered first and from what I can tell, perceiving and understanding both "the Good" and "God" is a philosophical problem for everyone. Besides, if there's one thing I do know, it's that both Ethics and Theology aren't rocket science ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that directness and plain speaking would save a lot of time and make conversations more productive.

As Wittgenstein might have said, "Semantics/Semiotics is a ______________!" [Fill in the blank with your own favorite pejorative.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get some broader life experiences, perhaps?

My reference to my "life experiences" was to the Totality of my life as a whole, not simply where I'm placed experientially and socially at this present moment of time. As far as broader experiences, I've had some ... and as far as broader inquiries that could be made, I think there too I've made some.

I notice that you constantly try to 'read into' what you think lies underneath or behind what I'm presently saying. Maybe stop doing that because there's really no need to turn this into an Elymas vs. Paul kind of situation, even if just on a cursory, forum level.

I am concerned your affinity for apocalyptic literature, essentially interpreted along religious fundamentalist lines, is closing down horizons for you.

That's strange to me because when I'm "concerned" about something someone else thinks, it isn't because of what I may surmise they think, but because of what I have actually found out if and when I've actually become informed of what they think.

Still thus far, I don't think you know what my views on Christian Eschatology are.

The kicker is, in some ways, my Eschatological views are still a work in progress since I definitely don't know "all" of what is to come, and unlike a number of my fellow Christians, I won't pretend that I do.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As Wittgenstein might have said, "Semantics/Semiotics is a ______________!" [Fill in the blank with your own favorite pejorative.]

See what I mean?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No one's twisting. Like I've said before, I'm a Philosophical Hermeneuticist who starts with Existential predilections, and I go from there in my engagement and adoption of the Bible and/or in my parallel rejection of both atheism and whatever in other World Religions doesn't comport with Christian faith.

I mean, how many times do I need to say that I lean toward Existential, Exploratory grounds in my own approach to the Christian Faith and that I feel not only an emotional affinity but also an intellectual one with folks like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, and a host of other names of philosophical import who are not usually named in the typical, everyday Christian household.

But as for your statement about none of us really knowing, this is true, but I think there is a prior question about human epistemological methods that has to be answered first and from what I can tell, perceiving and understanding both "the Good" and "God" is a philosophical problem for everyone. Besides, if there's one thing I do know, it's that both Ethics and Theology aren't rocket science ...

Anything to avoid a straight answer, eh?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anything to avoid a straight answer, eh?

It's not that I'm avoiding giving a straight answer, rather it's that I'm not voiding the fact that I recognize that the biblical writers were often motivated to give queer answers rather than straight ones. And as I insinuated elsewhere, the semantics here can be a doozy, but I'm just following the playbook of Pascal and Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein (and Jesus).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It's not that I'm avoiding giving a straight answer, rather it's that I'm not voiding the fact that I recognize that the biblical writers were often motivated to give queer answers rather than straight ones. And as I insinuated elsewhere, the semantics here can be a doozy, but I'm just following the playbook of Pascal and Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein (and Jesus).

If you're not avoiding giving a straight answer, then give it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you're not avoiding giving a straight answer, then give it.

I just did, and you don't "get it," apparently. See what I mean?

The essential point here that I'd make to you is that whichever epistemological praxis is expected for engineering a successful mission to Mars, it WILL NOT BE, and can't be, the same epistemic praxis that is, or will ever be, inherent to any one person's mental processes as they existentially attempt to have faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can accept that life has mysteries and things can't always be succintly explained, but you seem to be using obscure language as a dodge to mask fundamentalist-style fideism. And that's OK, just don't expect it to be persuasive to the rest of us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can accept that life has mysteries and things can't always be succintly explained, but you seem to be using obscure language as a dodge to mask fundamentalist-style fideism. And that's OK, just don't expect it to be persuasive to the rest of us.

What in your view constitutes a "Fundamentalist"? Let's make it clear as to which denotation you're referring to as as to not confuse our viewers.

If you mean someone who values and holds up--even believes--Christian narratives like the Virgin Birth of Christ, then I'm GUILTY as charged. Or, if you mean to refer to someone who thinks the Bible is at least reasonably reliable as a collection of sources of spiritual truth, then again, I'm GUILTY as charged.

So, CUFF ME!

But, if you mean that you think I'm fundamentalist in the semantic vein as are those who are of a simpler outlook in their view upon the world, then I think you're going to have a hell of a time proving that to anyone's satisfaction.

 

[FireDragon76]

What in your view constitutes a "Fundamentalist"? Let's make it clear as to which denotation you're referring to as as to not confuse our viewers.

If you mean someone who values and holds up--even believes--Christian narratives like the Virgin Birth of Christ, then I'm GUILTY as charged. Or, if you mean to refer to someone who thinks the Bible is at least reasonably reliable as a collection of sources of spiritual truth, then again, I'm GUILTY as charged.

So, CUFF ME!

But, if you mean that you think I'm fundamentalist in the semantic vein as are those who are of a simpler outlook in their view upon the world, then I think you're going to have a hell of a time proving that to anyone's satisfaction.

You seem oblivious to higher criticism of the Bible. It doesn't seem to inform your religious perspective to any significant degree. That's why it seems like your perspective is akin to fundamentalism.

I suppose you could be Neo-Orthodox but most Neo-Orthodox are more open to engagement with modern thought, rather than simply dismissing it as wrong or demonic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem oblivious to higher criticism of the Bible. It doesn't seem to inform your religious perspective to any significant degree. That's why it seems like your perspective is akin to fundamentalism.

I suppose you could be Neo-Orthodox but most Neo-Orthodox are more open to engagement with modern thought, rather than simply dismissing it as wrong or demonic.

I have no idea what specific names you have in mind as to what constitutes "higher criticism." It'd be nice if you could just list out the names that you seem, by insinuation, to have on the tip of your tongue. Besides, I don't have the time to list out every single one of dozens upon dozens of dozens of various scholars of various stripes beginning with Pierre Bayle, up through Ludwig Feuerbach and then Wellhausen and onto the likes of the Jesus Seminar and later Carrier, Price, Ehrman and others, and so on and so forth.

I guess you don't consider Langdon Gilkey or Kenton L. Sparks or Peter Enns to be a part of "higher criticism"?

With the kindly direction of @Silmarien during the past couple of years, I've also become introduced to other avenues in Christian Theology, such as are provided by atheist Slavoj Žižek or theologian John Milbank, along with theologian and philosopher, Sarah Coakley.

If you've got some wonderful scholars in mind whom you think 'displace' my views, please list them. Unlike others, I'm not adverse to having names dropped on me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have no idea what specific names you have in mind as to what constitutes "higher criticism." It'd be nice if you could just list out the names that you seem, by insinuation, to have on the tip of your tongue. Besides, I don't have the time to list our every single one of dozens upon dozens of dozens of various scholars of various stripes beginning with Pierre Bayle, up through Ludwig Feuerbach and then Wellhausen and onto the likes of the Jesus Seminar and later Carrier, Price, Ehrman and others, and so on and so forth.

I guess you don't consider Langdon Gilkey or Kenton L. Sparks or Peter Enns to be a part of "higher criticism"?

Langdon Gilkey was a theological liberal informed by higher criticism.

I'm not a fan of Carrier or Price. I believe Jesus actually existed, though not in the way that conservative, orthodox Christianity typically presents him.

With the kindly direction of @Silmarien during the past couple of years, I've also become introduced to other avenues in Christian Theology, such as are provided by atheist Slavoj Žižek or theologian John Milbank, along with theologian and philosopher, Sarah Coakley.

John Milbank is a crank who sexes up his Tory fascism with a bit of medieval mysticism. On the other hand, Zizek is worth looking into.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Langdon Gilkey was a theological liberal informed by higher criticism.

I'm not a fan of Carrier or Price. I believe Jesus actually existed, though not in the way that conservative, orthodox Christianity typically presents him.



John Milbank is a crank who sexes up his Tory fascism with a bit of medieval mysticism. On the other hand, Zizek is worth looking into.

Ok. But you keep saying that there is additional Higher Criticism which you think I'm missing out on. So, who be these scholarly gents or ladies?

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok. But you keep saying that there is additional Higher Criticism which you think I'm missing out on. So, who be these scholarly gents or ladies?

Julius Wellhausen's Documentary Source Hypothesis is generally accepted as the best explanation for the origins of the Hebrew Bible by most mainstream biblical scholars now days. Analysis of the Tanakh by artificial intelligence has also given Wellhausen's hypothesis additional plausibility.

Israeli software supports theory that Bible was written by multiple authors

The Bible simply cannot function as an autonomous authority in the manner you seem to imagine. It has human origins and should not be regarded as a magic book that we must take on faith uncritically.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Julius Wellhausen's Documentary Source Hypothesis is generally accepted as the best explanation for the origins of the Hebrew Bible by most mainstream biblical scholars now days. Analysis of the Tanakh by artificial intelligence has also given Wellhausen's hypothesis additional plausibility.

Israeli software supports theory that Bible was written by multiple authors

The Bible simply cannot function as an autonomous authority in the manner you seem to imagine. It has human origins and should not be regarded as a magic book that we must take on faith uncritically.

Well, I did mention Wellhausen, if you noticed. Did you notice? As for your link, I haven't opened it yet, but just by looking at it, it looks likes something that moves things down the Richard Elliott Friedman trail, whom I've also read.

Any other names you'd like to drop? So far, I'm not encountering anything new ...

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I did mention Wellhausen, if you noticed. Did you notice? As for your link, I haven't opened it yet, but just by looking at it, it looks likes something that moves things down the Richard Elliott Friedman trail, whom I've also read.

Any other names you'd like to drop? So far, I'm not encountering anything new ...

Well, if you take that all seriously... frankly why caucus with the crackpots of American evangelicalism? Why do you seem to think skepticism is more dangerous than their apocalyptic, polemical worldview?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if you take that all seriously... frankly why caucus with the crackpots of American evangelicalism? Why do you seem to think skepticism is more dangerous than their apocalyptic, polemical worldview?

I'm not understanding your questions? Not so long ago I said that I don't think it's necessarily atheists who should be seen as the prime worry of Christians in the world, rather it's those who become bona-fide, entrenched, committed anti-christs.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not understanding your questions? I think not so long ago I said that I don't think it's necessarily atheists who should be seen as the prime worry of Christians in the world, rather it's those who become bona-fide, entrenched, committed anti-christs.

If we take Gandhi's remarks about Christians seriously... the anti-Christs are most often Christians.