+
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#17] / 21March03 /
/ Ngz > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /
.
The Obscure Philosopher/2
.
"The uncomprehending, when they hear, are like
the deaf; the saying applies to them: though
present they are absent" (Heraclitus).
.
>> textman previously wrote: Hi, Matthew. Great article there.
>> I laughed myself silly more than once, and so decided (very
>> reluctantly) to say a few words in return.
.
> On Feb8 EgwEimi ([email protected]) wrote: Attempting to
> belittle your opponent is no way to win a debate.
.
textman replies: Dear EgwEimi, if Matthew doesn't object
to a little belittling now and then, why should you?
Besides, the only thing I'm out to win, is souls for Jesus!
Hallelujah, brother!
.
> It doesn't succeed in making any points for you.
.
Heraclitus: "A foolish man is put in a flutter by every word."
.
> Please stay on topic.
.
Easier said than done.
.
>> <snip> but this is because believers (such as yourself, 4X)
>> refuse to take the NT documents seriously (by which I mean
>> realistically and historically).
.
> From a reading of the posts, it seems that anyone who
> disagrees with Textman is labeled as "refusing to take
> things seriously."
.
Then it MUST be so!
.
> I assure you that Matthew is quite learned in his Biblical
> knowledge, as am I.
.
Ah, but that's not quite the same thing. Being serious about
the texts is easy for believers, and quite common; but being
just as serious about a rational interpretation of these same
texts is altogether a different matter, and not at all common!
.
> We often disagree, but always in rational manners that
> can be supported from the Biblical text and cultures.
.
That's cool. The only problem is that what seems rational
to the many is most likely not rational at all from a more
philosophical perspective. Yes, the masses think that they
can get along just fine without philosophy, but this is not
so. Therefore Heraclitus asks: "What sense or thought do the
mob have? They follow the popular singers, and they take the
crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad,
and few good."
.
>> Much of my philosophical and theological substructure
>> comes from the ancients actually.
.
> Information from outside the Bible, most especially
> including our 21st century way of thinking, should
> not be projected onto another culture.
.
Yet this is exactly what most Christians do when it comes down
to the way they treat the texts. 4X: the prophet Jacob uses
words like 'synagogue', 'dispersion', even 'Lord', in a way
that suggests considerable familiarity with Jewish-Christian
traditions. From all these suggestive and significant literary
facts (to be found in the text of the epistle of James, btw),
the scribes and pharisees conclude that it was written in
Jerusalem, near the middle of the first century, by a high-
ranking member of the original Aramaic church, namely "James,
the brother of Jesus". And furthermore, they claim that there
is no "better" or "more feasible" alternative to him! ... HA!
.
So this is a classic example of *projecting* modern ways of
thinking "onto another culture". For the text of Jm taken as
a whole does not really justify this gross and superficial
interpretation of the words used by Jacob. Indeed it would
not be going too far to say that the common reading of Jm is
approximately 90% hot air. Or pure projection, if you like.
.
> In particular, what the many uninspired writers of the
> world had to say about something needs to be understood
> as representing merely their own opinions.
.
I think it is rather presumptuous of you to assume that EVERY
writer in the world who did not contribute something to the
bible is THEREBY "uninspired". In fact, the scriptures them-
selves contradict such a notion! And rightly so, because it is
not only ignorant and arrogant, but absurd as well. No believer
who soaks her soul in the abundant religious literature of the
world can fail to find passages that are obviously inspired by
the same Spirit of Truth. In the same way, the claim that the
Logos speaks *exclusively* through the bible is nothing more
than a shameful denial of all reality (ie. life universe etc).
.
> For every correct understanding of some concept, there are
> hundreds of misunderstandings, and no amount of agreement
> by philosophers makes them right.
.
So then philosophy has no value to the Faith? No role to play
in sorting through and sifting the misunderstandings, so as
to remove the bad from the good? Be advised that there are a
great many saints and Christian writers (much bigger than you,
btw) who disagree with you.
.
>> So, for example, a spiritual-giant such as Heraclitus ...
.
> What makes him a "spiritual giant"?
.
How about his potent impression upon subsequent philosophers?
This would include his general impact upon the pre-socratics,
such seminal figures as Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, and
popular movements like the Stoics. And then there is also his
impact on post-classical philosophy to consider: from Philo
and John right up to Hegel and Heidegger in more recent times.
.
> Your own opinion?
.
Well, Clement of Alexandria considered him very like unto
a prophet, and even a kind of pre-Christian proto-believer.
Hegel regarded him very highly indeed. And Heidegger re-built
philosophy from the ground floor on the basis of a truly
inspired re-interpretation of Heraclitus' fragments. As for
myself, I was impressed by the Riddler even before I knew of
his importance to these philosophers just mentioned. Needless
to say, I was *also* very impressed by how impressed these
also-giant writers were with the obscure one!
.
> Maybe he was just one of many misguided people
.
Look in the mirror when you say that, sir! And then smile
.
> who stumbled around hoping to find God.
.
Actually, he found many of the answers by inquiring into
himself. The first man in history to reflect the light of
awareness inward! Thus Descartes was merely following in
Heraclitus' footsteps when he closed his eyes to the world
in order to examine the contents of his own mind. But the
results were VASTLY different, of course!
.
> I wonder what he would have said about his own spirituality.
.
???!
.
>> Therefore, any theology that does not recognize Heraclitus
>> is incapable of grasping the *whole* truth.
.
> What if we grasp him but reject anything he said that
> was not from God?
.
Who's going to decide that? You maybe? A panel of fundies? ha
.
> Diogenes Laertius wrote of Heraclitus: "Finally he became
> misanthrope, withdrew from the world, and lived in the
> mountains feeding on grasses and plants. However, having
> fallen in this way into dropsy he came down to town and
> asked the doctors in a riddle if they could make a drought
> out of rainy weather. When they did not understand he buried
> himself in a cow-stall, expecting that the dropsy would be
> evaporated by the heat of the manure; but even so he failed
> to effect anything, and ended his life at the age of sixty."
.
Is this hearsay evidence I'm hearing from you now, friend
Frank? Deliberately derogatory propaganda even? Y, eye art
shocked! Was it not you who said only just a minute ago:
"Attempting to belittle your opponent is no way to win a
debate"? This is *NOT* my idea of logical consistency. This
one can't belittle anyone; but you can? How does that work?
... Not fair. Very not fair at all!
.
> Historically, Heraclitus' works exist only in fragmentary
> sayings. Some of these agree with what is found in the
> Biblical teachings. For example, we find, "If one does not
> expect the unexpected one will not find it out, since it is
> not to be searched out, and is difficult to compass." Other
> sayings clearly reject God's instruction. He said, for
> instance, "The things of which there is seeing and hearing
> and perception, these do I prefer." This is a rejection of
> spirituality, which focuses away from the material life.
.
No! That's not quite right, Frank. The absolute separation
of matter and spirit splits the universe in two, and thus
impoverishes both sides. The ancient Hebrews, on the other
hand, had a wholistic vision of the world and humankind (eg.
body and soul are one). Just like Heraclitus and many others.
And when we turn to the history of philosophy we see that
the conceptual separation of body and mind, matter and
spirit, love and duty, subject and object, etc etc, has led
to endless confusion and countless errors.
.
Pushing this dualism to its logical extremes led to the
conclusion that our senses do not provide a reliable account
of reality, thus leaving us stranded in a world of illusion:
suspended over an empty abyss with no escape. But Heraclitus
rejects all of this. This is not a rejection of spirituality,
but rather an affirmation of unity, AND of the reliability of
perception. Heraclitus puts the first things first. Without
constant reference to 'sound and vision' philosophy is
nothing more than a vain and pointless exercise in futility!
.
> Many of the extant sayings we possess were merely attributed
> to him by others, and the majority exist without any context
> to explain them.
.
In other words, they are *RIPE* for interpretation and abuse!
.
>> I agree that the Holy Spirit is both an objective and
>> subjective reality, and that *SHE* enlivens some
>> believers more than others ...
.
> As I understand "the holy Spirit," the expression merely
> signifies God in communication with humans.
.
There is no merely about the Spirit, Frank. She is every-
where, and nowhere. Active and passive. Listening as well as
whispering ever so softly to whomever will incline their ear.
As the scripture says:"My child, if you wish, you can be educated, and if youAnd there is very little here that Heraclitus would not
devote yourself to it, you can become shrewd. If you love
to hear, you will receive, and if you listen, you will be wise"
(Wisdom of Sirach, 6:33, Chicago-bible).
agree with.
.
>> In Genesis 1:26 God says "Let us make humankind in our
>> image, after our likeness ...". Does this mean that the
>> Father and the Word are bipedal mammals?
.
> In Gen 1:26, there is merely God, making humanity in
> his own image
.
The text says "us", not "his" ...
Heraclitus says that some people are without faith, "not
knowing how to hear, or even how to speak."
.
> -- that is, capable of love.
.
You are *SO* wrong! Dogs are capable of love, Frank. Some
women even consider them better companions than men. Ha! This
is because mammals in general are capable of love. There is
nothing unique about emotions. Moreover, the text doesn't say
that *anyway*.
.
To be continued in Part Three: Coming Soon ...
.
- one who also barks and bites - textmann ;>
.
P.S. "Those who speak with sense must rely on what is common
to all, as a city must rely on its law, and with much greater
reliance." -- Heraclitus
x
+
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#18] / 23March03 /
/ Ngz > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /
.
The Obscure Philosopher/3
.
"All men can know themselves and be temperate." -- Heraclitus
.
>> textman previously wrote: In a nutshell, the image
>> and likeness refers to our ability to *reason*.
.
> On Feb8 EgwEimi ([email protected]) wrote: I disagree. God's
> nature is love; our true nature is love. We have the
> capacity for genuine love (not merely familial affection),
> and that is what sets us apart from other creations.
.
tx: The angels above us, and the mammals around us, are also
capable of love. This is not unique. What sets human love apart
is the addition of awareness. We can direct our love beyond our
immediate surroundings, to encompass the whole world (if need
be). Even the pagans and unbelievers love their own spouses and
children, so that it is no great achievement for believers to
be capable of love. Human love only approaches a semblance of
divine love when it goes beyond convention and the limits of
family and friends. Expansive and unbounded love is other-
directed love, the sort of love that goes beyond mere self-
interest. Only a love tempered and driven by mind can elevate
natural-love to a more God-pleasing type of spiritual-love."If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?>> Better (by far) to do the will of God with Jesus in your
For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good
to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For
even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom
you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even
sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full."
-- Gospel of Luke 6:32-34 / NETbible
>> heart, but it can be accomplished also by Jews, Muslims,
>> Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and even perhaps by some
>> agnostics and atheists.
.
> What God wants, in a nutshell, is love. Not "love" as
> popular culture defines it, but as God himself explains it.
> If one wishes to love, one will seek God and follow his
> principles. To "have any gods besides" Yahweh is a
> rejection of every one of those principles. "No one is
> able to serve two lords."
.
Right. Love is best expressed through service; ie. through
consistently rational actions uniting heart and mind (or
emotion and thought) in accord with the divine spirit.
.
>> The Golden Rule is as sensible and compelling to believers
>> as to unbelievers.
.
> And yet they do not practice it.
.
Who does?
.
> Even many self-proclaimed Christians memorize it, neither
> practicing it nor even understanding it. The one who under-
> stands and practices will be the one who is following God.
> Yet it is impossible to follow God while rejecting him.
.
Right. We need our reason to understand and act with love.
.
>> And how could the Logos "weigh" a living heart <snip>
.
> Yahweh God created humanity. He can judge the heart because
> he sees hidden things as though they were obvious. We see
> one another's actions only; God sees our motivations.
.
Just so. "God sees" because the spirit is within us ...
.
>> That wherever two or three gathered in his name he
>> would be there?
.
> Literally? No. Wherever his apostles practiced his
> teachings, Jesus was there, metaphorically, giving his
> assent. He was there in the sense that his faithful
> students were remembering him. He was with them in the
> same sense that my friends who have died are still with me.
.
I don't think the sense is the same at all. I don't think that
"remembrance" quite captures the *fullness* of Jesus' presence
among those who love him. Consider the following passage. And
consider that 'remembering' just doesn't do justice to what
is here being proclaimed:"Reside in me, and I in you. Just as the branch cannot>> Centuries before Christ arrived, the Way was prepared in
bear fruit by itself, unless it resides in the vine, so neither
can you unless you reside in me. I am the vine; you are the
branches. The one who resides in me (and I in him) bears much
fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. If
anyone does not reside in me, he is thrown out like a branch,
and dries up, and they gather them up and throw them into the
fire, and they are burned. If you reside in me and my words
reside in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done
for you." -- John 15:4-7
>> advance by the likes of great giants such as Socrates (who
>> confessed that our ignorance outpaces our knowledge, and
>> later died out of love for others),
.
> We have absolutely no information about the actual teachings
> of Socrates. Most of what we have that relates to Socrates
> came from Plato, who rephrased everything in his own
> ideology. One of the few things that we can be sure,
.
We can be sure that Socrates was a disciple of Heraclitus:
"They say that Euripides gave [Socrates] a copy of Heraclitus'
book and asked him what he thought of it. He replied: 'What I
understand is splendid; and I think that what I don't under-
stand is so too. But it would take a Delian diver to get
to the bottom of it.'" -- Diogenes Laertius, 'Lives of the
Philosophers', II:22
.
> historically, came from Socrates is the practice of the
> "Socratic method" of learning through debate. Another
> probably authentic saying is "Virtue is knowledge." He
> does not say, "Knowledge is virtue," but means by this
> that to practice virtue what is good implies knowledge
> of what is good.
.
This is exactly what I'm saying; that only the unity of
heart and mind (of love, will, and awareness) can embrace
the spirit and reveal the logos-spark that gives light and
life. Or as Heraclitus puts it: "The soul is a spark of
the essential substance of the stars."
.
> Rather than stumble in darkness, we are able to find
> what is good in the Bible. <snipsome>
.
And yet Socrates found what is good *without* the Bible, herr
EgwEimi! How? Heraclitus puts it this way: "Man's character is
his daimon." Do not confuse this with 'evil demon', for here
'daimon' derives from 'daemon', which term refers to someone
with an attendant power of spirit; as, 4X, "Socrates' daemon".
.
If we are able to find what is good in the scriptures, then
we ought also to be able to find what is good in the far more
abundant non-biblical literature. Why settle for a teacup of
goodness when a whole tub of goodness is available to us?
.
>> Confucius (who formulated a social rule very like
>> unto the Golden Rule),
.
> Confucius rejected the notion of spiritual existence,
.
Confucius did not reject the concept of the Way. He just had
his own ideas about how this should be done in human society.
.
> indicating that the gods should not be served.
.
Because such service is idolatry and contrary to the Way.
.
> Apart from that major fault, his teachings agree with those
> of the Bible in many ways. Of course, we already have the
> Bible without Confucius.
.
Right. We do not need Confucius and his teachings; but we DO
need to acknowledge that the spirit that was in him is the
SAME 'spirit of truth' that works among the Hebrews and Greeks
and all those others who love the truth. This is the point you
reject: that inspiration can and does occur outside the bible.
.
>> and the good lord Buddha (who also practiced compassion,
>> gentleness, forgiveness, self-forgetfulness, etc).
.
> Buddha rejected all physical indulgences and pleasures,
> focusing instead on what we might call the spiritual. Many
> of the others that Textman mentioned rejected what was
> spiritual. Who was right? Isn't there a standard by which
> these disagreements can be judged? Of course there is.
.
Indeed. And that standard can only be the truth of things!
.
>> The latter felt, I surmise, that the general practice of
>> organized religion only tends to confuse the real issues,
>> the important concerns, and the really BIG questions.
.
> In a general way, Jesus taught the same thing.
.
This is what I'm saying, Frank. Same spirit, same logos,
same truth; expressed in many and various ways.
.
> It is not the rituals that are important but our relationship
> with God and with one another. God had already told this to
> some of his prophets: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,"
> for example. While there have always been people out there
> groping in the darkness while trying to find truth, God has
> always been here, spreading the light openly to those who
> are willing to accept him as Lord.
.
Except if you're a philosopher, you mean; in which case
you are deemed unacceptable to the Lord?!?
.
> His teachings were made available through his prophets
> and other followers. Therefore, the way of God is most
> beneficial and reasonable, because it more accurately and
> more quickly explains truth and life than do the musings
> of those who stumble in darkness. Yet even if it seemed
> unreasonable, God's way would still be more beneficial
> than following human insight alone. <snip>
.
Yet your absolute separation of philosophy and faith IS
irrational, unrealistic, arbitrary, ill-conceived, very
disadvantageous, extremely non-beneficial, AND totally
unbiblical! If the Logos was as anti-philosophy as many
Christians are, he would not have include a whole book
of philosophy among the scriptures (ie. Ecclesiastes).
As Heraclitus says (in accordance with scripture):
.
"For human nature has no insights; but divine nature has."
.
>> <snip> Friend EgwEimi here is just the sort of believer
>> who desperately requires the occasional dog-bite from a
>> vicious and fearsome creature: Grrrrr!
> Thanks, bub. Please stick to the topic.
.
"Dogs bark at every one they do not know" (Heraclitus).
.
> If we are really going to talk about the manner in which
> God speaks in the Bible, let us do it.
.
Okay then --> God speaks in the bible mainly through the old
Hebrew prophets, through the Messiah, and also through *his*
prophets (ie. the Christian "slaves"). Now the real beauty of
this answer is that God's speaking is NOT restricted to any
supposedly closed set of documents thus deemed finished and
final, but *also* through the prophets whose writings are
nowhere to be found within the pages of the Bible. Therefore
God speaks to us by way of the Logos, and is always looking
to capture our ears for a moment or two. Whether we are
willing to listen or not, *that* is the real question!
.
> This is, after all, a Bible study group.
.
Anything that is relevant to bible study ought to be
relevant to the group as well. Including philosophy!
.
> Now to make myself clear, Jesus and Paul themselves did
> occasionally quote non-Jewish sources -
.
And rightly so, we may add.
.
> - when those sources were right.
.
Can we therefore consider as inspired all non-biblical
literature, whenever and wherever they are good and true?
.
> Right ideas are right wherever they are found, and
> regardless of who says them.
.
Well said! I do most heartily agree.
.
> But it makes more sense to search for right ideas among
> truth than in a forest of unfounded opinions. -- Frank
.
Truth is where you find it, Frank, as you just said. There-
fore we cannot say in advance who will, and who will not, find
some hitherto undiscovered aspect of the truth of things. Our
ignorance STILL *vastly* exceeds our knowledge; and so we all
have a long way to go before anyone can say that "the truth
stops here". Or to put it another way (according to another
Heraclitus-type philosopher):
.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (A.Einstein).
.
Amen!
.
- the almost unstoppable one - textman ;;>
.
P.S. "Let us not make aimless conjectures about the
most important things" (Heraclitus).
x
END of Dialogue!