Philosophy Discussion Forums

Nubbles wrote:So everyone needs to agree on definitions?

Define "discussion".
You're not a bigot, are you?

See what I'm saying?

Yes, I see what you are saying.

discussion: An extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic. An exchange of views.

In our exchange of views, Wooden Shoe said, "I have no interest in determining who is a real christian or not...", which shows that he understands there's a difference between who is a real Christian and who is not. He introduced the modifying word, "real". For someone to express a lack of interest in differences, is typical of a bigot.

bigot: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

prejudice: A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.

On the other hand, I have not expressed any such lack of concern.

Cheers,
enegue

enegue wrote:

Nubbles wrote:So everyone needs to agree on definitions?

Define "discussion".
You're not a bigot, are you?

See what I'm saying?

Yes, I see what you are saying.

discussion:

In our exchange of views, Wooden Shoe said, "I have no interest in determining who is a real christian or not...", which shows that he understands there's a difference between who is a real Christian and who is not. He introduced the modifying word, "real". For someone to express a lack of interest in differences, is typical of a bigot.

Cheers,
enegue

Someone who expresses interest in differences is a bigot. Not a lack of them.

He says he has no interest in determining the difference. He doesn't think there is one.

OK enegue I will put on my bigot hat. LOL.

You are not a real christian by your own words.
You have admitted to judging fellow christians as to who is real or false.
Jesus expressly forbade judging so you are not a Christ imitator or follower, but you most likely are a Paul follower as that seems more like your style.
Now is this better?

My original post had to do with religion curtailing the freedom of philosophers in Europe, and I would add also in the islamic area.
In contrast with the early Greek and Roman philosophers.
Whether the religion practiced was good or bad made no difference to those philosophers.
If you were to get run over by a large truck [lorrie], whether it was red or green would not matter to your body.

Hello all; (and especially "enegue" as (s)he seems to be carrying most of the conversation:

I noticed earlier that you referred to the Ten Commandments. Perhaps you are just as unaware of Jesus' Two Commandments as most other "Christians" seem to be. My personal comments are in parenthesis:

"The first of all the commandments is, hear O Israel ( . . . BE: metaphorically, allegorically; "seeker of spiritual truth" . . . .); The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: ( BE: . . . . Thou shalt love "God" unconditionally . . . .) This is the first commandment.

And the second is like, ( . . . similar . . .) namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these". (BE: . . . These are the ultimate Commandments and supercede the Ten Commandments of Moses . . .) - Jesus the Christ, The Holy Bible, (KJV) St. Mark 12, 29 - 31. (end quote)

Now, did I get it wrong, did religion get it wrong, or did Jesus get it wrong? I'm just wondering.

Now, I am going to throw a couple more stones into the pond:

1) "Christ" was not Jesus' surname. There are three dialogues in the gospels where Jesus asks "who say ye that I am?" The apostles say (effectively) "Thou are the Christ". Jesus effectively says: "OK, if you say so; but don't tell anybody" . . . and that is the best way to get anybody to do anything . . . . like Jesus didn't already know this . .

2)"Who has ever heard of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph and Mary Christ . . . . Jesus' legally married parents?

3). Therefore, I infer that "the Christ" is a term used to denote Jesus' unique degree of spiritual attainment. As such it was never intended to be used/understood/interpreted as his real name . . .

4) So, if this is true: It is not "who" we are talking about: It is "what" we are talking about.

5) This/these observations have very strong and far-reaching implications. If true; Christianity is based on a hoax and a fraudulent misconception (no pun intended).

6) "immaculate conception" may refer to (metaphorically, allegorically) the creative power of thought: Literally: creating something from nothing . . . . all "creation" begins first with a thought: Which is intangible/non-matter: Pure energy; the "light of consciousness" i.e. "the Christ".

7) "the Christ" (or) the Spirit of God therefore dwells within all of us . . . and therefore can never die . . .

I hope that you find these thoughts interesting or at least thought provoking.

I am most sincerely yours,

Brian Leslie Engler

Wooden shoe wrote:OK enegue I will put on my bigot hat. LOL.

You are not a real christian by your own words.
You have admitted to judging fellow christians as to who is real or false.

You made an observation:
"In the western world, once christianity started to dominate ..."

To clarify what I saw as an ill-informed opinion, I gave a definition:
"If someone is behaving or speaking in any way counter to what Jesus taught, then it is not Christianity. Christians are followers of Jesus, not followers of the church"

And I showed you Jesus' teaching in regard to how Constantine's behaviour was incompatible with the behaviour expected by Jesus. You then asked me,"Do you make that fine kind of distinction between a Muslim extremist and Islam generally?", to which I replied, "Absolutely"

You then made a comment about my standard being irrelevant to what happened to the philosophers, totally ignoring the importance of what I had just shared, to which I replied, "It is the standard that was established by the one who gave his life for many."

Then we arrived at the point where you introduced the idea of "real christians", inspired I'm sure by the definition I gave. Now you are accusing me of judging fellow christians.

Do you understand that it was YOU who judged the behaviour of the people who caused grief for the philosophers. All I was doing was trying to focus you attention on the unnecessarily broad brush with which you chose to paint your picture.

Wooden shoe wrote:My original post had to do with religion curtailing the freedom of philosophers in Europe, and I would add also in the islamic area.

Is every German a Nazi? Of course not. Come on, Wooden Shoe, get involved in the real world. In your first post you referred to the Catholic Church, now you've broadened your stoke and to include those who practice "religion". What do you really mean?

Cheers,
enegue

Hello Enegue.

First of all you were the one who took exception to my statement of a christian force in the affairs of Europe from about the year 350.
I was using the accepted use of denoting this as the christian era. whether this term met with your approval has nothing to do with how it affected philosophy for the the next 12 centuries.
This changed with the reformation and the loss of dominance by the catholic church.
This is the time when philosophy starts to show a more humanistic style.
Whether christianity was practiced according to the bible during the dark ages or not, does not affect the power exercised by the religious power of that time.
This same affect can still be seen for philosophy in the islamic sphere.

Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Enegue.

First of all you were the one who took exception to my statement of a christian force in the affairs of Europe from about the year 350.

I took exception only with language designed to pour scorn on a group of people because of the behaviour of some. If you had used a term like "Institutional Church", I wouldn't have objected because I recognise that they had certainly wandered from the path. I pointed out Jesus' teaching in regard to not exercising dominion over others, so you could see how far they had wandered.

Wooden shoe wrote:I was using the accepted use of denoting this as the christian era.

The Christian era denotes the period of time after Jesus' birth, since his teaching and spirit in turn gave birth to a new people group called Christians. Was Judas a Christian? He was a follower of Jesus, but I wouldn't have called him a Christian.

You have to be careful, if you want to be careful that is, you are not calling every German a Nazi, or every Muslim a terrorist, or every Christian a persecutor of the philosophers.

Cheers,
enegue

So sorry Enegue.

Every major historian who's writings I have read designated the years after 350 as the christian era and not from the time of christ.
In the beginning they were too few in numbers to have any influence.
Just as now certain countries are said to be post-christian as I believe Canada to be.
Many people in the USA are living in the illusion that it is still a christian nation.

As to the dominion thing, Jesus clearly supported authority in the tax question and Paul also supported authority in his writings, especially for slaves.

Wooden shoe wrote:Every major historian who's writings I have read designated the years after 350 as the christian era and not from the time of christ.
In the beginning they were too few in numbers to have any influence.

By what means did they grow in influence, prior to Constantine?

Wooden shoe wrote:As to the dominion thing, Jesus clearly supported authority in the tax question and Paul also supported authority in his writings, especially for slaves.

Wooden shoe, Jesus was not supporting the notion of the exercise of authority over others in the tax question, he was recognising that there are rulers of the community who do, and that we should render unto them the things that are theirs. Additionally, he also said we should render unto God the things that are God's.

Cheers,
enegue

OK Enegue, one last time.

They gained in influence by numbers and adding people with some standing in their community to their converts so by the time of Constantine they were a force he found advantages to support.

Caesar had dominion over the Jews and just about the only contact they had with Caesar was with taxes.
You interpret the text your way and I will do mine.

Unless it has some connection with this thread, this is all I have to say.
I think we have wandered to far away from the original Question.

Hello all;

This conversation is quite interesting: I would like to offer my thoughts:

If it could be construed that Jesus' Two Commandments sum up his philosophy, then it is readily apparent to me that not very many Christians are even remotely aware of Jesus' Two Commandments; let alone being prepared to actually practice them.

In which case there has been no such thing as a "Christian" era; in spite of how much we would have liked it.

Furthermore: All of the main-stream orthodox so-called Christian churches still seem to be based on the dogma, doctrine and theology which was formulated and adopted at the Council of Nicaea; convened, orchestrated and manipulated in 325 A.D. by the Roman Emporer Constantine (see Reincarnation The Missing Link in Christianity by Elizabeth Clare Prophet pp. 201 - 214).

It is my observation that the conclusions and decisions reached by that Council still form the basis of fundamental, orthodox Christianity as it is taught and as we receive it and understand it today.

As an human invention, the Roman Catholic Church became an expression and an instrument of domination, manipulation, control and "political stability" - not love. The outcome of the Council of Nicaea was to fundamentally obscure and distort the spirit and intention of Jesus' original message and teachings, so that they could be used to serve the agenda of the Roman Empire (Church). "A trusting and innocent mankind has suffered as a consequence."

As a reality check, when we hear the statement made by religious authorities that "Jesus is God", we know that is not true and that source is corrupted and can't be trusted. The conclusion to teach and administer that doctrine to humanity came out of the Council of Nicaea.

I keep coming back to St. Mark 12, 29-31. "The first of all the Commandments is, hear O Israel (seeker of spiritual truth): The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength (Thou shalt love God unconditionally): This is the first Commandment. And the second is like, (similar) namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other Commandment greater than these." (these are the ultimate Commandments and supercede the Ten Commandments of Moses) words in parenthesis provided


Even if you don't believe in Jesus or God, that second commandment is a real doozer.

Jesus was not talking just to members of the Catholic Church (which hadn't even been formed yet and didn't exist for another 300 years) when he said these words. He was talking to all of humanity. It is a very simple message. So, why hasn't this been done? Why hasn't this been practised? Is it because we have to work it out for ourselves? Not because of what the church instructs, teaches and practises, but in spite of what the church instructs, teaches and practises?

So, on this basis, "we" haven't had a Christian era, yet.

We have had a "church era", but not a Christian era.

-Brian Leslie Engler

Hi, Youngfool.

What does the Bible suggest we do to show our love for God? What does the Bible suggest we do to love our neighbour as ourselves?

Cheers,
enegue

Hi enegue;

First of all, the Bible says many things and can be used to justify any point of view regardless of how ignorant, prejudiced, intolerant, and bigoted that point of view may be. Just take a look around at the self-righteous religionists; or the "religious right" if you prefer.

Fundamental orthodox religion beleives in an anthropomorphic "God"; a "God" in human form. Based on scientific evidence that is just so ignorant it defies further description.

In order to further the conversation; and to ensure that we are talking about the same thing here, I would like offer a definition of "God" that both science and religion (if not you and I) could agree on:

"God: spiritually; the creative cause of life and manifest reality; the ultimate source of all; ultimate reality (expressing and manifesting through human mind). All pervasive, inexhaustible; the natural perpetual source of everything else. Having the qualities of infinite, divine, inexpressible, incomprehensible, intangible, immutable, caring, creative love, truth, compassion, forgiveness, humility, principle and intelligence.

So, on the one hand you could pose the question: "How would or could anybody love something like that?"

And on the other hand you could pose the question: "How would or could anybody not love something like that?"

Of course, this definition of "God" is not in the Bible; although it is alluded to in the Book of Revelation. (seven stars and seven spirits of God, etc.)

But to specifically address your question (if you are seriously interested in finding your own answer to it): I guess you'd need to read the Bible for yourself in order to find out.

Remember: It is your answer to the question that really matters: Not mine. So, basically; I will just let you work it out for yourself.

Best wishes and best regards,

-Brian Leslie Engler

Hi, Youngfool.

I didn't ask the question because I didn't have an answer, I asked because you quoted Jesus' words from the Bible, so I figured you would also have an answer from the Bible.

You say this about the two commandments, "these are the ultimate Commandments and supercede the Ten Commandments of Moses". If you believe that, then you have missed the point of the ten commandments. The two commandments tell you that LOVE is the answer to living an abundant life, but they don't tell you HOW you are to love God or your neighbour.

How do you love God?

1. by esteeming him as your primary source of guidance;
2. by not superstitiously investing power in material objects;
3. by not profaning his name or using his name to exercise dominion over others;

How do I love myself and my neighbour?

1. by resting one day in every seven and allowing others to do the same;
2. by honouring our parents;
3. by not killing;
4. by not committing adultery;
5. by not stealing;
6. by not bearing false witness;
7. by not coveting what is not ours

That's the answer God has guided me to in the Bible. My reward for listening to and following God's guidance is, the level of content in the world will increase and the level of discontent will decrease.

Cheers,
enegue

Hi enegue;

So, you were setting me up? I thought so.

OK: Regarding Jesus and the Ten Commandments: I guess you have a problem with Jesus' Two Commandments superceding the Ten Commandments of Moses.

Personally I don't. But to each their own.

As for the rest of your post: Good for you.

By the way: If Jesus came to teach the Old Testament, why did he bother coming at all?

Once again, best wishes and best regards;

-Brian Leslie Engler