Is the Bible anti-intellectual?

I did a very crude little search on www.biblegateway.com. That site allows you to search the text of the bible in dozens of different languages and versions. I searched the King James Version in English. I got one return on the word 'intelligence', Daniel 11:30:

"For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant."

For the word 'intelligent' there were no results returned.

So with what is admittedly an overwhelmingly non-exhaustive search, I couldn't find the dozens of passages in praise of intelligence.

Will, since you say there are dozens, could you perhaps give a list of examples? No need for dozens, 5 would be more than enough to convince me.

And a small technicality: I know the quote as

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

There is a difference between saying 'I don't remember any' and saying 'There are none'.

Search for "Wisdom". Try the book of Proverbs. Then search for "Solomon".

Paul shows more than a superficial knowledge of Greek philosophy (the philosophy dismissed in Colossians is a type of cosmological speculation concerning the roles of angelic beings). James is deeply influenced by Jewish Wisdom theology, which was in part a Jewish engagement with Greek philosophy. Elders were valued for their accumulated knowledge. And the early Church grew up in one of the few societies that valued universal education. The New Testament letters show a deep knowledge of Rhetoric - an essential part of ancient education.

What the Bible does criticise is pride in our achievements, be they political, financial or intellectual. And perhaps this is what irked Russell. If we take Scripture seriously an illiterate peasant and a small child can have a greater wisdom than Russell's, simply bcause they have faith.
Of course they should try to grow in knowledge. But we want to achieve and to earn insight. We don't want it as a gift. So it is easier to dismiss the Scriptures as anti-intellectual than to acknowledge our limitations.

GV

Maybe Will is a prophet, some of his words at the top of this thread certainly were prophetic as far as the attitude of devotees is concerned:

"If the bible sounds anti-intellectual in the hands of some of its devotees, this may reflect the reader's attitude rather than the text."

Graham Veale quickly obliges to provide the example:

"If we take Scripture seriously an illiterate peasant and a small child can have a greater wisdom than Russell's, simply bcause they have faith."

So the faith of a small child may present greater wisdom than the thinking of a man like Russell. You could rephrase that coming from the opposite direction of the more-less comparison: in terms of wisdom, the thinking of a man like Russell is deemed to be worth even less than the faith of a small child or illiterate peasant.

Yep, the bible is a powerful catalyst for anti-intellect for some who take the fairy tale serious. The message is 'If you have to choose how to spend your brain time, then choose faith. Have faith, it is so much more important than thinking/knowledge/reasoning, so just reach for that button at the back of your head and switch off your brain, be happy in your un-thinking. Who needs thinking anyway when you have faith? Just have faith. And if you can enlighten others to that 'thinking' that would be even greater'.
And so the mind rot spreads. Yes, for many the bible is a powerful source of anti-intellectualism.

I think it would more accurately be described as "non-intellectual." It's a book of stories like Aesops fables trying to instruct moralities and instill beliefs through allegories. It does not draw on argument based on facts the way intellectual presentations do, even those with flawed arguments whether based on incorrect assumptions or defective logic or both. But then look at who its audience is, primitives who would rather be told what to think than those who would prefer to be given facts and challenged to draw their own conclusions. And it is still gobbled up by the primitives among us today. Once they understood fire and the wheel, that was enough brainwork for them. Am I talking about believers today? If the shoe fits.

A word about Andy McIntosh. He took facts and arguments he obviously didn't understand and tried to twist them into an intellectual argument to prove his theory. A lot of people were prejudiced to believed him because of his pedagogic "credentials" just as they were prejudiced to dismiss Susan Boyle because of her lack of media credentials. If she becomes a big star, they will in the future even if it turns out she really is a mediocre singer after all. That's what people do now with those who already have a media stamp of approval and can't sing. The esteemed philosophers of our day cited in prior threads are in the same boat.

Well, you've got a point, Will, but it's maybe a slightly obtuse one. The various books of the bible are really no better and no worse than anything else that was kicking around at the times among neighbouring peoples. Does the bible have things of interest for us today? Well, yes, in the sense that it's always interesting to know what people thought years and years ago. Does it contain anything that we should really know that we couldn't have figured out for ourselves? No.

The bible is just one corpus. The ancient world has given us so much more than just that, and our current world gives us more still. Let's just keep these things in context. It's just a selection of books.

Helio - name any other book or selection of books from that time that has been read by so many people and is still read today.

www.mccamley.org

PK

Nope, complete misunderstanding once again. Congratulations.

I was trying to point out the difference between Wisdom and the accumulation of knowledge. That one is more valuable than the other doesn't mean that both can't have great value.

But knowledge without wisdom is blind. That's at the foundation of Western thinking. The mere accumulation of facts and theories is an empty pursuit if it does not lead us into the "good/happy" life (as Plato/Aristotle) would have described it.

So, it might lead a person to make up all sorts of calumnies about Church History. Or recommend that the Western Powers nuke the USSR before they developed more bombs. And then call yourself a pacifist.

But if wisdom was ultimately a gift, that would be offensive to human pride.

I suggest that you get over it.

GV

Now, if you'll excuse me I've got to go teach my son that the world is flat.

Well, it's the way the bible is used that can be anti-intellectual, not the book itself. At best it could be said that the bible is not either pro- or anti-intellectual (not more than or less than any other similar collection of religious texts).

But what is perhaps anti-intellectual is the way it's used by those who wish for matters of religious belief to be spoonfed to them in the manner of children who are expected to sit down, shut up and swallow whatever is shoveled in.

Interesting question. I think I agree with those who say the bible is sometimes used in a way which could be interpreted as anti-intellectual.Like Will I studied philosophy for a while at Uni, and I always remember that the Christians in our tutorial group refused to discuss some of the hypothetical questions which inevitably arose in the tutorials. They packed up their books and left, while the rest of us discussed the issues in their absence.
I still don't understand why their faith rendered them unable or unwilling to discuss these issues. It was just debate, where was the threat?
In this instance, I do feel that they used the bible to avoid intellectual debate. It was frustrating.

"Like Will I studied philosophy for a while at Uni, and I always remember that the Christians in our tutorial group refused to discuss some of the hypothetical questions which inevitably arose in the tutorials. They packed up their books and left, while the rest of us discussed the issues in their absence"

I too studied philosophy for many years and have never ever heard of such a thing happening...and there were many Christians in the classes. In fact, more than one class was taught by a catholic priest (and it wasn't a particularly religious module...aesthetics, i think it was), and surely a large body of philosophical work is produced by Christians

That seems really really odd...just out of interest, what uni was this, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm not calling you a liar or anything like that, it's just that that really is a new one to me...I've never heard the like of it.

Was it obstensible and explicit that those people were refusing to engage because they were Christians? Or perhaps that particular tutorial clashed with a prayer meeting...
:)

Hello Graham,

"I was trying to point out the difference between Wisdom and the accumulation of knowledge."

"The mere accumulation of facts and theories is an empty pursuit if it does not lead us into the "good/happy" life (as Plato/Aristotle) would have described it."

And the work of Russell is 'mere accumulation of facts and theories'. Have you ever read any of his work? It would appear maybe not? Or maybe you've understood very little of it?

You introduce the distinction between wisdom and knowledge. I didn't do that. You go on to criticize me over something I didn't say. Come on Graham, I don't think anything much of your intellect, but even you are better than that. I think.

I also studied Philosophy (at QUB in the 80s) and I don't remember anyone ever refusing to join in during tutorials. Lot of sitting round looking blankly at the walls hoping someone else had read the set text, but no actual refusal.

Does seem perverse to choose to study the subject then refuse to participate in class.

I'd be fascinated to know what sort of hypothetical questions people refused to discuss.

Try these texts for evidence of the Bible praising intelligence:

Deuteronomy 1:13: Choose wise, intelligent and experienced men from each of your tribes, that I may appoint them as your leaders.

Deuteronomy 4:6: This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.

Proverbs 1:5: A wise man by hearing them will advance in learning, an intelligent man will gain sound guidance.

Proverbs 10:13: On the lips of the intelligent is found wisdom.

Proverbs 11:12: He who reviles his neighbor has no sense, but the intelligent man keeps silent.

Proverbs 14:33: In the heart of the intelligent wisdom abides, but in the bosom of fools it is unknown.

Proverbs 15:14: The mind of the intelligent man seeks knowledge, but the mouth of fools feeds on folly.

Proverbs 18:15: The mind of the intelligent gains knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Interesting question.

If God chose to incarnate as a joiner and communicate in farming stories, perhaps we can assume his priority was imparting truth and wisdom to everyman as opposed to praising intelligence. That would seem a bit weird as a mission statement for Christ!

John Wesley said that God must have loved the common man because he made so many of them!

However the scriptures also make it clear that Christians are to use all their talents for God's glory; Pauls letter to the Roman's was not written by a simpleton by any means!!!


The other problem is, beause this is a debating forum, we tend to highly vlaue intellectualism, but we very often forget character and spiritual growth, which are two very different matters, I am noticing in myself.

We are not accountable for the quality of our abilities but are accountable for our character and spiritual condition, to which is closely allied wisdom, which is something else again.

that should be Romans not Roman's....oops!

Hello jovialPTL,

A quote like

"He who reviles his neighbor has no sense, but the intelligent man keeps silent."

mentions intelligence in men but doesn't praise it. In fact, none of the quotes you put up do. Is there any verse in the bible where it says something along the lines of 'Intelligence is a good thing, something to aspire to'? Since christianity even favours faith over thinking, it's not directly clear that these mentions of intelligence are praise for it. Surely there should be some verse where it is clearly stated?

OT

You post some, in my opinion, horrific stuff on another thread this evening, you havent gone back to it to say, oops I'm sorry for the awful statements I've made against a minority group.

And on here you apologise for an apostrophe?

Splinter and plank come to mind.

Surely for the intelligent truth seeker there is no place in the bible or religion. The bible relies solely on faith which cannot be tested by intelligence.

So if the bible was to praise intelligence then those who are intelligent would have to be able to test the existence of God. Since no such test exists then the intelligent can be at best agnostic.

One quick point, do I really have to point out that biblical faith is not an unthinking leap in the dark?

Like Christianity and science are not opposed, so faith and thought are not opposed.

Simple.

You guys know this already.

"Like Christianity and science are not opposed, so faith and thought are not opposed."

So think some, but others certainly do not. Like e.g. most scientists don't think the two are compatible.

Peter

So Christianity just isn't allowed, is that it?

Is there even the slightest hint of a chance that you might reconsider your use of the word faith to understand what some of us Christians actually mean?

The Bible, in so far as it there is a common identity in its diversity, is gloriously anti-intellectual. It could not be anything else - all religious language is, considered rationally, utterly meaningless and yet it conveys the greatest of truths.

The gospel is preached and received by the poor, the foolish, the disabled, the disenfranchised - it is accessible to them and it speaks to their situation.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent will I reject. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe".

This is quite simply a blanket declaration of anti-intellectualism - it is an anti-intellectual manifesto - it makes it abundantly clear that one cannot apprehend God or grasp His relevance to the world by means of human reason.

Reason is, however, but a small part of human understanding and perhaps a not very significant factor when we look at human communication. I often wonder to what extent can we trust the process of ratiocination to deliver understanding of the world and why modern western society values it so much. I suspect it may be because we need to feel in control; we pretend to understanding because, like the primitives Marcus ridicules, we too fear the unknown.

It seems fairly certain that we humans make all our decisions at an unconscious level by processes we do not begin to understand. What we believe is a decision is no more than the registering of the results of non-conscious process. We reason that we act rationally but reason, examining recent research, informs us that actually we do not. We cannot even use the conscious process of the mind to understand ourselves yet we accept its explanations of the cosmos.

I want to speak of communication. When we communicate we do so on many different levels and any message contains in itself the conscious intent of the communicator, his unconscious intent, the conscious understanding of the recipient and his unconscious apprehensions. This was the point I was attempting to illustrate when I did a spot of spoof criticism on the literary output of PeterM and Bernard. Spoof or not, neither Peter nor Bernard can absolutely assert they had no subconscious intent to convey any of the points I uncovered - it is simply not possible for them to know. In the same way I do not know what other messages my unconscious mind derived from their efforts.

A communication once made belongs at once both to originator and recipient and to neither. The understanding of one is as valid as the other: the communication indeed may work at a level independent of the conscious thought of either and with unremarked effect. Perhaps Peter, Bernard and I now love each other more deeply than before, perhaps not, who knows, who can know?

I would contend that we need to look at the Bible, particularly at the gospel narratives, in this light where what can be understood is as significant as what is said. The resultant uncertainty might allow us to resolve Helio's little difficulty with donkeys as merely one of Quantum of Ass.

This is Easter, what is the gospel message of the season? What did the evangelists write and what speaks to us when we read their accounts? The facts, or at any rate the narrative accounts, are of little importance except for the emotional response they engender. An encounter with the risen Christ causes the heart to burn within, something it does now as much as it it did in the first century AD.

We read the gospels not for knowledge but for their affective qualities - in this sense perhaps the gospel according to Handel works even better than that according to Luke.

While the bible doesn't seem intellectual itself, belief in it could be one acid test to see if one has any intellect or not. Come to think of it, it's a pretty reliable indicator.

Peter Klaver

Do you actually practice being rude?

I know that other bloggers have been stunned by your manners. I'm stunned by your lack of knowledge, and your inability to form an argument.

Eg.My comments about Russell responded to "Why I am not a Christian". (I'm more than happy to respond to his epistemology and his philosophy of religion - yes I've read him.)

Eg.Five *sets* of questions that you dodged on our previous exchange.

Eg.Googling fundamentalist websites, then assuming that you understand what is essential to Orthodoxy.

Eg.Missing the point about wisdom and knowledge completely.


I expect a lot of insults, posturing and bluster in your reply. Personal comments about my teaching, or my family maybe. Which maybe impresses you, but I don't know who else cares.

GV

Post 17

Hilarious.

gveale I agree with you. Peter is not just being rude, he's being wilfully pig-headed about these verses mentioning intelligence. He's like a creationist who takes every fossil and turns it into an argument for a young earth. Whatever you give him, he will re-describe it to reject it. That's because he has a prejudice against all forms of religion and he hates the bible. A prejudice is not intelligence, it is by definition pre-rational. The fact is, Peter, not everyone who reads and cherishes the Bible as a source of spiritual wisdom or revelation is an idiot. I know you will find that hard to believe, but it is empirically the case. Some people have taken the Bible and abused others with it. Those people, I accept, have brought the Bible's reputation into disrepute. I also accept that some parts of the Bible, like all great literature, mirror the values of its age and those values are sometimes to be rejected today (e.g., attitudes to women, slavery, etc). We can agree that the Bible must be read carefully, intelligently, and with an eye to its cultural context. There's a big difference between that position and the position that the Bible is to be completely rejected as intellectually vacuous or anti-intellectual. The Bible is a library, not a book. Making one statement about the Bible is as dangerous as making a single statement and applying it to an entire nation.

Hello Graham,

If I were to make any insult, it might be that you're starting to resemble Orthodox-tradition a bit in that you cry a lot about the tone of the discussion without there being valid reason to do so.

You made a rather silly comparison about the wisdom of illiterate peasants and Bertrand Russell. I say it's a bit silly. You then try to wriggle your way out of it by saying 'Oh, but I was referring to.....' when you never mentioned any of that in your original post. If your follow-up post is true, then you simply should have stated things better in your original post.

And while I have stated reservations in my discussion with Bernard on the other thread (I never said it applies to all christians, have mentioned specifically that I don't think it applies to Bernard, and I've never said that the fundie examples represent christian orthodoxy, or that I have a firm grasp of that), you choose to ignore those and then cry your lungs out over a position that isn't mine.

So I think very little of your post 25. But don't worry, OT will likely give you an understanding shoulder to cry on. :)

I see that you don't have to wait for OT, while I was typing my reply, another voice of support already appeared for you. :)

Ha, a clearer confirmation of Augustine's post couldn't be found if you tried!

:)

I'm particularly interested in this;

"I've never said that the fundie examples represent christian orthodoxy, or that I have a firm grasp of that)"

You may have slipped that in somewhere, but you've hardly let it colour your view...

But, mnore importantly, if you don't have a firm grasp of orthodoxy, how can you be sure that the "fundie" examples don't completely comply with that orthodoxy?

Furthermore, how can you even be sure that you have a firm grasp of the "fundie examples"? I really don't think you have anything like a firm grasp of what is termed "fundamentalism"....

Even furthermore...I would probably consider myself a fundamentalist.

PK
Nope, you're still not asking how wisdom differs from theoretical knowledge, or the accumulation of facts, or insight into an area of study. The difference between wisdom and knowledge is not only posited by Judaeo-Christianity but Greek philosophy. So it's presupposed by Western Thought, although sadly neglected.

If you laid down the insults, and actually *discussed* a topic we might get somewhere. We'd hardly agree. But there might be a beneficial exchange of ideas.

But you decided to insult me *and* OT. (How does that help your case, exactly?) And presumably Gus now as well. Who is *not* a fundamentalist.

At least you're having fun. But I know I'm not.

GV

Intellect does get in the way when studying scripture: that is, if you cannot lay current day critical analysis aside for a while.

However it seems from Will's opening line that Bertrand Russell is immortal !

Does that give greater credibility to the Gospel stories ?

I've been away from the blog for a while and come back to see the usual Christian suspects as usual twisting and turning in order to wriggle out of a valid criticism.

The Bible is a disparate collection of writings over a long period (a thousand or more years). There is a bit of wisdom here and there, and also a lot of nonsense, as any objective student would realise. I would like to focus more on Jesus.

Was Jesus intellectual? Was Jesus a philosopher? When asked who was his favourite political philosopher, George Bush replied, 'Jesus Christ', but we do not normally apply this label to the founder of Christianity, so Bush was wrong - again. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has no reference under 'Jesus' or 'Christ', though it does include one on 'Buddha'. A similar absence applies to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy: nothing on 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'Christianity' but an article on 'Buddhist Philosophy'. Why is this so? Why, in the view of most professionals, does Jesus not qualify as a philosopher?

If we read the words attributed to him in the Gospels, we do not find a systematic, reasoned analysis of truth, knowledge, logic, the meaning of life or basic ethical principles, but what we are offered instead is a series of statements, so-called 'divine' judgments and parables. Rousseau said that if Socrates lived and died like a philosopher, Jesus lived and died like a god.

That is precisely the point: Jesus and his followers made claims far beyond any that a true philosopher would make. No true philosopher would presume to know the mind of a God, and no true philosopher would demand unquestioning faith in him. Indeed, throughout the Gospels there is an explicit rejection of reason in favour of faith. To say that men must become like little children or they will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3) is to praise uncritical belief, and this is the precise opposite of philosophy and the intellect.

What renders a creed or ideology a 'philosophy’'
is that its proponents set out arguments for it and invite others to examine and debate the case. Otherwise, it is merely a dogma.

So although in many respects Jesus was a rebel, it is not enough to go against the grain to be a philosopher. It is also necessary to reject faith in favour of reason.  For what is faith if not irrational belief? And what is philosophy if not the rational pursuit of wisdom? Jesus did not seek wisdom; he claimed he already possessed it. Such arrogance contrasts with the genuine humility of the true philosopher.

Indeed, this is precisely the reason why many Christians themselves would reject the label of 'philosopher' or 'intellectual' as applied to Jesus. They would see it as lessening his importance. It would mean that he was no greater than Buddha, Confucius or Socrates, whereas they see Jesus as the Christ, the One who died and rose again so that we can be reconciled to God. As far as they are concerned, if people only believe in him as a philosopher or intellectual, then they don’t believe who he himself said he was, namely God incarnate or at least a special agent of God (at least in John’s Gospel). Believing in the philosophies of Confucius or Buddha, in this view, will not get you closer to God - only Jesus can do that.

Yet, here again, we discover another reason why Jesus is not a true philosopher, which is the fact that philosophers are not concerned whether people should believe in them and their special qualities, divine or otherwise - only that they should accept their ideas about truth, virtue and reality. A mystic like Jesus asks people to follow him; a philosopher merely asks us to agree with him. 

So Bertrand Russell was spot on, at least as far as Jesus is concerned.

I'm also puzzled by comments like "crying your lungs out". I find some of your posts rude - I'm not losing any sleep.

I suppose a quick post in between classes is fun. And I can go to my old notes on the lap top, copy&click&paste. Keeps me familiar with past reading, and it doesn't take 15 minutes. This is a distraction for me, and most other bloggers. A way to break up the monotony of the day.
Sheesh, no one's basing their self image on it. Get a grip of yourself man!

Brian

You couldn't get First Century Jewish thought more wrong if you tried.

And I suspect you have.

GV

Quick - summarise Wisdom literature for me.

Although he is right.

Jesus, of course, was not a philosopher. He was the Son of God.

So of course;

"Jesus and his followers made claims far beyond any that a true philosopher would make. No true philosopher would presume to know the mind of a God"...

Unless of course, they were God. Surely philosophers can claim to know their own minds.

:)

But you are right, of course. jesus did not offer a systematic philosophy. I simply was himself.

But that doesn't mean that a rational Christian philosophy can't be constructed. It can and has, and can be done so entirely in line with what is revealed in the Bible.

So, although jesus wasn't a philosopher, his teaching can be represented in a systematic philosophy.

For those who can remember back a few months, I pointed out that in the first two chapters of the book of genesis, there are two accounts of the sequence of creation which contradict each other to the point of being mutually exclusive (along with many other contradictions I pointed out.) In one, the story of how god created the universe has birds and animals that crawl created before the first man, in the second after the first man and the bible even explains in the second version that they were created because man already existed. Two different versions of the bible including the traditional King James version were consistent. Now you can hardly claim that this kind of contradition is intellectual, nor can you claim that those who will not even examine and question that contradiction let alone find a reasonable resolution to it yet still believe in it have any intellect to speak of at all. That's why belief in it is called "faith." If the book is non intellectual, the believers are anti-intellectual. And in the past, they burned books and tortured intellects who challenged it until they recanted. Today some of their descendants are just as vehement, the only difference being that while they abhor physical torture, they use the mental torture of their interminable rituals and sermons.

"For those who can remember back a few months, I pointed out that in the first two chapters of the book of genesis, there are two accounts of the sequence of creation which contradict each other to the point of being mutually exclusive "

Actually, for those of us who really can remember...no, you didn't.

you pointed out that there were two different versions....DIFFERENT

But we knew that anyway.

is it anti-intellectual to attempt to ascertain the motivations of a compiler when inswerting two different accounts of the one narrative?


Surely it's even more anti-intellectual to say "two different versions of the same story...the compiler must have been really stupid"

That's kind of ignoring a reasonable question, isn't it.

Why give two versions of the same story, one after the other?

Sheer stupidity? That doesn't really add up now, does it.

But wait, we've already been through this, haven't we Marcus? As you well know.

And on a totally unrelated subject....why would some one as anti-philosophical inquiry as yourself take your pseudonym from a philosopher?

just something I've been wondering.

Graham:

You couldn't get my post more wrong if YOU tried.

Why does neither the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor the Oxford Companion to Philosophy include Jesus or Christianity, whereas they do include Buddha and Confucius? Answer my question.

As for Jewish philosophy, I doubt if the character of Jesus, if he existed at all, knew anything about Philo of Alexandria or anybody else remotely connected with 'philosophy'. The Jesus of the Gospels was a mystic, not a philosopher.

Of course, presumably you don't think he was a philosopher either. You think he was God and God is omniscient: all-knowing. No REAL philosopher would ever claim to know everything. Quite the opposite. Look at the other thread and the famous Socrates statement that "I know that I know nothing" or, if you prefer, "All I know is the fact of my ignorance". That is the true philosopher, the seeker after truth.

Jesus or God in Christian thinking already know all the truth. That is the negation of philosophy and the intellect.

Brian;


"Why does neither the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor the Oxford Companion to Philosophy include Jesus or Christianity, whereas they do include Buddha and Confucius"

Of course, both do include Albert the Great...Augustine...Aquinas...Berkely...Boethius..Cajetan....pseudo-Dionysius...Duns Scotus...Leibniz...Kant...Lonergan....Maritain...Marechal...

and that's only as far as "M".

"Jesus or God in Christian thinking already know all the truth. That is the negation of philosophy and the intellect."

"knowing the truth" is the negation of the intellect...???

I think you'll have to take me through that one again.

I'd have thought "knowing the truth" was the purpose of the intellect. Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "intellect"

In fact, if you were to be logically consistent, you'd probably be claiming that the intellect doesn't allow us to "know" anything.

But I'm not sure how "actually knowing the truth" negates the intellect...

seems a bit contradictory. Proper contradictory, not two-donkeys contradictory.

Bernards_Insight, I am amazed that you now admit that the explanations are different. Far more progress from you in a short time than I expected. I'll bet if we worked real hard together, in another two to five years, you would understand the concept of "mutually exclusive." It would be a big step for you. I've given up on Pastorphillip. I don't think I will ever be able to teach the bible to him. He's too conditioned to think about it and related subjects within the mental rut he's been conditioned and accostomed to seeing it in probably since he was a small child dragged to those interminable sermons and Sunday school lectures. His is what I think the French call an "idee fixe'"

Yes....interesting as your reply was, marcus, I think you'll find that I've always accepted that the two accounts are "different".

that is why "Two" is not the same as "One".

Still, you managed to insist that we're all idiots again, so...job done, eh?

:)

Bernard:
"Is the Bible anti-intellectual?" is the subject of this thread.

It's news to me to discover that Aquinas, Augustine etc. feature in the Bible. But of course, your 'argument' is typical of the sleight-of-hand of many Christians on this blog.

Knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything IS the negation of all intellect and all wisdom for the simple reason that the human mind is imperfect. It strives to think and more know, but we never get to knowing everything.

You are arguing for the 'intellect of a perfect being'. It's a circular argument, which goes something like this:

An intellectual is someone who thinks a lot and knows some things;

Jesus (God) is a being who thinks about everything and knows everything;

Therefore Jesus (God) is a perfect intellectual.

It is codswallop or, if your prefer, godswallop.

Thanks, Brian...we're now not only stupid, we're deceitful too...

I know this thread is about the bible...in the context of agreeing with you Jesus was not a philosopher, I merely pointed out that a philosophy could be constructed from his teachings. Although that's almost too obvious to warrant saying.

"Knowing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything IS the negation of all intellect and all wisdom for the simple reason that the human mind is imperfect. It strives to think and more know, but we never get to knowing everything."

I think your use of the word "negation" is unfortunate.

Surely "knowing everything about everything" would be the "completion" of the intellect, not it's "negation". But that's not your point, your point is that the human mind never WILL know everything about everything....but then, I don't claim that jesus had a human mind...sorry; I don't claim that he had a solely human mind.

So your point about "negation" doesn't really mean what you think it does. Knowing everything would be a "completion"....that the human mind NEVER WILL know everything is an entirely different point.....and of course completely ignores our claim precisely that Jesus didn't have a solely human mind.

As for your syllogism....it seems logically watertight to me.

Obviously, it's not the structural syllogism but the content of the middle premise that you don't accept....Jesus (God) is a being who thinks about everything and knows everything.... Although you haven't really adequately explained why.

Brian -

The Bible doesn't claim that Jesus knew everything. His knowledge is limited according to the text. The Bible says, he became less than the angels, he took on human form, he had correspondingly limited knowledge. Theologians call it 'kenosis', self-limiting. Jesus is not presented as a perfect intellectual in the Bible, far from it. It's a mistake to see Jesus' lack of omniscience as a moral failing on his part, too.

You are right to say our human minds are limited. As St Paul put it, 'we see through a glass darkly'.

Ever....in fact, in the entire content of your contribution to this blog.

:)

Whether Brian likes it or not, there IS a Christian philosophical tradition. To reject that tradition is to reject much of western philosophy. No one says he has to AGREE with that tradition, but he has no right to deny its existence. denying its existence is like denying the existence of cathedrals all over Europe. Brian, you don't have to go into them, but they do exist.

Moreover, some of the world's leading philosophers TODAY are Christians or members of other faith traditions and they engage in their work AS believers. Brian should take a look at their writings if he wants to see what Christian philosophy looks like. He can dismiss people who've never read a page of Plato as philosophically uneducated, but he can't dismiss full professors in leading universities who argue PHILOSOPHICALLY for Christian belief and whose philosophy is informed or shaped by that belief.

Bernards_Insight

"Still, you managed to insist that we're all idiots again, so...job done, eh?"

No, you insisted on that yourselves. I merely pointed it out. I don't blame you for resenting me for it though. If I were an idiot, I wouldn't want that to be broadcast publically on the internet either.

Have you figured out how to reconcile the two differing biblical accounts of creation with a plausible explanation that is more than an obvious fudge? In Orwell's account of Winston Smith's "re-education" (I think it was in the torture chambers of the Minsitry of Love), he came to accept that two plus two equaled both four and five as being equally valid. It was gruesome but perhaps not nearly so much so nor as prolonged as the interminable Sunday School lessons in the classroom torture chambers that taught you to believe the equally fallacious concept of two different accounts of creation both being true. And your torturers had you from an early age. I think the methods used in 1984 were far more efficient at achieving the same results. They say de-programming of people who have been indoctrinated into a cult religious sect can sometimes work. Worth a try, what have you got to lose except your faith?

Indeed.

Although dismissing such highly-qualified people because they're Christians, after all, so they must be stupid is becoming a favourite past time around here.

:)

Luckily many of us are well able to roll with those weak punches

Marcus;

you seem intent on claiming that I am asserting that "Two is One".

There are TWO accounts. One possible explanation of the very meagre differences between two accounts of what is definitely the same story is that both accounts were intended to emphasise different aspects of the ONE narrative.

That should be simple enough for you to understand.

You may not be familiar with our local newspapers here (why would you be), but just today I read an article in the News Letter about our next prospective "Chief of Police", as you would say. i then read an article about precisely the same thing in the Irish News.

They were quite different. The News Letter, for example, carried a quotation from Jim Allister, and later in the article carried a quotation from Martin McGuiness.

The Irish News carried the quotation from Martin McGuiness first, and then that of Jim Allister.

I can only conclude from this obvious chronological inconsistency that neither of the men actually said anything, and it's all a pack of lies.
Makes sense, no?

Is that your conclusion, or would you extrapolate some different explanation from what are obviously TWO different accounts of the one narrative?

"I can only conclude from this obvious chronological inconsistency that neither of the men actually said anything, and it's all a pack of lies.
Makes sense, no?"

"would you extrapolate some different explanation from what are obviously TWO different accounts of the one narrative?"

Two accounts of the same events except one has A happen before B and the other has B happen before A. At least one must be wrong. (That's where intellect come in Bernard, if you don't have any, this doesn't matter.) Considering this is supposed to be the inspired word of god, what does that say for its credibility? There is no way to tell which one is right. The obvious error puts the validity of the entire remainder of the account into serious doubt. If the people who wrote it made this obvious blunder right at the outset, why should anything else they wrote be taken seriously?

"One possible explanation of the very meagre differences between two accounts of what is definitely the same story"

It may seem like a meager difference to you but not to me. One story has it that certain animals were created before man. The other that man was created before those same animals. Whatever fruit of whatever tree the authors who invented this tale were drinking, I think it was fermented and they consumed it and were under the influence of it when they wrote it. Good amusement sitting around a fire in the blackness of night in front of the mouth of a cave 5000 years ago but hardly something to be entertained seriously in the age of the space shuttle and the Hubbell telescope.

Is that your answer then?

You're right...either A happened before B or B happened before A.

As you say, the Bible doesn't definitively tell us which. Because it's not important.

Why do you think it is so important? What is the exact importance of whether man was created before animals or animals before man?

Eh?

I don't think it's really important, and I'm a Christian. why is it important to you?

"Why do you think it is so important? What is the exact importance of whether man was created before animals or animals before man?"

If it wasn't important, why was it mentioned at all especially considering how brief an account it was?

A lot of other questions I asked and many I didn't still went unanswered too. How was it possible to create light before it was seperated from the dark? I'm still waiting for an answer for that one.

Intellects don't ignore questions that may explode their fondest theories and beliefs, they examine them to see if it reveals a fatal flaw. Only those with faith instead of intellect will try to fudge an answer that makes no sense or push the question aside as trivial because it has no answer consistent with their dogma.

"Intellects don't ignore questions that may explode their fondest theories and beliefs"

Indeed.

How is it possible to create light and dark at all? If they weren't created, how did they arise? If light hadn't been created, how could it be separated from dark at all?

If you're asking how, practically, it might be possible from someone like yourself to create light and separate it from the dark...I don't know.

What's your answer? Is it possible to create light and separate it from the dark? If not, where did it come from.

All those questions and more await you, unless you wanna ignore them.

Bernard's insight, science doesn't claim to have all the answers...yet, but religion does. Now about the light, one more question about it. Since the light was created before the sun and the stars, what was the source of the light? All light as we understand it has a source. The sun, the stars, fire, lamps, LEDs, or that light reflected by something else, the moon for example. When god created the light, what was its source? It's another sequence problem for you. From Genesis I;

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

"14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

BTW, how could there be days and mornings, and evenings before there was the sun since the sun defines the days?

I've hardly begun to scratch the surface of Genesis, how will we ever get to Noah? So many more questions there. So far Pastorphillip has not answered even one of my questions about the bible to my satisfaction. I've given up on him. Besides, he doesn't come around here very much anymore in case you hadn't noticed.

Marcus;

yes, how could there be days before there was the sun?

Where did the universe come from, and what was there before it?

Any suggestions?

Of course, I don't think that there were mornings before the sun existed.

But then i have heard the word "morning" used in quite a different way...I know what it means to say "the morning of humanity" or "the dawn of civilisation"....

I'm not compelled to believe that civilisation started at dawn though.

so your problems really, seriously, genuinely, aren't really problems, are they.

Unless of course you insist on reading Genesis as a scientific treatise about mornings, daylight, and light diffusion.

But you wouldn't insist on that, would you? If so, you're on your own.

Science and Religion

The US Catholic Bishops have just condemned the practice of Reiki calling it superstitious and stating that it has absolutely no scientific grounding whatsoever.

They have ordered Catholics to stop being involved in it in any way.

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, I can only imagine that all faithful Catholics will stop the practice of going to communion until science has verified that the bread and wine has indeed become flesh and blood.
Otherwise, they are involving themselves in superstition.

Isnt it amazing how religious people appeal to science when it suits them, then totally reject it when it actually pulls the carpet from underneath them?

Bernards_Insight

"Of course, I don't think that there were mornings before the sun existed."

That's not what your bible says. I think you'd better read it again. Obviously you either don't remember it or you don't understand it. Perhaps Pastorphillip could explain it to you. I'd be most interested to hear his explanation of it myself.

Yawn.

Jesus commended the humility and sincerity of children, not their lack of knowledge.

No, Jesus wasn't primarily a philosopher, but he did draw on Jewish Wisdom theology, a kind of Jewish philosophy. The Sermon on the Mount is witnessed by James, Paul and Q, so everyone is agreed that it goes back to Jesus.

So we find reflections on nature as a sign of Providence and ethical reflections that follow on from this. The Sermon is not just a reflection on Torah, but on human nature and our place in the natural world.

A standard Stoic argument for the existence of Logos was the order of the world and the possibilty of human flourishing in the world. Jewish Wisdom theology agreed (the two met in Alexandria, and Alexandrians came to Jerusalem every year. There were synagogues for the Jews of the diaspora in Jerusalem at this time). Jesus argues that we should extend the same generosity that we find in the providential order of nature to our enemies. Nature does not differentiate, and neither should we.

Jesus did not articulate a systematic philosophy in the manner of Plato or Descartes. However he did advocate pursuit of truth through the rigorous use of reasoning.

So Jesus uses logic - in Matthew 5v 29-30 Jesus critiques the view of righteousness that took as its goal to not do anything wrong (deontological ethics come to mind). The logical consequence is absurd. If not doing anything wrong is the goal, that could be achieved by dismembering yourself and making actions impossible.
This opens up a view of righteousness in which compassion or love and not sacrifice is the fundamental thing.

And the Ethics and Politics of the Sermon are still discussed today. Jesus' familiar moral teaching about the danger of being judgmental, from the Book of Matthew, contains ideas easily and often overlooked:an objective evaluation of oneself is essential to all morality. This takes priority over all systems - even the Torah.

Furthermore the sermon teaches that there are higher priorities than justice, if we take the teaching about turning the other cheek seriously. The "lex talonis" is set aside. If individuals should do this, what should states do?
At the very least make such a thing possible in the societies they govern. And they should recognise in their laws that there are considerations beyond justice.
These are just a few points from one sermon.

GV

Marcus,

I notice you completely ignore my point that the word "morning" can be, and is, used in different ways. As is "dawn". As, also, is "light".

Presumably when your wife told you "you are the light of my life", you queried how this was possible, given that you are not a star.

so, really, given that you wish to restrict the meaning of words only to what you want them to mean, and completely ignore the different existing meanings, the Bible doesn't actually say what you would like it to.

Would you like to address the analogical and polymorphous nature of language....?

perhaps that's too "philosophical" for you...it remains a central function of language, however.

Although things like "central function of language" are probably too philosophical for you too.

i mean, how can language have a "centre"?!!!

:)

"Would you like to address the analogical and polymorphous nature of language....?"

We went through that exercise here years ago with a poster with the moniker of "Maureen." It was a thread about science versus metaphors. Personally, I refer to a dictionary to understand the definition of words, both their denotation and connotation. But in a metaphor, one word can mean another, in fact whatever the inventor of the metaphor wants it to mean. Taken to extremes, this is one of the techniques used by the famous American liar and linguist Noam Chomsky who re-defines words to mean whatever he wants them to and then uses them pejoratively in political dialogue to drive home a false argument. Example; in a BBC interview he called the US a "rogue state." Later in what I'd call the audio fine print, he defined a rouge state as one which acts in its own self interest...which happens to include every other state in the world too. But the damage had already been done.

I'm still waiting for some explanation of how mornings, evenings, and days are rationalized before the creation of the sun and the moon. I know the Emerald Isle is the land of poetry but it's also the land of blarney.

Analogy is not the same as metaphor...

nor can metaphors mean anything you want them to mean.

The fact is that there are equivocal and analogical uses of language that are recognised in any study of language you might care to consult, but which you are totally ignoring.

Because you would prefer to believe that we must be stupid.

Who's anti-intellectual again? What was that about refusing questions? does that also apply to refusing the meaning of well-established uses of language?

Perhaps YOU would like to be the sole arbiter of language and meaning. If so, however, again, you're on your own, shouting slogans at people that mean precisely nothing.

A Primary School Cloze Procedure which should be within the intellectual grasp of all contributors.

Title - Dumb and Dumber

All ( ) are ( ). All ( ) are ( ). This is so ( ) obvious that only a ( - ) ( ) couldn't see it.

Please choose suitable words from the following wordbank.

Wordbank

atheists
dumb
christians
bright
bleedin’
dumb-assed
atheist
christian

Clue 1 - You are not required to use all the words.

Clue 2 - The hyphen might be important.

Special clue for MarcusAureliusII - the order of the words in the wordbank should not necessarily be taken as an indication of the correct solution.

Mail your answers to, 'Here we go round the mulberry bush, again, Productions' dot com

Yes, what a useless discussion this has turned out to be.

Maybe conclusion through argument isn't so valuable after all, eh?

:)

It's so funny and so pathetic when the definition of the words morning, evening and day become the issues which the existance of god and the truth of the bible hang on. Straws in the wind. Cling to them...if you can catch them first. (BTW, I think that's a metaphor ;-)

Ah...that's another answer then is it?

Magic.

Actually, the defintions of words are not the issues on which the existence of God hang. They are merely the issues that debunk your hocum on this particular occassion.

I notice you're now accepting metaphor...can i take, it, then, given your views on metaphor, that that entails an admittance of nonsense? Or perhaps metaphors only have rational meanings when you use them.

:)

Metaphors are literary devices which have no place in logical arguments. They are useful in fiction and poetry. Now, evening of the first day, morning of the second day. What did that mean when there was no sun, no moon, no stars? No metaphors.

Metaphors are explosive devices which often blow in the most unexpected of places destroying our preconceived ideas and well ordered kitchen shelves. Morning or evening, day or night, it matters not, their effect is the same.


Cloze Proceedure, clue 4

The hyphenated word id dumb-assed.

Graham:

You raised the politics and ethics of Jesus, so perhaps you could enlighten me on his secular philosophy. As far as I can see, he has no coherent philosophy on the issues of the day. Was he concerned with civil and religious liberty? Was he concerned about equality and the rights of women? Was he concerned about the spread of science and education? Was he, in short, a social and political reformer?

The answer surely is that the political philosophy of Jesus - if we can give a series of disjointed and contradictory pronouncements such a grandiose title -  is not at all enlightened or progressive.

In no way, for example, was this man as depicted in the Gospels a socialist, as is sometimes claimed. For a start, he encouraged the beating of slaves. (Luke 12:47). He never denounced slavery and incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables  – whatever OT may say to the contrary.

As for poverty, he certainly seemed to align himself with the poor and oppressed and condemned the rich, who would find more difficulty than a camel going through the eye of a needle in entering heaven. Luke 6:24 is quite explicit: "Woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation". When the rich man asked him what he needed to do to 'inherit eternal life' (Mark 10:17), his reply was unequivocal: "Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mark 10:21). But, although he condemned the rich and lived among and preached to the poor, he did nothing or said nothing that could be construed as a coherent policy to alleviate poverty. On the contrary, "Ye have the poor with you always".

The message instead seemed to be that the poor should be content with their state - render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s - for their reward would come in the next life: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).

The essence of the Sermon on the Mount is that the poor, the hungry and the wretched should accept the status quo because they will receive justice eventually in a spiritual dimension beyond this world.

As such, the political philosophy of Jesus appears to be a profoundly reactionary message which fails to provide any practical scheme for the good of society. To tell people to 'trust in god', to disregard the world, to have no thought for tomorrow, to welcome poverty, to neglect their home and families, to let evil happen is really to compel them to opt out of the human struggle in favour of an escape into an unreal mental world.

Indeed, is Jesus not saying that religion is a drug? In his teachings is he not confirming the words of Karl Marx that religion is the opium of the people.

If so, that is definitely anti-intellectual. Is it not?

Brian

You dont mention how Jesus was perceived at the time.

He was crucified - the death of a political transgressor, not stoned - the prescribed punishment for blasphemy.

Also, the word for 'always' is translated on at least thirteen other occasions in the NT as 'still' which tends to add credence to the belief held by many that the scriptures have at times deliberately been mistranslated to let the church off the hook with regard to an urgent response to the problem of poverty.

I've made the same argument elsewhere with regard to the location of the Kingdom. Among us or in the hereafter?

I'd argue that he was one of the biggest social reformers in history who realised that transformation had to take place in people's hearts first, or all the legislation in the world could not ultimately reform society.

Other reformers have tinkered with specific issues, education etc...
Jesus seemed to go much, much further than any of them.... The Kingdom of God.

Bernard post # 70:

Maybe conclusion through argument isn't so valuable after all, eh?

PeterM post # 74:

Metaphors are explosive devices which often blow in the most unexpected of places destroying our preconceived ideas and well ordered kitchen shelves.

Do I detect a faint whiff of the fresh ocean breeze of Post-modernism in the above? Did we three really connect in our literary endeavours?

;-)

Wow, quite a bit of activity in this thread since I last checked it yesterday.

Augustine_of_clippo

"he's being wilfully pig-headed about these verses mentioning intelligence. "

That is true. The technicality about the verses not praising intelligence is stretching it. While technically true, the spirit of 'intelligence is good' is certainly clear in some of them. Going on after that is lame. My apologies for a lame post 17 in this thread.

Hi Bernard,

"But, mnore importantly, if you don't have a firm grasp of orthodoxy, how can you be sure that the "fundie" examples don't completely comply with that orthodoxy?"

In order to know that something completely complies with something else, you'd have to know both pretty well. In order to know that two things don't fully comply with each other, you don't always need to know every last bit of both.

"Even furthermore...I would probably consider myself a fundamentalist."

That sentence does surprise me. Quite a bit.

Brian, I was recently chatting with a bunch of guys in a small group to which I belong and the topic turned to religion. I was explaining my views and one of them, a liberal Presbyterian I think, turned to me and said "Ah, you're a Humanist then". You cannot begin to imagine the horror I felt at the insult (unless the same horror fills you at my being associated with your organisation) - people just do not understand the nuances of my position!

Now, reading your post # 75, I discover you too are staking your claim to the post-modernist territory - I'm starting to feel nervous!

I love the personal authenticity of your reaction to the ministry of Jesus: the way, like me, you have a felt response to the text; the way you eschew intellectual examination of context, structure and device; the way you wrest an idiosyncratic truth from a seemingly hostile source.

I, of-course, know Christ so my felt response is vastly different from yours but both are equally valid wouldn't you say?

Brian

These are good questions. The comment about beating slaves is a distraction, but I'll reply in depth later if you insist. Keeping in mind that terms like "rights" and "secular" are anachronistic, I'll reply to the substantive points.
(i) Jesus did affirm the rights of women - we have no record of any other 1st Century Rabbi taking on disciples. Disciples had the task of revceiving and passing on the Rabbi's teachings, and interpreting those traditions - Junia played this role in the Roman church. This made disciples authoritative figures in Judaic culture.
(ii) Jesus was not a "top-down" political reformer - Galileans did not have access to political power. The question for Galileans was how to respond to political oppression and marginalisation. Jesus did have a response.
Now I think that scholars like Gerd Thiessen and JD Crossan have overplayed this aspect of Jesus' ministry. But Jesus definitely took a different approach to the "lestai" (bandits) and zealots of his era. He aimed to set up communities that did not aim to set up God's kingdom through violence. (Keep in mind that the Hasmoneans had managed to establish a Jewish kingdom against all odds, and that one city - Rome -now ruled the world. So violent rebellion would not seem an unrealistic means to an unachievable end).
Instead Jesus set up communities that did not depend on the Temple for their authenticity, and that would not violently oppose gentiles and those who collaborated with them.
Bypassing the power centres of the elite, and opposing customs that were deeply ingrained, in an "honor/shame" culture based on patronage and kinship is hardly accepting the status quo.
(iii) Of course Jesus founded communities on the marginalised. "Sinners" (Jews who had not practiced the law in an acceptable manner) were included. Being poor was not shameful, or a barrier to advancement (in Palestine's honour/shame culture this was remarkable). Unlike the Essenes, Jesus did not advocate radical separation from society, but wanted his followers to gradually reform society around them - hence his parables focus on the Kingdom as seed that produces a bountiful crop over time. Other Jewish visions of the kingdom as violently irupting into history.
(iv) The early churches shared their wealth as taight by the Sermon on the Mount ("give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn away the one who wants to borrow of you"..."when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets".)
Those who immediately followed Jesus did not accept the status quo.Paul collected a famine relief fund for the poor in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Church held goods in common, and James insisted that the rich be treated no differently than the poor.

This was not the modern era. You could be born to power, or seize power. So Jesus could not be a Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. He did not face an enemy with a conscience.

None of this presupposes an Orthodox Christology. In fact it has been developed (well beyond this portrait) by historians who oppose or question Orthodoxy. The question is - did Jesus intend more? Not less.
With due respect to Strauss, Schweitzer et al, they did not have access to the data that modern historians use. Both these scholars had insights that have stood the test of time. But we need to build on them, not content ourselves with them.

GV

Marcus, our debate is clearly going nowehere, but I will give a quick reply to your last post.

"Now, evening of the first day, morning of the second day. What did that mean when there was no sun, no moon, no stars"

It meant "late"...and "early"....that's quite simple.

You obviously haven't taken my suggestion that you do some reading on the difference between "analogy" and "metaphor".

Maybe you should.

Graham:

RJB thinks Jeus was executed as a political revolutionary. Do you agree? And, if so, in what way were his politics seen as a threat?
After all, he tells the poor, oppressed Galilean Jews to ‘turn the other cheek and to ‘render unto Caesar’ because their kingdom will come in the next world. No here is someone advising Jews to accept their lot under Roman rule. How could that be perceived by Romans as a threat to the status quo?

And how could it be perceived by Jews as a coherent and optimistic political philosophy FOR THEM? As far as the Jews are concerned, it is a passive message of acceptance of oppression.

I can’t make much sense of your idea that he wanted to set up communities by-passing the power centres but did not advocate radical separation. What was he actually telling oppressed Jews to do in the face of their subjugation by the Romans?

Brian

Jesus was a non-violent revolutionary. I doubt that there is a vast gulf between RJB and me on this issue.
By setting up new communities he was robbing the Temple authorities of their prime source of power - the cultic requirements of Temple worship. This was also a symbol of their political power. (The Temple authorities were Rome's chief collaborators.)
Of course, the Essenes of Qumran had a similar approach, and this did not lead to their persecution. So this is my problem with those who view Jesus as a misunderstood social reformer. This doesn't explain the Crucifixion.

Jesus followers did not abandon the Temple - in fact they attended during his lifetime, and after. They believed, like many Jews, that the Messiah would bring a New Temple to Israel. Jesus messianic claims and his actions at the Temple explain his crucifixion. Had he stayed in Galilee just setting up new communities there would have been no need to kill him, let alone crucify him.

In terms of the actions of the communities towards their oppressors Jesus expected his followers to escape persecution when possible, to turn the other cheek when flight was not an option. Getting even was wrong, and wasn't practical in any case ("live by the sword, die by the sword"). The community was not to leave those suffering to endure by themselves, but those with should help those without.

The only other otions were banditry and revolt. Refusal to pay taxes was an act of revolt. Banditry was a strong temptation to those who faced unjust landlords. Jesus strategy was to convert the corrupt - hence the focus on the tax collectors. the example and testimony of the oppressed was essential to this mission.
Some Essenes joined the Jewish revolt, but Christians fled, despite the Jerusalem church's attachment to the Temple. So the break with violence was well established. And managed to last a few centuries.

GV

As for oppression - this was mainly by Jews on Jews. Certain factions had Roman patronage, and this enabled them to pursue corrupt practices. But Roman centurions did not patrol the streets of Galilee (or Jerusalem for that matter, except during the Feasts). The Syrian auxilliary legionaries tended to stay in the Antonia fortress in the Temple as a dterrent to revolt. The famous heavy infantry of the Roman legions did not arrive unitil the Jewish Revolt.
Failure to pay taxes would be a symbol of revolt and would lead to brutal repression by Rome. The census of AD6-7 was a prelude to more taxation, and this led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean.

Josephus -

"There was one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt. Both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height."

"Judas the Galilean was the author of the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord."

Jesus distanced himself from such a philosophy. It led to a brutal Roman repression, and ended with the fall of Jerusalem.

GV

Bernard's Insight

"Marcus, our debate is clearly going nowehere, but I will give a quick reply to your last post.

"Now, evening of the first day, morning of the second day. What did that mean when there was no sun, no moon, no stars"

It meant "late"...and "early"....that's quite simple. "

Well that's about as clear as mud. How long did it take you to make that up, thirty seconds? Seven hours? Ancients reckoning of time was based on observation of the sun, the moon, the stars. But those didn't exist yet according to the story. What did late and early mean in that context? See what I mean about anti-intellectual and non intellect. Do you actually expect anyone to buy such a preposterous explanation unless they are already convinced that the story is true even if it doesn't make any sense to any rational thinking human being? What other persuasions do you use, the rack? Burning at the stake?"

It seems to me our debate is going nowhere because it has reached its destination. You lost.

Marcus....although an understanding of time is theoretically based on the movements of the sun, obviously before any such theory could be worked out there has to be a primitive notion of "early" and "later"...

I.e. to work out a system of time based on the sun, one must already presuppose that the sun's position "earlier" is different from it's position "later"....

these are primitive concepts which do not depend on measurement of the sun. in fact, measurement of the sun depends on those concepts...

If there were no primitive concept of "earlier" and "later" all what could be said about the position of the sun, other than that it changes....that presupposes the passage of time, it doesn't explain it.

You have looked into the difference of analogy, haven't you.

You do understand that "later" and "earlier" can be used in different contexts, with a family resemblance of meaning, like Wittgenstein's account of the word "game", don't you?

Because it is quite important to this cobnversation....I wouldn't like to think you were ignorant of it....but you've yet to acknowledge it.

We can win just by saying so? Cool!

I win Brian!

I'm not sure what, but I win!

You can win too if you like.

Graham;

This is the super trendy and tolerant 21st Century...

We're all winners. It's our fundamental human right!

Just curious about something Bernards_Insight, according to Genesis, the Earth was created before the sun and the stars. Do you believe that? Most other things the bible says flies in the face of what is now known to be scientific fact, that this is no different has no bearing on our current discussion, I'm just curious to know if you believe it.

Here's another connundrum for you to ponder while you worry over all the others I've pointed out to you (unless you have no intellect at all, in which case you would would have no cause to ponder and concern yourself over any of what on the face of it are myriad imbecilities);

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty"

What does that mean? How could the earth exist if it was formless? As far as we know, all matter takes one form or another, that is how we define matter. You can ponder that when you think about how it is possible for light to exist when it is not separated from darkness...and visa versa. Still not a clue of an answer to what that means. Looks like Pastorphillip has fled the discussion. Still no answers from our clerical corner. The only responses I seem to get from him about my questions are to research other chapters in the bible. Oh where oh where has my little shepherd gone, oh where oh where can he be?

"Here's another connundrum for you to ponder while you worry over all the others I've pointed out to you (unless you have no intellect at all, in which case you would would have no cause to ponder and concern yourself over any of what on the face of it are myriad imbecilities"

Actually, Marcus, i think I'll wait on a reply to the issues I have raised about analogy...

perhaps you have no cause to wonder about those?

When you account for those points that i have made, I'll perhaps reply to your points.

Otherwise we could make points at each other all day...if neither of us is going to reply, it'll be useless.

And you started the "not replying" thing. :)

I've replied to every point you've made right up until your last post, whereas you've systemtaically ignored a number of important points that I've made.

So, come on, adress those points, and i'll maybe address yours.

Does "morning" always mean the same thing? Does "creation" even always mean the same thing, or can it be used analogically?

or even "equivocally"....you know, like the word "bank", or "bat"

"Otherwise we could make points at each other all day...if neither of us is going to reply, it'll be useless."

Well BI, I give you credit for admitting you have been unresponsive. Pastorphillip would likely not do as much.

"I've replied to every point you've made right up until your last post, whereas you've systemtaically ignored a number of important points that I've made."

"You do understand that "later" and "earlier" can be used in different contexts, with a family resemblance of meaning, like Wittgenstein's account of the word "game", don't you?"

Analogies, metaphors, word games, I'm not into these. I leave these to poets and game show hosts. If you are talking about some arcane interpretation of the bible to make it fit what is known fact by twisting it into whatever shape it has to assume to conform, I have no time for that. Everyone and is uncle has his own interpretation. All you have to do is find a slightly new wrinkle and you can hang out your shingle and become a minister of your own new Christian sect and be in the god biz too.

I'm taking these words literally, to mean what they say they mean in plain common usage. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a jumble of riddles and games. At that point, you can discuss it with Pastorphillip who will tell you that the bible is the word of god to be believed for what it says. He'll tell you god was not out to trick anyone with words that say one thing and mean another. If that is the position you want to take, that you can make any words have any meaning you choose because they become consistent with what you want to believe, then we do have nothing further to discuss between us.

Marcus, you ackowledge the single case when i have refused to reply (although you didn't acknowledge the reasonable reason for that), but you've yet to acknowledge that you refuse to reply to many things.


"I'm taking these words literally, to mean what they say they mean in plain common usage"

But analogy IS literal. As is equivocacy.

Again, Marcus, if you'd care to look up what those words mean, instead of assuming that they are just word games, you might learn that analogies have very fixed meanings.

Again, the word "game" does not have a single definition....it is used analogically in many different ways that share "family resemblances" but do not have a common feature. So if you're taking the word "game" literally, you still have to explain in what way, as it has a few literal meanings. but those meanings are still fixed, and not open to interpretation, or "twisting".

Have you ever looked up theories of "analogy"?

Or equivocation....you may argue that you are taking the word "bank" literally, but you still have to explain which literal way....do you mean a financial institition, or the edge of a river?

When you say "bat", do you mean the implement used in a game of baseball, or the small flying rodent?

You can say you take words to have a common everyday "literal" usage if you want, but if you are unwilling even to examine the common ways in which some words are used equivocally and analogically, you are really saying nothing.

You take the words "literally", but which literal meaning are you taking....there are many. Not meanings that i have just made up....

I didn't decide that the word "game" could refer to "play", or to "competition", or even to "structured system of opposing sets of teamwork"....but it does.

I didn't decide that the word "bank" could mean "financial institution" or "edge of river"...but it does.

Furthermore, the word "morning" can be used analogically to mean "the early stages of..."

I have not made up that....you know full well that the word can legitimately be taken in that way.

Aaaaah that explains it. When Jesus walked by the bank of the river Jordan.
It was the river!!

Context, guys!!! Tells you everything.

Well now....are you sure that was the literal, plain common usage of the term?

Seems to me that, if we don't want to be poetic and metaphoric, we must assert that there was a financial institution by the river.

i wonder had it been affected by the "credit crunch"....although how can you crunch credit?

or maybe it was the "economic downturn"....although how an abstract complexity like an economy can "turn", down or otherwise, i don't know.

Wooly bloody thinking, what?

BI genuine question - can you give me an example of a word being used where it doesnt actually mean what the context suggests it would mean?

Or anyone for that matter....

Proof that this poet has no interest in history or truth.


Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death

[It wasn't called the Valley of Death, a clear error]

Rode the six hundred.

[Exactly 600? Rubbish!]

"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:

[Who said? Who recorded this?]

Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:

[Do we have any evidence that the soldiers knew this?]

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.


3.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;

[cannons don't cause thunder - a laughable error. Obviously a pre-scientific worldview at work here]

Storm'd at with shot and shell,

[Shot and shell don't cause storms, but they didn't know this in this era]

Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell

[Well, death doesn't have jaws, does it? Hell's mouth? Has he even read the Bible? It's got gates you fool!]

Rode the six hundred.


4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:

[How could all the world know before CNN?]

Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Furthermore, the word "morning" can be used analogically to mean "the early stages of..."

Then what does the word day mean in the bible? Even astronomers today use the sun as a reference to define what a day means.

If there are literal meanings which explain your bible in coherent terms, then give us those definitions, not metaphors, not analogies. Otherwise I have to conclude you are just playing games. If the game is you'll redefine any and all words to sidestep the illogic of what they say using their previous meaning, then I'm not interested. Play that game with someone else or play solitaire but don't expect me to entertain that kind of blather for one second.

Back on topic, what did a day mean in the bible before the sun was created? What does it mean when it says the earth was without form?