The Problem of Religious Philosophy

So then you do take some of what the scripture says as literal, correct?

In this case, then, you *don't* just regard the scriptures as completely fictitious, yes? So, where is your break-off point? Do you believe in Jonah and whale, David and Goliath, Jesus performing miracles on the sick... or just that there's a "God" in "Heaven"?

This is what I mean when I note "Drive". Because, from what you've typed to me, it appears that Jesus isn't just another path of wisdom you seek more often than others. You've even been confirmed through a church - a religious activity. You're a Christian because you believe the "God" represented in the biblical scriptures is the true "God": you take some of these scriptures literally; It's not just another notion of wisdom considered -- this is what you base your life on. Are you still reconsidering your notion of "God", or have you just stopped at the biblical scriptures? It appears you've stopped at the biblical scriptures, am I incorrect?

No. Believing that Jesus offers, in his teachings, a path to heaven does not require a literal reading, nor does belief in God require a literal reading.

I never said a God in Heaven. Heaven is on the Earth.

I base my life on many things, Christian scripture making up a large part of what I turn to. I have not "stopped at" the Biblical scriptures: I read apocrypha as well as scripture from other traditions.

Heaven is a notion mentioned within the scriptures. If you are not taking it literally, then what do you mean when you say, "I do believe in Jesus, as a savior: his teachings offer a path to Heaven"? How does a belief in a notion of "God" not require literal reading to some extent? If I read of a notion of "God" (in this case, the benevolent "God" represented in the scriptures), to believe I must take *something* literally - it would be *true* to me. No?

I thought Heaven is the place you go after death if you were a "good" person and repented to the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures? Also, according to the church I belonged to (I went to Christian school for 6 years), they told me "God" was in heaven, waiting for me.

Then you must understand labeling yourself "Christian" is begging for misinterpretation. This is what I'm getting at. If Christianity really is as loose as you are making it, why label?! Labels are supposed to define, clarify, not confuse! Christianity, as you've made it, is just as ambiguous as, "I'm on a spiritual path", and as far as I know, the definitional use of the word "Christianity" is more defined.

That the teachings attributed to Jesus are great teachings (Jesus as a savior) which offer a path to Heaven, or enlightenment or moksha, or whatever you want to call it.

That the teachings attributed to Jesus are great teachings (Jesus as a savior) which offer a path to Heaven, or enlightenment or moksha, or whatever you want to call it.

And, no, I do not think that to believe in God one must take the language of God literally: to do so would miss the point as language is not capable of perfectly expressing God: God is ineffable. One must experience God. Because it is experiential, and beyond language, one must not take any of the language literally, and to take the language literally is a mistake; or maybe, if the language is intended to be understood literally, the language will necessarily misguide you.

Christianity as I have defined it is not as ambiguous as "I'm on a spiritual path", it's as ambiguous as "I'm on a spiritual path and the things Jesus has said have been, and continue to be, typically the most helpful teachings for me."

I don't really understand what this means. So, if you abide by his teachings, what happens?

Scriptures were written by man: they are a written account of his teachings, and offer a description of this "God". This means that any teaching or description from the scriptures is represented through the medium of language - an attempt to make "God" effable. And, if you believe anything you've read in the scriptures (which I'm assuming you do, as you've noted more than one time you seek guidance from the teachings), you're understanding of the path of "God" appears effable, at least to some extent. How can you tell me "God" is ineffable, yet abide by his teachings, believing he is a Savior, and offers a path to "Heaven" [you've constructed your notions of "heaven" and "savior", and you're taking these literally, influenced, of course, by the scriptures]? It appears you believe in his benevolence and his *great* teachings, and if you do, is that not taking what is written in that book literally to some extent? it's not like you randomly constructed this notion of God, your basis was obviously influenced by something in the scripture, no? If not, then I really don't see why you'd call yourself a Christian.

When I stated, "definitional usage", I was referring to the commonly used definition given to this word. From the definitions I've researched (all very similar), Christianity does not refer to, "I'm on a spiritual path and the things Jesus has said have been, and continue to be, typically the most helpful teachings for me", it's that they are the only teachings for me. This is what defines the Christian. Otherwise, the word is a meaningless appendage, telling us nothing. We should not make terms more abstract to fit our own ends -- this leads to misinterpretation. This isn't meant to offend you, I just don't see how adding this needless label to your description helps others better understand you in the slightest.

It's not just abiding by his prescriptions; it's cultivating honest compassion for your fellow man. The idea is to live as Christ-like a life as possible, and when you do, what you end up with is Heaven-like.

Interpretations can differ. We might say that living a perfectly Christ-like life is to be in Heaven, or we might say that when everyone lives perfectly Christ-like lives we have Heave. But it doesn't really matter: the point is that we should be as good as we can be. We should strive to be saints.

To use the old Buddhist analogy: don't take the finger for the moon. Descriptions of God, the ineffable, point to the truth. That's why they are figurative. God is effable only in that we can discuss God in figurative language, thus, he is ultimately ineffable.

Thomas: I must first apologize for a few things. First, I got the impression that you were an atheist (I'm new to this thread as you're probably aware) so sorry. Second, it seems that I'm also questioning you and disagreeing. I don't want to come across as angry or mean or anything. Finally, I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe you've answered this. But here it goes.

This is true, no doubt. To live like Christ is to have a Heaven-like life. But what happens after you die? Do you believe in an afterlife in heaven, or anywhere for that matter?

First I'll state that, if you're not already aware, you should read "The Unknown God" by Anthony Kenny. He advocates language as metaphorical like you seem to be doing.

A few things: why is God ineffable? Do you have an argument to defend this statement? If not, it's no different than me saying God is effable (you may have addressed this, but please let me know). Similarly, why is language necessarily metaphorical?

Finally, to treat all scripture as metaphorical seems like an inadequate interpretation. There are very direct, specific verses and instances in the Bible. I can't quote word for word, but "nobody can come to the father except through the son", seems to be pretty straightforward. More generally, as Zetherin's mentioned, how can you believe in anything in the Bible literally. If everything's metaphor, then God must be metaphor too.

God is ineffable because that is how He is experienced. Take the emotion "love" for instance. Ultimately, the feeling is ineffable, but we can speak about love figuratively. This isn't much of an argument, I know: but that's beside the point. God isn't about arguments, it's an experience.

The language of God must be figurative because God cannot be measured. We cannot measure God, thus we cannot say anything objective about God.

Why can't God be measured?

Why is God experienced ineffably?

Finally, yes belief in God must be experienced, but that's only part of it. To take argument completely out of the equation seems foolish. "I know God exists because I experienced him. You haven't? Oh well, too bad! But you are indeed wrong, he does exist: I know because I experienced him." (not a very compelling argument).

Belief in the absence of any reason is blind, and for me personally that's unacceptable. Thus rational discussion of God is important, hence why I bother with this forum. :bigsmile:

Philosophy also requires the acceptance of one major 'dogmatic truth' and that dogmatic truth is that there is an actual 'external reality', rather than just one 'internal reality' projected by consciousness (See, George Edward Moore).

.

Can you think of a way to measure God?

That's just the nature of the experience.

It's not supposed to be an argument. It's more along the lines of "Hey, I had this awesome experience, you should check it out". If people do not want to investigate and check up for themselves, that's fine.

But there is very little to discuss until you go and seek God.

Yes. Of course not literally with measuring cups, but figuratively.

I disagree. If God is fully ineffable, then how can we have any notion of him. If we can understand the term God, then he is somewhat effable. But I believe he is much more knowable than that.

Once again, I partially disagree. Yes, what you're saying is great. But that's only part of it, I think.

Perhaps, but once you have sought him there's a ton to discuss. So the experience you're advocating is important, but not all-encompassing.

Yo!!

I suppose the question depends upon which tradition you identify with, already in the 7th century BC the Upanishads state that all the gods and demons are within, admittedly the Upanishads are unique in interpreting their scripture intellectually/psychologically. As a wisdom text I find this more acceptable, though I am sure there are many Hindu's who still manage to interpret scripture literally. In this tradition however it would be more difficult than with the three desert religions for literally translations. God the mystery, "No mind has touched it, no tongue has soiled it." For god one must look within not without.

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. Joseph Campbell

You assume incorrectly, [ed. Democritus].

I would not take reasoning so seriously.

What have Democritus assumed incorrectly? Where is Didymos Thomas's argument?

Didymos Thomas you are probably in the wrong Forum if you think you can get away without "rationalism" - "practice of testing all religious beliefs and knowledge by reason and logic".

That is probably the reason a lot of people confusing the Philosophy of Religion with Theology.

Unless we agree not to suspend reasoning I am not going to get involved in unreasoned and useless arguments in this Forum

Thomas,

Are you not saying then, that the experience of the mystery is the heart of faith? Surely if it cannot be put into words, there is little else to state. There is nothing which is divine unless all is divine the wretched and the sublime.

Then we have returned to figurative
language, which is fine so long as we are very careful about how we express the notion of God. Essentially, to say that God is all-powerful is a figurative measure of God.

I suppose God is not "fully ineffable" in that we can say something about Him - it's just that the nature of what can be said about God is necessarily figurative unless we buy into fundamentalism.

That language about God is necessarily figurative does not diminish man's ability to know God.

What's the other part?

There is a great deal to discuss once you have set off down your path, but the experience is still the end of the whole thing. That there is something to discuss does not mean that said discussion is inherently important. The discussion is valuable as long as it helps you to better have the experience.