Jump to content
IGNORED

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE vs. JEWISH TRADITION


choir loft

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

16 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

"Who defines "bad philosophy" or "good philosophy"?  "

We ALL must define GOOD PHILOSOPHY properly....

We have no choice....

We ALWAYS use philosophy....

ALL coherent discourse presupposes a philosophical perspective...

Philosophy is a necessary presupposition of coherent communication.....

"It changes according to social opinion."

We need not define GOOD PHILOSOPHY in terms of "social opinion"....

So your concern is appreciated....but it's not pertinent to my position.

"its changeable according to individual perception."

ALL perceptions are subject to perception....you can't avoid this problem!

It's OK to have perceptions...

Just make sure they are grounded in GOOD philosophy....

"That is the meaning of subjectivism. "

OBJECTIVE truth exists....and GOOD PHILOSOPHY can employ this OBJECTIVE truth....

NOT ALL PHILOSOPHY is subjective....

We can define GOOD PHILOSOPHY in terms of OBJECTIVE truths....

"War is good for the winner but not good for the loser.  "

Was is good for the loser if God desires that the loser lose.

"That is exactly what post-modern philosophy accomplishes."

PLEASE stop conflating "post-modernism" nonsense with GOOD ANALYTIC OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE.

They are NOT the same....let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

"Your post is very busy justifying the gelatin substance of philosophy. "

YOUR post is FULL of philosophical presuppositions....so it makes no sense for you to oppose philosophical discourse!

"It should be objective"

GOOD philosophy can be objectively TRUE.

"Philosophy in church is killing Christendom"

To the contrary, philosophers such as William Lane Craig are amongst the top 100 most influential philosophers alive in the entire planet!

That's a BIG HELP to the Christian Apologetics enterprise.....

"Philosophy lies at the root of group manipulation"

Philosophy lies in EVERY COMMENT YOU POST....you CAN'T avoid it...

So let's be more careful with our terminology.....ok?

" Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW (Matt 5:17)"

You are QUITE CORRECT, my friend....

"My posting is and continues to be one of rejecting philosophy as a form of interpreting scripture.  "

And when you learn that ALL hermeneutics is grounded in philosophical reasoning, you will REFINE your rejection of philosophy to be a rejection of BAD philosophy.....not a rejection of ALL philosophy.

" The LAW is almost never employed in churches today to do so."

This is a consequence of many factors....but GOOD PHILOSOPHY is not one of those factors!

ok....blessings to you.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are deliberately misunderstanding my meaning here.

WHO defines 'good' or 'bad' philosophy?   You?  Me?  Society?

The common practice today, especially among the young generation, is to do that which appeals to and fulfills their appetites and passions.   If they are intelligent enough to make a leap beyond themselves, then they believe that society is justified in establishing the philosophy by which we are all meant to live. (*)   The problem with making society or self one's god is that such a decision leads to despotism and murder.  The foundation of philosophy is changeable and subject to corruption.   The LAW of God is not.   

I find it interesting that you deem the LAW of the Most High to be an insufficient guide to one's personal life or that of society.

The philosophical attitude of today is 'what society determines to be good is that which is good'.   Mark my words here - such a social attitude will lead to further erosion of political liberty and the destruction of guarantees of personal safety.   

If social philosophy determines it's good to kill Jews, then they die by the millions.   If society decides it's ok to murder innocent children, Kurds, or Croats, or Protestants or Catholics, or Native American Indians then war is made upon them.  This is history and it proves philosophy is not only corruptible but is murderous in the extreme.   The philosophy of today calls mass murders "ethnic cleansing" not genocide.   There is no difference in the meaning of the words except one of philosophy.   Ethnic cleansing doesn't sound as abhorrent as genocide.

The LAW is stable and good because it depends upon the unchangeable nature of God as applied to nations and persons.

My use of the term post modernism is a reference to the common REJECTION of rationality as historically employed to interpret scripture as well as all other aspects of society.  The current attitude of clerics politicians and captains of industry today is to reject grounded traditional standards of behavior and responsibility.  The result of this philosophical aberration is what is generally referred to as a CULTURE WAR.   It has nothing to do with illegal aliens and everything to do with perverse thinking - good becomes bad, bad becomes good, man becomes woman and woman becomes god.

Philosophy lies at the root of every successful war upon an established productive and respected civilization.   We are at war today because we've abandoned the root and standard of God's honest unchangeable LAW.  

Who decides what is good or bad about philosophy?   That answer is as changeable as philosophy itself.    

You seem to prefer this sort of situation.  

Every despot in history would agree with you.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) ASK a high school student if society is justified in its behavior.  They will tell you it is.  (That's what they've told me.)  If society deems it proper to murder babies in their mother's womb, then it is good.  If society decides war is to be made upon an innocent foreign nation so as to steal their resources, then it is good.  If Christians and Jews are to be labeled as insane people filled with hate speech, then it is justifiably mandated to act against them.  The fruit of philosophy, rather than LAW, is murder lies and thievery (all the qualities of satan, btw).

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, choir loft said:

You are deliberately misunderstanding my meaning here.

WHO defines 'good' or 'bad' philosophy?   You?  Me?  Society?

The common practice today, especially among the young generation, is to do that which appeals to and fulfills their appetites and passions.   If they are intelligent enough to make a leap beyond themselves, then they believe that society is justified in establishing the philosophy by which we are all meant to live. (*)   The problem with making society or self one's god is that such a decision leads to despotism and murder.  The foundation of philosophy is changeable and subject to corruption.   The LAW of God is not.   

I find it interesting that you deem the LAW of the Most High to be an insufficient guide to one's personal life or that of society.

The philosophical attitude of today is 'what society determines to be good is that which is good'.   Mark my words here - such a social attitude will lead to further erosion of political liberty and the destruction of guarantees of personal safety.   

If social philosophy determines it's good to kill Jews, then they die by the millions.   If society decides it's ok to murder innocent children, Kurds, or Croats, or Protestants or Catholics, or Native American Indians then war is made upon them.  This is history and it proves philosophy is not only corruptible but is murderous in the extreme.   The philosophy of today calls mass murders "ethnic cleansing" not genocide.   There is no difference in the meaning of the words except one of philosophy.   Ethnic cleansing doesn't sound as abhorrent as genocide.

The LAW is stable and good because it depends upon the unchangeable nature of God as applied to nations and persons.

My use of the term post modernism is a reference to the common REJECTION of rationality as historically employed to interpret scripture as well as all other aspects of society.  The current attitude of clerics politicians and captains of industry today is to reject grounded traditional standards of behavior and responsibility.  The result of this philosophical aberration is what is generally referred to as a CULTURE WAR.   It has nothing to do with illegal aliens and everything to do with perverse thinking - good becomes bad, bad becomes good, man becomes woman and woman becomes god.

Philosophy lies at the root of every successful war upon an established productive and respected civilization.   We are at war today because we've abandoned the root and standard of God's honest unchangeable LAW.  

Who decides what is good or bad about philosophy?   That answer is as changeable as philosophy itself.    

You seem to prefer this sort of situation.  

Every despot in history would agree with you.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) ASK a high school student if society is justified in its behavior.  They will tell you it is.  (That's what they've told me.)  If society deems it proper to murder babies in their mother's womb, then it is good.  If society decides war is to be made upon an innocent foreign nation so as to steal their resources, then it is good.  If Christians and Jews are to be labeled as insane people filled with hate speech, then it is justifiably mandated to act against them.  The fruit of philosophy, rather than LAW, is murder lies and thievery (all the qualities of satan, btw).

"You are deliberately misunderstanding my meaning here."

Rather, I think we simply have different philosophies of "philosophy"....that's all.

"WHO defines 'good' or 'bad' philosophy?   You?  Me?  Society?"

WE are free to explore and discover and use GOOD philosophy to justify our viewpoints.

We need not accept "bad" philosophy....we must REJECT it.

Col. 2:8 may be viewed as rejection of BAD philosophy....not rejection of ALL philosophy....

" The fruit of philosophy, rather than LAW, is murder lies and thievery "

Careful!  That's the bad fruit of BAD philosophy....

NOT ALL philosophy is bad.  I've already cited William Lane Craig's VERY beneficial philosophical contributions to the Christian Worldview.  You've given no good counter-response to his good PHILOSOPHICAL contributions.

There's no reason why Christians can not use GOOD philosophy to justify a GOOD Christian worldview which UPHOLDS God's law.

"I find it interesting that you deem the LAW of the Most High to be an insufficient guide to one's personal life or that of society."

The LAW of the Most High is unsufficient for washing my dishes....I need dish soap to help!

Of COURSE God's law is good and helpful and needed and commanded....but it doesn't explicitly define and provide EVERY good thing that EVERY person should do in EVERY circumstance in ALL detail.....

So let's stop pretending that every good thing is explicitly stated and identified in the Bible....we all know that's not true!

It's good to be wise....wise people know that Modus Tollens is true.....but it's not in the Bible!  And you're CRAZY if you deny Modus Tollens....right?

"The philosophical attitude of today is 'what society determines to be good is that which is good'."

Absolutely false.  CHRISTIAN philosophers would routinely oppose such rubbish.  Have you never read the Journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society?  Or the Society of Christian Philosophers journal contributions?

Are you unaware of the good Christian philosophers at BIOLA or Liberty University?

The world of GOOD Christian philosophy is MUCH BIGGER than you know....I can see that now....

"If social philosophy determines it's good to kill Jews, then they die by the millions. "

Then REJECT that bad philosophy!

That's no excuse to reject ALL philosophy....

"The LAW is stable and good because it depends upon the unchangeable nature of God as applied to nations and persons."

And, my friend, you have just asserted a PHILOSOPHICAL statement pertaining to theological truths....that's GOOD philosophy!  GOOD JOB!

PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY is, after all, an important field of study....I'm glad to see you can make positive contributions to it.

"My use of the term post modernism is a reference to the common REJECTION of rationality as historically employed to interpret scripture as well as all other aspects of society."

Wonderful!  I likewise REJECT post-modernism....because it's BAD philosophy.

GOOD philosophy requires that we EMBRACE rationality.....I'm glad you accept this GOOD philosophy of EMBRACING RATIONALITY.

"Philosophy lies at the root of every successful war upon an established productive and respected civilization. "

ALL the more reason to oppose BAD philosophies....

"We are at war today because we've abandoned the root and standard of God's honest unchangeable LAW.  "

Now THAT is GOOD philosophy....thumbs up!

"Who decides what is good or bad about philosophy?   That answer is as changeable as philosophy itself.  "

Wrong....YOU are responsible to identify and set forth GOOD philosophy....that's what Peter requires....a READY DEFENSE (1Pe.3:15).

Giving REASONS entails giving PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for those reasons....

Good philosophy is GOOD and REQUIRED.

"You seem to prefer this sort of situation.  "

I prefer TRUTH.  And GOOD PHILOSOPHY is TRUTH...we MUST not oppose it....

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater....

Agreed?

blessings...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/13/2019 at 1:49 PM, BibleGuy said:

I prefer TRUTH.  And GOOD PHILOSOPHY is TRUTH...we MUST not oppose it....

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater....

Agreed?

blessings...

 

 

 

 

 

 

def: Truth is that which is consistent with what is.

def: Philosophy is a system of thought.    It isn't necessarily based upon truth.

Jesus said He was the Truth.  He didn't say He was good philosophy.

Philosophy is by its nature changeable and defined by persons or societies as they choose.  God's LAW doesn't change and cannot be reinterpreted by man.

'Good philosophy' is that which is of an advantage to justify actions of an individual or society.  A good philosophy may thus justify my killing of you, rape of your wife, stealing of your worldly goods, burning your house to the ground and blaming you for the whole episode.  There is no such thing as good philosophy.  

In a Communist society a good philosophy places the state in the position of God.  It rejects the existence and worship of God and His LAW.  

In a fascist society a good philosophy embraces perpetual war so as to enlarge financial interests and global hegemony.  Appeals to God are employed only as a basis of propaganda.  

For example "God is with us" was a slogan used by Nazi Germany.  A similar slogan, "God bless America", is used by Americans to justify greed and SIN.  Both use God as a propaganda technique to justify government policies of international aggression as well as personal aggrandizement. 

The advantage of God's LAW over philosophy, be it personal or social, is that it is uniform for all people at all times and in all places.  It does not change and is not subject to interpretation of anyone or any group.    

We don't decide what is true or not.  It is for us to seek it and embrace it - not redefine it for our own purposes and pleasure.

Your point of view is changeable philosophy.  You've even admitted to it.   In doing so you oppose the will of God.  Be advised you are walking on very thin ice.

Apart from the LAW, no one can be saved.  Philosophy has never saved anyone.

THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. - George Santayana

Philosophy is the keystone in the arch of lies and SIN.  It holds all false notions together - for a season.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....

PS

God appeared to the Arabs and said He had a LAW for them.

"What is this LAW," they asked.  

"You shall not kill," God said.

"We can't abide by such a LAW," the Arabs answered.  "Take your LAW elsewhere."

God then appeared to the Americans and offered them a LAW.   The American repeated the same question and asked what LAW God offered to them.

"You shall not covet your neighbors' goods," the Lord answered.

"We cannot abide by such a LAW," the Americans replied.  "Go away from us."

Lastly God appeared to the Jews and offered them the LAW.

"How much is this LAW," the Jews asked.

"Nothing," God said.  "The LAW is free."

"Good," the Jews answered.  "Give us ten."

Edited by choir loft
insert quotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

16 hours ago, Roar said:

Progressive Replacement Theology

Why the left is repeating Christianity’s most dangerous historical mistakes, and why it’s very, very bad for the Jews

 

We live in strange political times, so it’s no wonder that we’re called upon to address strange political questions. A few stand out: Is Ilhan Omar, the Somali-born Democrat representative from Minnesota, right to call herself the first refugee in Congress, even though several Holocaust survivors preceded her? Is Julia Salazar, the newly elected New York state senator Jewish, which she claims to be even though members of her family refute her account of their genealogy? Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, Jewish because, as she recently argued, her ancestors were Sephardic Jews? Does that mean that anyone who could trace some fraction of Jewish ancestry—which includes nearly all of Latin America and vast swaths of the rest of the world—is now Jewish? Can you become Jewish merely by rising one day and declaring yourself passionately affiliated with the Jewish people? Is arguing otherwise racist and exclusionary? If so, does that mean that tikkun olam is the true essence of Judaism, and that those who practice it are the real Jews even though they may otherwise commit their energy to arguing that the Jews are the only people on earth undeserving of a state in their national homeland, where they have lived continuously for nearly three millennia? And are people who oppose progressivism un-Jewish, even if they observe Jewish rituals daily, study Jewish texts, and lead dedicated Jewish lives?

I’m a simple Jew, and these are profoundly meaningful quandaries I’m only too happy to let others address. I would, however, like to suggest that the above, at the heart of so many of our most heated debates these days, all have one thing in common: They all revolve around the newfound and bizarre desire of progressives to further their arguments by claiming that they, somehow, are the new Jews.

The reason for this strange turn, I believe, lies not in the passions of our partisan political moment but in the early history of Christianity, which provided Western civilization with much of its cultural template. And as much as the idea of Western civilization might make progressives twitch in discomfort, they are very much a part of it, even as their rejection of its religious roots makes them more vulnerable to repeating the most deadly mistakes of their forebears. What we’re seeing right now, then, is the strange spectacle of progressives pursuing the same thorny theology that much of Christendom abandoned long ago, the theology of supersessionism.

Also known as replacement theology, this idea developed early on in the history of Christianity, and for obvious reasons. If the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ, meant that Christians were God’s new chosen people, what, then, was to be done about the chosen people of old, the Jews?

To some fathers of the church, it wasn’t a particularly difficult question to answer. By rejecting Christ, they reasoned, the Jews had forfeited their right to their special status, had broken their covenant with God, and were worthy of nothing but wrath. That was certainly the opinion of Origen: Born around 184 CE in Alexandria, he hoped to martyr himself as a Christian when he was 16, but his mother, panicked, hid all his clothes: He refused to leave the house and turn himself in to the Roman soldiers naked. Instead, he became an ascetic, giving up meat and drink and, reportedly, paying a surgeon to have himself castrated so that he may transcend the temptations of the flesh. He composed thousands of theological treatises, but he hit his stride, it seems, when writing about the Jews. “And we say with confidence,” he wrote, “that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind.” Writing around the same time, Hippolytus of Rome, one of the most important early Christian theologians, was even more prescriptive: The Jews, he thundered, “have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. … Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: ‘And their back do you bend always.’ This means, in order that they may be slaves to the nations, not four hundred and thirty years as in Egypt, nor seventy as in Babylon, but bend them to servitude, he says, ‘always.’”

There were, of course, better answers to the question of how to think about the Jews, and, of course, it was Augustine who alighted on them. While not abandoning the supersessionist claim altogether, the early Christian theologian was, as ever, the smartest person around, and he offered his fellow Christians a better alternative. The Jews, he argued, were Christianity’s witnesses: “But the Jews who slew Him,” he wrote, referring, naturally, to Jesus, “are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ.” See things this way and the Jews are no longer worthy of eternal servitude. Instead, they become intimates of their Christian brothers and sisters. “For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people,” Augustine wrote. “There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body.”

Augustine’s ideas, the theologian John Y.B. Hood stated, “dominated the medieval debate,” and James Carroll, the former priest and bestselling author of Constantine’s Sword, a history of the church and the Jews, stated bluntly that “it is not too much to say that, at this juncture, Christianity ‘permitted’ Judaism to endure because of Augustine.”

It wasn’t, sadly, a very permissive permit. While the Celts and the Druids and the other tribes who came under the church’s rule could be slaughtered or assimilated or otherwise made to disappear, the Jews continued to pose a special problem: Christian civilization, it seemed, often couldn’t live without them, and even more often couldn’t live with them. And so, the Jews were mocked, discriminated against, relegated to narrow ghettos, forced to convert, tortured by the Inquisition, expelled, accused, despised. But they persisted, because all but the most maniacal bigots understood that they were the children of God, and that their covenant with the Creator, even if you believed it to have expired, was still meaningful enough to respect, however begrudgingly.

And then came the Holocaust. The systematic murder of 6 million Jews marked an endpoint not only to Jewish life in much of Europe, but also, significantly and in a way that many Jews may still not appreciate, to the old problem Christianity had with the Jews. Having neither enshrined supersessionism in doctrine nor rejected it outright—it continued, throughout the centuries, to play a role in the thoughts and teachings of many of its lights—the Catholic Church, in its Second Vatican Council, drew a line in the sand that rejected the harshest aspects of replacement theology. In Nostra aetate, Latin for In Our Time, a declaration focused on the church’s relations with other religions, Rome made it clear that times have changed. “The Jews,” the statement read, “should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. … Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.” The declaration was passed by a vote of 2,221 bishops to 88, and was officially released by Pope Paul VI in October of 1965. Fifteen years later, Pope John Paul II went even further when, visiting the synagogue in Mainz, he called the Jews “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God.”

Evangelical Christians took the same sentiment in an arguably even more positive direction, often seeing Jews, for the most part, as beloved older siblings whose covenant and ideas coexist in harmony with those of Christianity here on earth. Often, left-leaning critics of this relationship take pleasure in pointing out that many conservative evangelicals also believe in the baroque idea of dispensational premillennialism, which includes the scenario that Christ will someday return to earth, whisk his followers to heaven, and then, after a terrible and all-encompassing war, return to govern in peace from Jerusalem for a thousand years, at which point the Jews (among others) will all follow his glory and convert. This frequently misconstrued idea does not mean, as some progressive pundits had unfortunately argued, that evangelicals hold secret designs for the eradication of the Jewish people. Instead, they believe in an eschatology that has much in common with Judaism’s version, which, too, believes in the eventual return of the Messiah, albeit with very different results. Yes, evangelicals believe that converting Jews is (to use language they wouldn’t) a mitzvah, since salvation and escaping hellfire require being born again in Christ. But because of the role Israel—the people and land—play in evangelicals’ eschatology, here and now on earth they are among Judaism’s most faithful friends and blessed supporters.

Not surprisingly, the same messianic fire illuminated many on the Christian left as well, who, starting at least as early as the 19th century, believed that Christ’s return may be hastened by making this world look more and more like His heavenly Kingdom by means of improving the lives of more and more individuals. Surprisingly, rather than allow this spirit to animate and grow it, the left, for the most part, instead compelled the West to abandon Christianity altogether.

Instead, a new faith emerged: progressivism. A time traveler, unaware of the developments of the last eight decades, might’ve been forgiven for listening to a modern-day progressive speak and mistaking her for a fundamentalist Christian: Jesus’ observation that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven sounds like something Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a moment of inspiration, might say to an adoring interviewer on CNN. With its emphasis on social justice, criminal justice reform, elevating the poor, and rejecting the rapacious policies of the greedy and the affluent, progressivism sounds a lot like Christianity. Except that it has chosen to reject Christianity and all other forms of faith as silly superstitions, to abolish history by proposing that it has but one throughline—progress!—and to set up instead a religion that fails to see itself as one and, as such, is condemned to repeat Christianity’s worst transgressions.

Beginning, sadly, with the Jews. In Ilhan Omar’s suggestion that none in Congress before her had been refugees, in Salazar and Ocasio-Cortez’s sudden and questionable claim of Jewish heritage, even in the rush of many on the far left to argue that Jews of color are the real Jews and that the rest of us are somehow complicit in Klan-like prejudice—in all these we see the old wheels of replacement theology turning. Judaism may have given us much understanding of justice, but if progressivism is to claim its modern-day mantle, Judaism has to be argued away, which begins by anointing the progressives the real new Jews.

If you doubt that any of this is true, try for a moment to think rationally about the way most progressives talk about Israel. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume for a moment that those who assiduously claim that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not interchangeable are correct. Let us accept that one may have a host of pressing critiques of Jerusalem and its policies. What, we may now ask, are those all about? To hear many American progressives tell it, Israel is worthy of special attention because of the inordinate amount of American foreign aid it receives. If that were the case, we could safely assume that as Israel receives about twice as much aid as, say, Egypt, we might expect our media to write one story about Egypt’s transgressions for every two they write about Israel. The ratio, sadly, is very different. It’s skewed, too, if you compare the uproar about Israel to the attention paid to other areas of conflict and human rights violations around the world: Everywhere you look, the world’s only Jewish state is singled out for calumny. The reason is simple: Israel provides progressivism’s zealots with a convenient opportunity to mask their theological decrees as rational, reasonable, and worldly politics. By focusing all of your attention, energy, and rage on the Jews, you may declare yourself, just as Origen and Hippolytus had centuries ago, to be the rightful heir to an enlightened tradition abandoned by those who were once God’s chosen people but who are no longer.

You’d hope that the tenured hordes that make up so much of progressivism’s vanguard would know all this, but religious extremism, as Jewish history has tragically proved again and again, is blinding. We can only hope that one day soon a progressive Augustine may arise and temper the hate of his new secular faith. Until then, we Jews should do what we’ve done so gallantly for millennia and protect ourselves against the spurious claims of fanatics with dangerous ideas.

 

A very good statement concerning American political progressivism and the odd corrupted form of institutional religious self-justification adopted by Christendom.   Many would argue the truth of what you've written here so as to suppress it or obfuscate it or simply to avoid it.   I don't understand the false identification with Jews you've mentioned.  It's been my experience that Christians today give lip service to respect of Jewish brethren, but secretly harbor an extreme covert dislike of them as well as an outward rejection of Jewish LAW. 

Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW, but to fulfill it.  (Matthew 5:17)  

Not knowing the LAW and not being taught it, many Christians embrace an ungodly form of licentiousness they call grace.

A new generation has arisen in the land that knows not God.  Neither do they uphold the LAW or enjoy its glory.

This new attitude is called "NO HIGHER LAW."    

The 'no higher law' or NHL attitude is embraced by young people of high school age as well as young adults.  Like all false philosophy it masks itself as popular truth.  In reality its a restatement of the original lie spoken by the tempter in the garden of Eden in Genesis chapter 3 verse 5.  

"God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I'm informed the Hebrew idiom may more accurately be translated as "you shall be gods unto yourselves" instead of "like Gold, knowing good and evil."

Either way, this is an expression of the adoption of human philosophy to justify deliberate disobedience to and rejection of God's LAW.

Nothing has changed in all these years.  Man is still seeking ways to justify his SIN.  

I submit to the reader that the forbidden fruit God warned us not to eat is philosophy.

We are given the LAW for a reason. 

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.... 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/13/2019 at 3:44 PM, Roar said:

By Pat McCloskey, OFM, is the Franciscan editor of St. Anthony Messenger and the author of Peace and Good: Through the Year with Francis of Assisi.

"CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE vs. JEWISH TRADITION"

Yes, Jesus was born Jewish. By the time that he was executed by the Romans, however, many Jewish people would have considered Jesus as guilty of blasphemy because of certain actions and his teachings about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At least since the sixth century before Christ, the bedrock of Judaism has been monotheism, belief in one God. God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures progressively insisted on monotheism.

The Gospels record several incidents where Jesus is accused of blasphemy for directly or indirectly claiming divine prerogatives. For example, when Jesus cured the paralytic man lowered through the roof (Mark 2:1-12), he saw the man’s faith and said, “Child, your sins are forgiven” (v. 5). Similar passages occur in Matthew 9:1-8 and Luke 5:18-26.

“Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves, ‘Why does this man speak that way? Who but God alone can forgive sins?’ Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, ‘Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise, pick up your mat and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority for sins on earth—he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home'” (Mark 2:8-11).

After Caiaphas, the high priest, commanded Jesus, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God,” Jesus said, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You [members of the Sanhedrin] have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?’ They said in reply, ‘He deserves to die!'” (Matthew 26:63-66, with a similar passage in Mark 14:61-64).

In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Pilate questions Jesus about calling himself “the king of the Jews.” That scene is given in more detail in the Gospel of John. “Pilate said to them [the crowd], ‘Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt in him.’ The Jews answered, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God'” (19:6b-7). Pilate orders that Jesus be crucified for treason, for not rejecting the title “king of the Jews.”

Not all Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries considered him guilty of blasphemy—his mother, Mary, the apostles and the disciples, for example.

To say that Jesus died Jewish may be too simple; he saw himself as bringing Judaism to a new level. Even so, the earliest Christians continued to frequent the Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-26 and 5:42).

From the very beginning, the followers of Jesus asserted that they were monotheists, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not three gods in the same sense that pagans, for example, considered Jupiter and Apollo as gods.

Jesus’ followers were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26)—only after his death and resurrection. That term and catholic (universal) were interchangeable from the second through the 11th centuries A.D.

Approximately 30% of Jews who lived during Jesus' time acknowledged Him as messiah - the anointed Son of God.   This is no small number by any count one wishes to undertake.

Jesus used miracles to prove He is God.   There was no discussion about the trinity in the gospels or any of the letters of the New Testament.  If I am mistaken, please quote chapter and verses where this is discussed in detail.   In point of fact there is only one incident where anything close to it appears - the account of the baptism of Jesus by John the immerser (where Jesus was officially anointed by God and man).

Trinity as a doctrine was initially discussed by the church during the first council of Nicaea (325AD) and formally adopted in its present form in the council of Constantinople (381AD).  It was there that it became known as the Nicene Creed.  What is not generally known is that these council meetings were called by paid for and personally supervised by the Roman emperor Constantine.   Constantine insinuated his own peculiar form of pagan ideology into the doctrine of the trinity.   However, in the original Hebrew it conveys a somewhat different impression.

Shema Yisrael  (Hear O Israel)

Adonai Eloihenu (The Lord your God)

Adonai Echad (The Lord is One)

- Deuteronomy 6:4

I call the reader's attention to the Hebrew word 'echad'.  It's literal translation is 'one', but its contextual meaning is somewhat different.   

The Hebrew word Yachid also means one.  Echad and Yachid carry different values for the word one.  

Yachid is the meaning of an absolute one.   For example, the earth has One sun in the sky.  Humanity lives on One planet - the earth.  Yachid refers to a single item or count.

Echad is the meaning of a union of items.  The United States, for example, is one country - a union of fifty separate parts or states.  But echad is more than a political boundary line.  Its more than a corporate merger or a ball club.  It describes a personality that is unified in thought word and deed.   God is echad.

* * *

In ancient times every Jewish teacher (rabbi) hosted a group of followers known as students or talmidim.  Each of these student groups emulated their intellectual and moral leader.  Today these assemblies are called Bible study groups.  Some things never change.   

One of the best examples of this situation was in the gospel account of the talmidim of Yeshua (students of Jesus) asking Him how they ought to pray.  Every rabbi taught his talmidim a different way to pray.  That's why the gospel account of Jesus' answer is commonly known as the Lord's Prayer (as opposed to rabbi so-and-so's prayer).  The Greeks employed a similar method of education to transmit knowledge from one generation to another.  

The talmidim of Yeshuah (students of Jesus) were mostly Jews, even in Antioch.  In every account in the gospels and epistles they worshipped in synagogues.  It was in Antioch they were renamed Christians by gentiles (goyim) for several reasons.   Mostly it was because the believers in messiah, or Messianics as they are called today, had become noticed as a particularly unique religious group - a mixture of both Jews and gentiles.  Previously these two groups did not fellowship together - AT ALL.  

The name Christian was affixed to the group for two reasons.  First, because of the latinized translation of ha-mashiach (messiah or christ) - as in Christ believers instead of messiah believers.  The word catholic was first associated with these persons by Ignatious of Antioch (same town, btw) in a letter to believers in a different city.  The word catholic was originally associated with the Greek phrase "on the whole" as a reference, I suppose, to the union of Jews and gentiles as students (talmidim) of Jesus (the Latinized form of the Hebrew name Yeshua).  

At about the same time, the original teachings of Jesus began to be diluted as a result of gentile pagan influences.   As time went on Jews were either excluded altogether, forced to follow a newly devised litany of paganized worship and ideology or eventually murdered out of hand.  Replacement theology, or supersessionism as it has come to be known, eventually replaced the whole of the Old Testament with pagan theology.   It is worthy of mention here that Supersessionism is not strictly an ideology of the Roman Catholic church.  It has been fanatically embraced by protestants as well - using the principles of Greek philosophy to fill in the blanks and illogical spaces in its ideology with pseudo-intellectual rationale.

Bottom line differences between Jews and Christian religion is tradition vs. doctrine.

Jews DO their religion.  It's known as tradition and involves a lot of rules and ceremonies, none of which may have anything at all to do with God.  It is therefore entirely possible and appropriate for a Jew to be an atheist - as long as tradition is observed.

Christians BELIEVE their religion.  It may or may not have anything to do with how things were done in the past or even whether actions are legal or sinful.  Christians BELIEVE, for example, they can put their hands on any filthy thing they desire and be exonerated for it.  

In neither case does God have any sort of personal input in the lives and acts of man.

Until Jesus stepped onto the world stage and demonstrated something different.   He demonstrated that God can be and most certainly is intimately involved in every thing mankind does at every level mankind experiences.  He demonstrated that God is above the human experience at the same time He lives it.  He demonstrated that it is possible for us to become like Him - even though its the last thing on anyone's mind.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  15
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,371
  • Content Per Day:  1.37
  • Reputation:   3,267
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  07/10/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Responding to the OP....scripture sums it up this way:

1Co 1:22-25

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

And no matter what kind of mindset we were born with or grew up with, Jewish or Greekish  ;)  ......it profits nothing anyhow.  Because what we should now have in Christ is the mind of Christ.

Edited by Heleadethme
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/17/2019 at 6:50 AM, choir loft said:

 

Christian thinking is based upon Greek philosophy.  
Always has been.   As such Christians put emphasis on doctrine.  Christians believe this or that and compose list of beliefs to be memorized.  Christians don’t necessarily follow many of them in fact.  Many of the doctrines don’t require specific action on the part of individuals at all.  
 
 

Christian doctrine, 99% of it,  would be the doctrine given by Christ Himself to the Apostle Paul, to be forwarded as "Church Doctrine"

This would not be "jewish tradition" and it would not be "Greek Philosophy", because neither of these Traditions, accept, believe, or maintain,  that Jesus The Christ is Messiah, who was raised from the Dead.

Edited by Behold
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, choir loft said:

def: Truth is that which is consistent with what is.

def: Philosophy is a system of thought.    It isn't necessarily based upon truth.

Jesus said He was the Truth.  He didn't say He was good philosophy.

Philosophy is by its nature changeable and defined by persons or societies as they choose.  God's LAW doesn't change and cannot be reinterpreted by man.

'Good philosophy' is that which is of an advantage to justify actions of an individual or society.  A good philosophy may thus justify my killing of you, rape of your wife, stealing of your worldly goods, burning your house to the ground and blaming you for the whole episode.  There is no such thing as good philosophy.  

In a Communist society a good philosophy places the state in the position of God.  It rejects the existence and worship of God and His LAW.  

In a fascist society a good philosophy embraces perpetual war so as to enlarge financial interests and global hegemony.  Appeals to God are employed only as a basis of propaganda.  

For example "God is with us" was a slogan used by Nazi Germany.  A similar slogan, "God bless America", is used by Americans to justify greed and SIN.  Both use God as a propaganda technique to justify government policies of international aggression as well as personal aggrandizement. 

The advantage of God's LAW over philosophy, be it personal or social, is that it is uniform for all people at all times and in all places.  It does not change and is not subject to interpretation of anyone or any group.    

We don't decide what is true or not.  It is for us to seek it and embrace it - not redefine it for our own purposes and pleasure.

Your point of view is changeable philosophy.  You've even admitted to it.   In doing so you oppose the will of God.  Be advised you are walking on very thin ice.

Apart from the LAW, no one can be saved.  Philosophy has never saved anyone.

THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. - George Santayana

Philosophy is the keystone in the arch of lies and SIN.  It holds all false notions together - for a season.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....

PS

God appeared to the Arabs and said He had a LAW for them.

"What is this LAW," they asked.  

"You shall not kill," God said.

"We can't abide by such a LAW," the Arabs answered.  "Take your LAW elsewhere."

God then appeared to the Americans and offered them a LAW.   The American repeated the same question and asked what LAW God offered to them.

"You shall not covet your neighbors' goods," the Lord answered.

"We cannot abide by such a LAW," the Americans replied.  "Go away from us."

Lastly God appeared to the Jews and offered them the LAW.

"How much is this LAW," the Jews asked.

"Nothing," God said.  "The LAW is free."

"Good," the Jews answered.  "Give us ten."

 

Hi again!

"def: Philosophy is a system of thought.    It isn't necessarily based upon truth."

Agreed!  But SOME philosophy is based on truth.  And we must uphold truth (1Cor.13:6).  Thus we must NOT oppose TRUTH-upholding philosophy.

OPPOSE bad philosophy.

UPHOLD good philosophy.

 

"Jesus said He was the Truth.  He didn't say He was good philosophy."

Haha!  He didn't say he OPPOSED truthful philosophy either!

STOP the arguments from silence....thanks.

 

"Philosophy is by its nature changeable and defined by persons or societies as they choose.  "

Wrong.  Your OWN definition of PHILOSOPHY leaves open the door to the fact that SOME philosophy is TRUTHFUL.

And TRUE philosophy is NOT "changeable and defined by persons"...rather, TRUE philosophy is what is consistent with reality, whether most other philosophers like it or not.

 

"There is no such thing as good philosophy.  "

Don't be silly!

MODUS TOLLENS is good philosophy.  Rejection of MODUS TOLLENS is absurd.

Your wholesale rejection of philosophy is thus ABSURD...because you just implicitly rejected MODUS TOLLENS!

Please stop.

 

Do you accept or reject MODUS TOLLENS?

If ACCEPT, then you ACCEPT good philosophy.

If REJECT, then you are absolutely ABSURD and meaningless...

 

1. All monkeys are mammals.

2. That's a monkey over there!

3. That monkey over there is a MAMMAL.

If you agree, then you ACCEPT good philosophy (in this case, Modus Ponens).

If you disagree, then you are buried in irrational absurdity...and you have nothing meaningful to say.

 

There's NOTHING WRONG with logical inference rules, my friend. 

You're zeal is getting you carried away....

Come back!

 

"In a Communist society a good philosophy places the state in the position of God."

Nonsense.  That's NOT a good philosophy.

 

"In a fascist society a good philosophy embraces perpetual war so as to enlarge financial interests and global hegemony.  "

Nonsense.  That's NOT good philosophy.

 

"The advantage of God's LAW over philosophy, be it personal or social, is that it is uniform for all people at all times and in all places.  "

FALSE DICHOTOMY.

GOOD philosophy UPHOLDS God's law.

 

"Your point of view is changeable philosophy.  You've even admitted to it.  "

Nonsense.  TRUTH is not "changeable".

GOOD PHILOSOPHY is based on truth.

Thus, GOOD PHILOSOPHY is not "changeable philosophy".

 

"Philosophy has never saved anyone."

Nonsense.  GOOD philosophy saves people from EVIL philosophy.  That's a GOOD thing!

 

"Philosophy is the keystone in the arch of lies and SIN.  "

Nonsense.  GOOD philosophy is grounded in TRUTH, and is inextricably linked to the CHURCH itself (1Ti.3:15).

Your attack against ALL philosophy is an attack against TRUE philosophy, which is an attack against TRUTH, which is a (presumably unintended) attack upon the church itself.

Please refine your position, for the benefit of us all.

 

"Philosophy is the keystone in the arch of lies and SIN.  It holds all false notions together - for a season."

Utter rubbish.

GOOD philosophy is grounded in TRUTH, and is inextricably linked to the CHURCH itself (1Ti.3:15).

 

CONCLUSION:  GOOD philosophy is based on TRUTH and is GOOD.

BAD philosophy is NOT based on TRUTH and is BAD.

TEST ALL THINGS...Hold on to the GOOD.

So, even YOUR conception of "philosophy" need not lead to wholesale rejection of ALL philosophy.

It's ok to believe MODUS PONENS!

It's ok to believe MODUS TOLLENS!

Your rejection of ALL philosophy leads even to the rejection of logical inference rules, and that's profoundly ABSURD.

Please refine your position, for the benefit of us all.

blessings...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/16/2019 at 12:08 PM, Behold said:

Christian doctrine, 99% of it,  would be the doctrine given by Christ Himself to the Apostle Paul, to be forwarded as "Church Doctrine"

This would not be "jewish tradition" and it would not be "Greek Philosophy", because neither of these Traditions, accept, believe, or maintain,  that Jesus The Christ is Messiah, who was raised from the Dead.

I wouldn't go so far as to assign a percentage of Christian doctrine vs. Pauline teaching.   Such a guesstimate would require a considerable amount of scholarly work, which would be wasted on the bulk of believers anyway.   People have fixed ideas about what is or is not worthy of their beliefs.  Most of the time it has little to do with Biblical teaching or church doctrine.

The idea that 99% of present Christian doctrine or even the majority of it is based upon Pauline teachings is inaccurate and absurd.   Political correctness (pc) determines doctrinal ideology, not Biblical standards nor Papal bulls.

For example, Paul clearly teaches that women ought not hold positions of leadership, that they shouldn't teach anything or even that they should speak during the assembly of believers.  By today's standards, Paul & the Word of God is a result of sexist male chauvinism.  I don't agree with that opinion, but it's the standard today nonetheless.

Paul teaches that church leaders should be the husband of one wife, but that is contrary to the current policy of the Roman Catholic church.  Most Christians are Catholics, btw.  The idea that a leader should be married to a woman is also contradictory to today's pc ideas.  Single sex marriage is accepted, despite clear Biblical teaching against it.   The Methodist church, for example, openly embraces the gay life style and flies the gay flag on their properties.   In other words, the church has corrupted Biblical teaching and rejected it outright.

In Christendom, the ceremony of Communion varies widely in every denomination.  Nobody mentions that the gentile ceremony is based on the Jewish seder - observed once a year during Pesach.  Instead they wrongly teach Jesus insisted it be observed during weekly or monthly worship services.  The form of Communion as observed by Christians has nothing to do with the Jewish seder or Jesus' intent at that time.  Christian doctrines certifying communion are based upon European and American ideology, not the Bible.  

Among American protestants grape juice is substituted for alcoholic wine.   Some even use water instead of juice.   The practice is linked to American political history, not Biblical standards or teaching.  In the mid-19th century the Temperance movement gained traction in America, which resulted in Prohibition - the illegal production distribution or consumption of alcoholic beverages.  Despite the passage of the 21st amendment to the constitution, protestant denominations as well as non-denominational churches, STILL observe prohibition in their ceremonies and doctrines.  The current teaching suggests grape juice was used instead of wine during the Biblical period, BUT it isn't mentioned at all that the technology for denaturing wine did NOT exist prior to the mid-19th century.  Denatured wine is processed by pasteurization - invented by Louis Pasteur.  None of this has anything to do with the Bible, but it is taught as gospel anyway.

I can go further concerning controversial doctrines of the millennium, rapture, tribulation, the false doctrine of hell and every aberration of church doctrine of which there are very many.

Jewish tradition does not allow for admitting Yeshuah (Jesus) is the anointed ha-mashiach (messiah or christ).   Tradition doesn't consider belief.  Consequently its entirely possible for a Jew to believe Jesus rose from the dead and not accept Him as part of their tradition.  Jewish tradition doesn't even allow for the admission of the existence of God.   Its mandate is only ceremonial observance and nothing more.  Jewish tradition does not imply or require belief - normally.  This is the chief difference between Jewish and Christian religious systems.

Christian doctrine does not admit Jesus is a Jew or that the Bible is a religious book written by JEWS for JEWS.   

The Christian religious system is one of belief, not tradition.   To be sure there are a lot of ceremonial acts involved, but belief is definitely separate from action or tradition.  It is entirely possible for a member of an organized crime family to be a devout believer, while at the same time to be a hardened murderer, drug lord, con artist, thief or politician.  Christian belief does not imply or require action - normally.   This is the chief difference between Jewish and Christian religious systems.

Without religious tradition, the early church found itself drawn to philosophy to interpret its belief system.   Philosophy is diametrically opposed to observance of the LAW.  In point of fact, most Christians will almost become visibly nauseous when the LAW is mentioned - despite the fact that none of them can begin to be saved without it.

I could write a book about the issues of the church which do NOT have anything to do with Pauline teaching at all.   Our problem today is that most Christians are illiterate about such matters and rely upon buzz words and religious slogans which they presume to be Biblical and which in fact are not.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/16/2019 at 4:06 PM, BibleGuy said:

 

Hi again!

"def: Philosophy is a system of thought.    It isn't necessarily based upon truth."

Agreed!  But SOME philosophy is based on truth.  And we must uphold truth (1Cor.13:6).  Thus we must NOT oppose TRUTH-upholding philosophy.

OPPOSE bad philosophy.

UPHOLD good philosophy.

* * * *

Your rejection of ALL philosophy leads even to the rejection of logical inference rules, and that's profoundly ABSURD.

Please refine your position, for the benefit of us all.

blessings...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have not stated how or who is qualified to define what is good philosophy or what is bad philosophy.   You haven't done so because it's an impossible task.   

It's impossible because philosophy is changeable.  It's definition and use is dependent upon the individual or popular society.  Therefore it is an inaccurate measure at best.

The LAW of God is not changeable.  It isn't affected by the politics of the day or by personal preference.

This is the reason for difficulties with church doctrine and aberrations in national politics.   Philosophy can justify slavery (by church doctrine of the 18th century) as well as genocide (as in the US government policy of murder of Native Americans or the German Final Solution or mass murder of Jews).   Everything the Nazis did was legal according to their philosophy.

Who said Nazi legal philosophy was bad?   It was the combined military opposition to German aggression, not any sort of social conscience of the German, Russian, American or English people.  More than sixty million people DIED as a result of the conflict between opposing philosophies.

God's LAW is not affected by human hubris and passion and politics as is philosophy.

You stated some philosophy is based on truth.  I'd go further than that and say all of it is.   There is a nugget of truth in every thought of man - as is every lie of the devil.

Our problem is to define how much or how little philosophy is to be allowed to dilute the truth we accept, not whether it's good or bad.   

Consider a plate of brownies.

One may use brownie mix to make a delicious confection.   What if one added a teaspoon of dog poo to the mix before baking?   How about a half teaspoon or quarter teaspoon?   How much or how little would you tolerate when you put one of those brownies into your mouth?

Philosophy is the dog poo of religious doctrine and teaching.

How much do you swallow and why?

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...