Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I see this as a fairly complex area of philosophy, especially in thinking about the way Christianity developed and those who wish to oppose many elements of Christian thinking. Part of the complexity is the interplay between beliefs about the existence of 'God' and the historical facts about the narrative facts of the Gospel stories. Having grown up in a Christian, and Catholic, background, I have struggled with both aspects and their interplay.

In considering the belief in the existence of God which is essential to Christianity, it is worth being aware of the belief in Jahweh of the Old Testament, especially as revealed to Moses in the form of The Ten Commandments. What may be important in thinking of the image of God as Jahweh, is the idea of personal communication with 'God', and in Christian thinking, this was embodied in the form of Jesus Christ, who lived and was resurrected from the dead.

As a child, I grew up and accepted the narrative unquestioningly, not wishing to be a 'doubting Thomas'. However, further along in my philosophy quest, I am not just questioning the existence of 'God', but also the narratives of the Gospel and the facts, as opposed to symbolic stories.

My own reading leads me into the areas of Gnosticism and the Grail Tradition, especially the area between fact and mythology. Part of this may involve careful scholarship, as there is so much literature. This includes literature of the early Church, including the canon of the Bible, as well as the dialogue between mainstream thinking and Gnosticism. It may also be intricate because one of the early Church fathers, Origen, was believed to have some sympathy with the outlawed Gnosticism.

I am aware that for many the debates of the early Christian Church may seem redundant to philosophy. However, the war between theism and atheism rages on. Where does Christ, and Christianity come in, especially the resurrection story? How much is symbolic and where does this lies in the picture of facts and philosophical speculation? Also, how does the Christian narrative come into play in thinking about the existence of God?

In the twentieth first century, there has been so much demystification and deconstruction. Where does the idea of 'God' come into this, and does it involve the debate between idealism and materialism? Where do the Biblical ideas come into this, in understanding their construction and deconstruction?

[Sea Turtle]

Many christian religions insist that we endorse the leaders version of truth.

There is just so much data around this topic, could discuss for days if not weeks.

-How did the christian cannon form.
-What of the writings not in the cannon of the similar times, they don't all agree. Only the ones that agree are in the cannon.
-Trinity is a political decision.

For me, it is very likely that there is something out there. For lack of being able to really articulate what that something is, I believe that that Book of Urantia does a decent job of presenting a possible philosophy about God. Lots of issues with those writings, but the ideas are astounding.

[Stoppelmann]

I see this as a fairly complex area of philosophy, especially in thinking about the way Christianity developed and those who wish to oppose many elements of Christian thinking. Part of the complexity is the interplay between beliefs about the existence of 'God' and the historical facts about the narrative facts of the Gospel stories. Having grown up in a Christian, and Catholic, background, I have struggled with both aspects and their interplay.

In considering the belief in the existence of God which is essential to Christianity, it is worth being aware of the belief in Jahweh of the Old Testament, especially as revealed to Moses in the form of The Ten Commandments. What may be important in thinking of the image of God as Jahweh, is the idea of personal communication with 'God', and in Christian thinking, this was embodied in the form of Jesus Christ, who lived and was resurrected from the dead.

As a child, I grew up and accepted the narrative unquestioningly, not wishing to be a 'doubting Thomas'. However, further along in my philosophy quest, I am not just questioning the existence of 'God', but also the narratives of the Gospel and the facts, as opposed to symbolic stories.

The narrative has the clear intention of giving Israel a history and giving Jesus the background with which to be compared. He is also seen as the last true remnant of Israel in the NT, with the assimilation of the tribes into conquering nations one after one going before, and out of Judah and Benjamin, Jesus picks up the prophetic message. This is an intentional interpretation built to the detriment of the Jews that spread into the diaspora after Jerusalem was destroyed, and it is clear from the NT texts, that Christianity was seen as a supersession, replacing Israel who were punished for not recognising their Messiah. Many evangelical Christians dispute this, but it seems clear to me that they show support for the reestablishment of Israel because they see it as the requirement for the apocalypse, the “New Jerusalem” coming down to earth, and Christ’s return.

Considering the contrived nature of this narrative, it seems clear to me that there was an agenda being followed by Christianity which was antisemitic and remains to this day, and it was especially potent the more the Jews showed their ability to thrive even in the diaspora. Historically, Israel may have fled Egypt on the back of a rebellion and several tribes united to form the twelve tribes, as so often the number taken from the twelve constellations that mark out the path that the sun appears to take through the year. The narrative was however probably completed during the Babylonian captivity, taking from several sources, and adapting them, they developed a symbolism that is sophisticated and consistent in the OT.

Christianity on the other hand, shows a marked criticism of the old teaching, and something like a paradigm change that originated in the prophetic books. The interpretation of OT prophecies is obviously quite different from standard Pharisaic (and later Rabbinic) Judaism’s interpretation, even though the Mishnah, an authoritative codification of Pharisaic interpretations, was redacted around 200 CE. The Christian teaching, especially the teaching of Jesus, has been compared by Hindu teachers to the Advaita Vedanta, which is quite a potent suggestion, because if it were true, the divinity of Christ has a completely different meaning, the word God differs considerably from Yahweh, as well as the meaning of “Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad” (Hear O’ Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One), which could be an expression of non-dualism.

My own reading leads me into the areas of Gnosticism and the Grail Tradition, especially the area between fact and mythology. Part of this may involve careful scholarship, as there is so much literature. This includes literature of the early Church, including the canon of the Bible, as well as the dialogue between mainstream thinking and Gnosticism. It may also be intricate because one of the early Church fathers, Origen, was believed to have some sympathy with the outlawed Gnosticism.

I am aware that for many the debates of the early Christian Church may seem redundant to philosophy. However, the war between theism and atheism rages on. Where does Christ, and Christianity come in, especially the resurrection story? How much is symbolic and where does this lies in the picture of facts and philosophical speculation? Also, how does the Christian narrative come into play in thinking about the existence of God?

In the twentieth first century, there has been so much demystification and deconstruction. Where does the idea of 'God' come into this, and does it involve the debate between idealism and materialism? Where do the Biblical ideas come into this, in understanding their construction and deconstruction?

Considering what we know about Origen, he was sympathetic to certain aspects of Gnostic thought, but he also strongly criticized and refuted many core tenets of Gnosticism. He was drawn to the idea of a deeper spiritual understanding of scripture and the notion that the soul could possess pre-existing knowledge of the divine, and he believed that allegorical interpretations of biblical texts could reveal deeper spiritual truths and insights. However, the relationship between early Christianity and Gnosticism was complex, and there was no singular stance on Gnosticism as a whole. In the early centuries of Christianity, there were debates and disagreements among Christian leaders regarding the legitimacy of various Gnostic teachings. During Origen's time, its relationship with the Roman authorities was often precarious and as a result, there were no official legal actions taken specifically against Gnosticism as a religious movement during this period.

The suppression of Gnostic ideas and texts became more systematic in the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine. Then Gnostic movements were increasingly marginalized and labelled as heretical by the orthodox Christian authorities. It is at this time that Christianity was being “streamlined” to conform to an authoritarian rule, and Constantine evidently sought out Bishops who were equally power orientated to do the job. This is when I believe that a major shift took place, and there are indications of non-dual or mystical teachings within the early centuries of Christianity, especially among certain Christian mystics and theologians. While Origen's teachings are not purely non-dual, some aspects of his thought exhibit mystical tendencies.

Early Christian desert ascetics (Desert fathers) pursued a life of solitude and contemplation, seeking a direct encounter with God and their teachings often emphasized the purification of the soul and the attainment of inner stillness as a means to experience divine presence, which shares some similarities with non-dual traditions. There are indications that Buddhist monks were influential in their practise, and although today the concept of non-duality does not appear as a central or dominant theme within early Christianity, it continually re-emerged as part of the rich tapestry of mystical and contemplative expressions within the tradition throughout history and was duly suppressed.

Early Christian theologians often used many concepts and terms borrowed from Greek philosophy to articulate and defend their beliefs, probably due to using the Septuagint, the Greek language OT. The best-known examples in Christianity, such as terms like "Logos" (Word) and "Sophia" (Wisdom) were utilized in both Greek philosophy and early Christian theology to convey aspects of divine understanding and revelation. Some early Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, sought to bridge the gap between Christianity and Greek philosophy and they attempted to synthesize elements of Greek philosophy with Christian doctrines, aiming to present Christianity as a sophisticated and rational belief system.

You could argue that certain Greek philosophical ideas could be seen as foreshadowing or preparing the way for Christian truths rather than the OT in some ways, even though the biblical references to the OT are multiple. But early Christianity emerged in a Hellenistic cultural context, where Greek culture and philosophy were widespread due to the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent influence of Greek-speaking societies throughout the Mediterranean region. This exposure to Greek thought naturally influenced the intellectual climate in which early Christian theology developed and at the same time, resisted the influence of the Far Eastern traditions.

The deconstruction of Christianity consists primarily of a rejection of the idea of grand meta-narratives, including the overarching Christian narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and eschatology. Postmodernists see these narratives as attempts to impose a single, universal truth on diverse and fragmented human experiences, and instead emphasize religious pluralism and the idea that no one religion can claim exclusive access to absolute truth. Not least of all, Christianity is seen as having perpetuated power structures and using discourse to control and marginalize certain groups, and traditionally as an agent of oppression in various historical and social contexts.

The debate between idealism and materialism is very much alive, and materialism is getting the short end of the stick recently. It is relevant because it addresses fundamental questions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and the mind-body relationship. The debate whether the physical world is the primary reality, and everything, including the mind and consciousness, emerges from material interactions, or that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual, and the physical world is an expression or manifestation of mental or spiritual realities, is not settled. There are scientists who support idealism or have expressed ideas that align with certain aspects of idealism, such as quantum physicists, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers, cosmologists, and philosophers of science, and those studying transpersonal psychology.

Names come to mind such as Erwin Schrödinger, John Archibald Wheeler, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake, and Roger Penrose, and while these individuals have expressed ideas that resonate with certain aspects of idealism, I am aware their views are not universally accepted within the scientific community. The scientific consensus remains largely dogmatically materialistic, based on naturalistic explanations.

… materialism influences our ‘subconscious’ reactions, attitudes, and values in many other aspects of life as well, not only our beliefs regarding the after-death state. For instance, the implications of materialism lie directly behind the Western love affair with things. It is our often-’subconscious’ belief that only matter truly exists that drives our urge to achieve material success. After all, if there is only matter, what other goal can there conceivably be in life other than the accumulation of material goods? And this belief is highly symbiotic with our economic system, for it is the drive towards material success that motivates key people to work long hours, often having to tolerate unpleasant circumstances, in order to improve their status and financial condition well beyond otherwise acceptable levels. It is also this belief that motivates people to spend their hard-earned income on unnecessary goods and premature upgrades. The materialist worldview has caused many of us to project numinous value and meaning onto things.
Kastrup, Bernardo. Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to life, the Universe, and Everything (p. . John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Iain McGilchrist also states:

… I think there is something the matter with things – or at least with the way in which we conceive them… The Greek word for a thing, πρᾶγμα (pragma), meant originally an action, a deed (hence our ‘pragmatic’), from πράττειν, to do, hence an ‘affair’ or matter of concern. Plato and Aristotle are responsible for its conversion into a concrete thing that is implicitly, or explicitly, ‘real’ … This excursion into the history of our concept of things tends to support the view that I have argued for, that things are secondary properties of phenomena that emerge out of the web of experience, as ‘objects’ that attract our focussed (left hemisphere) attention. In fact an object is just that: it becomes an object by being the focus of a certain kind of foregrounding, isolating, immobilising attention (Latin objectus, ‘thrown against’). It is what presents itself as useful to grasp.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1347, 1348). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

Speaking to many Christians, they are clearly materialistic in their thinking, but that is also where their problem arises. However, this post is already long, and I should close here.

[JackDaydream]

Many christian religions insist that we endorse the leaders version of truth.

There is just so much data around this topic, could discuss for days if not weeks.

-How did the christian cannon form.
-What of the writings not in the cannon of the similar times, they don't all agree. Only the ones that agree are in the cannon.
-Trinity is a political decision.

For me, it is very likely that there is something out there. For lack of being able to really articulate what that something is, I believe that that Book of Urantia does a decent job of presenting a possible philosophy about God. Lots of issues with those writings, but the ideas are astounding.

It is a large topic and a potential lifetime's worth of reading. I began reading on it as a teenager and will probably continue to do so long after this thread. That is because I see it as being such an important area. I have come across so many people insistent on their version of the 'truth' and that may be why I see the need to explore it fully because I am not convinced it is that simple.

What is included and not included in the canon is worth looking at. I came across T'he Gnostic Gospels' while reading Carl Jung's writings because he drew upon them in his symbolic understanding. They do seem like literary texts in many ways. Of course, for many people these are seen as heretical, including the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife.

The idea of the Grail quest seems important for uncovering the history of mythic ideas, including the idea of the grail cup. It goes into mythic folklore. I have also read a little in the direction of Celtic Christianity, including the idea of the resurrection as a 'subtle body', which I found interesting because this ties in with the Biblical account of the transfixion which seems to involve going into an altered state, perceiving a different level of reality.

My reading interest also includes theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, as well as Emmanuel Swedenborg. The ideas of Swedenborg influenced visionary, William Blake. Blake's ideas form a dialogue in response to John Milton' s 'Paradise Lost'. My father taught me about the idea of the fall of the angels as a child, and seemed surprised when I told him.later that the idea seemed to stem more from Milton than the Bible. He had been taught at a strict Catholic 'Christian Brothers school in Ireland, learning through a catechism.

I haven't come across The Book of Urantia, so I would appreciate you telling more about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity in a sort of 'scientific' way, by which I mean taking an external and detached look at Christianity as a whole, and how it fits with the rest of human religious and cultural belief systems. I think too many discussions sink quickly into disputes over doctrinal minutiae — the details.

We can split Christianity into the abstract spirituality and its real world manifestations — Christian churches, clerics, and congregations. We can also view the real-world manifestations as a contrast between the spiritual and the political (i.e. secular).

Stoppelmann comments that Christianity is "anti-Semitic", a term that I feel has been misused by the present-day political machinations of the political state of Israel. They have seen fit to conflate discrimination against those of the Jewish faith — always wrong, IMO — with criticism of the political state of Israel. So I prefer to stick to the root term, discrimination. But that isn't Stoppelmann's fault!

Of course Christianity is anti-parent, its parent being the Jewish faith, from which it emerged. [The 'Old Testament' is Jewish scriptures, absorbed into the new faith.] But like all religions, the Christians seek to claim that theirs is the One and Only Truth. This means that all other beliefs, including Judaism, are (in their eyes) simply wrong. And the parent faith is much more intimately connected with its new offspring, so there is more propaganda against it (from Christians) than other faiths. But this is really political, not spiritual, I think...?

[JackDaydream]

I see this as a fairly complex area of philosophy, especially in thinking about the way Christianity developed and those who wish to oppose many elements of Christian thinking. Part of the complexity is the interplay between beliefs about the existence of 'God' and the historical facts about the narrative facts of the Gospel stories. Having grown up in a Christian, and Catholic, background, I have struggled with both aspects and their interplay.

In considering the belief in the existence of God which is essential to Christianity, it is worth being aware of the belief in Jahweh of the Old Testament, especially as revealed to Moses in the form of The Ten Commandments. What may be important in thinking of the image of God as Jahweh, is the idea of personal communication with 'God', and in Christian thinking, this was embodied in the form of Jesus Christ, who lived and was resurrected from the dead.

As a child, I grew up and accepted the narrative unquestioningly, not wishing to be a 'doubting Thomas'. However, further along in my philosophy quest, I am not just questioning the existence of 'God', but also the narratives of the Gospel and the facts, as opposed to symbolic stories.

The narrative has the clear intention of giving Israel a history and giving Jesus the background with which to be compared. He is also seen as the last true remnant of Israel in the NT, with the assimilation of the tribes into conquering nations one after one going before, and out of Judah and Benjamin, Jesus picks up the prophetic message. This is an intentional interpretation built to the detriment of the Jews that spread into the diaspora after Jerusalem was destroyed, and it is clear from the NT texts, that Christianity was seen as a supersession, replacing Israel who were punished for not recognising their Messiah. Many evangelical Christians dispute this, but it seems clear to me that they show support for the reestablishment of Israel because they see it as the requirement for the apocalypse, the “New Jerusalem” coming down to earth, and Christ’s return.

Considering the contrived nature of this narrative, it seems clear to me that there was an agenda being followed by Christianity which was antisemitic and remains to this day, and it was especially potent the more the Jews showed their ability to thrive even in the diaspora. Historically, Israel may have fled Egypt on the back of a rebellion and several tribes united to form the twelve tribes, as so often the number taken from the twelve constellations that mark out the path that the sun appears to take through the year. The narrative was however probably completed during the Babylonian captivity, taking from several sources, and adapting them, they developed a symbolism that is sophisticated and consistent in the OT.

Christianity on the other hand, shows a marked criticism of the old teaching, and something like a paradigm change that originated in the prophetic books. The interpretation of OT prophecies is obviously quite different from standard Pharisaic (and later Rabbinic) Judaism’s interpretation, even though the Mishnah, an authoritative codification of Pharisaic interpretations, was redacted around 200 CE. The Christian teaching, especially the teaching of Jesus, has been compared by Hindu teachers to the Advaita Vedanta, which is quite a potent suggestion, because if it were true, the divinity of Christ has a completely different meaning, the word God differs considerably from Yahweh, as well as the meaning of “Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad” (Hear O’ Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One), which could be an expression of non-dualism.

My own reading leads me into the areas of Gnosticism and the Grail Tradition, especially the area between fact and mythology. Part of this may involve careful scholarship, as there is so much literature. This includes literature of the early Church, including the canon of the Bible, as well as the dialogue between mainstream thinking and Gnosticism. It may also be intricate because one of the early Church fathers, Origen, was believed to have some sympathy with the outlawed Gnosticism.

I am aware that for many the debates of the early Christian Church may seem redundant to philosophy. However, the war between theism and atheism rages on. Where does Christ, and Christianity come in, especially the resurrection story? How much is symbolic and where does this lies in the picture of facts and philosophical speculation? Also, how does the Christian narrative come into play in thinking about the existence of God?

In the twentieth first century, there has been so much demystification and deconstruction. Where does the idea of 'God' come into this, and does it involve the debate between idealism and materialism? Where do the Biblical ideas come into this, in understanding their construction and deconstruction?

Considering what we know about Origen, he was sympathetic to certain aspects of Gnostic thought, but he also strongly criticized and refuted many core tenets of Gnosticism. He was drawn to the idea of a deeper spiritual understanding of scripture and the notion that the soul could possess pre-existing knowledge of the divine, and he believed that allegorical interpretations of biblical texts could reveal deeper spiritual truths and insights. However, the relationship between early Christianity and Gnosticism was complex, and there was no singular stance on Gnosticism as a whole. In the early centuries of Christianity, there were debates and disagreements among Christian leaders regarding the legitimacy of various Gnostic teachings. During Origen's time, its relationship with the Roman authorities was often precarious and as a result, there were no official legal actions taken specifically against Gnosticism as a religious movement during this period.

The suppression of Gnostic ideas and texts became more systematic in the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine. Then Gnostic movements were increasingly marginalized and labelled as heretical by the orthodox Christian authorities. It is at this time that Christianity was being “streamlined” to conform to an authoritarian rule, and Constantine evidently sought out Bishops who were equally power orientated to do the job. This is when I believe that a major shift took place, and there are indications of non-dual or mystical teachings within the early centuries of Christianity, especially among certain Christian mystics and theologians. While Origen's teachings are not purely non-dual, some aspects of his thought exhibit mystical tendencies.

Early Christian desert ascetics (Desert fathers) pursued a life of solitude and contemplation, seeking a direct encounter with God and their teachings often emphasized the purification of the soul and the attainment of inner stillness as a means to experience divine presence, which shares some similarities with non-dual traditions. There are indications that Buddhist monks were influential in their practise, and although today the concept of non-duality does not appear as a central or dominant theme within early Christianity, it continually re-emerged as part of the rich tapestry of mystical and contemplative expressions within the tradition throughout history and was duly suppressed.

Early Christian theologians often used many concepts and terms borrowed from Greek philosophy to articulate and defend their beliefs, probably due to using the Septuagint, the Greek language OT. The best-known examples in Christianity, such as terms like "Logos" (Word) and "Sophia" (Wisdom) were utilized in both Greek philosophy and early Christian theology to convey aspects of divine understanding and revelation. Some early Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, sought to bridge the gap between Christianity and Greek philosophy and they attempted to synthesize elements of Greek philosophy with Christian doctrines, aiming to present Christianity as a sophisticated and rational belief system.

You could argue that certain Greek philosophical ideas could be seen as foreshadowing or preparing the way for Christian truths rather than the OT in some ways, even though the biblical references to the OT are multiple. But early Christianity emerged in a Hellenistic cultural context, where Greek culture and philosophy were widespread due to the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent influence of Greek-speaking societies throughout the Mediterranean region. This exposure to Greek thought naturally influenced the intellectual climate in which early Christian theology developed and at the same time, resisted the influence of the Far Eastern traditions.

The deconstruction of Christianity consists primarily of a rejection of the idea of grand meta-narratives, including the overarching Christian narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and eschatology. Postmodernists see these narratives as attempts to impose a single, universal truth on diverse and fragmented human experiences, and instead emphasize religious pluralism and the idea that no one religion can claim exclusive access to absolute truth. Not least of all, Christianity is seen as having perpetuated power structures and using discourse to control and marginalize certain groups, and traditionally as an agent of oppression in various historical and social contexts.

The debate between idealism and materialism is very much alive, and materialism is getting the short end of the stick recently. It is relevant because it addresses fundamental questions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and the mind-body relationship. The debate whether the physical world is the primary reality, and everything, including the mind and consciousness, emerges from material interactions, or that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual, and the physical world is an expression or manifestation of mental or spiritual realities, is not settled. There are scientists who support idealism or have expressed ideas that align with certain aspects of idealism, such as quantum physicists, neuroscientists and consciousness researchers, cosmologists, and philosophers of science, and those studying transpersonal psychology.

Names come to mind such as Erwin Schrödinger, John Archibald Wheeler, Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake, and Roger Penrose, and while these individuals have expressed ideas that resonate with certain aspects of idealism, I am aware their views are not universally accepted within the scientific community. The scientific consensus remains largely dogmatically materialistic, based on naturalistic explanations.

… materialism influences our ‘subconscious’ reactions, attitudes, and values in many other aspects of life as well, not only our beliefs regarding the after-death state. For instance, the implications of materialism lie directly behind the Western love affair with things. It is our often-’subconscious’ belief that only matter truly exists that drives our urge to achieve material success. After all, if there is only matter, what other goal can there conceivably be in life other than the accumulation of material goods? And this belief is highly symbiotic with our economic system, for it is the drive towards material success that motivates key people to work long hours, often having to tolerate unpleasant circumstances, in order to improve their status and financial condition well beyond otherwise acceptable levels. It is also this belief that motivates people to spend their hard-earned income on unnecessary goods and premature upgrades. The materialist worldview has caused many of us to project numinous value and meaning onto things.
Kastrup, Bernardo. Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to life, the Universe, and Everything (p. . John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Iain McGilchrist also states:

… I think there is something the matter with things – or at least with the way in which we conceive them… The Greek word for a thing, πρᾶγμα (pragma), meant originally an action, a deed (hence our ‘pragmatic’), from πράττειν, to do, hence an ‘affair’ or matter of concern. Plato and Aristotle are responsible for its conversion into a concrete thing that is implicitly, or explicitly, ‘real’ … This excursion into the history of our concept of things tends to support the view that I have argued for, that things are secondary properties of phenomena that emerge out of the web of experience, as ‘objects’ that attract our focussed (left hemisphere) attention. In fact an object is just that: it becomes an object by being the focus of a certain kind of foregrounding, isolating, immobilising attention (Latin objectus, ‘thrown against’). It is what presents itself as useful to grasp.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1347, 1348). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

Speaking to many Christians, they are clearly materialistic in their thinking, but that is also where their problem arises. However, this post is already long, and I should close here.

Your post is very good to read, but as it is long it is difficult to address all the points you make fully, as I do struggle a bit with doing all my forum interaction on my phone. I am particularly interested in the debate about Christianity in relation to idealism/materialism. Some Christians do seem to come from a very concrete materialism, especially in fundamentalist forms of belief. This may distort the understanding of Christian teachings and the Gnostic texts are a strong movement away from this. It does seem that the agenda of the Christian mainstream has gone in that direction. It as if the Christian narrative is taken as if it were a newspaper report, which is not helpful as the writings were written long after the death of Jesus, and the names of the authors, apart from Paul, are recognised by most theologians to be the true authors.

Understanding the nature of Judaism also seems essential in thinking about the roots of Christianity. I haven't read that much on Judaism but have felt drawn to the ideas of 'The Kabbalah'. Earlier this year, I have moved to an area of London with a large Jewish population and it has lead me to be aware of a need to understand Judaism more. That is a large task, especially the political elements. As far as the philosophy itself, what I am aware of as being an essential factor in Judaism, and carried through into Christianity, is the idea of an interactive relationship between Yahweh and human beings.

[JackDaydream]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity in a sort of 'scientific' way, by which I mean taking an external and detached look at Christianity as a whole, and how it fits with the rest of human religious and cultural belief systems. I think too many discussions sink quickly into disputes over doctrinal minutiae — the details.

We can split Christianity into the abstract spirituality and its real world manifestations — Christian churches, clerics, and congregations. We can also view the real-world manifestations as a contrast between the spiritual and the political (i.e. secular).

Stoppelmann comments that Christianity is "anti-Semitic", a term that I feel has been misused by the present-day political machinations of the political state of Israel. They have seen fit to conflate discrimination against those of the Jewish faith — always wrong, IMO — with criticism of the political state of Israel. So I prefer to stick to the root term, discrimination. But that isn't Stoppelmann's fault!

Of course Christianity is anti-parent, its parent being the Jewish faith, from which it emerged. [The 'Old Testament' is Jewish scriptures, absorbed into the new faith.] But like all religions, the Christians seek to claim that theirs is the One and Only Truth. This means that all other beliefs, including Judaism, are (in their eyes) simply wrong. And the parent faith is much more intimately connected with its new offspring, so there is more propaganda against it (from Christians) than other faiths. But this is really political, not spiritual, I think...?

Yes, my intention in creating this thread is to look at Christianity in a serious 'scientific' way as you call it. My own approach to issues of religion is to come from a fairly academic angle, although, of course, this forum is less formal. However, in discussing Christianity there is the interplay between personal experience and reading of sources. A certain amount of dispassionate examination is useful. However, some underlying bias is probably, especially in what chooses to read in an area in which there is so much literature. If anything, what one may be able to do is recognise one's biases. I am aware that often my choices of what not to read reflect what I wish to believe, and, as it happens, what I wish to believe fluctuates so much, that hopefully I end up reading from so many angles. Fortunately, at this point, there is so much available in this information age, which is so different from when it all depended on parental and school education. It allows for a more research approach in order to gain the widest possible inclusion of many viewpoints and perspectives.

[Sea Turtle]

Many christian religions insist that we endorse the leaders version of truth.

There is just so much data around this topic, could discuss for days if not weeks.

-How did the christian cannon form.
-What of the writings not in the cannon of the similar times, they don't all agree. Only the ones that agree are in the cannon.
-Trinity is a political decision.

For me, it is very likely that there is something out there. For lack of being able to really articulate what that something is, I believe that that Book of Urantia does a decent job of presenting a possible philosophy about God. Lots of issues with those writings, but the ideas are astounding.

It is a large topic and a potential lifetime's worth of reading. I began reading on it as a teenager and will probably continue to do so long after this thread. That is because I see it as being such an important area. I have come across so many people insistent on their version of the 'truth' and that may be why I see the need to explore it fully because I am not convinced it is that simple.

What is included and not included in the canon is worth looking at. I came across T'he Gnostic Gospels' while reading Carl Jung's writings because he drew upon them in his symbolic understanding. They do seem like literary texts in many ways. Of course, for many people these are seen as heretical, including the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife.

The idea of the Grail quest seems important for uncovering the history of mythic ideas, including the idea of the grail cup. It goes into mythic folklore. I have also read a little in the direction of Celtic Christianity, including the idea of the resurrection as a 'subtle body', which I found interesting because this ties in with the Biblical account of the transfixion which seems to involve going into an altered state, perceiving a different level of reality.

My reading interest also includes theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, as well as Emmanuel Swedenborg. The ideas of Swedenborg influenced visionary, William Blake. Blake's ideas form a dialogue in response to John Milton' s 'Paradise Lost'. My father taught me about the idea of the fall of the angels as a child, and seemed surprised when I told him.later that the idea seemed to stem more from Milton than the Bible. He had been taught at a strict Catholic 'Christian Brothers school in Ireland, learning through a catechism.

I haven't come across The Book of Urantia, so I would appreciate you telling more about it.

The Wikipedia overview of Urantia tells a very short overview(I can not add a link yet because of being new). A couple of interesting things not included in the overview is how evolution did in fact occur and Adam was an insert to the gene pool to speed it up. Telling how some apes persisted over others. The war heaven is given a reasonable scientific explanation, as is the resurrection together with the commentary of how the angels observed that event. Its a very long read, while it attempts to merge science, philosophy and religion into agreement.

If we remove any bias that the christian canon is the truth, Urantia represents a reasonable answer. As with any other newer philosophy, it suffers from not being an ancient text and the credibility that is assumed if something is written long ago.

The earth is flat was written long ago, and wrong.

[Stoppelmann]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity in a sort of 'scientific' way, by which I mean taking an external and detached look at Christianity as a whole, and how it fits with the rest of human religious and cultural belief systems. I think too many discussions sink quickly into disputes over doctrinal minutiae — the details.

We can split Christianity into the abstract spirituality and its real world manifestations — Christian churches, clerics, and congregations. We can also view the real-world manifestations as a contrast between the spiritual and the political (i.e. secular).

Splitting Christianity into abstract spirituality and its real-world manifestations is a complex idea that depends on how one defines and interprets Christianity. Abstract spirituality, or the underlying beliefs, values, and principles that form the foundation of the religion, include concepts such as love, forgiveness, salvation, and the existence of an eternal soul. But Christianity's abstract spirituality and its real-world manifestations are deeply interconnected, and its abstract beliefs often guide and inform the practices and actions of believers, which makes separating the two difficult to implement. You could say that the concepts are one thing, but what people do is what Christianity is for them.

That means that the word Christianity hardly describes a single entity, and at the extremes, everybody’s Christ is different. I noticed this in bible-talks years ago when I asked people to give me a short paragraph on what moved them in a particular topic, but looking out in the world, how cultural differences coloured people’s “Christian” artwork, you see the visions that may not be verbalised, but in art become obvious. This diversity is normal and to be expected, which was the reason for the Roman Catholic stringency on teaching and the breakaway of Protestantism, which led to further diversification in protestant factions.

Stoppelmann comments that Christianity is "anti-Semitic", a term that I feel has been misused by the present-day political machinations of the political state of Israel. They have seen fit to conflate discrimination against those of the Jewish faith — always wrong, IMO — with criticism of the political state of Israel. So I prefer to stick to the root term, discrimination. But that isn't Stoppelmann's fault!

Of course Christianity is anti-parent, its parent being the Jewish faith, from which it emerged. [The 'Old Testament' is Jewish scriptures, absorbed into the new faith.] But like all religions, the Christians seek to claim that theirs is the One and Only Truth. This means that all other beliefs, including Judaism, are (in their eyes) simply wrong. And the parent faith is much more intimately connected with its new offspring, so there is more propaganda against it (from Christians) than other faiths. But this is really political, not spiritual, I think...?

My comment was really about the criticism that is visible in the Gospels, implying that the Jews lost their tradition to a People who are not the chosen ones. Paul says in Romans, “As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people, and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,” and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” In Hosea 1:6, we read, “Gomer again conceived and gave birth to a daughter, and the LORD said to Hosea, "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I should ever forgive them.”

The Gospel of John, one of the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament, contains passages that have been interpreted as promoting negative stereotypes about Jews. In particular, some verses have been cited as contributing to antisemitic attitudes, such as John 8:44, which refers to Jews as children of the devil. Some early Christian writings, especially those composed during the first few centuries of the Common Era, contain polemical and negative portrayals of Jews and Judaism. These writings often expressed conflicts between emerging Christian communities and Jewish authorities, leading to tension and hostilities. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Church Councils began enacting measures that restricted Jewish practices and participation in society, leading to increased separation and animosity between Christians and Jews.

I have heard Christians use such statements to ‘prove’ that Christianity superseded Judaism. This has been the motivator from antisemitism ever since, and yes, it is political in its expression, but an underlying blood libel accusation and the notion of Jews as "Christ killers" perpetuated harmful stereotypes and fuelled hatred.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity in a sort of 'scientific' way, by which I mean taking an external and detached look at Christianity as a whole, and how it fits with the rest of human religious and cultural belief systems. I think too many discussions sink quickly into disputes over doctrinal minutiae — the details.

We can split Christianity into the abstract spirituality and its real world manifestations — Christian churches, clerics, and congregations. We can also view the real-world manifestations as a contrast between the spiritual and the political (i.e. secular).

Splitting Christianity into abstract spirituality and its real-world manifestations is a complex idea that depends on how one defines and interprets Christianity. Abstract spirituality, or the underlying beliefs, values, and principles that form the foundation of the religion, include concepts such as love, forgiveness, salvation, and the existence of an eternal soul. But Christianity's abstract spirituality and its real-world manifestations are deeply interconnected, and its abstract beliefs often guide and inform the practices and actions of believers, which makes separating the two difficult to implement. You could say that the concepts are one thing, but what people do is what Christianity is for them.

Sorry, I meant only to distinguish God and Man, the religion and the Church(es). The former are divine, and presumably infallible, while the latter, the human bits, are not. But I agree that the two are much-intertwined, as I think they must be, in practice.

I have heard Christians use such statements to ‘prove’ that Christianity superseded Judaism. This has been the motivator from antisemitism ever since, and yes, it is political in its expression, but an underlying blood libel accusation and the notion of Jews as "Christ killers" perpetuated harmful stereotypes and fuelled hatred.

Historically — i.e. the history of Christianity, not Judaism or anything else — Christianity did supersede Judaism, chronologically. And yes, this has surely been *a* motivator for discrimination since then, if not the only one. Humans can always find a reason to brand a person or community as "them" and not "us".

[Pattern-chaser]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity...

One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post (above) was the Christian Trinity. The similarity to other 'triple Gods' rarely seems to be discussed.

Various triune or triple goddesses, or deities who appeared in groupings of three, were known to ancient religion. Well-known examples include Tridevi (Saraswati, Lakshmi, Kali), the Charites (Graces), the Horae (Seasons, of which there were three in the ancient Hellenistic reckoning), and the Moirai (Fates). Some deities generally depicted as singular also included triplicate aspects. In Stymphalos, Hera was worshiped as a Girl, a Grown-up, and a Widow.

Hecate is another example.

Some Christians might reject this comparison, a sort of knee-jerk response to anything that might appear critical of their faith. But there is a clear and obvious commonality. While Neopagans venerate the Goddess as Maiden, Mother, and Crone, Christians adopt a patriarchal version, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Does a triple God have particular effects on the faith that follows it/He/She/them?

[JackDaydream]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity...

One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post (above) was the Christian Trinity. The similarity to other 'triple Gods' rarely seems to be discussed.

Various triune or triple goddesses, or deities who appeared in groupings of three, were known to ancient religion. Well-known examples include Tridevi (Saraswati, Lakshmi, Kali), the Charites (Graces), the Horae (Seasons, of which there were three in the ancient Hellenistic reckoning), and the Moirai (Fates). Some deities generally depicted as singular also included triplicate aspects. In Stymphalos, Hera was worshiped as a Girl, a Grown-up, and a Widow.

Hecate is another example.

Some Christians might reject this comparison, a sort of knee-jerk response to anything that might appear critical of their faith. But there is a clear and obvious commonality. While Neopagans venerate the Goddess as Maiden. Mother and Crone, Christians adopt a patriarchal version, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Does a triple God have particular effects on the faith that follows it/He/She/them?

The concept of The Trinity is extremely complex, and it was developed mainly in the Church, but with some Biblical basis. The idea of the unforgivable sin of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' may be one of the most harsh aspects of the underlying aspects of the idea of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The best explanation of these which I came across was the idea of God as source, son as embodied action and Holy Spirit as the underlying force. However, there is so much at play, including the idea of the Holy Spirit, as a political aspect of the acceptance of the whole persuasion of the authority of 'truth' as in official doctrines of Christianity.

[JackDaydream]

Many christian religions insist that we endorse the leaders version of truth.

There is just so much data around this topic, could discuss for days if not weeks.

-How did the christian cannon form.
-What of the writings not in the cannon of the similar times, they don't all agree. Only the ones that agree are in the cannon.
-Trinity is a political decision.

For me, it is very likely that there is something out there. For lack of being able to really articulate what that something is, I believe that that Book of Urantia does a decent job of presenting a possible philosophy about God. Lots of issues with those writings, but the ideas are astounding.

It is a large topic and a potential lifetime's worth of reading. I began reading on it as a teenager and will probably continue to do so long after this thread. That is because I see it as being such an important area. I have come across so many people insistent on their version of the 'truth' and that may be why I see the need to explore it fully because I am not convinced it is that simple.

What is included and not included in the canon is worth looking at. I came across T'he Gnostic Gospels' while reading Carl Jung's writings because he drew upon them in his symbolic understanding. They do seem like literary texts in many ways. Of course, for many people these are seen as heretical, including the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife.

The idea of the Grail quest seems important for uncovering the history of mythic ideas, including the idea of the grail cup. It goes into mythic folklore. I have also read a little in the direction of Celtic Christianity, including the idea of the resurrection as a 'subtle body', which I found interesting because this ties in with the Biblical account of the transfixion which seems to involve going into an altered state, perceiving a different level of reality.

My reading interest also includes theosophy and the ideas of Rudolf Steiner, as well as Emmanuel Swedenborg. The ideas of Swedenborg influenced visionary, William Blake. Blake's ideas form a dialogue in response to John Milton' s 'Paradise Lost'. My father taught me about the idea of the fall of the angels as a child, and seemed surprised when I told him.later that the idea seemed to stem more from Milton than the Bible. He had been taught at a strict Catholic 'Christian Brothers school in Ireland, learning through a catechism.

I haven't come across The Book of Urantia, so I would appreciate you telling more about it.

The Wikipedia overview of Urantia tells a very short overview(I can not add a link yet because of being new). A couple of interesting things not included in the overview is how evolution did in fact occur and Adam was an insert to the gene pool to speed it up. Telling how some apes persisted over others. The war heaven is given a reasonable scientific explanation, as is the resurrection together with the commentary of how the angels observed that event. Its a very long read, while it attempts to merge science, philosophy and religion into agreement.

If we remove any bias that the christian canon is the truth, Urantia represents a reasonable answer. As with any other newer philosophy, it suffers from not being an ancient text and the credibility that is assumed if something is written long ago.

The earth is flat was written long ago, and wrong.

Thanks for your reply and I appreciate that links are not permitted, so I will look into the ideas of Urantia further. It does seem to come from the esoteric tradition and a lot which evolved in Christianity may come from these traditions, especially Hermeticism.

You speak of the earth as 'flat' and this may indeed be an issue regarding perspectives, especially the concrete distinction between matter and mind. The symbolic may be an important bridge here in linking the two, even embracing the rift between materialism and idealism. It may be that understanding of Christianity involves going beyond duality and, especially the rift between materialism and idealism in Western philosophy.

[Stoppelmann]

Sorry, I meant only to distinguish God and Man, the religion and the Church(es). The former are divine, and presumably infallible, while the latter, the human bits, are not. But I agree that the two are much-intertwined, as I think they must be, in practice.

Okay, you are right that the dualistic perspective that the church adopted did separate man from God, although the unity between Christ and God was, according to Jesus’ teaching, was supposed to be expanded to his followers. (The Father and I are one, and you should be one with us.) Even Paul evoked a unity “in Christ.” But the power merchants that took over the church needed a clear distinction for their authoritarian theology, and so it came to be.

Of course, authority is important in all religions, not just theism, but generally it is a case of preserving the original teaching and preventing charlatans taking over. We saw that discussion emerge when Buddhism came to the West and with other Eastern traditions it is no different. The fact that some of the sects like the one from Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajnees (or Osho) came into disrepute shows how important it is to know where the teaching is coming from. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, a self-styled godman and leader of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect in India, is one example and Jim Jones and the “Peoples Temple” is yet another more extreme example. However, the recent scandals in the Catholic church have only added to the (already accepted) impression that they too have understood something wrong and perverted the teaching of Christ.

The problem with religion, as a kind of ‘magical thinking’ is that it is inherent in people:

Animist intuitions, which we would conventionally consider ‘magical’ thinking, are deep in the psyche of, for example, the modern Japanese, whatever their religion, and are not related to educational level. Studies of magical thinking in the context of ethnicity are few, but one carried out in New Zealand suggests that magical thinking is commoner among Maoris than among Western settlers. And there is more in common than one might at first think between the average Westerner’s acceptance of the efficacy of aspirin and the African villager’s acceptance of a spell from the witch doctor: neither understands, or even asks for, a causal explanation, but accepts treatment on the basis of authority and past experience. As anthropologist and philosopher Robin Horton puts it, ‘the layman’s grounds for accepting the models propounded by the scientist are often no different from the young African villager’s ground for accepting the models propounded by one of his elders.’
However, even in the West, there is a significant difference between what we say we believe (which is what rating scales assess) and what we actually believe when push comes to shove. For example, in one study British adults were shown an impossible event – the unexpected destruction of an object in an apparently empty box – for which both a bogus scientific explanation and a bogus magical explanation were given. Unsurprisingly, in their verbalised judgments, the subjects showed ‘a higher degree of credulity toward scientific explanations than toward magical explanations’. However, in another situation, where the stakes were high enough, British adults endorsed scientific and magical explanations to an equal extent. ‘This result’, the experimenters conclude,

was in support of the main hypothesis: scientific education eliminates non-institutionalised magical beliefs from adults’ verbal thinking, yet in non-verbal behavioural responses, adults’ non-institutionalised magical beliefs are still present.

McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 240-241). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

These experiments have been repeated all over the world. It isn’t so much a question of whether we have such beliefs, but which ones.

Historically — i.e. the history of Christianity, not Judaism or anything else — Christianity did supersede Judaism, chronologically. And yes, this has surely been *a* motivator for discrimination since then, if not the only one. Humans can always find a reason to brand a person or community as "them" and not "us".

There is a difference though between following and superseding, isn’t there?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think this topic offers us the opportunity to consider Christianity...

One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post (above) was the Christian Trinity. The similarity to other 'triple Gods' rarely seems to be discussed.

Various triune or triple goddesses, or deities who appeared in groupings of three, were known to ancient religion. Well-known examples include Tridevi (Saraswati, Lakshmi, Kali), the Charites (Graces), the Horae (Seasons, of which there were three in the ancient Hellenistic reckoning), and the Moirai (Fates). Some deities generally depicted as singular also included triplicate aspects. In Stymphalos, Hera was worshiped as a Girl, a Grown-up, and a Widow.

Hecate is another example.

Some Christians might reject this comparison, a sort of knee-jerk response to anything that might appear critical of their faith. But there is a clear and obvious commonality. While Neopagans venerate the Goddess as Maiden, Mother, and Crone, Christians adopt a patriarchal version, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Does a triple God have particular effects on the faith that follows it/He/She/them?

The concept of The Trinity is extremely complex, and it was developed mainly in the Church, but with some Biblical basis. The idea of the unforgivable sin of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' may be one of the most harsh aspects of the underlying aspects of the idea of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The best explanation of these which I came across was the idea of God as source, son as embodied action and Holy Spirit as the underlying force. However, there is so much at play, including the idea of the Holy Spirit, as a political aspect of the acceptance of the whole persuasion of the authority of 'truth' as in official doctrines of Christianity.

I was raised 'traditional' Roman Catholic — at the age of 8, I could recite most of the Mass, in Latin — so I am aware that Christian theologians long ago calculated how many Trinities may dance on the head of a pin. [I think the answer is "42"?]

I was trying to ask what you thought/think about the Christian deity as a triple God, like Hecate, or the Wiccan Goddess.