Is the Bible corrupt?

[wil]

There are numerous texts in the Tradition that speak of the inexhaustible wellspring that is Scripture. Same, I would have thought, with the Psalms, the Sutras, the Upanishads, the Quran? Has anyone ever surpassed them in their personal excellence?

Personally? Or collaboratively as they are done? surpassed how? better explanations of creation?

 

[Nasruddin]

Personally? Or collaboratively as they are done? surpassed how? better explanations of creation?

What I hear Thomas saying is that the exoteric and the esoteric really are one, so to minimize the importance of one is to deny that relationship. At least that's how I read it. Thomas?

 

[Thomas]

Personally?

LOL. Well, apart from some who post here, those who claim equality with, or to have surpassed, Christ, the Buddha, the Prophet, etc., are very rare, and usually deluded.

Or collaboratively as they are done?

sacra doctrina is not a closed book, far from it. The more one goes into it, the more there is. Again, as the Traditions declare, their texts are infinite and inexhaustible.

surpassed how?

That's my question.

better explanations of creation?

Better explanations of the human condition. As for creation, they offer a meta-physical rather than a physical, commentary.

 

[Thomas]

What I hear Thomas saying is that the exoteric and the esoteric really are one, so to minimize the importance of one is to deny that relationship. At least that's how I read it. Thomas?

Well I would say so, yes ... but then that is a given of the Christian Revelation, the Rending of the Veil of the Temple is indicative of that very point.

 

[wil]

Better explanations of the human condition. As for creation, they offer a meta-physical rather than a physical, commentary.

there in lies the issue.

the church needs to take out billboards all over my country "The Bible....you can't take it literally" Because folks that do... I literally can't take them.

of course the GOP nomination knocked out all the bible thumpers...that was interesting...

 

[Nasruddin]

Well I would say so, yes ... but then that is a given of the Christian Revelation, the Rending of the Veil of the Temple is indicative of that very point.

An elegant answer, thank you! By the way, it occurred to me that you might not remember me. my avatar is now the village idiot, the holy fool, when before I wore armor, and called myself paladin.

 

[wil]

I wore armor, and called myself paladin

I knew there was something familiar about these intelligent posts...

 

[Thomas]

there in lies the issue.

LOL, well, your issue ... but I get your point.

the church needs to take out billboards all over my country "The Bible....you can't take it literally"

Nah, too much a blanket statement. Some of it you can. But again, I'm mindful of your local situation.

My posters would say: "Empiricism ... is that the best you can come up with?"

 

[Thomas]

By the way, it occurred to me that you might not remember me. my avatar is now the village idiot, the holy fool, when before I wore armor, and called myself paladin.

Well, well ... I hadn't made the connection, but I do remember ... nice to see you back.

 

[wil]

My posters would say: "Empiricism ... is that the best you can come up with?"

I would say no... I think many in science have had ideas of that which they don't understand, that which they can't sense. And then they work toward building machines that can to prove or disprove the idea, thought, vision, revealed truth... and discover whether it is or not.

 

[Thomas]

I think many in science have had ideas of that which they don't understand, that which they can't sense. And then they work toward building machines that can to prove or disprove the idea, thought, vision, revealed truth... and discover whether it is or not.

Within the empirical realm.

I delight in science, am often in awe of its discoveries ... but the question still remains ... is that it?

For the intelligent scientist of course, the answer is no, and he or she is well aware of the scope and limits of his or her discipline. My poster is meant rhetorically.

 

[wil]

My poster is meant rhetorically.

I don't believe there is any scientist that will claim s/he or science knows everything... But their are many religionists that do....of all varieties.

but...my billboard... "The Bible... You can't take it literally" Which parts of the bible can you take literally? What percentage you think?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

For the intelligent scientist of course, the answer is no

Now there is a loaded statement! Scientists who believe that empirical reality is all there is are - stupid? Many would suggest that presupposing imaginary beings are the ones fooling themselves. Lawrence Krauss is one of the more vocal physicists who believes the entirety of everything can be explained empirically.

 

[Nasruddin]

Sometimes I think we get lost in talking about the personalities that use a method rather than the method itself. I have known many people in the sciences who are extremely arrogant authoritarians in their own right, and I've met people who practice religion who have bright inquiring minds that seek to understand the Great Mystery and are even willing to practice what Jesus said, and "...lean not to their own understanding."
So, as someone who has studied science, religion, and philosophy, I see them in a sort of Venn diagram, rather than being separate things. For instance, using the scientific method in the wrong context is just absurd. I've discussed things with psychology professors who are so used to taking things apart for study that they forget that what they are looking at is a functional whole.

 

[Thomas]

Now there is a loaded statement!

Yeah ... OK ... it was ...

Scientists who believe that empirical reality is all there is are - stupid?

No, I can't say that. I shouldn't have classified scientists that way ... maybe 'some' scientists would have been better.

Many would suggest that presupposing imaginary beings are the ones fooling themselves. Lawrence Krauss is one of the more vocal physicists who believes the entirety of everything can be explained empirically.

LOL, it's a broad church.

 

[Thomas]

I don't believe there is any scientist that will claim s/he or science knows everything... But their are many religionists that do....of all varieties.

LOL, that's you all over!

There are scientists and there are religionists, there are religionists who are scientists, and scientists who are religionists, and fundamentalists of all shades in both fields.

Which parts of the bible can you take literally? What percentage you think?

Wil, that kind of question doesn't begin to register with me when I contemplate sacra doctrina.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

No, I can't say that. I shouldn't have classified scientists that way ... maybe 'some' scientists would have been better.

That's okay, I knew what you meant. Couldn't pass up the chance to harass you a bit though.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I see them in a sort of Venn diagram, rather than being separate things.

Hmmmmm. Of the three there is a fair amount of overlap between philosophy and religion. Both being non empirical in nature. It is harder for me to fit science into those other overlapping circles. Everything needs to be used for the purposes for which they were created. Science cannot prove there are Gods. Science cannot prove there are no Gods. That is a question out of the realm of what science can determine.

 

[Nasruddin]

Hmmmmm. Of the three there is a fair amount of overlap between philosophy and religion. Both being non empirical in nature. It is harder for me to fit science into those other overlapping circles. Everything needs to be used for the purposes for which they were created. Science cannot prove there are Gods. Science cannot prove there are no Gods. That is a question out of the realm of what science can determine.

You may be confusing method with drawing conclusions. There is an overlap because as Thomas will point out, there is a certain methodology in religion as well, a certain logic which proceeds from a beginning concept or hypothesis. It has been pointed out that Buddhism is 2500 years of empirical observation of the mind. Indeed, the closer you really look into all three, the closer they will appear. The separateness is as illusory as a mirage in the desert. Notice that all three are activities that are conceived and implemented by the same species. This alone tells you that members of that species, being essentially one in nature, will bring the same kinds of thinking, the same affect, the same psychological propensities. This being so, wouldn't it be safe to think that science, religion, and philosophy would have many similarities?