Now, someone might ask: "Why did I refer to an atheist link (http://atheism.about.com/)" in referencing the article on P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion? Actually, I don't see any problem there, and I wasn't seeking to be biased in any way. I thought the material carried some interesting points that may be for our mutual benefit across the divide - that's why I highlighted the main features of interest in my quote. Let's review some of those quotes:

[list][li]Irreligious atheists' critiques of religion are thus always a part of the philosophy of religion [b]if they are done well and properly.[/li][/list]

This is an essential point. We often find that many so-called critiques of religion are not done properly, although their instigators may assume that they have valid points of interest to make in them. A proper critique requires that one should understand and be properly acquainted with the kernel of whatever he seeks to critique in his analysis. It so happens that quite often, those who are critiquing religion really are not acquainted with the principles of the Philosphy of Religion - and many such people assume a blanket conclusion that "Religion is a dangerous idea that should be done away with". When one makes such kinds of deliberate hoopla, we can be pretty sure that they have no foundation in the proper models of study - in this case, the P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion (where theology and teleology meet).


[list][li]All of their arguments and reasoning will depend upon a solid grounding in this subject and an understanding of how it has developed over the past century or so. Without it, [b]most critiques will tend to be somewhat superficial, won't have much impact, and won't convince anyone.[/li][/list]

We are all familiar with superficial critiques of religion. Such superficiality tends to often state some default position arising from one's polarized ideas without proper assessment. One often reads the glib statements resulting from this, including but not limited to:

* Religion is a danger to intellectual exercise
* One cannot be an intelligent man and still believe in God
* Science always leads to atheism (or, no scientist can believe in God)

There are even more untennable assumptions than the above - but the point here is that these are superficial critiques. They are not based on sound principles, and more often is the case that they were proven wrong.


I believe that as we spend some time understanding the proper foundation for any enquiry at all, we shall find articulate and accurate inferences to make as well as important distinctions. I have not travelled far in this road myself; but a first step is not so bad - that first step has helped me shed most of my own prejudices, begin to seek balance and objectivity, as well as understand my faith in God better.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Well whether it is religion itself or just the 'wrong use of religion' I still don't think it is quite to blame for the dire state of our academic institutions.

I apologise - you beat me this time soundly. I had mistaken your logic and read something into it that was actually vacant there: and for that, I apologise. I agree rather with your view that religion is not to be blamed with the dire state of our academic institutions. Whether some people use it wisely or wrongly may be totally a different matter.

@Frizy,

Frizy:

What you are saying is any gospel contrary to the Pauline bible is untrue.

No, that is not what he was saying - that is what you are forcing into his statement! There is no such thing as a "Pauline Bible".

Frizy:

But what you don't know is this is no forgery, history shows that this book was destroyed centuries ago, about 325AD.

So many documents have been destroyed and others preserved to this day. However, a single document that arrived much later to contradict several others already established can as well be reckoned to be spurious.

Frizy:

That was when the christianity we have now (3in1) lordship was fully established.

Not true. The Biblical prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others knew that God was known as FATHER long before the 4th century you hinted above. They also spoke about the Son of God long before the 4th century as well. And again, we find so many of them speaking about the Holy Spirit long before the 4th century. If another prophet arises who denies these matters, he was bringing in a false assumption while pretending he knew the Biblical prophets.

Frizy:

Any Christian that believes God is One, and God has no equal, whether be it man or spirit will know that it s true.

Anyone who believes in the Biblical prophets, and know that their testimony is true, will not fail to acknowledge that they knew God as FATHER, and spoke of the Son of God, and also knew the Holy Spirit. Jesus never said "I and my Father are two", rather He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

Pastor Tunde Bakare has been called so many things by so many people. A lot of people see him as a false prophet, and the standard by which they draw their conclusions is weak. Let me take just two examples from someone who gave a long critique.

After posting a lengthy sample of a prophecy, we find the following lines:

[Paul said preach in and out of season how can the holy Ghost restrain you from preaching (Input from Backslider)

The Holy Spirit determines the divine commission - and He has indeed "restrained" His eager servants in Scripture before. Let's remind ourselves: "After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not" (Acts 16:7). To the question: "how can the holy Ghost restrain you from preaching", we can be sure He has done it before as in this example.

The Bible says we have an high priest in Jesus. He is pleading for the souls of men how come he is worried about the nation not the people be saved? (Input from Backslider)

God is concerned both with the salvation of souls and their moral condition. If a minister is pressed with the latter, it does not negate the former.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

And the same can be said about the unfulfilled prophesies of the New Testament. Afterall all those people had dies and Jesus had not returned yet. And neither had the Comforter came to teach you all things. (If the comforter was not M.u.h.ammad, that is). There are many more statements that has not came to past and the time for it has expired.

Did Jesus specifically give you the time for each and every specific prophecy? Did He say that ALL the Biblical prophecies would come to pass at the same time?

The kind of prevarications you make these days are such a pity. You should let us know if Muhammed's "prophecies" are prophecies at all.

olabowale:

@~Lady~: Jesus is the messiah of the Children of Israel. Why? First God called him that. This is the most important thing.

WHERE did God say that, Olabowale?

@9jaman,

Good morning, and thank you for your observations. Let me offer you something you might have failed to observe in the question of Biblical righteousness:

(a) even when we "go and sin no more", our righteousnesses are filthy rags in God's sight. The prophets knew this and declared the same thing centuries before Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin:

[list][li]Isaiah 64:6 - "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."[/li][/list]

(b) God Himself is the One who declared that the Blood is the basis for the atonement of our souls:

[list][li]Leviticus 17:11 - "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."[/li][/list]

(c) We know as well that there is no remission of sins where the Blood has not been shed for the atonement of our souls:

[list][li]Hebrews 9:22 - "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."[/li][/list]

(d) Jesus Himself told us that His Blood accomplished that same remission of sins for us:

[list][li]Matt. 26:28 - "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." [/li][/list]


This is why I often appeal that before people try to instruct God about what to do, they should calmly and carefully read His prophecies and declarations in the OT. What is the basis of redemption in the old covenant if it was not blood?


Two Types of Righteousnesses

There is (a) a righteousness by the Law, and (b) a righteousness by Faith - and these are not to be confused as the same thing (Rom. 9:31; 10:3 and Phil. 3:9). For the righteousness by Faith, it will help tremendously if you did a little study of what this means - for there you will see the place that the Blood comes before our attention.

Now, having briefly answered your questions, you will find that just assuming you go and sin no more, where then is your redemption without the Blood of Christ?

Blessings.

savanaha:

Just as well someone might see some good qualities in Hitler.

As best suits them.

It's really funny that bin laden only posted one side of his problem. The one thing he forgot was to post the other side of the page from the same guys who asked the "19 questions". A simple google check reveals all - and they have been recycled in many other sites. Just a sample:

[list]
These 19 Questions were presented to "Muslim Scholars" at an international conference in Chicago, Illinois, USA, October 7-8,1989. The title of the conference was "World Conference on Finality of the Prophethood & Significance of Hadith".

CONTENTS
Which Hadith do you believe besides the The Great Book?
Do this verses require a mishmash of narrations?
How reliable is your most authentic hadith?
Why are you so belligerent?
Why do you sanctify those who . . . ?
When did a hungry goat eat the "stoning verse"?
Why do you prohibit gold and silk for men?
Why do you prohibit pictures, music, and chess?
Which animals are lawful?
Why do you insult and oppress women?
Why do you force women to cover their hair?
Why do you make distinction among messengers?
Was The Great Prophet illiterate?
Who is the messenger mentioned in 3:81?
Will Jesus come back?
What is the crucial age?
How do you pronounce "Shahadah"?
What About Religious practices?
Can you see the mathematical miracle?

http://www.quran.org/19quest.htm[/list]

There are other "19 Questions for Muslims" with other questions. I just thought that people like bin laden should have been aware that the same set of people also had questions for them as well.

@savahana,



I can understand where you're coming from - and it's difficult sometimes to reconcile two opposite values in some people. However, if we could rise above those issues that bother us in some personalities, we would be amazed to see some other things that we might not have considered - and which could serve very useful ends to inspire us.

One such quality I admire in Ghandi is his courage and advocacy of non-violence. These two qualities are highly prized today; and not many people can model them for us in our struggles.

Anyhow, . . .

savanaha:

I am thinking of three people. I can learn from them.

That's great. Can you share as well?

Let's move on and enjoy a bit more about 'logos' and 'logic'. I'd first like to repost this from Wikipedia:

[list]Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology).

Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as God (theos), providing scriptural support for the Trinity. It is this sense, the Logos as Jesus Christ and God, that is most common in popular culture.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos[/list]

Like I said earlier, the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term - it traces its establishment in Western Philosophy back to Heraclitus (536 BC - 470 BC), and was only later adopted into Jewish philosophy by Philo.

That said, 'Logos' is one of those few words in human language that has multiplied meanings and connotations. . . which is a very interesting point. However, its derivative 'Logic' became an established discipline on its own which is well recognized in Philosophy today. We often speak of "logical conclusions" - but just what do we mean by that term? Not many who use it are aware that it carries the weight of a systematic and analytical investigation into a particular enquiry.

When next you use the term 'Logic', think a little about whether you have drawn you conclusions systematically and rationally.

Hi savanaha,

savanaha:

I have no hatred for Ghandi but I will not say I can learn from him, next I will learn to hate blacks and then hate myself.

Is there nothing at all that one can appreciate from Ghandi? If no, it assumes that we know everything about the man - and we can be sure that he did not live his entire life on only the principle of "hating blacks". Not many people have the intelligence and courage he demonstrated many times - and one virtue he exhibited that has endeared him to many people is his advocacy for non-violence even in protests.

I agree that there are some things we could learn from a gentleman like that: it may not suit everyone; but there again, Ghandi did not live his life on just one principle alone (hating blacks) and therefore cannot be judged solely on that basis. What do you say?

Following on from the example between two forms of enquiry (theology and teleology), I remarked that there are certain aspects where they meet and warm up to each other - such as when one studies the P[/b]hilosphy of [b]R[/b]eligion. I'd like to add this repost from one site that offers some substance on the Philosophy of Religion -


[b]What is the Philosophy of Religion?:

The Philosophy of Religion is the philosophical study of religious beliefs,
religious doctrines, religious arguments and religious history. Such a study
is "philosophical" if it is done in reasoned, disciplined manner and takes
account of insights developed in various branches of philosophy: epistemology
(for knowledge claims), metaphysics (for claims about the nature of reality),
ethics, the philosophy of mind, etc. Irreligious atheists' critiques of religion are
thus always a part of the philosophy of religion if they are done well and properly.

Why Should Atheists Care About the Philosophy of Religion?:

If an atheist is apathetic about theism and religion, this subject will have no interest
for them. For atheists who are concerned about religion and who think it is important
to offer sustained, reasoned, and pointed criticisms of religion and religious belief,
then the Philosophy of Religion is indispensable. All of their arguments and reasoning
will depend upon a solid grounding in this subject and an understanding of how it has
developed over the past century or so. Without it, most critiques will tend to be
somewhat superficial, won't have much impact, and won't convince anyone.

Philosophy of Religion & Theology:

Theology tends to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular
religious positions. Philosophy of Religion is committed to the investigation of religion
itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. Theology treats scriptures (like
the Bible or the Quran) as authoritative, while those texts are objects of study in
the Philosophy of Religion. Authorities in the latter are reason, logic, and research,
because the central aim of the Philosophy of Religion is to scrutinize religious claims
for the purpose of formulating either a rational explanation or a rational response to them.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Religion.htm


I'd like to also remind us that the Philosophy of Religion is not perculiar a tool employed by atheists to research theological questions - it is important to remember that Theologians themselves also study the Philosophy of Religion as apologetics. The difference in approaches employed in this type of study is that there is what atheists call "Atheist Philosophy of Religion" while theologians adopt the approach of Hermenuetics with a rigorous apologetical basis.


Just thought to update us on these. More later.

bro sam:

Even Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Freud knows better.

I'm glad that these names are being mentioned, and wouldn't it be interesting to see some of the surprising things they deplored about some extreme fallouts of atheism? At least, I could remember an interesting line that Nietzche posited: even though he remianed an atheist, he cautioned his fellows about their inconsistencies in living contrary to the logical outcome of their own convictions. In my view, he is on record as one of the most consistent atheists I have chanced on reading in a long while.

Gentlemen. . . Heated exchanges from frayed nerves are the very things that I've been trying to outline as not beneficial at all to anyone on either side of the bridge. We can all discuss genially, we trust so, don't we?


Now, my dear huxley, a note of interest in yours:

huxley:

This is complete rubbish! What truths are there in the bible?

There are truths in the Bible; and unless one is seeking to deliberately berate other people's values without first considering them, then it so happens that they often sum it quite as tersely.

huxley:

Does it hold the truth on cosmology, geology, medicine, origins of life, etc.

There are indicators mentioned on some of these issues which you may not have examined carefully. A few pointers are hinted at as to cosmology, for instance, which we understand basically as "The metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe". Interestingly, not many scientists are even comfortable with "metaphysical studies", and by disparaging this point, you actually may not have the wide support of those you might be casting your vote for.

What about the "origin of life"? Again, the Bible contains hard facts about this as well - and yes, it all depends on how you embark on a study in search of those answers. What is interesting here to note is that more and more scientists are being persuaded that there must have being a 'Divine' cause for the origin of life - which again is emphasized by those who understand that science cannot discount a Creator in this question.

However, we should understand a basic premise - the Bible was not written as a textbook on Natural science - and "naturalism" is not to be confused for "natural science" (they are not the same). May I remind us all as well: ATHEISM is NOT science.

huxley:

Wherever it has had the impudence to comment on these matters, it has got it catastrophically wrong.

This must just have been an irrational outburst. The Bible has not got it catastrophically wrong, even though some people might want to believe it so.

huxley:

If you disagree, show evidence where the bible has been right on these matters.

I have given a small hint above on cosmology.

Warm regards. . . and keep it cool.

Well, even if one should try and be very accommodating to such views as expressed by MC 'Usman, it would only be fair that he seeks to be balanced. Long gone are the days when this sort of Muslim caricaturing went unchecked.

If Christian Churches in the West have struggled with so many social ills, he could only be fair in recognizing the Muslim communities in the West as well are facing these paradigms! The first call in open forums like this should not be to take a cheap shot every single time at Christians. It's clearly unhealthy.

MC Usman:

The Westicoted Christain Chruches would soon jump heel to legalized and recognized it the same thing as in Homosexual & Abortion.

You should know that there are many Muslims who recognize Homosexuality as a lifestyle - and in their communities in the West, they are LEGAL.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1405460.stm

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/gay.htm

Check also "Gay_Muslims" in wikipedia.org and be enlightened.

Why do some muslims always have such a penchant to be so hypocritical as if the things they assume are always "Christian" ills do not exist among Muslims?

OLAADEGBU:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

One cannot rule out the theory of Evolution out of hand. Evolution as a "theory" in itself is not to be confused with arguments deriving from it. Such arguments have been neatly packaged as "naturalism, atheism, secularism" and a few other "-isms". These "-isms" are not the same thing as the theory itself, and we should not assume that the theory is entirely wrong.

If I may apply an analogy here by using a counter theory - CREATIONISM. Please understand that this is another one of those "-isms" that has been built around "creation" belief. I don't have any problem with creation itself; but we have problems with the early ideas of creationism that postulated many things that have been clearly disregarded by many creationists. Example? Ask the man who first thought the earth was spherical instead of flat! What happened to him? No, not creation believers - rather, it was the "creationism militancy" than thumbed him down.

Although some aspects of the theory of evolution remain questioned to this day, as serious thinkers, can we in all conscience discredit such concepts as "micro-evolution"? Are there no "changes in species"? And if there are, is it not true that is what the theory of Evolution is also seeking to study?

I cannot agree presently with those who assume that the theory of Evolution is a (Godless) theory. Such a thinker is mistaking the theor of Evolution (ToE) with the "-isms" that are built around it. I hope this distinction should be clear to us in future.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup: By the way, we are using English Bible. The word sign in english means that. When we use the Hebrew Bible, you see me taking you on on it.

I should say this respectfully: don't be so naive! Even when we use the English Bible, you would really be a comedian to assume from Matthew 19:14 that Jesus commanded that children should be exposed to "suffering" from the quote in that verse: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children . . ." Going by your assumptions, does "suffer" not mean just that in English? But anyone who dares to read the CONTEXT of that verse in Greek knows that Jesus was not making any such ideas of suffering children!

So it is with the "sign" in Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14. Only naive fellows impose their ignorance and keep harping on the same empty talk while ignoring the contextual meaning of that word.

olabowale:

More importantly why would you read the english translation of Arabic Qu.r'an and claim that you know anything about the Q.your'an?

In the same way that you have been trying to exhibit the crass idea of reading the Bible in English and pouting a deliberate hollowness. Not that I claimed to have interpreted anything as yet from the Quran, so why does this bother you at all?

olabowale:

I am always trying to be simple and direct in my post so that the common people like me may understand it. We are all the audience of every entry we read.

I have no problem with people being simple - I use the word "simple" too many times as a way of forcing myself to be clear and rigorously close to being accurate. This is necessary so that no one would be misled by a "simplistic" conclusion that ignores contexts. You cannot be claiming to explain what you have no clues about and still pretending you know anything.

Hi again Pastor AIO and huxley,

There are a few things that are quite untennable in the views you have expressed. Just tow briefs summaries might help:

Pastor AIO:

To be honest with you I don't think it is religion that is destroying the intellectual capacities of our intelligensia.

Not true - we could rather say that the wrong use of religion might be responsible for that.

There is a difference between "science" and the "scientist"; so also, a profound difference between "philosophy" and the "philosopher". Many of these people (scientists and philosphers) have used these principles (science and philosophy) for devastating ends - and we know today that so many of these people resist intellectual discources as they do not want their cherished assumptions scrutinzed and shown for their fallacies or insufficiencies.

The same thing applies to religion - the wrong use of religion has been a pretext for things most of us are ashamed to admit on a fair day. But does that mean that "religion" itself is a bad boy? No - it only means that we should be careful in applying religion so broadly as to interprete it for what it is not. Many very religious people have been the foremost intellectuals in many fields of research. If they felt that "religion" was a bad influence against intellectual exercises, then we would not read their names on the roll-calls of such brilliance appended to their names.

*By "religion", I do not mean to restrict the term partially to Christianity - I have taken the time to look into this subject, and I'm satisfied that there are even many Muslims who are very intellectual people. And what about religious Jews? And Bhuddists? Many such intellectuals exist.

We have to be careful to not just asume things on a broad spectrum that does not answer to intellectual assessments.

huxley:

Additionally, I have no sympathy for a culture that fosters a climate of "believing on insufficient evidence".

I therefore recommend you speak to Richard Dawkins and let him know he's in serious trouble already! WHY do I say so? For the very simple reason that he recently admitted that there are some things he holds/assumes in science but could not prove! There is insufficient evidence for his assumptions - but he "believes" them anyway!

I could share some serious examples on the above.

imhotep:

No, I do not accept. Why, because he materially altered truths about Christ that other prophets (Isaiah, Daniel, David, etc who lived hundreds of years before Christ) uttered and wrote down.

I'm inclined to believe that as well.

Well, I don't think it is true that only a Christian can be logical (barring the fact that some Christians are not logical).

One basic reason why such is the case is that the Greek term "logos" did not originate as a theological term - it did not originate with Christianity. Following on from there, we understand that "logic" was a broad discipline on its own standing apart from Christianity. We cannot therefore assume that only a Christian can be logical.

Besides, we know that many people without a religious inclination are quite logical - we should only get to meet a few of them and see the fact after listening to them.

Perhaps you might have meant it more like a poetic rhyme, but it is hard to maintain that only a Christian can be logical.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Kola Oloye:
Please my darling Syrup learn from the definition of "Grace," as Kola Oloye puts it above. The did not have to apply a technical analysis to explain what is obvious. Grace, like sign are very straight forward, easy to understand words.

If you were concerned with simple words like "grace, mercy, forgiveness" etc, I would easily peel them off out-of-hand and offer you their simplistic meanings. If you want a simplistic meaning of the word "sign", that as well is easy.

But if you ignore the Hebrew meaning of the word "SIGN" [אות - 'ôth] as used in the context of Isaiah 7:14 especially when it is connected with the fact that it was prophetic in nature, you would gain nothing by your continued [b]pre[/b]texts. If you don't know the meaning of these things, try not assuming you know and then complain later when it does not show in your posts.

I think after you have constantly ignored the Hebrew word, you should let the matter rest and not continue to force the emptiness that is saying nothing in your posts. I usually do not like to be drawn into fruitless ad hominem retorts - they are a put-off.

@imhotep,

I appreciate your simplicity and wisdom in clearly outline the basic meaning of important terms in this thread. Duh! What was I thinking to have hastily offered an initial post without first seeking to define my terms?   Thank you for that wisdom.

Let me elaborate a little on something on exegesis which you posted:

-->  An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself.

Well, that may not be accurate and may tend to be misleading on the surface. Biblical exegesis is not based on the "text itself" - whether that "text" is a single verse in a Bible, or a particular Book of the Bible. One has to try to understand the meaning of a verse by recourse to other verses as well. One scripture that has always been helpful in this is 2 Peter 1:20 -

    "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

I tend to take that as a very bold text in scripture - how remarkable! To me, it concretely says that there is not a single verse which could be fully understood on its own (no private interpretation) unless we examine other verses on that text as well.

I don't know if this is helpful?

Easy guys.

Okay, a few more to add:


@huxley,

huxley:


Thanks for your contribution, but it fall a little short. See below;

Examples please?

Examples please?

Examples Please?

Examples Please?

I look forward to you providing the much-needed examples to support your case

In my opinion, while I agree with imhotep's answers out-of-hand (from my limited understanding of the Bible, as I'm not a theologian), I think those are very legitimate questions you offered in return - and I warmly receive them. In due course, I'll try and find suitable examples to meet the points - but more than that, I might also want to look at any case where my own assumptions could be subjected to very rigorous testing by these acknowledged principles. What do you say?

More on the original post.

huxley:
For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Earlier I explained that yes, there could be a meeting point in most methods of research or enquiry. The example where theology and teleology might meet is what we often describe as "P[/b]hilosophy of [b]R[/b]eligion". There are other examples though, but what is important to note is that there should be no animosity where they don't meet. Often, methods are not the same in researches, and we should not expect the answers and findings to be the same either.


However, the basic question should not be lost on us, and that's why I'd like to highlight it again:

huxley:

I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. [b]Would such meanings be consistent with known reality.

Depending on what "method" one adopts (theology and teleology, for instance), we could safely say that the meanings could be consistent with knon reality. Let's give an example:

Using these oft-repeated methods (theology and teleology), we basically agree that MORALITY is a present reality that has come to be universally acknowledged (whether or not some people re bent towards the "no meaning in life" strain). Do these two approaches (theology and teleology) afford us with a consistent meaning with the reality on morality we know today? YES and NO.

Yes - they would: and that is if we all appreciate the fact that some moral values like respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, because there is a "meaning, purpose, reason and significance" for why we are here on earth as humans. Of course, I am narrowing this answer now to just between Genesis 1 & 2 - the creation accounts.

No - they may not, often or sometimes: and that is basically because not so many people are aware of the nature of philosophy of religious ethics. Some people attempt to use philosophical ideas to disparage other people's worldviews; and religiously inclined people have used theology as a pretext for wicked things. Whether philosophically or religiously, we are all guilty on both sides of the bridge on this account.

The point of reference now would be that we all respect the principles of each "model" - whther theology (religion) or teleology (philosophy). Just as some people ignore philosophical principles and use "philosophy" to disparage others, so have other men used religious pretext completely in damned consciences to do untold and inhumane things. I value the pointer to this issue that imhotep has often and again reminded us about, often using the example of the communist countries; while we all know the history of religious violence on the other hand.

What then am I saying?

Whether it is Genesis 1 & 2, or even any other text or document, until we all know what questions to ask, and choose our models carefully while respecting its principles, the war will be endless.

@huxley,

huxley:

What are the deeper meanings and understanding of the creation narrative reported in Genesis 1 & 2. I am given to understand that exegetical and hermeneutical analyses could price those hidden meanings from the claws of the raw text. Would such meanings be consistent with known reality. For instance, where they reveal factual "knowledge" could these be made to harmonise with knowledge from other spheres of understanding.

Here are the Genesis 1&2 accounts. I would like to invite our resident exegetes to illuminate these narratives in the light of exegetical analysis. I apologise in advance for not being a Hebrew scholar and can only make do with translations in English. This is taken from New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/) and I trust this would not hinder your efforts.

This is quite warm, genial - the sort of thing a gentleman like yourself would demonstrate to convince me that we can discuss amicably. Thank you for the thoughtfulness in inviting a discussion - and I hope that this thread would bear some very fruitful contributions in like manner.

Let me start off asking a basic question to enable some of us focus on what we might be looking for.

"What precisely do we want to pursue in this enquiry?"

That is like stating the "hypothesis" of the study on those two chapters. There are several possible reflections that might come out of that. A few examples:

(a) it is possible that someone might be hypothesizing that Adam may not have been the first man created - others might have preceeded him. [Let's call this enquirer "Pre-Ad".]

(b) it is also possible that another might be enquiring about the chronology of events in the creation naratives between both chapters. [this enquirer we may call 'Chron']

(c) yet another person might desire to look at some "deeper meaning" that might be suggested in applying the creation narrative to some other life aspects bordering on morality - such as marriage. [we call this enquirer 'Mr. Moore' - since he's concerned with their moral meaning].

(d) don't be surprised, another person comes along and has a legitimate query: could it be possible that there is "evolution" in the creation account? This should not be ridiculed - it is a genuine question and should merit the same audience as the other 3 chaps above. [we give him the badge 'Mr Evos'].

(e) yet, a lady comes along and intones that her hypothesis is to investigate the age of the document and find out if it was a recent document or actually ancient one. She plans to do this by examining the language constructs, hints to existent and non-existent cultures in those texts; so we understand why she is the 'Lit-B' (or 'Literature-Baby').

As you can see, these 5 examples are not all pursuing the very same questions: (a) Pre-Adam men; (b) Chronological events; (c) Moral implications; (d) Evolutionary possibility; and (e) Literary styles.

No doubt, there might be a meeting point somewhere in which all 5 researchers might agree on a basic premise; however, their answers would be greatly influenced by the questions or hypothesis initially stated.

Now, what about the "models" of study in each case?

Each one of these 5 gentlemen and lady would have to decide if they are going to discuss their subjects theologically or teleologically. What this means is simple:

*by theological methods, one may be looking at "rational and systematic study of religion and its influences". In other words, he discusses his subject in a systematic and rational order in a religious manner best suited to his pursuits.

*by teleological methods, the other is not so concerned with the implications of religious leanings, but rather looks at the same issues from a philosophical point of view.

As noted earlier, there may be places or instances where these may meet and warm up to each other - such as the "Philosophy of Religion". Now, for anyone who may be remotely interested in this, a word of caution: many people often confuse the two terms and assume that they are the same as theology. Thankfully, not many people are making that mistake today - and the first definitive paragraph in this link distinguishing both can be found here: (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_relig_index.htm) as reproduced below -

Philosophy of Religion

"Sometimes confused with theology, the Philosophy of Religion
is the philosophical study of religious beliefs, religious doctrines,
religious arguments and religious history. The line between theology
and the philosophy of religion isn't always sharp because they share
so much in common, but the primary difference is that theology tends
to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular
religious positions, whereas Philosophy of Religion is committed to
the investigation of religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion."

Apologies, for it's not my intention to bore anyone here. However, one has to be careful to understand these issues if we would have a better understanding between the various questions that may be generated by examining any particular reference. Which is why I posited that question initially:

          "What precisely do we want to pursue in this enquiry?"

I hope this initial entry is not lost on my reader. . . and in due course, I'll come to elaborate on what I mean by "models" and "methodolgies" in the various studies.

@huxley,

huxley:

Thanks for your response and I enjoyed the anecdotes. We are all humans and liable to make all sorts of mistakes in comprehension. The antidotes to these mistakes is "to live an analyzed life" . Reflection, discussions, dialogues are the solution to the many of the problems that confront us. Your friend was able to soften her position following the discussions with you, which is all very well.

Lol. Well, what can we say? If you remember, I pointed out that my efforts to reason with her were a complete waste - I had lost the war of ideas to try and help her see reason. However, it was another friend (pseudonymed "Lisa", whom we thought previously was not so bright, that softened the girl in question with a few thought-provoking words.

huxley:

Also good that she eventually saw into her own mis-reading of the text "suffer little children". It is a shame that a lot of minds are made upon reading a text without necessarily subjecting those material to independent analysis.

True. Quite often people have made up their minds before even considering the issues before them. By extension, even some of us believers sometimes make the mistake of holding prejudiced mindsets before even listening to others who disagree with us (at least, I should speak for myself - because I've been there a few times and consequently learnt my lessons).

huxley:

You seem to have made a logical error in your argument (correct me please if you must). To decide to have NO children is NOT a cruel act and cannot be equated to having children and ill-treating them. To have a child and then kill her because one did not want a child is an act of the utmost cruelty and most be strongly condemned.

Well, if you go back and read again, you'll find that:

(a) The decision to have no children was not condemned - so many people are out there who have made up their minds that they would not like any children at all.

(b) However, the query from *Lisa was not advocating that our friend's mother should have killed her - rather, it was a philosophical query to bring her out of her stiff mindset. The point (at least to me) was to help her see that her animosity expressed with a "I DON'T want ANY children" was not normal - as the only reason that she had for that idea was because she was treated badly as a child. I don't think it made any sense to be without children because one suffered as a child.

Anyway, I enjoyed the warm exchnage of ideas.

@imhotep,

Hi there. I was hoping to read from you one of these days on some of these threads, as I'm a late-comer to them and have enjoyed some contributions from yourself and a few others. Hope you're having a good day?

Just visited there and left a short note to keep it in mind.

Could do - sometime when I'm more settled.

Jagoon:

And if you must know deuteronomy 22 forbids premarital sex, at least for women

@Jagoon,

Hahaha!!

Okay, I'm sorry you thought I meant you directly in using the term "you" - I earlier said it was used as a "generic" modifier (which means, anyone not in particular).

All the same, I am still waiting to see another chapter that embraces (and allows) your own definition!



- - - -
Besides, keep those zippers up until you find that chapter!