Christians, why are you afraid of adapting other philosophies too?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Why are you assuming we Christians are "afraid"? Did you consider that perhaps there are other reasons for rejecting other philosophies?

Well if you read the actual OP aside from the thread title, I actually ask why some of you study Christianity exclusively, and reject others. So yes, not only did I consider it, but the whole point of this thread was to get a response to that question.

Originally posted by miracleretiree
And about electronics,even if they were around when the bible took place,why would you find them worth putting in the pages of the bible.

Exactly. Electronics is one example of useful knowledge that isn't in the Bible. So that means that there are sources of information other than the Bible that are useful to us, and science is nothing but a very methodical philosophy. Other philosophies can be educational too.

reply to post by bsbray11

Well if you read the actual OP aside from the thread title, I actually ask why some of you study Christianity exclusively, and reject others. So yes, not only did I consider it, but the whole point of this thread was to get a response to that question.

You can ask "why" all you want, but you have failed to show evidence to support your idea that there are Christians who never look at other philosophies, either before or after conversion to Christianity. Are we all simply to take you at your word? Unless you can show this is true, your OP is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture. It would be irrational to address your arbitrary claims without citations.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You can ask "why" all you want, but you have failed to show evidence to support your idea that there are Christians who never look at other philosophies, either before or after conversion to Christianity. Are we all simply to take you at your word? Unless you can show this is true, your OP is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture. It would be irrational to address your arbitrary claims without citations.

From personal experience and exchanges with Christians in real life I have found that yes, some of them outright reject philosophies from foreign cultures.

You can keep doubting that they exist for all I care, but if you're not one of them yourself then what other philosophies have you studied? Do you study any sciences? Ever studied Taoism, Buddhism, or Hinduism?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You can ask "why" all you want, but you have failed to show evidence to support your idea that there are Christians who never look at other philosophies, either before or after conversion to Christianity. Are we all simply to take you at your word? Unless you can show this is true, your OP is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture. It would be irrational to address your arbitrary claims without citations.

From personal experience and exchanges with Christians in real life I have found that yes, some of them outright reject philosophies from foreign cultures.

I realize that. But where is your evidence that Christians arrive at this conclusion without scholarship? Can you provide that for us?

You can keep doubting that they exist for all I care,

Hold on, you declared their existence, it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.

but if you're not one of them yourself then what other philosophies have you studied?
Do you study any sciences?

Quite often, I love science, particularly fond of Physics, Astrophysics, Chemistry, and Microbiology.

Ever studied Taoism, Buddhism, or Hinduism?

Yes, I own no less than 20 books of the comparison of the different Philosophies including "So What's the Difference?", "Ask Them Why?", "The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate", "Another Gospel", "The New Evidences That Demands a Verdict", "Always Ready", "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science", "Scientists Who Believe", "Icons of Evolution", and "The Case for Christianity".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bsbray11
From personal experience and exchanges with Christians in real life I have found that yes, some of them outright reject philosophies from foreign cultures.

I realize that. But where is your evidence that Christians arrive at this conclusion without scholarship? Can you provide that for us?

Why do I have to prove that a Christian sought out "scholarship" in regards to these philosophies?

All I am asking, is why you reject other philosophies, like Taoism or Buddhism! If you don't reject them, as many on this thread don't, then fine! If you do, I am asking why. If you think you've come across some piece of "scholarship" that drives you away from these philosophies then that's fine, and I'd just like to know what it is. If you are only going to present a bunch of hypotheticals and try to make me think no such behavior exists, I'm not interested in constructing straw houses to blow around on.

You can keep doubting that they exist for all I care,

Hold on, you declared their existence, it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.

And I told you I know such people personally. I have met my own burden of proof. I don't care what you think I owe you, because in reality I owe you personally nothing, including any burden of proof. If you can't deal with the assertion that there are Christians who reject foreign philosophies then that's your problem. Since this thread isn't meant to be a scientific paper submitted to a journal, you can actually answer more casually if you have any actual substance to contribute to the point of the thread. Otherwise the rhetorical gymnastics you seem to be warming up for are going to be completely pointless except to avoid the real point I am trying to drive at: I do not understand why many Christians seem to reject foreign philosophies that are non-religious.

but if you're not one of them yourself then what other philosophies have you studied?
Do you study any sciences?

Quite often, I love science, particularly fond of Physics, Astrophysics, Chemistry, and Microbiology.

Then you already agree that there are sources of useful information besides the Bible, and that we can learn about life and all the interesting things and ideas in the universe, outside of what's in the Bible. And in the same way science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe in a God, neither do Taoism or forms of Buddhism, but they still provide knowledge that can be useful.

If you took my post as an attack on you personally, or even Christianity in general, then you had absolutely no reason to.

All the rhetorical acrobatics, proving that I'm a real person and that I talk to real people, and proving the credentials of the people I talk to and all kinds of that needless obtuseness, I'm not going to get into.

reply to post by silent thunder


Also thanks for your answer, which I found equally interesting and with some new and pleasant information for me.

I will from the start of this post apologize for both the abstract approach and a possible inability to express myself clearly (or interesting for that sake).

I will, relating to topic and your answer to me, take up the most popular ways mankind has of relating to existence.

1/ Deductive reasoning, which I believe is identical with logic (if specialists find fault with this assumption, I'll listen). It has the disadvantage, that it can be exposed to requests of regression, so no 'absolutes' can be found.

2/ A variety of inductive reasoning, where one subject is considered from many perspectives, each perspective operating on its own terms. That seems to be what you described about Tibetan Buddhism. I consider it as valid as option 1/ (logic), but traditionally it isn't very known or popular in the west. Especially as this option 2/ sometimes clashes with logic, if not used under rigorous conditions.

It has the disadvantage, that there's no safety in numbers; because 'many' agree, it's no proof of 'absolutes'.

3/ Plain pragmatism, generally with small interest in the whys and hows. Clearly without any possibilities of 'absolutes', as pragmatism usually is an expression of various co-sensus models (in science it's used more precisely though, with different implications).

4/ And at the bottom of the list 'exclusivism' doctrinal systems operating on circle-argumented * 'absolutes'. IMO worthless, except when they coincidentally happen to be somewhat right. Ironically option 4/ is the only one CLAIMING 'absolutes', and at the same time being the most unsuited for this.

Because of the 'exclusivism' adherers to option 4/ often disregard other options (this point is related to thread-topic).

From a higher epistemological point option 2/ (the tibetan model) is attractive, because it combined with the Jain philosophy of 'approximate truths' (they are probably related via the widespread asian intermix of semi-religion and philosophy) is inclusive from both a 'knowledge' and a social perspective.

The western (mainly) Abrahamic theism and (often) scientism clashes could be avoided, if a many-perspective methodology was used.

* Circle-argumentation is a subject for debate on its own.

reply to post by bsbray11


It's not as if you need support on this, but I'll just add this anyway.

Years ago a small group of Jehovas witnesses would gather in my home once a week. They ofcourse tried to press their pamphlets on me, and I ended up with correspondingly offering them some buddhist material I had lying around.

The JW refused to read this buddhist material, as I understood it on 'policy' grounds from higher levels of their organisation, while they still expected me to read their stuff.

They were politely, but firmly, told not to come back.

reply to post by bsbray11

This thread really isn't meant as an attack on Christians. I even started off with "This is for Christians who shy away from philosophies like Taoism or some forms of Buddhism..." So far no one fitting that description has posted here, unless that was SlyingFaucer complaining about the OP being condescending because it fit his bill. I'm rather inclusive in all the things I believe as well. And being a Southerner I can hardly have anything against Christians without having something against most of the people who live in my area.

I don't know that Christians necessarily shy away from other philosophies. I would like to think I have a picture of life with fairly broad strokes painted on it from other opinions and beliefs. That isn't to necessarily say they influence me, just that I realise it's important to know what other people think.
I guess the answer to your question, essentially, would be 'If you regard your belief system/faith as the substantiated word of GOD, the divine truth for mankind, the revelation of GOD to humanity etc, surely you would spend your entire time engulding yourself in that belief system to draw out all that is to be found in it?
Personally, for me, the bible isn't just a book that you read through from Genesis to Revelation and then think, 'Yeah, read that and got it sussed'. If it is divine, then there is divinity within that requires deeper study.
I have something of a respect for Buddhism, in the fact that Buddha saw desire as the source of human suffering. To this view point, I have great respect. The conclusions we draw might be different, but I can still appreciate the smell of a flower in someone elses garden

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
I guess the answer to your question, essentially, would be 'If you regard your belief system/faith as the substantiated word of GOD, the divine truth for mankind, the revelation of GOD to humanity etc, surely you would spend your entire time engulding yourself in that belief system to draw out all that is to be found in it?

Sure, but don't you think some principles of science are just as substantiated now as your religious beliefs? So my only point is that there are other sources of knowledge too, that's all. And a lot of Eastern philosophical texts aren't even religious at all, just like a lot of our classic works of Western philosophy.

If it is divine, then there is divinity within that requires deeper study.
I have something of a respect for Buddhism, in the fact that Buddha saw desire as the source of human suffering. To this view point, I have great respect. The conclusions we draw might be different, but I can still appreciate the smell of a flower in someone elses garden

I can understand favoring Christianity over other ideas, everyone has their favorite I guess, but you never mentioned any kind of divinity inherent to any other way of looking at things. I suppose that's because of the parts of Christianity that warn against and forbid worshiping "false idols" or other gods before the big one, right? Because I don't think someone raised in an area that was predominantly, say, Confucian, would be as ready to place restrictions on studying any other belief system they came across.

Originally posted by bogomil
From a higher epistemological point option 2/ (the tibetan model) is attractive, because it combined with the Jain philosophy of 'approximate truths' (they are probably related via the widespread asian intermix of semi-religion and philosophy) is inclusive from both a 'knowledge' and a social perspective.

I enjoyed your post. Do you yourself take any of these systems seriously, or do you only study them from an isolated perspective?

I'd be interested to see how Taoism would play into all of that.

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood I guess the answer to your question, essentially, would be 'If you regard your belief system/faith as the substantiated word of GOD, the divine truth for mankind, the revelation of GOD to humanity etc, surely you would spend your entire time engulding yourself in that belief system to draw out all that is to be found in it? Sure, but don't you think some principles of science are just as substantiated now as your religious beliefs? So my only point is that there are other sources of knowledge too, that's all. And a lot of Eastern philosophical texts aren't even religious at all, just like a lot of our classic works of Western philosophy. If it is divine, then there is divinity within that requires deeper study. I have something of a respect for Buddhism, in the fact that Buddha saw desire as the source of human suffering. To this view point, I have great respect. The conclusions we draw might be different, but I can still appreciate the smell of a flower in someone elses garden I can understand favoring Christianity over other ideas, everyone has their favorite I guess, but you never mentioned any kind of divinity inherent to any other way of looking at things. I suppose that's because of the parts of Christianity that warn against and forbid worshiping "false idols" or other gods before the big one, right? Because I don't think someone raised in an area that was predominantly, say, Confucian, would be as ready to place restrictions on studying any other belief system they came across.

I'm not sure if I've cut/pasted/quoted properly above. It's not something I'm familiar with
Ok, let me stop the bus there and take a head count of everyone on the bus.
This is a theological/philosophical/scientific trip?
Okay.....Science has alot to say about the where's, how's and when's and who's of much of the world around us. There are even branches within the sciences that disagree on this matter, and that's fine. I am not looking for truth in this. They hold certain truths to be evident, and certainly, some of them are. All around us, we have rules that govern and dictate our natural daily lives, be it time and seasons, matter and proximity and spatial relationships, thermodynamics, laws of geometry, varying mathematics and geographical, botanical, sociological, psychological, physiological, philosophical, anthropological, (insert your '-ological' here), laws of observation. And not just our lives.
Everywhere, man is seeking answers, because he believes there should be answers. Everything around him tells him there should be a quantifiable mathematical principle or formula to explain/sum up express the question (and the answer) that he puts his mind to. Why else do you think you get people like Stephen Hawkings trying to come up with a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything?

Science would laugh at things it cannot measure, and these invariably mare the things the philosophical sciences tend to delve into. Does man have a soul? Is there such a thing as good and bad? If so, is it absolute or relative? Whatever the answer to that question, who or what determined that should be the correct answer?
Maths and science cannot answer questions that concern the nature of the soul, or the principle of jealousy, or psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour. (Hey, who are we to deem sociopathic behaviour as 'abnormal'? Maybe they are in fact more real and honest than us. After all, why would we choose to restrict and limit our personal development to outside rules determining social etiquette that we didn't even invent or have any say in creating!)

I believe I have a soul. I believe I am a spiritual person. I believe the world around me speaks a language that is universal, and yet not everyone speaks it. I beliebe science has answers to alot of questions, alot of my questions. But, it cannot answer the questions of my soul because it doesn't speak the language. Therefore, it considers the questions irrational, childish, ignorant, foolish because it knows that it cannot answer them within it's own perameters. But of course it can't! Such questions don't reside within it's perameters. Consider all the above 'ologies' I mentioned, and ask each one of them what the word 'love' means to them. Can you measure it? Can you carbon date it? How do you know with integrity that you are truly 'observing' it? Can you replicate it? Is it a global phenomenon, or personal, or both?
The artist imprints something of His perception upon a painting, but He is NOT the painting. Therefore, the artist is outside of the painting. Science defines the fabric of the canvas, the quantities of paint used, the colours of the paint, the ingredients of the paint, the size of the canvas, the properties of the brushes that painted it, the type of wood that is used as a frame to surround it, the styles of strokes used to achieve form. They even hazzard a guess at what the painting means. But none of them explain the artist. Our greatest minds cannot grasp the painting. Dare we believe we can even begin to imagine to pretend to undertsand, even in part, the mystery that is the artist? This is where I'm at. The world goes on, the laws of physics and life and time and maths etc, go on. None of thesse are the artist, so I will never find true fulfillment to my questions in these things.
Even my response is an injustice.
Does this help?

reply to post by bsbray11


Well posted, I am a great example of a Christian that has ventured off so far, more than across the world and back to come up with a belief system credible to my intuition. I have seen so much on that expedition that I am starting to go crazy, but there is no fault in God.

reply to post by bsbray11


You wrote:

["I enjoyed your post. Do you yourself take any of these systems seriously, or do you only study them from an isolated perspective?

I'd be interested to see how Taoism would play into all of that."]


From an active attitude of 'syncretism', including practical, emotional and intellectual perspectives (which hopefully sometime will manifest in a totality greater than the sum of the parts), the considerations I have presented on this thread are guidelines for my private life.

Though with everybody (except zombis) being small, somewhat unique 'universes' by themselves, I don't operate ultimately with one-size-fits-all methodologies or 'answers'. There ARE common 'rules' on the way (e.g. gravity is a 'fact', as is axiomatically based logic), but when we arrive at the end of the day, everybody make epistemological choices, where the main restriction is of social nature: Live and let live.

I love 'old-time school' Tao'ism, but I've not yet reached the stage, where I can put a shoe on my head and make that a meaningful gesture.

How can I put it ?:

"Doing through non-doing" is a present understanding I can handle.

"First there is a mountain ........."

reply to post by Lucius Driftwood


You wrote:

["Maths and science cannot answer questions that concern the nature of the soul, or the principle of jealousy, or psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour. (Hey, who are we to deem sociopathic behaviour as 'abnormal'? Maybe they are in fact more real and honest than us. After all, why would we choose to restrict and limit our personal development to outside rules determining social etiquette that we didn't even invent or have any say in creating!)"]

Your post is very sound, but as to the point in this paragraph, the 'answer' maybe doesn't need to be so 'deep'. It's something as simple as a co-sensus on the grounds of 'suffering'.

"Dude, I don't like being tortured or killed. Can we do without it?"

Your post is very sound, but as to the point in this paragraph, the 'answer' maybe doesn't need to be so 'deep'. It's something as simple as a co-sensus on the grounds of 'suffering'. "Dude, I don't like being tortured or killed. Can we do without it?"

Hmm...I agree. Definitely. It's a shame not everyone can. I guess, judging on the very selfish nature of human beings, we can become blind to the obvious degrees of suffering we observe around us and just think
'Well no-one suffers the way I do. No-one goes through the mental torments that I do. No-one understands my pain. If people had to experience the torment I feel....' etc, etc. We have a unique ability to upgrade and superimpose our suffering over everyone elses.
As for the 'Dude, I don't like being tortured or killed', strange as it may seem, such a statement requires empathy. One who has none wouldn't think such a thing, unless in a situation where their life is about to be taken from them. Even then, it has more to do with self-preservation than empathy or fairness.

At the op: The word of God is all I need. If it isn't from Him, it is useless to me. As it should be with anyone who believes in the bible. The bible is not about tolerance, it is about truth.

Originally posted by RapturedNotBeamed
At the op: The word of God is all I need. If it isn't from Him, it is useless to me. As it should be with anyone who believes in the bible. The bible is not about tolerance, it is about truth.

How do you validate if anything is 'from him'?

How do you relate to other types of christians, who may differ from your interpretations?

How do you relate to information from outside your own source(s), especially when this information is in disagreement with your own conclusions?

When differences of opinion/interpretation occur, do you then start a dialogue, endlessly repeat your own absolute 'mantras' or will you eventually resort to invasive tactics or violence?

Considering that you give tolerance a lower priority than whatever truth YOU arrive at, such questions and possible answers will define you and the kind of christianity you represent.

reply to post by bogomil

How do you validate if anything is 'from him'?

Extremely simple, the entire Bible can be shown to be an integrated message system with thousands of predictive verses of future events long before they happen. It's proof that the source for the message is outside the spacetime dimension.

reply to post by bogomil

How do you validate if anything is 'from him'?

By asking myself "Does this line up with what the bible teaches?". It's a yes or no question.

How do you relate to other types of christians, who may differ from your interpretations?

The scriptures are painfully easy to understand. What is there to interpret?

How do you relate to information from outside your own source(s), especially when this information is in disagreement with your own conclusions?

That it is the doctrine of man and at its core is really just an excuse to continue living a life of sin.

When differences of opinion/interpretation occur, do you then start a dialogue, endlessly repeat your own absolute 'mantras' or will you eventually resort to invasive tactics or violence?

Neither. I'm not endlessly repeating my 'mantras', I'm having a real discussion about topics concerning scripture. If there is one thing I will forever repeat, it will be that the bible is very clear.

Considering that you give tolerance a lower priority than whatever truth YOU arrive at, such questions and possible answers will define you and the kind of christianity you represent

I wouldn't expect any less.