Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Yes. It's good to be on the right side of the grass.

That's a good one. We can also quote Scripture to the same effect. Psalm 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Some of us know about real shepherds. They kill their sheep, eat their flesh and wear their skins -- after a lifetime of fleecing.

Taking the Gospel accounts at face value -- yes. The Romans did regard Jesus as a revolutionary. That is what got him -- literally -- nailed. No humor intended. Look at the sign they put over his head. Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations The Romans were not big on theology. Political trouble makers got nailed -- in the original sense of the word -- and quickly. Rome knew the power of terror. This is what Peter was afraid of, when he denied knowing Jesus. There was a cross waiting for him, as co-conspirator against Roman rule.

Well done. That was a much better and more thoughtful response than I was expecting.

It's a joke I picked up along the way. "When I get angry or upset with people; I stop and ask -- 'What would God do?' Then I try to drown them." Getting our morality from Scripture is not always a good thing. Throughout Scripture -- God makes a miserable role model. In addition, God's pronouncements have led to mayhem beyond cataloging. A final point, before I wader off. We are speaking of an all knowing God who remembers the future. What kind of sadistic fiend, would have the Jews, Christians and Muslims killing each other over the same Holy Land? The All powerful and All Knowing couldn't have prevented this?

Just so. Academia is frequently not open minded. They can be a combative lot. I have met plenty of teachers who didn't care what I thought, as long as I could make my case. They were the minority.

As long as we are grappling with basic questions -- "What is true?" -- "What is real?" -- There is no reason to ignore the claims of Judaism. Everything in the Hebrew Scriptures -- EVERYTHING -- including Genesis -- has an exact date on the Jewish calendar. This is the year 5778. That's how old the world is. India and China have histories older than that. Their records don't mention Noah's Flood. It's almost as though the Great Flood never happened. According to Islam, Mohammed ascended to the Heavens with the help of a flying horse. Good luck with that. After the first hundred miles, the air starts getting thin.

The urgency of finding the historic Jesus ,depends on your theology. If Jesus is the most idealistic of men and nothing more, it's not that big a deal. If you believe that Eternal Damnation awaits the unbeliever -- it's a lot more urgent. The question goes to the nature of Christianity. In Buddhism, Buddha is only the messenger. In Christianity, Jesus is the Message. In fairness, this does not let Buddhism off the hook. A major claim of Buddhism is that Buddhism is a path to enlightenment. Anybody can achieve enlightenment through Buddhist practice. That is, anyone can become a Buddha. After three thousand years of Buddhist practice -- where are all the Buddhas? Collectively -- there are parts of the world where Buddhism is the dominant philosophy. Are these "enlightend societies"? Not really. They're not worse. They're not better. Only different. Buddha insisted that his ideas could be put to the test. From what I can see, the results have been mixed.

What we see is influenced by what we expect. Of course, ignorance plays a part. So does illusion. Still, I think it is worth the effort to see clearly.

I hope this puts things into perspective. The prisoners of Plato's cave were imprisoned, not by their chains -- but by their inability to perceive true reality. Their perceptions were limited to "shadow". The world of surface reality. I think this also relates to Agnosticism, without the mysticism. Agnostics also ask irritating questions. Things like -- "What is true?" and -- "How do we know, what is true?" Sound familiar?

I'm not satisfied that there was a historic Jesus. There is no verification of his existence outside of Scripture. Some of what is in Scripture is not plausible. My favorite example occurs near the end of Matthew. 1. At the Crucifixion, the Temple is destroyed. 2 The tombs open and the dead walk among the living. 1. On the first count, this is contradicted by history. The Temple was not destroyed by spiritual forces. Or by an Earthquake. The Romans destroyed it. 2. On the second point -- the dead were walking among the living -- and no outside historian thought it was worth mentioning? Just a normal day in Jerusalem? Even the mundane accounts of the Gospels scream improbability. We have Jesus walking around with huge crowds following him. In numbers that the Temple priests found alarming. Such dense crowds, that we have the story of the woman touching his robe -- because the crowds were so dense. Jesus had such a huge following; that the Romans had to pay Judas just to point him out. On an even more basic level, we have the assertion that the Temple Priests had to go to Pilate to have Jesus killed. As though a simple murder -- or an execution -- was beyond their means. The story of the woman taken in adultery, puts that lie to rest. Other details -- like the trial -- don't add up. The Romans respected Jewish Law. They would not have that kind of execution right before Passover. When there is no external verification -- and the internal account is clearly false -- there is no reason to believe any of it. Now, we need to make an important distinction. We also don't know with any certainty that there was a historic Buddha. We don't need a historic Buddha. What matters is the ideas of Buddha. Like wise, we have no proof that there was a historic Plato. What matters is the ideas of Plato -- regardless of who said them. Neither Plato nor Buddha said -- "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light. Who ever follows me........." Without a historic Jesus, things fall apart. Unless of course, we wish to assert that Jesus was a human philosopher. Then, there are other issues. .

Formal guidelines? For what is and is not philosophy? Blah, blah, blah. As they say in Civil Service -- "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull **."

I don't find either of them to be helpful -- or inspirational. As you explore the writings of Pythagoras and the other Greek Geomitrists -- you will discover that they were out and out mystics. They had no practical use for Geometry. They were exploring the nature of reality. It helps keep Plato in perspective. They were interested in the reality beyond -- behind -- underneath -- the apparent.

No. I have found some of the ideas in Buddhism helpful. The idea of the Middle Path of Moderation. The idea of releasing and letting go. The idea that all things pass. A few lesser ideas. I don't think that makes me -- in any way -- a Buddhist. I also don't think that Buddha intended to start a new "religion". Or even a new philosophy. Buddha was a practical man. He began with a few basic questions. Questions like -- "Why do we suffer?" "How can we release our suffering?" Alas, the usual pattern followed. People became professional clergy. Then simple ideas -- and simple practices -- became complicated. No. I am not a Buddhist. I'm not sure that Buddha was a Buddhist. If anything, Buddha was an Agnostic. In the Dhampada -- the earliest collection of Buddhist writings -- a young man wants to ask Buddha some questions. "Tell me about God." "The existence of God might not be the case." "There's no God?" "The non-existence of God might not be the case." "The gods?" "The existence of the gods might not be the case." "The gods don't exist?" "The non-existence of the gods might not be the case." The conversation was a lengthy one. In similar manner it dispensed with the soul, reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, and many other matters. Buddha didn't care about any of these things. He considered them all to be mere distractions on the Path -- and a waste of time to argue about. Buddha is also quoted as saying -- "Fire is hot. Ice is cold. All the gods in all the heavens will not change this."

Buddhism is also a practice, much like meditation. It's what we want it to be. I have found some of the Buddhist ideas helpful. I am not a Buddhist.

The focus of Bertrand Russel is clear thinking. It's no accident that he was a "notorious Agnostic".

Nowadays, we don't care enough to make them drink poison. It does not mean that they are better regarded.

I took a few basic philosophy classes. They come in handy for a quote now and then. Nothing I would call useful. None of it ever helped me with problem solving -- unless Buddhism can be classified as philosophy. I did enjoy Bertrand Russell.

What's the difference between a philosopher and a large pizza? A large pizza can feed a family of four.

Perhaps you should take the class first -- then -- if you find any value in it -- then you can raise those questions. I would like to point out that all the books and videos you could possibly want on the subject; are available at the public library. I am persuaded -- that the primary function of Philosophy -- is to provide employment to the teachers of philosophy.

I understand some of your concerns. Between the hard core materialists, and the hard core dominant religious culture -- it is easy to get ground down. Like grain between millstones. For all that, there are other places to stand. Places that are hard to define.

Just so. Because I'm more oriented to abstract forces, without personification, my perception of things will be different from your perceptions. Still, we are probably tapping into the same -- what ever you want to call it. For all our differences in tools, vocabulary, symbolism -- I expect what you are finding is real. Hard to discuss, highly subjective, but real.

The first time I saw a sunrise, it was because I had to get up early. My first reaction was that it was on the wrong side of the sky. Also, a Sunrise gets brighter instead of darker. The stars don't come out. They fade. None of this is obvious in a photo, which is a frozen slice of time.

Unless it's on military time. Then it's only right, once a day.

In traditional Judaism, there is a place of purification. Cleansing of the soul is painful, but is not eternal. It lasts only until the stain is removed. It's a finite process. It comes to an end.