Umm…first disregard that last post…I hit the button too quick. Well since my question appears to not be liked, cared about or too broad got a more specific one for you.
What do you think about Locke and Rousseau’s philosophy of the social contract. In other words was man destined to form some sort of social order to prevent chaos?
I think that Biblical philosophy is the only, um…right? philosophy. If anything contradicts the teachings of the Bible, well then, it’s not really a philosophy I would choose to live by. Although, accidentaly, none of us our perfect.
Christian897 I agree in that I believe in the Bible. But, I also enjoy studying philosophy in general and certain philosophers because I think it provides a window into men’s souls.
Just because one studies something doesn’t mean you believe or follow it.
Well, in high school, I was part of a new program called global education, it basically took your English and Social Studies classes, except with a “global” twist. My government class was, “Global Government”, and we studied different philosophers. At the time, Machiavelli was my favorite…and I found it fascinating. However, I guess now I think, “Ends justifies the means”???, yeah right. I don’t want to sound holier than thou…it’s just that God and Jesus have become my favorite philosophers. Thus, I guess that’s how I look at philosophy now. But, we all go through different seasons in our life, right? I just don’t think any human developed, specific philosophy, ever has the possibility of surving if actually implemented into a willing society. After a while, not every one would still be willing, thus, it would be doomed to fail. (Sorry if this sounds babbly)
I’m not aware of too many things. I know what I know, if you know what I mean. But, Christian897 said:
Aren’t you even interested in finding out what the truth is? That is what philosophy is all about. The way you say “biblical philosophy” sounds more like “biblical dogmatism” to me.
“Teaching without words and work without doing are understood by very few.”
-Tao Te Ching
I know the truth, I need not look any further. The truth is in the Bible. Men can try to contradict it, or re-write truth. But the Bible is the one and only truth there is, if any thing disagrees with it, it is not truth, but a lie. By the way, the only reason I put a question mark after the word “right”, was because I did not want to sound challenging to any one’s belief system or start a negative debate. Will I debate, sure. But, only because I believe God is the only way, and I’d like others to know that, or atleast try to discover it.
Jesus said…
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
John 14:11 “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
Well, I could go on and on,as to why I know it. But you sound like you are not a believer in the Bible, or the salvation that Christ offers. So, I guess, so I don’t bore you with any babbling, I’ll tell you 2 good books that you may find interesting. 1)The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel (a former atheist and Chicago Tribune Legal Editor), and 2)Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. I like these because they give very specific proof that the Bible is what we believe it to be, and Christ is who he says he is. (I posted about these books on another thread too, I like them that much). But for me, I say I have faith in the Lord Jesus, and I believe 100% that the Bible is without error, yet it’s not blind faith. It is faith, that has eveidence to back it up, people just need to research it for themselves if they wish to form a real concrete opinion. The Bibles claims are supported more and more as time goes on, and NOONE has ever been able to prove anything against it. So, that’s once again my probably too long two cents worth. Take care.
Jesus said…
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
John 14:11 “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
Iiiiiiiiiiiiimannuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel
and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
There’s nothing Neitzche couldn’t teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed . . .
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
I don’t know this one, but I love it! Please continue while I bang my beer stein on the table.
Oh, and if we’re going to have ANOTHER debate about whether the Bible can be proven to be the word of God (which it obviously cannot), I’m going to need a LOT more beer.