Are religion and philosophy mutually exclusive?

[FFH]

This was origianally posted under the "Is masturbation a sin?" thread. It was moved and a thread started under this name "Are religion and philosophy mutually exclusive?" You will see why. The thread took a different turn from the original subject. This is wear it starts off after being divided up from the original thread.

Jesus was not married. We can assume this because there is no record of it. I think it is fair to say that he overcame all sexual temptaions, in order to be a perfect sacrifice for us. He is our example of a perfect life. Ask yourself if part of living a perfect life would include obstaining from sex in any form, other than with your spouse. If your spouse is not willing or you are single, as in the case of Jesus, then what is the right thing to do. What would Jesus do. I never use that phrase, I know it has been said over and over, but in this case it is something that might help shed some light on this subject. He was a perfect example of all things. He was a willing sacrifice for us all.

Romans 3: 23

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

 

[FFH]

That's something I never thought I would hear a mormon say!

I meant we can assume that Jesus was not married because there is no record of him getting married. I think you might have taken that the wrong way. The scriptures do not say that Jesus was married, but there are many that say that Jesus was married, even though the scriptures never mention this. The scriptures would have a record of this if it were true. Jesus obstained from all sexual activities in any form. He is our perfect example. He remained unmarried to show a perfect example to those that may never marry. His example was, obstain from any, and all kinds of sexual acitivity, in any form, if you are single or have a spouse that is unwilling or unable to have sex.

3 Nephi 12: 30

"For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherin ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell."

It is better that we should deny ourselves of these things. It is clear that masturbation is a sin.

 

[Aqualung]

That, my dear Faith, is a non-sequitor. (Yes! I finally got to use some of my newly aquired logic terminology!) If you don't have record of something, or even if that record does not exist, you cannot necessarily say that the thing does not exist. For example. I have no record that there is a table in my next door neighbour's house. Yet I cannot say that therefore that table does not exist. In the same vein, you do not have an record of Jesus's wife, yet just from that you cannot necessarily say that Jesus was not married. It is a non sequitor.

 

[FFH]

That, my dear Faith, is a non-sequitor. (Yes! I finally got to use some of my newly aquired logic terminology!) If you don't have record of something, or even if that record does not exist, you cannot necessarily say that the thing does not exist. For example. I have no record that there is a table in my next door neighbour's house. Yet I cannot say that therefore that table does not exist. In the same vein, you do not have an record of Jesus's wife, yet just from that you cannot necessarily say that Jesus was not married. It is a non sequitor.

This kind of thinking is what caused me to drop out of college. I was paying some guy to tell me that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one sees it, then it did not happen. I spent my hard earned money to have someone tell me this. Philosophy 101 is nothing but garbage and it is a way to explain away things that we have to accept on faith. Faith is a principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Philosophy has no part in religious discussions. You are beginning to sound like all the rest of the people here.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Philosophy has not part in religious discussions. Your non-sequitor is a non-issue in this matter.

Religion and scripture are not matters of philosophy, they are matters of faith. I am sure you are well aware of this. I am talking to those who would debate me on this.

 

[Aqualung]

I was paying some guy to tell me that if a tree falls in the forest, and no one sees it, then it did not happen.

Yet you're sitting here telling me that if Jesus got married, and nobody wrote about it, it didn't happen. Why the hypocracy?!

Your non-sequitor is a non-issue in this matter.

Non sequitors are always issues. You can't go jumping from one premise to a conclusion with nothing in between, even in faith. Faith is very logical in itself. Faith doesn't make non sequitors, nor is it in anyway strengthened by horrid logical tendencies.

Something as important as Jesus being married would have been recorded in scripture by God.

That's true. I don't think it's really that important that Jesus be married. But that doesn't dismiss it as false. I also don't think it's important that Jesus ate food. That's certainly not recorded. But that doesn't mean he went his whole life without eating anything, until his last supper.

 

[FFH]

Yet you're sitting here telling me that if Jesus got married, and nobody wrote about it, it didn't happen. Why the hypocracy?!

In my original post I said that we can assume this. We take it on faith that it is true. Philosophy has no part in this discussion. We know through faith, which is an assurance, and scriptures assure us that he was not married. We take the scriptures, on faith, that they are complete and correct. The Joseph Smith Translation confirms this. There were many scriptures that are missing from the King James Version. Joseph Smith filled in the gaps by providing us with a perfect translation of the Bible. This perfect translation of the Bible can be found on our own church's web site www.lds.org

The scriptures are complete and correct, as far as they are translated correctly. We take this on faith and do not rationalize it away with philosophy.

Nice debate though. Thanks Aqualung. It takes people like you to get this stuff out of me. I know you are trying to play a role to help me understand the other guys point of view.

There is no room for philosophy in religion. It is a non-issue. A rediculous and redundant issue. A waste of time.

 

[Aqualung]

In my original post I said that we can assume this. We take in on faith that it is true. Philosophy has no part in this discussion. We know through faith, which is an assurance, and scriptures assure us that he was not married. We take the scriptures, on faith, that they are complete and correct. The Joseph Smith Translation confirms this. There were many scriptures that are missing from the King James Version. Josph Smith filled in the gaps by providing us with a perfect translation of the Bible. This perfect translation of the Bible can be found of our own church's web site www.lds.org

The scriptures are complete and correct, as far as they are translated correctly. We take this on faith and do not rationalize it away with philosophy.

Nice debate though. Thanks Aqualung. It takes people like you to get this stuff out of me. I know you are trying to play a role to help me understand the other guys point of view. There is no room for philosophy in religion. It is a non issue. I rediculous redundant issue. A waste of time.

Yes, I know all about the JST. It's in my quad, too. But I still say, you can't assume it, because the Bible does not assure us of it.

I don't agree that philosophy has no place in religion, but I definitely know that logical fallacies have no place in religion. If there's one thing I know it's that mormonism is not logically inconsitant or fallacious.

But as to what you say in the next post about sin always being sin, I completely agree with you on that.

 

[muichimotsu]

Philosophy has everything to do with religion. No Christian is exactly the same in their beliefs, making each of them a Christian philosopher in that sense. No religious person is the same, thus we are all religious philosophers in that sense. You can't just regard philosophy as useless to religion when you yourself have a philosophy concerning religion, whether you think it or not.

 

[Aqualung]

Philosophy has everything to do with religion. No Christian is exactly the same in their beliefs, making each of them a Christian philosopher in that sense. No religious person is the same, thus we are all religious philosophers in that sense. You can't just regard philosophy as useless to religion when you yourself have a philosophy concerning religion, whether you think it or not.

And a lot of the stuff you know about religion, you know through philosophy. For example, if I didn't use philosophy at all, I would get sucked about like a leaf in the wind, because I would have no idea what was consistent, and what was logical, or anything like that.

 

[FFH]

Philosophy has everything to do with religion. No Christian is exactly the same in their beliefs, making each of them a Christian philosopher in that sense. No religious person is the same, thus we are all religious philosophers in that sense. You can't just regard philosophy as useless to religion when you yourself have a philosophy concerning religion, whether you think it or not.

Nihongo wakarimasu ka? Muichimotsu san.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hai, but not enough to continue a good conversation yet. Had a Japanese final today. I am officially on my way to getting that credit out of the way. I had to guess that you were asking if I understood the Japanese language. I guess a technical answer would be, "Ee, wakarimasu. Demo, amari iku" (Yes, I understand, but not very well) I fail to see the relevance of the question, but perhaps you know of the teachings of muichimotsu in Buddhism? Or are you just showing that you know Japanese?

 

[Scott1]

I don't know if this helps, but theology is critical reflection, by a BELIEVER, on faith in a higher power (God).... theology is "faith seeking understanding" St. Anslem of Canterbury (d. 1109).

Philosophy is a general intellectual discipline concerned with the ultimate (if any) meaning of reality.... which does not necessarliy involve any sort of higher power.

An intellectual discipline that concerns itself with faith in a higher power, by a non-BELIEVER would be the philosophy of religion.

Religion is the external, social, institutionalized expression of faith.... so , no, they are not mutually exclusive, but I think you are asking the wrong questions.

Peace,
Scott

 

[FFH]

Philosophy is so ridiculous and such a waste of time. I spent good money at the University of Utah to listen to the compiler of the Philosophy 101 textbook, at the time. He happened to be teaching the course the year I attended. He had written many things that had been published in the book. He was a great philosopher. I made it half way through the course when I decided to drop the class and never go back to college. I was contemplating being an engineer or an accountant. Philosophy was something that was required in order to step up to engineering or accounting classes. There was no way around it. The T/A or teachers assistian for this philosophy class was so high on cocaine or some other illegal substance that he shook uncontrolably and could hardly speak. Philosophy will do that to ya. Make you go insane and cause you to want to smoke all the insanity in your brain away. Philosophy is a complete waste of time and does not serve a purpose when talking about religious things.

Religion is a matter of faith not philosophy. The only purpose of philosophy is to reduce faith in God to a mythe.

 

[Aqualung]

Philosophy will do that to ya.

ARe you sure it wasn't the crack that did that to him (like you said a couple sentences before)?

The only purpose of philosophy is to reduce faith in God to a mythe.

Most of the great philosophers were religious. Others weren't concerned with God one way or the other. Very few actually used philosophy to disprove god, and most of those did a very poor job. In fact, Socrates created the greates non sequitor in the history of philosophy by trying to disprove God. It is very hard to disprove God with philosophy.

 

[FFH]

"Ee, wakarimasu. Demo, amari iku" (Yes, I understand, but not very well) I fail to see the relevance of the question, but perhaps you know of the teachings of muichimotsu in Buddhism? Or are you just showing that you know Japanese?

Wow that's great!!! That is perfect conversational Japanese and you understood my question. It's been about 17 years since I have really spoken with anyone in Japanese. My Japanese is extremely limited now. Sorry I just couldnt resist asking you a question in Japanese to see if you understood.

 

[muichimotsu]

I see,but I still see philosophy as also ingrained in each of us, no matter if we are a non-believer or believer in God, divine power, etc. It applies, but it need not apply to the degree you're suggesting I was thinking of. Merely think of each person's own personal religious "belief system" as it relates to their religion, I would think moreso. And I'm only good at conversational to a degree, my oral japanese was a bit rusty...

 

[FFH]

ARe you sure it wasn't the crack that did that to him (like you said a couple sentences before)?.

The crack was just a way of him dealing with all those crazy philosphical ideas floating around in his head. Who can study philosophy and stay insane. Certainly not me. I fealt bad for him. Shaking uncontollably under his drug addicion. Philosophy did the same thing for me. It gave me the willies and I fealt like it was a drug of choice for many intellectuals.

 

[FFH]

I was born with the knowledge of many truths. The knowledge of the existence of God and his son, Jesus Christ are among many of the truths that God reminded me of at the earliest age that I could comprehend such things. I was asking question about Adam and Eve at 4 or 5. Hard questions that my parents could not answer. Like what if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit. I asked that question at 4 or 5. I remember it to this day.

 

[mr.guy]

Philosophy is so ridiculous and such a waste of time.

So are your posts.

Philosophy will do that to ya. Make you go insane and cause you to want to smoke all the insanity in your brain away.

Good thing he didn't take up whatever's in your pipe. Then this fellow would liably be a complete loss. You have yet to issue a single detail or reason as to how or why philosophy is so useless or corrupting.

Philosophy is a complete waste of time and does not serve a purpose when talking about religious things.

Religious things frequently serve little purpose when talking about anything. Please, specific greivances would be appreciated.

Religion is a matter of faith not philosophy. The only purpose of philosophy is to reduce faith in God to a mythe.

Plenty of philosophers have taken pains to work on theistic argument; i'm sure if you'd hung on in your class Decarte and Berklee would have come up.

 

[SoyLeche]

Philosophy is so ridiculous and such a waste of time. I spent good money at the University of Utah to listen to the compiler of the Philosophy 101 textbook, at the time. He happened to be teaching the course the year I attended. He had written many things that had been published in the book. He was a great philosopher. I made it half way through the course when I decided to drop the class and never go back to college. I was contemplating being an engineer or an accountant. Philosophy was something that was required in order to step up to engineering or accounting classes. There was no way around it. The T/A or teachers assistian for this philosophy class was so high on cocaine or some other illegal substance that he shook uncontrolably and could hardly speak. Philosophy will do that to ya. Make you go insane and cause you to want to smoke all the insanity in your brain away. Philosophy is a complete waste of time and does not serve a purpose when talking about religious things.

Religion is a matter of faith not philosophy. The only purpose of philosophy is to reduce faith in God to a mythe.

The fact that you don't understand a subject doesn't mean that it is "ridiculous and a waste of time." I'm sorry that you couldn't handle the class, but a large majority of the greatest men in history would have considered themselves philosophers. The word means a lover of knowledge. I don't study it myself, at the moment, but when I get some free time I'm planning on looking into it.