Proselytizing

[Sunstone]

For any intelligent person with an open mind -- and I certainly don't include everyone in that category -- here are a few of the many examples of that good old boy Paul borrowing the words and concepts of well known Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and the Stoic Seneca. Enjoy.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But his point is quite different to the greek philiosphers who said we should just focus on getting as much pleasure out of life as we can while we can. Solomons words are more about the vanity of man’s way of life. That includes pleasure seeking.

His point is that we do not live very long, yet we pursue goals which are pointless vanities. And at the end of the book he writes his conclusion:

“The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole obligation of man. For the true God himself will bring every sort of work into the judgment in relation to every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.”

So unlike the greek philosophers who's ultimate goal was to seek enjoyment and pleasure, Solomon points to our obligation to our creator and advises that we live a life that pleases God.

And why do you think he concludes his book with this advice?

As many pointed out the seeking of pleasure in Greek philosophy varied greatly. Stoics for instance believed in relegating positive emotions over the inferior emotions that focused on want and need

Both Stoicism and Christianity assert an inner freedom in the face of the external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature or God, a sense of the innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind,[33] and the futility and temporarity of worldly possessions and attachments. Both encourage Ascesis with respect to the passions and inferior emotions such as lust, envy and anger, so that the higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed.

Epicureanism is probably what you are thinking of when it comes to "pleasure" but even then it was about moderation. Pleasure did not mean "let me get stupid drunk and die" That is closer to Hedonism which I don't think was ever a really strong Greek philosophy though it was found in Sumerian and Egyptian beliefs.

 

[Pegg]

For any intelligent person with an open mind -- and I certainly don't include everyone in that category -- here are a few of the many examples of that good old boy Paul borrowing the words and concepts of well known Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and the Stoic Seneca. Enjoy.

1Cor 15:33
Evil communications corrupt good manners.

Pauls words:
(1 Corinthians 15:33) Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits

The hebrew scritures state:
Proverbs 13:20 'He that is walking with wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly


Titus 1:12
The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Pauls words:
(Titus 1:11-13) It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain. 12*A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: “Cre′tans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, unemployed gluttons.” 13*This witness is true. For this very cause keep on reproving them with severity, that they may be healthy in the faith,


Acts 17:28*For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among YOU have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’ 29*“Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.

This is a belief of most religions... God created us therefore we are his progeny. The hebrew scriptures lay out this truth in the book of Genesis. So its by no means exclusive to greek philosophers.


Acts 17:24
Paul went on to say, “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”

This teaching is not exclusive to greek philosophy either. The hebrew scriptures lay out this truth:
Isaiah 66:1 This is what Jehovah has said: “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where, then, is the house that YOU people can build for me, and where, then, is the place as a resting-place for me?


Acts 17:25
Paul said, “Neither is God served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.”
Seneca put the same truth in this form: “God wants not ministers. How so? He himself ministereth to the human race.”

This one here is clearly the opposite of what Pual taught. This greek philisopher wants us to think that God ministers/serves us. But Paul does not teach this haughty idea.... rather he says he is a slave and uses the expression 'ministers for God' many times:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ and called to be an apostle, separated to God’s good news


I had a briefer look at the rest of the cited quotes/scriptures and all i can really see is a lot of Pauls words being taken out of context and attributed to a philosopher.
But everything Paul taught is found in the hebrew scriptures... so perhaps many of those philosophers actually took their ideas from the hebrew scriptures.

 

[Pegg]

So, Pegg, if you're right that the bible has not been influence by Greek philosophy (and you actually couldn't be more wrong) then why do you suppose the Book of John begins with referencing this thing the KJV calls "the Word", which in the original Greek is "Logos"? Where, O Most Knowledgeable Scholar Pegg, does that word, "Logos" come from?

ah, im no scholar but thanks for the vote of confidence


The scriptures, both hebrew and greek use the expression 'the word of God' very frequently. Any prophecy or instruction is called the 'word' of God. And Jesus himself is given this as a title. It doesnt mean that the writers are influenced by Greek philosophy... how do you know greek philosophers were not influenced by the bible?

 

[Sees]

ah, im no scholar but thanks for the vote of confidence


The scriptures, both hebrew and greek use the expression 'the word of God' very frequently. Any prophecy or instruction is called the 'word' of God. And Jesus himself is given this as a title. It doesnt mean that the writers are influenced by Greek philosophy... how do you know greek philosophers were not influenced by the bible?

It's very obvious where Hellenistic Jews got it from if you go by worldly sources...

Logos was used by Greeks, in the sense of how it is used in the Gospel of John, before there were Jews.

 

[Pegg]

It's very obvious where Hellenistic Jews got it from if you go by worldly sources...

Logos was used by Greeks, in the sense of how it is used in the Gospel of John, before there were Jews.

but the hebrew scriptures use the term as well... and that goes back further then the greek philosophers

Deut 9:5*It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land; in fact, it is for the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you, and in order to carry out the word that Jehovah swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Isaiah 40:8*The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”


Ps 33:6*By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, And by the spirit of his mouth all their army.


Psalms 103:20*Bless Jehovah, O YOU angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word,
By listening to the voice of his word

Im pretty sure Greek philosophy doesnt have copyright on the phrase or expression 'the word/logos'
Anyone can use such expressions and it doesnt have to mean that the expression is being influenced by one particular source.

 

[Sunstone]

Pegg, at what point does stretching things turn into outright lying, in you're opinion?

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't care for proselytizing by any group; I don't care what brand of belief or disbelief they're pedaling. To me, it implies that their targeted audience is too stupid or otherwise unable to examine things for themselves and make a decision. I don't see any difference between theistic and atheistic proselytisers; they both have decided that their understanding is the only possible one, and they have set out on a mission to get people to accept their reality.

In other words, it's disrespectful in and of itself.

 

[nash8]

Sure. So-called "New Atheism" is inherently less dangerous than theistic proselitism, mainly because it makes no high promises and lacks the power to manipulate people into destructive actions.

Could not one use the lack of deity, eternal punishment, etc. etc. as a justification that it is all right to commit crimes?

 

[nash8]

but the hebrew scriptures use the term as well... and that goes back further then the greek philosophers

Deut 9:5*It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land; in fact, it is for the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you, and in order to carry out the word that Jehovah swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Isaiah 40:8*The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”


Ps 33:6*By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, And by the spirit of his mouth all their army.


Psalms 103:20*Bless Jehovah, O YOU angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word,
By listening to the voice of his word

Im pretty sure Greek philosophy doesnt have copyright on the phrase or expression 'the word/logos'
Anyone can use such expressions and it doesnt have to mean that the expression is being influenced by one particular source.

Logos (Christianity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[John Martin]

This thread is directed mainly towards adherents of the two largest proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. But anyone else is welcome to join in.

First Question: In your view, is there a moral or other crucial difference between New Atheists like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and PZ Meyers trying to convert folks to atheism, and theists like Pat Robertson, Billy or Franklin Graham, D. James Kennedy, and John Hagee trying to convert people to theism? (I apologize for not including any prominent Muslim proselytizers, but, in my ignorance, I don't know of any. Maybe someone can help me out with that?)

Second Question: Would it invoke a contradiction to answer "yes" to the first question? And if so, is there some way that contradiction can be resolved?

Third Question: What other thoughts do you have about proselytizing -- both by theists and nontheists?

1. Proselytizers are the same whoever does it. At the bottom of the trying to convert others is the belief that one has the truth and others are false. Theists believe that God exists and those who do not believe in God are false. So they need to convert them. In the same atheists believe that there is no God and those who believe in God are deluded and need to be converted.

2. There are two types of Truth or God: conditioned and unconditioned. when Moses asked God his name, God replied I am what I am. He also said 'I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. The first one refers to eternal unconditioned God or Truth, the second one refers to conditioned or historical aspects of God or Truth. Historical God is the God of religions. Theists are those who think that the conditioned God is absolute. They systematize the truth and want to convert people to that Truth. Atheists are those who reject the historical presentation of God. In this way atheists challenge the theists and open them to the unconditioned God. Atheism is not sufficient. It is only reacting to the God of history, who is limited understanding of human beings. It will also collapse in the long run. Theists need to realize their limitations and open the door to the God of eternity. Atheists also need to open the door to the God of eternity. Only there we can resolve this conflict.

3.Truth is something alive and dynamic. It cannot be put into thought patterns. To reduce the truth into systems is to kill it, to put it into a tomb. Truth cannot be systematized. It cannot be propagated. The truth that we propagate is a dead truth. Truth manifest moment by moment. It manifests eternity in time. We can only invite people to discover that truth and live from that truth. Jesus said, the foxes have their holes, the birds have their nests but the son of Man has nowhere to lay down and rest. A person who lives in truth makes truth or God a pilgrim. It is like the journey of Abraham who made the journey without knowing where to go. He lived in tents. A tent is a temporary settlement, only for resting in the night and to be removed next day morning. The problem comes only when we make a permanent houses to the Truth,with strong concrete walls. then we stop our journey and become watchmen and protectors of the building and propagators of the building. Truth is a pathless land said the famous sage Krishnamurthy. I am the way,the truth and the life, said Jesus Christ. Truth is Life. It is a Way. moving from God to God.