asaris

I'll start with a brief comment on 2+2, since that's not really on topic. Flightlessbird very nicely proves that 2+2=4. Wonderful; just to note, I'm well aware of that proof. My point was that people don't learn that proof well into their lives, if ever, while most people 'know' that 2+2=4. How do they know? Their math teacher told them.

Now, toxic writes:
I somewhat agree with you on this, to this extent: God gave us minds, yes, and expects us to use them. What this means for me is that I'm very unwilling to consider something a 'mystery'. I don't think, on the other hand, every Christian, or even every Christian philosopher, needs to have a well developed explanation of the incarnation, or providence, or the trinity. (I'm indebted to Alasdair MacIntyre for this point.) And I don't think that the fact that God gave us reason means that we'll ever be able to figure everything out. Kant and Kierkegaard are good for meditating on this (not to mention Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx.) Reason can lead us to the point where it fails, but for fairly obvious reasons, it cannot take us any further. He continues talking about sexual abstinence and the gnostics, which I'll ignore for now.

Irate Platypus comments:
, which is disputed by roachboy. It's difficult to say that Paul is anywhere near the philosopher Plato or Aristotle was. He might have a better shot against Plotinus or Marcus Aurelius, but that's not an argument I would want to make. The argument I do want to make is that, even if the philosophy underlying the NT is not particularly well developed there, its influence on human affairs and mores is greater than just about any piece of philosophy ever written (Marx is a possible exception, but I can't think of any others that compare). So for this reason alone, it deserves to be read, to be part of the 'canon' (if you'll pardon the pun) as much as Plato or Descartes. Intellectual and philosophical leaders? Don't know about that. But certainly these were people who had something to say, and who considered themselves part of the tradition started by Abraham/Moses/whoever.

And while I'm speaking of traditions, let me comment on Duck's post. He says we should treat the Bible as a salad bar, taking whatever suits our taste. The problem is that our taste is often wrong. If we are merely to survey the world's religions and philosophers, taking what we like and ignoring what we do, we are guilty of intellectual arrogance at the very least. I'm willing to say that no truly great person has not been part of some tradition or another.

Whether this is the Christian tradition, as in the cases of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa, or the Hindu tradition, as Gandhi, they were part of a
tradition. Trying to cut oneself off from all traditions only results in one being all the more firmly tied to a tradition, because one is unaware of it. I'm not advocating blind adherence to a tradition here. I'm saying that once one is in a tradition, one is in a place where one can criticize that tradition. But if one is outside a tradition, one does not have a rock to stand on to criticize anything.

Several points in response to TheKak:
First of all, the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar is only to be expected; they are, after all, describing the same life. It's unclear why you think this should be a reason that they are untrustworthy. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Mark is usually dated in the late 60s CE at the latest, but I'll let someone who knows more about this than I do confirm or deny it. As far as it having been shown that Mark was written first, well, this hasn't really been shown. It's the most common theory right now among textual critics, but of course it's hard to prove such a thing. I've heard that some respected scholars believe that Matthew was written first. Regarding your Bible quotes; yeah, so what? The Bible isn't a peaceful book. Things like evil deserve to
be treated harshly. The 60s version of peace and love is for a bunch of peaceniks without a backbone! The world is a bad place, and sometimes violence is necessary to defeat injustice.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche