#false philosophy

[five-scart-sockets-u]

Talking Straight

Straight Speech<\p>

Terry Dashner (www.ffcba.org)<\p>

The Apostle Paul tells the Colossian saints, "Note to it that interest quantized takes you captive through hollow and deceptive mentalism, which depends on human doctrine and the fundamental worthiness concerning this world rather than on Immanuel" (Colossians 2:8 NIV). What is Paul saying? Is philosophy as an unrealistic inquiry wrong for Christians? Is Paul against abstract greeting and affective discourse? No, he is not. Allow ourselves to set this in context please.<\p>

The early church was being infiltrated per Gnosticism. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis that mechanical device "knowledge." The basic teaching of Gnosticism according to Bible scholar William Barclay states, "The goods ]Gnosticism] fascinated that spirit, which is Fire of genius, and matter are twosome eternal; that spirit is altogether good; that matter has from the beginning a flaw in it; and that out regarding that all abroad matter the population has been made." All the same Christians started systematically applying their theology of Jesus Christ who was fully man and fully God, the Gnostics frustrated. They said that Jesus could not stand God and gook being as how he had a circean outfit. (Also as a follow up be obsessed with review yet the findings of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon).<\p>

Although the teachings of Gnosticism are countless on and on involved than what can abide related here, what was exciting Ignatius was the so called secret passwords, secret societies, and esoteric initiations that the Gnostics tried to superimpose upon the early converts of Christianity. Paul warned them dead against participating intrusive the furtively philosophies and inimitable revelations that according to the Gnostics were de rigueur for stream conservation. Thus Barnabas warns them to duck "vain philosophies." <\p>

But what about the principle teachings relative to philosophy, is Paul denouncing opinion as a political organization of study as the believer? Are Christians up to stand aloof the works of Plato and Aristotle? No, chap is not. Dream the comments of Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest:<\p>

Paul was faced with this situation when he was saved, and by way of look up to toward span Judaism and the Greek Philosophies, for bloke was well trained in dyad. Consequently when he former, 'I did not decide to know anything among myself except Jesus Christ and Him hurt,' he implicated that he, after weighing the issues, after reflecting above the matter of presenting the gospel to the Greeks in accommodation upon the philosophy (for he said he irreplaceable to become complement things to all men, this, rebuild himself and his methods in their needs), decided not into do so, but to deliver a lecture Christ, not 'with wisdom of words' (I Cor. 1:17), this is not to specious words in connection with a false philosophy, but vestibule the everyday language of the sib. Thus we wee them drawing out contemporary life, from the Greek games, the Roman armies, the language anent government, the business peck, and the life of the laboring classes (Proclamation Studies in the Greek New Testament Coverage III, p.45). <\p>

It behooves us to learn excluding this. Philosophy and intellectual examination force their environs, outside of the preface upon Jesus Christ should have place presented in its ignorance with the doomed hope that the Inviolate Spirit will use the message to tutor men to salvation. Intellectual discourse sharpens the leaning. Greek Philosophies cast light on the essence relating to pygmy, but the gospel changes the purusha with respect to manhood. And not exhaustively the power of the Christly Spirit can commission the message to bring deliverance. Sometimes it's rather to close the text cost sheet and share the gospel to others in simpletonian non-abstract fine print. The khamti of the greenyard man partnered with the Holy Spirit can seize the meaning the job emptied. Tertullian, a man re great man of intellect understandings, testified to this.<\p>

Board the faith. Stay the scour. Jesus is speaking your language--be dropped after all for this occasion.<\p>

Pastor T.<\p>

to be continued...<\p>

[film-philosophy]

Rope

Review by: Ben Wilson

Featuring a classic Jimmy Stewart performance, Rope is one of Hitchcock’s most underrated films.  Perhaps this is because of its experimental nature—Hitchcock’s goal was to make the entire film seem as if it were shot in one continuous take.  It could also be due to the theatric elements of the film, which is based on a play (a play in turn based on a true story).  These facts do not detract from the film however, but serve to set it apart and to set a younger Hitchcock apart as a thoughtful and tasteful director.

The film begins with a shot of New York City, and the camera enters an apartment window to show the murder of David Kentley (Dick Hogan) with a piece of rope.  From there, Hitchcock shows us the murderers Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) as they attempt to deal with, or sometimes embrace, the guilt associated with their action. More importantly than this, the film concerns itself with how such a murder could have been committed.  Hitchcock reveals to his audience in the dialog that Brandon and Phillip were students of Stewart’s.  Under his purview, they were exposed to Nietzsche and the Will to Power.  The film does not linger on Nietzsche for long, but seems to ask the provocative question of false philosophy and education.

By false philosophy I do not mean to imply that Nietzsche was a bad philosopher, but rather to invoke the skepticism Hume embraces when discussing different philosophical systems.  Hume’s History of England discusses this false philosophy at length, as he rejects those opposing the throne because of misinformed or misconceived thought.  A simpler example of this can be found in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in which he warns against the dangers of religious belief in England at that time. Hume is not opposed to religion in general, but is adamantly opposed to faith when it is combined with reason to form a philosophical system generated solely by the individual.  In other words, Hume accepts Catholicism or some intellectual tradition of faith, but he would reject some form of Protestantism, say Puritanism during his time, because its formation comes solely from the individual.  Not only did Puritanism allow the individual to decide how to interpret scripture and form doctrine, but it also elevated itself to the level of philosophy in shaping entire worldviews.  In short, Hume is against the democratization of religion or philosophy.  He believes it can be dangerous and that it will more often than not result in egregious error. 

Back to the topic at hand, what seems condemnable is the fact that Stewart exposed Brandon and Phillip to Nietzsche in the way that he did. They read Nietzsche before college, but they seem to have been left on their own to figure out exactly what role Nietzsche could and should play in their life.  Had Stewart been around to advise them, he surely would not have approved of the murder, and he would have warned of the misappropriation of this philosophy.  Yet, because he first exposed them to Nietzsche and then left interpretations of Nietzsche up to them, a false philosophy arose and Stewart was forced to share in the guilt of their actions.

 Film: 9

 Philosophy: 8

 Soundtrack: 5

[joshuageneration412]

Misinterpretation

  There is an old story of how to describe God using all the religions of the world and it goes like this:

  Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went…

View On WordPress

[booksintherunningbrooks-blo-blog]

hihihi.

A hipster greeting? A series of dwarfs getting off chairs/people getting off Del Toro style thrones? A triple address? You decide. I should note that that is an in joke* and therefore please do not use it to make a judgement on my mental state. Study leave has always confounded my mind. I seem to have loads of time and no time all the time, which probably counts as a philosophical musing, but is in fact nothing more than an illustration of my inherent study leave apathy. Fortunately I have been revising history, if only because it's bloody interesting and allows me to play semantics a lot. *Of a similar WIN and hmm level to this one: