Please note: this is a follow thru on Glenn Beck's POLITICAL presentation on Jews having killed Jesus.
Whether Wikipedia's narrative is correct or not, let's assume Caiaphas (High Priest of the Jewish Sanhedrin) was instrumental in snuffing Jesus.
This raises a philosophical point: Is Caiaphas in Hell (providing Hell exists) ?
The answer to that is simple: Of course, the Religious would say YES.
But, by far the more interesting question would then be raised: WHY ?????
Didn't GOD THE OMNISCIENT KNOW BEFORE HE CREATED Caiaphas (whether Caiaphas has free will or not) that Caiaphas would bump off Jesus ?
Why punish Caiaphas (whom God created) for something the Omniscient God KNEW would happen ....... whether Caiaphas had free will, or not ??????
Would YOU punish someone for what YOU created......knowing it will happen when YOU created it ?????
Philosophers: FRONT & CENTER !!!!!!
This isn't philosophy (the love of knowledge), this is an invitation to debate theology (the love of God).
The two are not at ALL the same thing. There isn't enough common ground between them to even have rational discourse.
Philosophy starts from the premise of asking what CAN be known?
Theology starts from the premise of demanding that one accept the UNKNOWABLE though faith.
Editec,
You are correct as to the differentiation of premises.
Thank you.
Whether my OP is classified as strictly Philosophy or Theology....or a mixture of the two.......the choice is yours.
They really cannot be mixed. That was sort of my point.
But, you are completely wrong on one point.
I raised some questions. If you are able to answer them .... do so.
You asked questions about what some people of faith believe and invite them to defend the indefensible (logically or philosophically).
Like I say if you do not understand why this is largely a waste of time, then you miss the critical difference between FAITH and KNOWING.
If you are not able to.......obviously, you can hide behind your labeling them as irrational.
Do I seem to be hiding to you?
And, that is your prerogative.
No, actually I pretty much have no choice. This is the way I think about things.
But as far as I'm concerned, you are either not mentally qualified.
Or I do know how to punctuate? (sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, amigo. Do go on)
Or, you simply want to dodge the issue because your rationalizations would spell your defeat of longheld religious views that cannot stand rigorous scrutiny.
You don't have a clue what my "longheld religious views" even are, sport.
My bet is the second option.
I'm sorry you feel like I was insulting you, Gaut.
All I was trying to do was point out why such debates lead nowwhere.
Nobody can debate religion philosophically any more than they can dance to the tune of architecture.
What you hope to do is to debate somebody's religios FAITH from a philosophical standpoint thus proving to yourself that their FAITH has no grounds in the world of logic.
What I hoped to do in my first post was show you that FAITH is that which lays no CLAIM to being logical.
If you're truly a rational philosopher I think you think yourself, you'd already understand that.
Last edited: