Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

I was thinking, it seems to me (assuming there is/are God/s) that a "Prophet" is simply a mouth peace to a God. Seriously, a Prophet could just as easily be a monkey or a package of butter as be a man. Words of wisdom from the God are placed into the Prophet's mouth/lid and out they come.

But, a religous Teacher is really a Philosopher. They sit and they ponder a question - the nature of man for example; sometimes they do so for decades, and when they come to certain conclusions they explain these to their students and a debate then ensues.

While the Prophet appears enlightened (this is assuming their God reveals something enlightening) this is really an illusion of enlightenment. The God is putting ideas into their head and words into their mouth. Where as the Teacher, on the other hand, ponders a question and actually attains enlightenment through personal thought and endeavor.

If one were to place a the highest value on personal enlightenment and philosophy then, following this logic, even a Muslim or Jew could agree that Buddha was a more valued person than say their own Prophets (such as Abraham or Mohammad). They can theoretically retain their religous beleif and still value Buddha greater as a human when compared with their Religion's Prophets - simply as a logical consequence of this thought experiment.


What do you think?
Make sense?

Michael

note: I didn't include Xians because Jesus is a God and so doesn't really count.

I think the effectiveness of any message can be measured by the number of people that respond to it.

I think the effectiveness of any message can be measured by the number of people that respond to it.

Nazis? :eek:

This is an easy one my friend.

Who contributed more to mankind? Jesus, or Einstein.
Perfect example.

Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity. Now nobody needs to discover the theory of relativity again, it would be stupid. now you can give the theory to a child, and he can understand it, he can learn it. This is the difference between Scientific truth and Religious truth. Jesus discovered his path towards enlightment, and he tought the truth to everyone. Now, everybody needs to discover this, over and over. Every person needs to discover his own truth.

Who was more beneficial to society?
It depends on your perspective, but I say, if you say that it was Einstein, you have a very materialistic point of view.
You have eyes, but you don´t see, and you have ears, but you don´t listen.

Well I have my own little theories that some "enlightened" individuals, simply piggy backed on an exhisting or "old" belief system so they would be listened to.

Consider the huge difference between new testament and old testament.

Well I have my own little theories that some "enlightened" individuals, simply piggy backed on an exhisting or "old" belief system so they would be listened to.

Consider the huge difference between new testament and old testament.

The difference can be due to many factors. After Alexander the Great, in the 2º Century BC, the Greeks took all of the hebrew scriptures, and chose a group of Greece´s 70 wisest men to translate the scriptures to Greek. They burned the originals.

It is true that some may have forged the teachings of enlightened individuals, some may have done that, who knows?

But there is a key factor here, and it is the fact that there has been enlightened people in history, many of them, hundreds; maybe thousands.

The concept of a prophet defines someone who can foretell future events obtained through a supernatural cause. There is no evidence that anyone has ever achieved this status.

A teacher is usually someone who is considered capable of helping others learn specific facts about an issue. Not to be confused with a religious preacher who tries to convince people about concepts that are not known to be factual.

As to the topic: Claimed prophets should be given no heed since thay have no credibility and teachers who really can help people udnerstand factual truths should be appropriately recognized.

Wisdom and enlightenment, however, comes not from merely knowing facts but from understanding how to use and interpret facts accurately. In this case even a successful teacher need not necessarily be considered wise or enlightened.

Prophets were just primitive teachers and scientists.

Wisdom_Seeker,


Who contributed more to mankind? Jesus, or Einstein.
Perfect example.

Who was more beneficial to society?
It depends on your perspective, but I say, if you say that it was Einstein, you have a very materialistic point of view.
You have eyes, but you don´t see, and you have ears, but you don´t listen.Yet to imply the Jesus myth and superstition was/is of benefit is to take a significant perverted view of history. This myth caused widespread persecution of would be scientists and critical thinkers for many hundreds of years and has certainly slowed scientific discovery for centuries.

And the Christian benefit is what? That one third of the world’s population has been hoodwinked into believing that instead of death being an ugly reality it is really a miraculous gateway to an eternal paradise? I.e. the greatest con in the history of mankind.

Wisdom_Seeker,

Yet to imply the Jesus myth and superstition was/is of benefit is to take a significant perverted view of history. This myth caused widespread persecution of would be scientists and critical thinkers for many hundreds of years and has certainly slowed scientific discovery for centuries.

And the Christian benefit is what? That one third of the world’s population has been hoodwinked into believing that instead of death being an ugly reality it is really a miraculous gateway to an eternal paradise? I.e. the greatest con in the history of mankind.

Ok, due to the fact that some people jump everytime someone mentions Jesus, I´ll correct my statement-
I´m reffering to virtually any enlightened master. There have been many.

But, now that I think about it better, with the stuff you said before, I`m talking about spiritual teachers, not prophets. Aren´t those the same thing? Spiritual teacher = prophet?

Nazis? :eek:

The fact that they were defeated ideologically and do not comprise the majority?:rolleyes:

Wisdom_Seeker,

Jesus - umm ok - lol.


I´m reffering to virtually any enlightened master. There have been many.OK, but what do you mean by enlightened? Can you name any accepted real people who might qualify?


But, now that I think about it better, with the stuff you said before, I`m talking about spiritual teachers, not prophets. Aren´t those the same thing? Spiritual teacher = prophet? Ah OK, yes I guess that would make sense. Both concepts imply a claim to have direction from a supernatural divine source, although “prophet” does include the idea of predicting the future whereas that would not necessarily apply to a “spiritual teacher”, umm or would it?

Anyone able to accurately percieve the present has a chance to accurately predict the future.

I think the effectiveness of any message can be measured by the number of people that respond to it.Sam, you completely missed the point. I'm talking about the person. The human. Look, in this post I am happy to assume there is/are God/s. The question is about the person.

On the one hand we have a person who receives information from a God and, like a puppet on a ventriloquists' lap, acts and speaks accordingly and in the other hand we have a person who independently contemplates human nature and of their own volition contributes to humanities understanding of ourselves.

Assuming, as I states in the opening thread, that both messages are worthwhile, who do you admire more as a person? The puppet or the philosopher?

Michael

This is an easy one my friend.

Who contributed more to mankind? Jesus, or Einstein.
Perfect example.I must have really botched this opening post - no I am not speaking about the message, we can agree that the message is worthwhile, I am speaking of the person - the human.

OMG as I read through this it seems to keep falling back to this message versus that message. Which was exactly the opposite of what I am saying. Everyone, please, for a moment forget the message we are assuming the message, weather it be Islamic or Xian or Buddhist doctrine or Greek or Chinese Philosophies, contributes positively towards humanity.

Prophets receive their information from a God or the divine etc... this information is put in their mind and words come out of their mouths. They could well be a tub of butter with a talking lid. A 100 Philosophers life times of work and be placed by the God directly into the Prophets head and the information, in the form of words, comes out to the rest of us.

Philosophers (be they Atheist like Confucius/Socrates/Plato or not, for example the Dali Lama or maybe Buddha ect... all MUST contemplate and develop their own information and then share it. Perhaps for some it will take a life time of endeavor to add to humanity's understanding of itself. But endeavor they do.


Assuming their messages are equally worthwhile, whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

Michael

Stated like that then the answer has to be philosophers:
they worked for their information, the prophets got it handed to them on a plate and just parroted someone else's words.

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

I was thinking, it seems to me (assuming there is/are God/s) that a "Prophet" is simply a mouth peace to a God. Seriously, a Prophet could just as easily be a monkey or a package of butter as be a man. Words of wisdom from the God are placed into the Prophet's mouth/lid and out they come.

But, a religous Teacher is really a Philosopher. They sit and they ponder a question - the nature of man for example; sometimes they do so for decades, and when they come to certain conclusions they explain these to their students and a debate then ensues.

While the Prophet appears enlightened (this is assuming their God reveals something enlightening) this is really an illusion of enlightenment. The God is putting ideas into their head and words into their mouth. Where as the Teacher, on the other hand, ponders a question and actually attains enlightenment through personal thought and endeavor.

If one were to place a the highest value on personal enlightenment and philosophy then, following this logic, even a Muslim or Jew could agree that Buddha was a more valued person than say their own Prophets (such as Abraham or Mohammad). They can theoretically retain their religous beleif and still value Buddha greater as a human when compared with their Religion's Prophets - simply as a logical consequence of this thought experiment.


What do you think?
Make sense?

Michael

note: I didn't include Xians because Jesus is a God and so doesn't really count.

its not clear why you use the terms prophet and teacher as mutually exclusive terms - a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment is simply mundane and a prophet that has no sense of philosophy is not capable of expounding anything normative for people in general

"Prophets" are invented terms used by those overly afflicted with magical thought. I've yet to see evidence of any real "prophecy" that wasn't simply a writer creating a myth to fit an earlier myth's "prophecy" coming true.

I'm obviously not as well read in Vedic mythology as lightgigentic (nor do I wish to be... many other better written works demand my attention first), but I'm willing to bet he's unable to produce any Vedic "prophecies" that can be demonstrated as clear evidence of Vedic "prophets." Which of them predicted the internet, SARS, and which of them bothered to write down the cure for cancer? Surely this is a concept that, once it's been discovered, will be easily summarized in just a few pages? Which Vedic prophet (or Christian, Muslim, etc.) predicted the nature of DNA?

The prophecies these frauds invent to sustain and maintain their hold of power and status over the commoner amounts to nothing more than vague, easily interpreted-a-thousand-ways, Nostradamus-like BS.

"Prophets" are invented terms used by those overly afflicted with magical thought. I've yet to see evidence of any real "prophecy" that wasn't simply a writer creating a myth to fit an earlier myth's "prophecy" coming true.

I'm obviously not as well read in Vedic mythology as lightgigentic (nor do I wish to be... many other better written works demand my attention first), but I'm willing to bet he's unable to produce any Vedic "prophecies" that can be demonstrated as clear evidence of Vedic "prophets." Which of them predicted the internet, SARS, and which of them bothered to write down the cure for cancer? Surely this is a concept that, once it's been discovered, will be easily summarized in just a few pages? Which Vedic prophet (or Christian, Muslim, etc.) predicted the nature of DNA?

The prophecies these frauds invent to sustain and maintain their hold of power and status over the commoner amounts to nothing more than vague, easily interpreted-a-thousand-ways, Nostradamus-like BS.

in short, there is the calculation of time from the atom
(its only in relatively recent times that time pieces have become incredibly accurate by the use of atomic clocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock)


SB 3.11.4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time.

SB 3.11.5: The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky.

SB 3.11.6: The time duration needed for the integration of three trasareṇus is called a truṭi, and one hundred truṭis make one vedha. Three vedhas make one lava.

SB 3.11.7: The duration of time of three lavas is equal to one nimeṣa, the combination of three nimeṣas makes one kṣaṇa, five kṣaṇas combined together make one kāṣṭhā, and fifteen kāṣṭhās make one laghu.

SB 3.11.8: Fifteen laghus make one nāḍikā, which is also called a daṇḍa. Two daṇḍas make one muhūrta, and six or seven daṇḍas make one fourth of a day or night, according to human calculation.

other social phenomena in brief


SB 12.2.1: Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: Then, O King, religion, truthfulness, cleanliness, tolerance, mercy, duration of life, physical strength and memory will all diminish day by day because of the powerful influence of the age of Kali.

SB 12.2.2: In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man's good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one's power.

SB 12.2.3: Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one's expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread.

SB 12.2.4: A person's spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person's propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.

SB 12.2.5: A person will be judged unholy if he does not have money, and hypocrisy will be accepted as virtue. Marriage will be arranged simply by verbal agreement, and a person will think he is fit to appear in public if he has merely taken a bath.

SB 12.2.6: A sacred place will be taken to consist of no more than a reservoir of water located at a distance, and beauty will be thought to depend on one's hairstyle. Filling the belly will become the goal of life, and one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful. He who can maintain a family will be regarded as an expert man, and the principles of religion will be observed only for the sake of reputation.

SB 12.2.7: As the earth thus becomes crowded with a corrupt population, whoever among any of the social classes shows himself to be the strongest will gain political power.

SB 12.2.8: Losing their wives and properties to such avaricious and merciless rulers, who will behave no better than ordinary thieves, the citizens will flee to the mountains and forests.

SB 12.2.9: Harassed by famine and excessive taxes, people will resort to eating leaves, roots, flesh, wild honey, fruits, flowers and seeds. Struck by drought, they will become completely ruined.

SB 12.2.10: The citizens will suffer greatly from cold, wind, heat, rain and snow. They will be further tormented by quarrels, hunger, thirst, disease and severe anxiety.

SB 12.2.11: The maximum duration of life for human beings in Kali-yuga will become fifty years.

SB 12.2.12-16: By the time the age of Kali ends, the bodies of all creatures will be greatly reduced in size, and the religious principles of followers of varṇāśrama will be ruined. The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings will mostly be thieves, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of śūdras. Cows will be like goats, spiritual hermitages will be no different from mundane houses, and family ties will extend no further than the immediate bonds of marriage. Most plants and herbs will be tiny, and all trees will appear like dwarf śamī trees. Clouds will be full of lightning, homes will be devoid of piety, and all human beings will have become like asses. At that time, the Supreme Personality of Godhead will appear on the earth. Acting with the power of pure spiritual goodness, He will rescue eternal religion.

stay tuned for more
:eek:

No need to stay tuned for your BS. This is an example of translators using their own bias to achieve an ends they already have in mind. Demonstrating exactly what I was critical of in my post above.

One need not look past the very first quote of vedic mythology: "SB 3.11.4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space."

The Sanskrit word for atomic in this passage was probably something like anuh or paramanuh (spellings are somewhat subjective, but the syllabary is what counts). Which mean "very small" and "extremely small."

Since the translator of the text from Sanskrit to English wanted to demonstrate the validity and foresight of his favorite cult practice and superstition, he naturally interjected the 20th century word "atom" and "atomic" rather than "very small" or "extremely/infinitely small." The original context of the entire mythology of the Vedas is, therefore, suspect and we can summarily toss that nonsense out.

No need to even look at the rest of your "quotes."

Shoo now.

its not clear why you use the terms prophet and teacher as mutually exclusive terms - a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment is simply mundane and a prophet that has no sense of philosophy is not capable of expounding anything normative for people in generalNo this is not correct on both accounts.

See here:

1) I am referring to a teacher that has no degree of spiritual revelation not a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment. Of course the teacher is enlightened. This enlightenment was not obtained from a God it was obtained via personal endeavor and personal meditation and giving over a lot of time in contemplation to a particular question. For example: What does it mean to be human? Or: How best to lead a student to self revelation? Or: What is reality?

2) A Prophet that has no sense of philosophy is most certainly capable of expounding anything that the God so wishes the Prophet to expound. Whether that be nominal to the general populace or not. My point is this "anything expounded" is spiritual revelation (aka: it is information from God). It needn't even come from a person;s mouth. It could just as easily come from an inanimate object - like a telephone. Basically, if God so wished, you could pick up a Phone and God could tell you things and you could call this Phone a Prophet.


Don't you agree? It seems to make sense to me and Oli. Actually, everyone can understand this. And Does. When I ask: Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers? I am not asking anything that one hasn't already asked themself. In general we all admire our Philosophers/Teachers but for the religous devout they put their Prophets above all else. Why? Why put a Phone above even the average Philosopher?

The Prophet simply hears a God's info and passes it on. Any one of us could be a Prophet. It requires no work. If anything, you'll find many Prophets set themselves up with a few perks anyway.

The Teacher/Philosopher endeavors of their own volition. They make the personal sacrifice of their short time here on Earth to reach enlightenment AND also to share this with other people.


To me there is no contest - The Teacher/Philosopher is the more valued of the two.

Michael

SkinWalker,

Again, this thought experiment is not about the message. We make the assumption that both messages are equally worthwhile (and we assume that a Prophet is the real deal).
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

As a thought experiment, I would have to say teachers. History has shown us that "prophets" have selfish agendas whereas good teachers have only the desire to share knowledge. "Prophets" wish to control, curtail, suppress or otherwise limit knowledge. To the "prophet," the free-thinker is dangerous; to the teacher, the free-thinker is like gold.

No need to stay tuned for your BS. This is an example of translators using their own bias to achieve an ends they already have in mind. Demonstrating exactly what I was critical of in my post above.
knowledgeable of sanskrit are you?


One need not look past the very first quote of vedic mythology: "SB 3.11.4: Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space."

The Sanskrit word for atomic in this passage was probably something like anuh or paramanuh (spellings are somewhat subjective, but the syllabary is what counts). Which mean "very small" and "extremely small."
if you bothered to read the reference you would see that the terms are contextualized by further references to verifiable phenomena like 'days'


Since the translator of the text from Sanskrit to English wanted to demonstrate the validity and foresight of his favorite cult practice and superstition, he naturally interjected the 20th century word "atom" and "atomic" rather than "very small" or "extremely/infinitely small."
when you start talking about the foundational substance of matter beyond the perception of the naked eye, its fallacious to call them 'atoms'?


The original context of the entire mythology of the Vedas is, therefore, suspect and we can summarily toss that nonsense out.
now if you want to talk about biased authorship .....


No need to even look at the rest of your "quotes."

Shoo now.
sorry
didn't mean to challenge your world view

[QUOTE=Michael;1419299]No this is not correct on both accounts.

See here:

1) I am referring to a teacher that has no degree of spiritual revelation not a teacher that has no degree of enlightenment. Of course the teacher is enlightened. This enlightenment was not obtained from a God it was obtained via personal endeavor and personal meditation and giving over a lot of time in contemplation to a particular question. For example: What does it mean to be human? Or: How best to lead a student to self revelation? Or: What is reality?
yes there are various disciplines or paradigms to enlightenment - but its still not clear how you would determine that god was not responsible for bestowing the enlightenment, particularly if it pertains to something that falls within the folds of transcendental knowledge or the ultimate existential basis of things (ie what it means to be 'human' etc)


2) A Prophet that has no sense of philosophy is most certainly capable of expounding anything that the God so wishes the Prophet to expound. Whether that be nominal to the general populace or not. My point is this "anything expounded" is spiritual revelation (aka: it is information from God). It needn't even come from a person;s mouth. It could just as easily come from an inanimate object - like a telephone. Basically, if God so wished, you could pick up a Phone and God could tell you things and you could call this Phone a Prophet.

Don't you agree? It seems to make sense to me and Oli. Actually, everyone can understand this. And Does. When I ask: Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers? I am not asking anything that one hasn't already asked themself. In general we all admire our Philosophers/Teachers but for the religous devout they put their Prophets above all else. Why? Why put a Phone above even the average Philosopher?
my point is that you artificially make the terms prophet and teacher mutually exclusive, since we practically see that the 'prophets' also come with an extensive philosophical basis


The Prophet simply hears a God's info and passes it on. Any one of us could be a Prophet. It requires no work. If anything, you'll find many Prophets set themselves up with a few perks anyway.
one obvious indication that we are not prophets is that god has not empowered us to convince anyone


The Teacher/Philosopher endeavors of their own volition. They make the personal sacrifice of their short time here on Earth to reach enlightenment AND also to share this with other people.
a prophet can net the same results, but without the unnecessary endeavour to combat their false ego (which is usually the number one thing that interferes with understanding anything transcendental, what to speak of helping others understand it).
In otherwords if ignorance can be diminished either by one's application to austerity etc or the direct mercy of god, why would the former stand superior.
In the vedas the former are named 'sadhana siddhas' (those that become perfect by application to spiritual practices) and the later are named 'krpa siddhas' (those that become perfect by the mercy of god) - on top of these you find nitya siddhas (those that are eternally perfect) - all three are categories of prophets and all three are not disqualifications for entering into the field of philosophy

lightgigantic,

As a thought experiment this Post is not about the message. We make the assumption that the messages are worthwhile.
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

lightgigantic,

As a thought experiment this Post is not about the message. We make the assumption that the messages are worthwhile.
What I am asking is about the person.
Whom do we admire more as humans: Prophets or Philosophers/Teachers?

And more importantly - Why?

Michael

perhaps you could provide an example of a prophet who was bereft of a philosophical foundation to make your case clear

all three are categories of prophets and all three are not disqualifications for entering into the field of philosophyYes Yes, this is why I am not speaking about the message.

We are making the assumption that the Prophet receives their information via God and Spiritual revelation and that the Philosopher receives their information via their own volition and personal endeavor.

Michael

perhaps you could provide an example of a prophet who was bereft of a philosophical foundation to make your case clearsee the above post. It is not a question about the message it is a question of the person.

Yes Yes, this is why I am not speaking about the message.

We are making the assumption that the Prophet receives their information via God and Spiritual revelation and that the Philosopher receives their information via the own volition and personal endeavor.

Michael

yet there are also extensive reasons given in the vedas why it is not practical to discriminate between them in terms of 'more perfect' or 'less perfect' acquisition of knowledge

see the above post. It is not a question about the message it is a question of the person.

but if there is not practical eg of the 'philosophicaless prophet' isn't the whole exercise academic?

but if there is not practical eg of the 'philosophicaless prophet' isn't the whole exercise academic?Perhaps but that's OK.

Well?

Well?
the discussion may be academic, but if you read the OP you are not taking an academic stance

hence

:shrug:

the discussion may be academic, but if you read the OP you are not taking an academic stance

hence

:shrug:How would you frame the question?

How would you frame the question?

so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacism

so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacismWell, I don't agree.

Firstly, a Philosopher's philosophy is attributed to the Philosopher.
Secondly, if you were so inclined, I think you'd be hard pressed to find wise sayings of a Prophet that were not attributed to a God. The Qur'an and Torah, for example, are filled with God's advice - hell, usually the Prophet is messing things up and good old God comes over and shows him why he's an idiot.

Michael

Michael

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so this is your q

Whom, as a person, do you think is the wiser and more enlightened - a Prophet or a Teacher?

it is inherently oxymoronic (IMHO) since prophets are not bereft of a sense of philosophy, which is what you determine 'teachers' have the monopoly on.

If you have an issue how religion can frequently develop into something that belittles the element of philosophy, maybe you could shape something more along the lines of how religion bereft of a sense of philosophy is mere fanatacism
”
Well, I don't agree.

Firstly, a Philosopher's philosophy is attributed to the Philosopher.
its not clear how being a 'prophet' somehow disqualifies one form being a philosopher.


Secondly, if you were so inclined, I think you'd be hard pressed to find wise sayings of a Prophet that were not attributed to a God.
God may establish the general principle, but the prophet establishes the practice of the principle by (you guessed it) philosophy


The Qur'an and Torah, for example, are filled with God's advice - hell, usually the Prophet is messing things up and good old God comes over and shows him why he's an idiot.
then its not clear how there can be normative descriptions when there is no foundation of philosophy.

Like for instance if one thinks that one can become god, that would indicate a malpractice of philosophy.

lightgigantic,

OK - so we both agree with that the teacher's ideas are theirs that they have developed.


As to the Prophet - do you agree that the Prophet receives at least some of their information/ideas from a God?

Michael

lightgigantic,

OK - so we both agree with that the teacher's ideas are theirs that they have developed.
not necessarily
even in terms of mundane teaching, knowledge is broken up into three categories - theory, practice and values.
Theory and to a lesser extent practice are 'external' to the knower, whereas values, while built on standards of theory and practice, is virtually completely internal (meaning that learning values involves drawing an understanding from one's self/experience etc)



As to the Prophet - do you agree that the Prophet receives at least some of their information/ideas from a God?
certainly, but the values that they come to know would be completely internal (and also the callibre of their value based knowledge is probably what qualifies them for prophethood)

Michael[/QUOTE]

not necessarily
even in terms of mundane teaching, knowledge is broken up into three categories - theory, practice and values.
Theory and to a lesser extent practice are 'external' to the knower, whereas values, while built on standards of theory and practice, is virtually completely internal (meaning that learning values involves drawing an understanding from one's self/experience etc)We accept that everyone builds on something - even at the most basic just the notion of "language" or "writing". BUT, the fact is, the teacher/philosopher builds up by their own volition. They do the intellectual work.


certainly, but the values that they come to know would be completely internal Well then, the teacher/philosopher is like a God in this sense.
Don't you agree.
God puts information into the head of the Prophet, the Prophet then (perhaps) learns something based on this information. That's pretty much exactly what teachers do with their students. (I am assuming by "internalizing" you are refurring to learning)


(and also the callibre of their value based knowledge is probably what qualifies them for prophethood)This we have no way of knowing. It seems IMHO that many of Prophets of various God were idiots - constantly messing things up and needing God to learn-them-a-lesson now and again. I believe that even Mohammad was tricked by Satan into "accidentally" thinking that their were 3 Goddesses. Isn't that the whole point in Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses?

Anyway, I have asked many people here on many many occasions what was something novel and enlightening that their Prophet professed - only to be either verbally assaulted for daring to even ask such a question or told absolutley noting at all. All of which have left me with the impression that people think their Prophets are filled with wisdom but when pressed they soon realize that such is not the case. In either case, I stated that we will assume that the message is worthwhile.

Either way, that is an assumption on you rpart and one we can not determine. BUT, it is NOT an assumption that Prophets receive their revelations from their God. They say so themselves.


So on the one hand we have a person that develops and advances information of their own volition and on the other we have a person who is told to record their information.

It seems to me that a Philosopher/Teacher is more like a God and a Prophet is akin to their scribe.


Is that a fair call?
Michael

Michael

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not necessarily
even in terms of mundane teaching, knowledge is broken up into three categories - theory, practice and values.
Theory and to a lesser extent practice are 'external' to the knower, whereas values, while built on standards of theory and practice, is virtually completely internal (meaning that learning values involves drawing an understanding from one's self/experience etc)
”
We accept that everyone builds on something - even at the most basic just the notion of "language" or "writing". BUT, the fact is, the teacher/philosopher builds up by their own volition. They do the intellectual work.
but what is the value of that "work" except for a labour of love?
For instance if the issue is about who can travel the fastest, is it about who can travel the fastest or who did the most work (ie made the most mistakes or barked up the wrong trees)?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly, but the values that they come to know would be completely internal
”
Well then, the teacher/philosopher is like a God in this sense.
Don't you agree.
God puts information into the head of the Prophet, the Prophet then (perhaps) learns something based on this information. That's pretty much exactly what teachers do with their students. (I am assuming by "internalizing" you are refurring to learning)
By values being internalized I mean that the application of the "knowledge" comes from a person's sense of good/bad - like for instance the values that surround the usage of nuclear energy are quite distinct and individual compared to the knowledge of how to manufacture nuclear energy.
Similarly the values that surround the knowledge of god find different expressions (hence we have classes of theists and atheists and everything else in between)


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(and also the callibre of their value based knowledge is probably what qualifies them for prophethood)
”
This we have no way of knowing.
let me rephrase this, in light of elaborating on what is meant by values being internalized.
Because a prophet by necessity sees the absolute goodness of god, they become a transparent medium to that goodness - in other words their value based knowledge is perfect since they can determine the correct and incorrect application of knowledge of god (hence reformations in religious traditions are often heralded by a 'prophet')


It seems IMHO that many of Prophets of various God were idiots
lol - thats a value statement (which means its rides a body of practice and theory)


- constantly messing things up and needing God to learn-them-a-lesson now and again. I believe that even Mohammad was tricked by Satan into "accidentally" thinking that their were 3 Goddesses. Isn't that the whole point in Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses?
I am no expert in Islam


Anyway, I have asked many people here on many many occasions what was something novel and enlightening that their Prophet professed - only to be either verbally assaulted for daring to even ask such a question or told absolutley noting at all.
then such persons have no philosophical understanding - hence my earlier reference that religion without philosophy becomes fanaticism


All of which have left me with the impression that people think their Prophets are filled with wisdom but when pressed they soon realize that such is not the case. In either case, I stated that we will assume that the message is worthwhile.

Either way, that is an assumption on you rpart and one we can not determine. BUT, it is NOT an assumption that Prophets receive their revelations from their God. They say so themselves.
if you analyze a group of persons who make the claim that god reveals something to them, ranging from a saintly person to the guy living in a cardboard box down the street, you can place them at different levels by examining the mettle of their values based knowledge (aka - philosophy)



So on the one hand we have a person that develops and advances information of their own volition and on the other we have a person who is told to record their information.

It seems to me that a Philosopher/Teacher is more like a God and a Prophet is akin to their scribe.
If the king says "fetch me a glass of water" and if the scribe says "fetch the king a glass of water" there is no distinction for the person who follows either of those two instructions (there is however the case of the scribe saying "fetch me a glass of water")

If the king says "fetch me a glass of water" and if the scribe says "fetch the king a glass of water" there is no distinction for the person who follows either of those two instructions (there is however the case of the scribe saying "fetch me a glass of water")Very good analogy - I like it :)