Should we hold a spiritual presupposition?

[DanieltheDragon]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

[Hatuey]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

You should hold the presupposition of reason. If reason and proven fact deny its belief, then it must be ignored and its source questioned. If it preposterous, then compare it with other similar examples from fact and myth.

[Ancient of Years]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

You should hold the presupposition of reason. If reason and proven fact deny its belief, then it must be ignored and its source questioned. If it preposterous, then compare it with other similar examples from fact and myth.

To me it is not a question of accepting or rejecting scripture but of trying to understand what each author was trying to say and why. Scripture is a reflection of the evolution of religious thought along several somewhat divergent paths. A spiritual presupposition strikes me as a good way to avoid having to deal with the discrepancies in content and purpose of the various parts by assuming that somehow there is a single coherent message.

[bjs]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

Could you be a little more specific? What is the spiritual presupposition are you referring to?

[Hatuey]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

You should hold the presupposition of reason. If reason and proven fact deny its belief, then it must be ignored and its source questioned. If it preposterous, then compare it with other similar examples from fact and myth.

To me it is not a question of accepting or rejecting scripture but of trying to understand what each author was trying to say and why. Scripture is a reflection of the evolution of religious thought along several somewhat divergent paths. A spiritual presupposition strikes me as a good way to avoid having to deal with the discrepancies in content and purpose of the various parts by assuming that somehow there is a single coherent message.

Of course you are quite right. My comment was overly slanted towards whether it be believed in a way that supersedes the application of reason against it.

[Divine Insight]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

A spiritual supposition?

Or a scriptural supposition?

There is a HUGE difference between these two.

I have no problem embracing the supposition that reality is spiritual. I can work from the mental vantage point of assuming that premise to be true. IMHO, assuming the truth of this premise does absolutely NOTHING to help the Bible.

On the other hand I have extremely problems with accepting the supposition that the scriptures are true and that we must make sense out of them no matter what because we have accepted, as a premise, that they must be true. This is the mentality of "Bible Study" by theists. They assume the scriptures are true, and then bang their heads against the wall trying to justify the myriad of self-contradictions and absurdities within them. Tossing in the towel and saying that the scriptures might not be true is forbidden. And this is why they instead choose the route of trying to re-interpret everything to extreme abstractions that twist the original meaning into something entirely different. In this way they can pretend that they haven't violated the premise that that scriptures are "true".

[DanieltheDragon]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

Could you be a little more specific? What is the spiritual presupposition are you referring to?

I intentionally left it open ended so as to kickstart a healthy debate with less strict topical confines. If you wish me to be more specific though, I would have to say the presupposition that there is a spiritual part of existence. You could further specify that there is a spiritual part of existence and we can make value judgments based off of that.

[Divine Insight]

I intentionally left it open ended so as to kickstart a healthy debate with less strict topical confines. If you wish me to be more specific though, I would have to say the presupposition that there is a spiritual part of existence. You could further specify that there is a spiritual part of existence and we can make value judgments based off of that.

For the sake of philosophical discussion, and even arguments. I would be willing to entertain the premise of a spiritual essence of reality. In fact, I do this quite often, and I don't even find it to be an irrational assumption.

However, when I make this supposition as a premise it leads me to considering the Eastern mystical views of spirituality. This premise (or supposition as you call it) does nothing to help the Biblical picture of God.

I'll grant the Bible the premise of not only a spiritual dimension of reality, but I'll even grant the possibility that every miracle that is described in the Bible could have occurred. Non of that helps the Bible, because in the end, I see no justification for why a spiritual entity (i.e. the God) would behave in that manner.

So spiritual supposition doesn't do anything toward supporting the Biblical picture of God, IMHO.

Scriptural supposition, on the other hand, does pretty much force the Biblical issue, because scripture supposition is to presuppose the premise that the scriptures are "true". And that just runs into countless self-contradictions. I don't see where scripture supposition is a worthy premise to consider. That's like drawing the conclusion first, and then demanding that the premise must be the conclusion.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

For me the issue isn't that the idea of something spiritual is rational or irrational. It is the idea of making value judgments on our perception of reality based off of the presupposition that the spiritual exists that is irrational. One not need hold that presupposition to believe in those things.

To me the most pragmatic and rational way to go about something is to have as few presuppositions as possible. Such as I exist, and the perceived world around me exists. We can still reach conclusions about things, such as the spiritual or photons , without presupposing that they are real. I conclude that photons exist not because I presuppose they exist but because there is a rational explanation for why they exist and that explanation is sufficient for me to accept that as a belief.

Having a spiritual presupposition is taking a premise that can't be proven observed known or perceived in any meaningful way. To make value judgments off of this as a basis for understanding the world, appears to me as irrational.

[Hamsaka]

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

You should hold the presupposition of reason. If reason and proven fact deny its belief, then it must be ignored and its source questioned. If it preposterous, then compare it with other similar examples from fact and myth.

At first I thought "of course not!" as a direct response to the OP, then reading Hatuey's response, I realized we cannot not hold some sort of presupposition at all.

Holding a presupposition of reason best describes my off-the-hip approach to scripture, literature, contemporary fiction and Facebook 'news'.

From the OP:

Often it is declared at some point that in order to understand the scripture one must hold a spiritual supposition. That the true meaning of scripture can not be understood without this supposition

If understanding scripture is dependent upon having a spiritual presupposition, that would explain why I have yet to understand scripture 'properly'. If I could suspend reason as my presupposition, I am at a loss as to what to use instead. A "spiritual presupposition" sounds meaningless to me. Perhaps it means to presuppose in an axiomatic way, that a God obviously exists. I can't honestly hold this presupposition.

I want to know if we should hold a spiritual presupposition?

As said before, I can't find, in myself, any reason (no pun intended) why I should do such a thing or how in the world I could and remain honest.

I do rely upon what I might call 'intuitive apprehension' for a 'first hit' kind of understanding, but that too must pass muster, if not in the moment, eventually; and hopefully before I take action or go much farther into analysis.

and additionally if we should hold it why should we hold one in the first place?

Assuming it is necessary to hold a spiritual presupposition in order to 'properly' comprehend scripture, would reason, in part or whole, be in contradiction to a spiritual presupposition?

It seems as though it would.

Then, I would have to have a very compelling reason all of it's own in mind with which to approach scripture, with a clear(er) expectation of a result of understanding scripture properly.

I don't know any reason why I ought to 'properly' understand scripture. I don't perceive there to be any results worthy of the effort I'd need to go to.