Christianity as a philosophical system?

[3sigma]

It would also include "why" did God do it, and more.

It is very very difficult to make up one, particularly a complete one.

It isn’t difficult to make up an answer to that question. You did it in the very next post when you said this:

God creates or not creates. If not creates, then there will be nothing but God Himself. Notice here the word "nothing" means not even time or space. No time, no space and no material and no energy. It is much more emptier than just empty.

God compares that situation with the situation if He creates, It is not hard to understand why does He creates.

I think this explanation is very philosophical. Why is it not?

It may be philosophical, but it is also entirely made up and entirely worthless except to quell people’s fear of uncertainty. There isn’t a shred of sound evidence to support it. The only thing emptier than empty here is your so-called explanation.

 

[Ken-1122]

Jevunissun (quote) “If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?"


(reply)
I would argue that not only is Christianity not the perfect philosophical system, but that Christianity can often be the opposite of philosophy.
Philosophy is often about questions that cannot be answered; Christianity is often about answers that cannot be questioned

Ken

 

[SithDoughnut]

This is exactly the type of question not even touched by other philosophy/religion. But Christianity says something about it.

God creates or not creates. If not creates, then there will be nothing but God Himself. Notice here the word "nothing" means not even time or space. No time, no space and no material and no energy. It is much more emptier than just empty.

God compares that situation with the situation if He creates, It is not hard to understand why does He creates.

I think this explanation is very philosophical. Why is it not?

Because you haven't answered the question, and you can't. The Bible specifically says that you can't - it says that God in unknowable, and so Christianity cannot be complete. It's like saying "I know every letter in the alaphabet apart from the 17th" - that's not the complete alphabet.

Without knowledge of the purpose of the universe, you cannot have a complete philosophy. Philosophies generally don't try to be complete, because it's obvious that you can't know everything, but if you're going to actually make the claim that Christianity is, you have to know everything about God. Furthermore, as God is infinite, Christianity has basically set itself up to never be complete. It's simply not possible. Christianity doesn't make the claim that it is a complete philosophy for a reason - it can't be.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is a theological system also a philosophical system? why not?

Yes it can be, but Christianity isn't theology. Theology is something tacked on to Christianity in the form of Apologetics. We can discuss Augustinanity or Aquinasanity, but those are simply Augustine's or Aquinas's attempts to defend Christianity, and not Christianity itself. They didn't add more Holy Scriptures.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A very improper argument. Thus, it needs no reply.

Classic dodge. You sure you're not reading out of the How To Troll textbook?

 

[andreha]

If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?

What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.

What is wrong? In this case, first, if it is not complete, then it is wrong. Second, if it has internal logic conflict, then it is also wrong.

What is complete? It is a system which addresses everything you are, or anyone else is, concerned about. Then is complete.

This purpose of this thread is not to convince you on anything, but is begging you to challenge, or to convince me. I do think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system.

I reckon perfect truth is indeed a perfect philosophical system.

 

[quatona]

I want to know what is the question you have but is not answered in Christianity.

What are you going to do with it?
To tell from the thread so far you are likely to tell me that Christianity does answers the question to your satisfaction.

 

[quatona]

Because I think it is. And I want a challenge. Just in case I am wrong.

I´m not a selfless person. You ask me to do you a service - what are you offering in return?

 

[juvenissun]

I´m not a selfless person. You ask me to do you a service - what are you offering in return?

I will try to argue with you.

 

[juvenissun]

What are you going to do with it?
To tell from the thread so far you are likely to tell me that Christianity does answers the question to your satisfaction.

Either I will try to help you to solve you question, or I will try to modify my recognition to Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes it can be, but Christianity isn't theology. Theology is something tacked on to Christianity in the form of Apologetics. We can discuss Augustinanity or Aquinasanity, but those are simply Augustine's or Aquinas's attempts to defend Christianity, and not Christianity itself. They didn't add more Holy Scriptures.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So according to you, Christianity is not equal to Christian Theology.

Fine. Now, is Christian Theology a philosophical system?

If yes, then you may start to reply my OP with that modification.
If not, why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now, is Christian Theology a philosophical system?

No, it's a set of philosophical systems. Aquinas =/= Augustine, for instance.

So, which philosophical system do you mean when you refer to Christian Theology? I don't have any clear idea of what set of ideas you are referring to. Perhaps you could provide an outline of that system.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

Just my 2 cents here:

1) Christianity does not satisfactorally answer the problem of evil.

2) Christianity does not satisfactorally resolve the paradox of human free will and a totally sovereign God.

3) Christianity has never fully resolved the conflict between Arminianism and Calvinism (which is somewhat a corollary of #2. And IMO, this is a major issue that goes directly to the heart of Christian belief, and not simply a minor denominational divergence.)

4) Christianity has never fully resolved the conflict between salvation by faith alone, and the role of good works.

5) Christianity has never resolved the conflict between the OT and NT regarding observing the Mosaic law.

Anyone is entitled to believe that the usual apologetics are full and sufficient. But they've never provided coherent answers to my satisfaction. Actually, no religious faith I know of has any doctrine I'd call perfect, and certainly not Christianity. But maybe someone can convince me otherwise.

 

[juvenissun]

Jevunissun (quote) “If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?"


(reply)
I would argue that not only is Christianity not the perfect philosophical system, but that Christianity can often be the opposite of philosophy.
Philosophy is often about questions that cannot be answered; Christianity is often about answers that cannot be questioned

Ken

I, a faithful Christian, question Christianity all the time.

 

[juvenissun]

The primary source of your difficulty is that you think from the start that those questions are fundamental as opposed to simply possible questions we can ask. Some possible questions are indeed basic, such as whether we can trust our sensory input or questions about ethics or logic, but some questions, such as cosmology or eschatology, seem to me less practical and more prone to speculation over any concrete answers that have relevance to our present lives. Which is why I tend to be a Buddhist in the Zen sense more than Theravadan or Vajrayana

Yes, if a question is fundamental or not could be interpreted. But it is a question anyway. And to some people like me, the origin questions is very important.

Zen is beautiful. I like it at lot. But, it does not answer some of my "basic" questions. How would you answer the question which asks what is the purpose of this life according to Zen?

 

[juvenissun]

Just because you want to know doesn't mean that it's something that is in your best interest. You might want to know many things, but will that make you more fulfilled? That's where Buddhism and Daoism differ strongly with religions based in a permanent afterlife like heaven/hell. Why should your future determine what you do now? Unless you're a strong determinist, your future is essentially unknown and there are only so many limiting factors on your life, such as your health, etc.

I wouldn't say there's one Orthodox buddhism either, but as I said, I'm not strictly a Buddhist.

If my future is not known, what would guide my behavior now? How do I determine what is "good"? And why should I be "good"?

 

[juvenissun]

something being self evident is different than it being experientially evident. You might have the experience that Christianity is true by experience, but Christianity is clearly not self evident like concepts of numbers or colors, which for the most part, all humanity can understand without much complexity.

How can debates be a sign of perfection if perfection is completion? If something is complete, wouldn't debates be basically pointless? You seem to say that something is objectively perfect, even if it appears subjectively imperfect, which is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too; debate Christianity's truth while also believing it is true without you really needing to debate about its truth

In Christianity, we do not know the whole truth. But we obtained enough guide to seek the truth. In the seeking process, debating is a good practice. The perfection of Christianity is that it sets up a perfect framework of the whole system from the beginning to the end. And it allows individuals to fill up the framework with personal development. In the debate of Christianity among Christians, there is no lose or win, it only has win and win.

 

[juvenissun]

As people have already pointed out, there are questions that Christianity would basically answer the same to. How can we understand the Trinity? Why did God create so many humans only to condemn most of them to hell? Why did God create "Lucifer"?

Just because Buddhism chooses not to answer what you think are fundamental questions doesn't make it incomplete or imperfect, since as I argued, perhaps your fundamental questions aren't all so fundamental.

The origin questions have to be fundamental in any philosophical thought. That is about the beginning of anything. It IS fundamental no matter how do you look at it.

Yes, there are answers (in the Christian Scripture) to all your questions asked about Christianity. It does not matter if you agree with them or not, the answers are there. If you like to get into it, pick one and we can talk about it briefly.

 

[juvenissun]

Christianity, like (nearly) every religion, is not just a theology, it is a tool of statecraft and a very profitable business.

I think you are saying that it IS a theology. That is good enough.

 

[juvenissun]

The difference between theology and philosophy seems to hinge on the source of your authority. Philosophy draws from rules of rhetoric and logic established over time, whereas theology draws from holy texts and then tries to formulate them systematically. Theology is religious philosophy, whereas philosophy can manifest in philosophy of religion.

Like I said, the only extra axiom needed in theology to be conformed with traditional philosophy is that "God exists". The rest would be all philosophical. Yes, the consequence of that single extra axiom is that it produces a sole authority.