What are the acheivements of christian philosophy

[perplexed]

Some people seem to be very big on the idea that
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

I don't think this better than saying "The Bible and prayer will help you make better decisions when you are wrestling with a moral dilema". because I think everyone would either agree with both propositions or disagree with both propositions.


Since humans a flawed creatures that cannot understand absolute morality anyway I don't understand what people are hoping to acheive by brining up. I believe that there have been people that have stopped being evil because of religious experiences or compassion or empathy, but I cannot see some changing their ways just because someone tells them
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

 

[The Nihilist]

The primary achievement of christian philosophy has been the enslavement of the human spirit.

 

[perplexed]

what does that mean?

 

[bricklayer]

A spiritually dead person's philosophy describes a metaphysical, spiritual and eternal void.

A spiritually regenerated person begins the process of repenting from the former philosophy.

Philosophy is a brotherly love for understanding what to do with what one knows.
Philosophies are bodies of thought.

Philosophy is closer to an appetite that sandwich.

Philosophy consists of rhetoric, logic and reason.
Philosophies consist of Plato, Locke, etc.

 

[The Nihilist]

what does that mean?

Well, christianity managed to convince a lot of people that they were worthless, ruined beings who can never doing anything good and need to spend their existences groveling before a god to be allowed to privilege of being with him. It turned Europe into a pathetic mess for some thousand years. That's what that means.

 

[Paradoxum]

Some people seem to be very big on the idea that
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

I don't think this better than saying "The Bible and prayer will help you make better decisions when you are wrestling with a moral dilema". because I think everyone would either agree with both propositions or disagree with both propositions.


Since humans a flawed creatures that cannot understand absolute morality anyway I don't understand what people are hoping to acheive by brining up. I believe that there have been people that have stopped being evil because of religious experiences or compassion or empathy, but I cannot see some changing their ways just because someone tells them
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

Has anyone ever tried to make an evil person good by saying 'God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority'? They are more likely to say that 'Jesus died for your sins', or 'God will send you to hell'.

What do you mean by God having 'absolute moral authority'? If it means God can choose to make rape good if he wanted then maybe the point is to say that one must read the Bible to know how to be good. But if it means that the objective moral law is in the mind of God then the point will be to give some sort of grounding to morality. To say God is outside space and time has consequences to ones' worldview too.

But what are the achievements of Christian philosophy? Interesting arguments. There is probably more than that but it is late.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Perplexed: Hmm ... that's a pretty hard question because Christian philosophy has given us several, often conflicting opinions. Some of the better ideas which stemmed from Christian thought include ...

• The separation of Church and State. This started right from Jesus himself and his "Render unto Caeser" line, and extended right throught the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition. The church only had power over religious laws while the Monarchy had power over secular laws (the term "secular is actually a Medieval one). St Augustine was one of it's most well-known supporters. Ironically, this may actually have increased religious violence - the church and the kings frequently fought over who the people should listen to, and who was the ultimate authority.

• Trial by Jury. Trial by ordeal - the kind where if you floated you were a witch and if you sank you were innocent (and probably drowned) - pre-dates Christianity. Henry II, with the support of the Catholic church, introduced the idea that people should be convincted by their peers. Without the support of the church, trial by ordeal gradually faded away.

• Science. Christianity did not invent the concept of sciene (which goes all the way back to ancient Greece) but expanded upon it. The Greeks believed that nature worked a bit like a giant machine. Christians and Muslims later used this idea to argue that a miraculous machine must have a miraculous inventor. Ancient China, despite being so advanced, never developed our "Western" concept of science because their religions differed greatly from ours.

Well, christianity managed to convince a lot of people that they were worthless, ruined beings who can never doing anything good and need to spend their existences groveling before a god to be allowed to privilege of being with him. It turned Europe into a pathetic mess for some thousand years. That's what that means.

Rubbish. People who have this idea that all of Europe was completely backwards until the Enlightenment clearly know very little about Western history.

For example: during the Anglo-Saxon era, King Athelstan raised the age of criminal responsibility to 16 (it was one of the few good ideas he had - he was a bit of a crappy king). The Victorians by contrast, would regularly hang children under the age of 10 for minor crimes.

Who do you think was more enlightened?

 

[The Nihilist]

Rubbish. People who have this idea that all of Europe was completely backwards until the Enlightenment clearly know very little about Western history.

For example: during the Anglo-Saxon era, King Athelstan raised the age of criminal responsibility to 16 (it was one of the few good ideas he had - he was a bit of a crappy king). The Victorians by contrast, would regularly hang children under the age of 10 for minor crimes.

Who do you think was more enlightened?

I'd probably have said the Reformation, rather than the Enlightenment. Regarding your example, I'm not sure I can say who was more enlightened based on two cherry-picked examples of your one selected criterion.

 

[juvenissun]

Some people seem to be very big on the idea that
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

I don't think this better than saying "The Bible and prayer will help you make better decisions when you are wrestling with a moral dilema". because I think everyone would either agree with both propositions or disagree with both propositions.


Since humans a flawed creatures that cannot understand absolute morality anyway I don't understand what people are hoping to acheive by brining up. I believe that there have been people that have stopped being evil because of religious experiences or compassion or empathy, but I cannot see some changing their ways just because someone tells them
"God exists outside of space and time and has absolute moral authority."

The achievement is: The Christian philosophy is a system which is able to provide internally consistent answers to ALL questions.

So far, no other philosophical system can do the same. Everyone of them has no answer to some questions.

 

[perplexed]

The achievement is: The Christian philosophy is a system which is able to provide internally consistent answers to ALL questions.

So far, no other philosophical system can do the same. Everyone of them has no answer to some questions.

I assume you mean that other philosophies fail to answer some major questions that christian philosophy answers,

 

[juvenissun]

I assume you mean that other philosophies fail to answer some major questions that christian philosophy answers,

Not all of them "failed". Some of them just choose not to touch those questions. But Christianity answers every and all questions.

 

[The Nihilist]

Not all of them "failed". Some of them just choose not to touch those questions. But Christianity answers every and all questions.

I'm just going to leave this here: Theodicy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Not all of them "failed". Some of them just choose not to touch those questions. But Christianity answers every and all questions.

How so? Specifically, how is it that the Christian "worldview" manages to answer questions another "worldview" (like that of Hinduism, say) does not?

Let's not grand-stand, shall we?

 

[juvenissun]

How so? Specifically, how is it that the Christian "worldview" manages to answer questions another "worldview" (like that of Hinduism, say) does not?

Let's not grand-stand, shall we?

For example, Buddhism DOES NOT talk about the origin of the universe. Christianity DOES.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

For example, Buddhism DOES NOT talk about the origin of the universe. Christianity DOES.

OK, Buddhism doesn't talk about the origin of the universe. But Hinduism, let's say, does. So does Islam.

Again, what specifically makes Christianity oh-so-good an explanation of the way the world is? It seems to me you can have a worldview with just as much explanatory force, if not more.

 

[AlexBP]

Well, christianity managed to convince a lot of people that they were worthless, ruined beings who can never doing anything good and need to spend their existences groveling before a god to be allowed to privilege of being with him. It turned Europe into a pathetic mess for some thousand years.

I don't think that any of this is true. Do you have a reliable source--a category that excludes Wikipedia--to back up your claims, or should I just assume that you made all of this up?

 

[The Nihilist]

For example, Buddhism DOES NOT talk about the origin of the universe. Christianity DOES.

You know that the origin of the universe doesn't really matter to buddhism, don't you? You might as well say a man is a bad botanist because he sucks at baking cakes.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't think that any of this is true. Do you have a reliable source--a category that excludes Wikipedia--to back up your claims, or should I just assume that you made all of this up?

1. Wikipedia is about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and here's my nonwikipedia source for that claim: Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News. If that makes you unhappy, wikipedia is pretty good about citing its sources. I'm sure you can go read those.
2. Well, that people are basically worthless ruined beings who can never do anything right is the cornerstone of Paul's theology. This is why he thinks we need forgiveness.
3. That christianity was successful is hardly in doubt.
4. Let me get back to you on whether christianity ruined Europe for a thousand years. Rest assured, though, most of my links will be from wikipedia. If this makes you unhappy, let me refer you to point #1 above.

 

[perplexed]

For example, Buddhism DOES NOT talk about the origin of the universe. Christianity DOES.

Why EXACTLY are the origins of things relevant.

If found out I was adopted and my birth parents had a strange reason for having me I would not feel obligated to fufill my strange purpose.

 

[juvenissun]

Why EXACTLY are the origins of things relevant.

If found out I was adopted and my birth parents had a strange reason for having me I would not feel obligated to fufill my strange purpose.

Relevant or not, it is a question.
The achievement of Christianity is to provide an answer.