What are the acheivements of christian philosophy

[juvenissun]

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.

I know. But, they do NOT give an answer to the question. Christianity does.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

What is the view of origin in Hinduism? I never know that.
I think they say that there is no beginning and no end to the universe.

If one asked why? why? and why? on anything, Christianity CAN answer them in a consistent and logic way. I am not sure other philosophical systems can do the same.

Origin problem is particularly meaningful. Because the origin of life determines the meaning of human life. In Hinduism, a human life is not particularly meaningful. I won't be happy if my religion tells me that my current life is not really important.

 

[perplexed]

Origin problem is particularly meaningful. Because the origin of life determines the meaning of human life.

Why is it meaningful?

Knowing that a bullet was created to be fired from a gun tells you alot about the bullet.

However I cannot see why don't consider humans totally different and given that they have free will why origins matter at all.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

What is the view of origin in Hinduism? I never know that.
I think they say that there is no beginning and no end to the universe.

They have a fairly complex cosmology.

If one asked why? why? and why? on anything, Christianity CAN answer them in a consistent and logic way. I am not sure other philosophical systems can do the same.

Actually, Christianity fares no better. It can't explain how something can come out of nothing any more than Hinduism can resolve its infinite recess.

Origin problem is particularly meaningful. Because the origin of life determines the meaning of human life. In Hinduism, a human life is not particularly meaningful. I won't be happy if my religion tells me that my current life is not really important.

Now I see that you're only guessing and making unwarranted assumptions. Human life is not particularly meaningful? It is considered very rare in Hindu scriptures, and so is to be valued.

I see the Christian worldview is no better than any other to answer anything in a "consistent" or "logical" way, whatever those monikers mean....

 

[perplexed]

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

Does the answer go anywhere? If god told you that he always existed
and this is not a paradox that needs to be explained by stating "God must exist outside of time and space" how would it change anything.

 

[juvenissun]

Does the answer go anywhere? If god told you that he always existed
and this is not a paradox that needs to be explained by stating "God must exist outside of time and space" how would it change anything.

Christianity gives all answers that are "internally consistent". It means it is a perfect theological/philosophical system. The answer to any question is meaningful to answers of many other questions.

If God does not always exist, or God is limited by time-space, then Christianity would not stand.

 

[juvenissun]

They have a fairly complex cosmology.


Actually, Christianity fares no better. It can't explain how something can come out of nothing any more than Hinduism can resolve its infinite recess.



Now I see that you're only guessing and making unwarranted assumptions. Human life is not particularly meaningful? It is considered very rare in Hindu scriptures, and so is to be valued.

I see the Christian worldview is no better than any other to answer anything in a "consistent" or "logical" way, whatever those monikers mean....

In Hinduism, the life of a poor person (the lowest class) is dispensable, isn't it?

And, an example of their complex cosmology which addressed the origin question?

In Christianity, the creation from nothing is only "systematically" stated in the first chapter of the first book. That is the way Christianity answers the origin questions. And, this answer is related to many other critical doctrines in Christianity. If this answer were changed (i.e. create things from other things), then the whole Christianity will be different. For example, Jesus Christ would not be meaningful any more. Also, the answer to the origin question will be scientifically wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

No one claimed they were good answers.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is it meaningful?

Knowing that a bullet was created to be fired from a gun tells you alot about the bullet.

However I cannot see why don't consider humans totally different and given that they have free will why origins matter at all.

If it does not matter, then the system is open and lacks of at least one answer. For example, why should there be free will? Or, if we have free will, then what is the purpose or the consequence?

A complete system should give an answer to the meaning of life. And, use your word, Christianity does consider human as a life totally different from any other life forms.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

In Hinduism, the life of a poor person (the lowest class) is dispensable, isn't it?

Are we talking about the actual religion or how it is practiced in a social body? Jews after all were considered dispensable in medieval Europe.

And, an example of their complex cosmology which addressed the origin question?

I can question what you mean by "origins." Let's say that the universe is eternal by nature, on an expanding/contracting basis. There's no way to prove this, of course (at least, empirically). And much of science seems to go against it; still, if this were the case Hinduism would be well in the ballpark in terms of its being "consistent" with such an answer.

In Christianity, the creation from nothing is only "systematically" stated in the first chapter of the first book. That is the way Christianity answers the origin questions. And, this answer is related to many other critical doctrines in Christianity. If this answer were changed (i.e. create things from other things), then the whole Christianity will be different. For example, Jesus Christ would not be meaningful any more. Also, the answer to the origin question will be scientifically wrong.

The same exact things could be said for Hinduism, regarding different things. If reincarnation would not be true, then karma would logically not hold as there is only this one life to live and bear justice/injustice. Everything is logically connected. If gradations in social hierarchy ceased to exist, then people would not know their 'dharma', etc, etc. Logic is not exclusive to Christian thought. Other religions struggle with it all the same. Lastly, the origin question may be reframed per the viewpoint or lens of the religion, and bringing in "science" will not lend you support for whether one religion is more "internally consistent" than any other.

 

[juvenissun]

Are we talking about the actual religion or how it is practiced in a social body? Jews after all were considered dispensable in medieval Europe.

I can question what you mean by "origins." Let's say that the universe is eternal by nature, on an expanding/contracting basis. There's no way to prove this, of course (at least, empirically). And much of science seems to go against it; still, if this were the case Hinduism would be well in the ballpark in terms of its being "consistent" with such an answer.

The same exact things could be said for Hinduism, regarding different things. If reincarnation would not be true, then karma would logically not hold as there is only this one life to live and bear justice/injustice. Everything is logically connected. If gradations in social hierarchy ceased to exist, then people would not know their 'dharma', etc, etc. Logic is not exclusive to Christian thought. Other religions struggle with it all the same. Lastly, the origin question may be reframed per the viewpoint or lens of the religion, and bringing in "science" will not lend you support for whether one religion is more "internally consistent" than any other.

Of course, any major religious/philosophical system is big and is most likely internally consistent. But they do not answer all possible questions.

If you like to use Hinduism as an example, then I can ask a few questions, and I think it will end up with no answer. One does not need to be an expert to the particular religion/philosophy to give assumed answers. One could even make up answers if got stuck. However, it would not be long before those made up answers start to contradict to each other. That is how precious the Christianity is. It has all answers and they never interfere each other, but are mutually constructive. This is a real achievement.

If you like to try it with Hinduism, I can start to ask questions. In my recognition, it is a relatively simply system, and I think at most 5 questions could get to the bottom of it.

 

[AlexBP]

2. Well, that people are basically worthless ruined beings who can never do anything right is the cornerstone of Paul's theology.

That's news to me. Admittedly I can't recite all of Paul's Epistles off the top of my head, but I certainly don't recall any of them describing all humans as "worthless ruined beings" or saying that we call "can't do anything right". In my memory, quite a lot of Paul's letters are filled with praise for both groups and individuals for the various good things that they've done. For instance, chapter 16 of Romans is a long list of commendations:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; ...
​

And so forth. Likewise we can easily find plenty of similar passages in almost all his other letters.

But recall what you actually said is this:

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.

Now anyone who takes a look at European art and literature of the Middle Ages can see that it's overflowing with joy and happiness. The paintings explode with color and are full of happy figures. The writings mostly show a gusto and a joie-de-vivre that contrasts very sharply with the tone of most modern literature written by atheists. I mean honestly, who seems happier: Chaucer or Nietzsche? Saint Francis of Assisi or Schopenhauer? That's why I'm wondering how on earth you can justify the statements that you've made in this thread.

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Of course, any major religious/philosophical system is big and is most likely internally consistent. But they do not answer all possible questions.

What do mean, exactly? Are you saying that, if pressed, such a worldview can't come up with an answer?

If you like to use Hinduism as an example, then I can ask a few questions, and I think it will end up with no answer.

Okay, why do you think so? Have you ever asked those questions before?

One does not need to be an expert to the particular religion/philosophy to give assumed answers. One could even make up answers if got stuck.

What causes you to think Christianity doesn't "make up" answers just as equally to fill in the gaps? Furthermore, what is called "making up" an answer may in fact be the only logical conclusion one can come up with given various preliminary assumptions.

However, it would not be long before those made up answers start to contradict to each other. That is how precious the Christianity is. It has all answers and they never interfere each other, but are mutually constructive. This is a real achievement.

I don't believe you. Christianity, as history has shown, has many conflicting answers which are exclusive. Different Christian thinkers have come up with different answers. This is no testimony to the "mutual constructive" nature of Christianity. A Calvinist has a radically different view of the Bible than a Roman Catholic, or an Orthodox Christian or Coptic Christian.

If you like to try it with Hinduism, I can start to ask questions. In my recognition, it is a relatively simply system, and I think at most 5 questions could get to the bottom of it.

Try me.

 

[perplexed]

Christianity gives all answers that are "internally consistent". It means it is a perfect theological/philosophical system. The answer to any question is meaningful to answers of many other questions.

If God does not always exist, or God is limited by time-space, then Christianity would not stand.

I think we are talking about different things.

I cannot tell the difference between you and someone that says God created himself using mysterious ways that our limited human intellects
cannot understand.

 

[juvenissun]

I think we are talking about different things.

I cannot tell the difference between you and someone that says God created himself using mysterious ways that our limited human intellects
cannot understand.

Are you talking about the origin of God?

In Christianity (or any other religion), the existence of a single God is an axiom and it takes no argument. The next step is to define this God.

 

[juvenissun]

What do mean, exactly? Are you saying that, if pressed, such a worldview can't come up with an answer?



Okay, why do you think so? Have you ever asked those questions before?



What causes you to think Christianity doesn't "make up" answers just as equally to fill in the gaps? Furthermore, what is called "making up" an answer may in fact be the only logical conclusion one can come up with given various preliminary assumptions.



I don't believe you. Christianity, as history has shown, has many conflicting answers which are exclusive. Different Christian thinkers have come up with different answers. This is no testimony to the "mutual constructive" nature of Christianity. A Calvinist has a radically different view of the Bible than a Roman Catholic, or an Orthodox Christian or Coptic Christian.



Try me.

Argument within the Christian doctrine should not be taken as no answer. It should be taken as having too many answers. They are not conflicting. They are simply different.

OK, the first question about Hinduism: Why should there be four (?) different classes of people? Why not just two? or many be six?

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

Argument within the Christian doctrine should not be taken as no answer. It should be taken as having too many answers. They are not conflicting. They are simply different.

Again, I see you being very vague here and not completely coherent. Too many answers? Are they all conflicting? If not, why shouldn't there only be one?

OK, the first question about Hinduism: Why should there be four (?) different classes of people? Why not just two? or many be six?

So, are you trying to establish an "answer" that Hinduism may not give, but that Christianity can? Alright then, here Hinduism, as far as I can tell, has an answer which is based on human nature.

The division into four classes is something not peculiar to Hindus only but is also seen in medieval Europe with serfs, merchants, kings/vassals, and of course priests/scholars. Some people have natural tendencies which fit more or less into one of these groups: not always completely of course, but reality never matches one's expectations exactly.

If you are good with high objects of thought, and you are intellectually/spiritually inclined, you are more of a Brahmana. If you are more of an administrator, or have a knack for working with people in projects and tasks, then you are a Kshatriya or governmental person. If you are good with money and business, or maybe you are an artisinal person, you would be a Vaishya, and if you are not intellectually inclined but simply like working with your hands, then you are a proud Sudra. Where do you fit in if not into one of these groups?

So the answer seems to be: human nature typically falls into one of these groups or is more or less situated in one of these classes.

 

[perplexed]

Are you talking about the origin of God?

In Christianity (or any other religion), the existence of a single God is an axiom and it takes no argument. The next step is to define this God.

Your axioms seem to be the basis of your argument. So christian philosophy is perfect because it is perfect.

 

[juvenissun]

Your axioms seem to be the basis of your argument. So christian philosophy is perfect because it is perfect.

Yes, I think there is absolutely no other way to go around it. How could one talk about any religion without the axiom that God exists? Do away with it, then it is not religion any more.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, I see you being very vague here and not completely coherent. Too many answers? Are they all conflicting? If not, why shouldn't there only be one?



So, are you trying to establish an "answer" that Hinduism may not give, but that Christianity can? Alright then, here Hinduism, as far as I can tell, has an answer which is based on human nature.

The division into four classes is something not peculiar to Hindus only but is also seen in medieval Europe with serfs, merchants, kings/vassals, and of course priests/scholars. Some people have natural tendencies which fit more or less into one of these groups: not always completely of course, but reality never matches one's expectations exactly.

If you are good with high objects of thought, and you are intellectually/spiritually inclined, you are more of a Brahmana. If you are more of an administrator, or have a knack for working with people in projects and tasks, then you are a Kshatriya or governmental person. If you are good with money and business, or maybe you are an artisinal person, you would be a Vaishya, and if you are not intellectually inclined but simply like working with your hands, then you are a proud Sudra. Where do you fit in if not into one of these groups?

So the answer seems to be: human nature typically falls into one of these groups or is more or less situated in one of these classes.

OK, I take it as your answer, but not the answer from Hinduism. And in fact, you did not really answer the question (why 4 but not 2 or 6?).

Based on your answer, here is the second question: Why should or must the higher class people treat the lower class people like dirt? For example, killing one of the lowest class man is not guilty, but is reasonable. And why can't the lower class people switch to the higher class by changing (or improving) the characters? Who said that a beggar can not become the king?

-------

I don't know much about Hinduism (I believe they have many many scriptures). However these salient questions about Hinduism should have clear answers put right on the front face of the religion. Just like people will ask Christian: why should your God die in order to save you? (this is, in fact, a pretty hard one)

If you like to switch religion/philosophy to continue the argument, we can certainly do that. Or you may throw hard question about Christianity to me and see if I could give you an answer (I wish I could not).