Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

I asked you to demonstrate that the answers Christianity gives are true. You haven’t done that here. Christianity’s answer to the origin of life hasn’t been shown to be true. In fact, the creation stories in Genesis have been shown to be false. A philosophy that provides false answers can hardly be considered perfect. A perfect philosophy would be without defect or fault.


It seems as though when you say, “Christianity is a perfect philosophical system”, what you really mean is, “Christianity is a perfect belief system for me”.

If a perfect system can be built, there is no need to prove it. The system itself is a proof.

 

[juvenissun]

What about the rest of the argument? Are you going to ignore it? Christianity does not say why, which is an important part of a philosophy. It offers no explanation on the nature of God and the universe, unless you take a literal interpretation - and we know that the literal interpretation is wrong.

Besides, as Wiccan said, you're claiming that it's perfect so you're going to need to put forward reasons to.

That is a complete misunderstanding. I, a faithful Christian, like to ask why on everything about this religious system. If a philosophical system does not allow question, then no one will take it seriously.

The reason that i say Christianity is perfect because it seemingly answered all my whys very satisfactorily.

 

[SithDoughnut]

That is a complete misunderstanding. I, a faithful Christian, like to ask why on everything about this religious system. If a philosophical system does not allow question, then no one will take it seriously.

The reason that i say Christianity is perfect because it seemingly answered all my whys very satisfactorily.

All your whys? A perfect philosophical system should answer all whys. It should allow questions, and answer every single one of them. Christianity cannot do this.

And, like everyone else has said, we're still waiting for you to prove your claim. Yes, it does need proof. No, it doesn't magically prove itself true. You are often talking in the C&E forum about how there isn't enough evidence for one thing or another, so now it's time to hold yourself to the same standards. A perfect philosophical system would be proven to be correct. Until you can do this, it can never be perfect.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

One at a time.

Christianity is a philosophy of man. A man has a need to know his future, that is so-called the goal. And Christianity addresses that concern.

Why is this not good (breaking the sense of completion?)? Would a system not be complete if the end is not known?

Humans don't need to know their future, they only have to have a plan about it at best. And even then, there needs to be flexibility in that plan, does there not?

Completion isn't necessarily built on certainty in any psychological sense, but contentment, sometimes in the inevitability that we cannot know either the absolute beginning or end of things. that's why I find Buddhism superior, Zen in particular, since it's more pragmatic and focused on practice as opposed to any strict tenets of beliefs to the extent that many Abrahamic squabble over.

To answer the other question, that seems to presume that completion is a matter of ontology and teleology as opposed to a more psychological consideration of contentment and tranquility against harsh criticisms and the like.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It does not matter if the answer is good or not good to a person. But it has a structured answer.

For example, the origin problems, and their relationships to the present and to the future. To look at it from the beginning to the end, it is very beautiful.

I do not see such a complete system anywhere else.

Again, this suggests that you expect too much for a system to be complete. Even Christianity doesn't have complete answers to those questions, since they're a matter of faith in their inception. You believe god created the world because you believe god is a creator. you believe the final judgment will come because it was prophesied through God's messengers, etc, etc.

Buddhism not having a direct answer is not a matter of incompleteness, but a different focus. Beginnings and ends happen all around us. We lost a family cat, but we're growing more loving of the stray cat in memory of the cat we lost. People are born and people die. These sorts of practical matters are more important. Honestly, I can't say I'm a buddhist in the strictest sense, since rebirth to me is not something we can understand fully, since it's like anything related to death and life to begin with, experiential and almost immanent in transcendence, since we're a part of a large web of life, one might say. in that sense, you might find my philosophy even more incomplete, because I generally steer clear of notions of the afterlife and cosmology overall.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The faith in a philosophical system can be treated as assumption. I am not sure, but I think in Christianity, we only need one major assumption: God exists.

All other doctrines can be discussed according to logic. For example, what is the property of God? Or what is the relationship between God and man? And, as it is discussed in another thread, what is free will?

People can reject some contents of a philosophical system. But if the system structurally provides arguments to the concern, then it satisfied a requirement of being complete. And if the argument is essential and supports the whole system, then the system is perfect, regardless if people accept that particular argument of not.

In Christianity, you'd need more than the presumption that god exists, otherwise you'd just be arguing amongst other theists about why your arguments are superior in proving trinitarianism or penal substitution as opposed to Muslim and Jewish arguments opposing those ideas.

I think you're suggesting moreso a term like comprehensive, and in that sense, every worldview is comprehensive in that it covers virtually everything. But Christianity or Buddhism don't necessarily cover politics and the like. THose are usually more secular in nature or at least more oriented towards stricter rules. A system that can argue for itself is not perfect; at the very least, it is defensible. That's about the best you can say for any philosophical system, because, yes, there are basic axioms that exist with any of them, even something like Cartesian dualism.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I try to ask a question to Buddhism, but I do not get an answer: What is the origin of life? This is a very fundamental question. But Buddhism avoids it completely. The idea of nothing is everything and everything is nothing does not address this question.

I can't say I've ever heard that idea so explicitly said in Buddhism. There are paradoxes in Buddhism, yes, but that doesn't mean you have to automatically reject them as nonsensical, incoherent or contradictory. If you try to apply a dualist critique, you're missing the point. Buddhism isn't dualistic, it's nondualistic.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If a perfect system can be built, there is no need to prove it. The system itself is a proof.

You're basically trying to say, if I understand this right, that a perfect system is also self evidently demonstrable and true. But clearly this isn't the case, because even among Christians, there are disagreements about what should be included within it. Catholics value more sacraments and veneration of saints, for two examples, whereas Protestants only retained about 3 of the sacraments and also streamlined a lot of ecclesial authority down to conventions and such. Basically, even Christianity as a whole can't agree on orthodoxy, let alone a single philosophical explication of everything within it.

 

[quatona]

The reason that i say Christianity is perfect because it seemingly answered all my whys very satisfactorily.

It doesn´t answer mine.

 

[juvenissun]

All your whys? A perfect philosophical system should answer all whys. It should allow questions, and answer every single one of them. Christianity cannot do this.

And, like everyone else has said, we're still waiting for you to prove your claim. Yes, it does need proof. No, it doesn't magically prove itself true. You are often talking in the C&E forum about how there isn't enough evidence for one thing or another, so now it's time to hold yourself to the same standards. A perfect philosophical system would be proven to be correct. Until you can do this, it can never be perfect.

There are certainly unanswered questions in Christianity to those who do not accept the provided answers, such as how old is the earth etc. But the system provides a version of answer to every possible question. As I said, you may not like the answer, but an answer is there, and all the answers fit together, across time and space, very beautifully. That makes the system complete.

In that sense, what do I need to prove?

 

[juvenissun]

Humans don't need to know their future, they only have to have a plan about it at best. And even then, there needs to be flexibility in that plan, does there not?

I strongly against that. I want to know my future. I want to know if I am still alive after I die. The reason I want to know is because the answer will determine what I do now.

Orthodox Buddhism does not answer that.

 

[3sigma]

If a perfect system can be built, there is no need to prove it. The system itself is a proof.

Maybe if a system was perfect then that would be self-evident, but it happens to be self-evident that Christianity is far from perfect. It is riddled with errors.

The reason that i say Christianity is perfect because it seemingly answered all my whys very satisfactorily.

Again, what you should have said is, “Christianity is a perfect belief system for me”. It may have answered all your questions to your satisfaction, but I find Christianity’s answers ludicrous so it isn’t perfect for me and a philosophy that isn’t perfect for everyone clearly isn’t perfect at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, this suggests that you expect too much for a system to be complete. Even Christianity doesn't have complete answers to those questions, since they're a matter of faith in their inception. You believe god created the world because you believe god is a creator. you believe the final judgment will come because it was prophesied through God's messengers, etc, etc.

Buddhism not having a direct answer is not a matter of incompleteness, but a different focus. Beginnings and ends happen all around us. We lost a family cat, but we're growing more loving of the stray cat in memory of the cat we lost. People are born and people die. These sorts of practical matters are more important. Honestly, I can't say I'm a buddhist in the strictest sense, since rebirth to me is not something we can understand fully, since it's like anything related to death and life to begin with, experiential and almost immanent in transcendence, since we're a part of a large web of life, one might say. in that sense, you might find my philosophy even more incomplete, because I generally steer clear of notions of the afterlife and cosmology overall.

I am not saying Christianity makes people understand everything. To give an answer is different from to make people understand. I am saying that Christianity provides logic answers to everything except the faith, which is taken as an assumption. I know Buddhism is also very wide and deep. It also has a beautiful logic system. But, as I always complained, it does not provide answers to some fundamental questions. If this is true, then only focus will not help on the overall satisfaction.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe if a system was perfect then that would be self-evident, but it happens to be self-evident that Christianity is far from perfect. It is riddled with errors.


Again, what you should have said is, “Christianity is a perfect belief system for me”. It may have answered all your questions to your satisfaction, but I find Christianity’s answers ludicrous so it isn’t perfect for me and a philosophy that isn’t perfect for everyone clearly isn’t perfect at all.

You do not understand my argument. I am using me as an example for a general discussion. It is not only about me. You are also included.

 

[3sigma]

It is not only about me. You are also included.

It’s more than that. Everyone is included. If a philosophy were actually perfect then everyone would find it so. Two thirds of the world’s population thinks Christianity is wrong so it obviously isn’t perfect.

 

[juvenissun]

In Christianity, you'd need more than the presumption that god exists, otherwise you'd just be arguing amongst other theists about why your arguments are superior in proving trinitarianism or penal substitution as opposed to Muslim and Jewish arguments opposing those ideas.

I think you're suggesting moreso a term like comprehensive, and in that sense, every worldview is comprehensive in that it covers virtually everything. But Christianity or Buddhism don't necessarily cover politics and the like. THose are usually more secular in nature or at least more oriented towards stricter rules. A system that can argue for itself is not perfect; at the very least, it is defensible. That's about the best you can say for any philosophical system, because, yes, there are basic axioms that exist with any of them, even something like Cartesian dualism.

In a sense, I am exactly doing that. I am comparing religion systems on a philosophical basis. I do think Christianity is a more complete system than others.

My limited knowledge leads me to consider more on the origin-future questions and relationships. As far as I know, Christianity is far more superior than any other religious/philosophical systems on this issue.

And, yes, Christianity has many teachings on politics too. It even gives many examples. In fact, this is an area included extensively in Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

I can't say I've ever heard that idea so explicitly said in Buddhism. There are paradoxes in Buddhism, yes, but that doesn't mean you have to automatically reject them as nonsensical, incoherent or contradictory. If you try to apply a dualist critique, you're missing the point. Buddhism isn't dualistic, it's nondualistic.

I am not arguing against Buddhism. I only want to know what does it say to some questions. Origin of life is one of them. I will only ask question, but not arguing about the answer, until I get a complete picture of it.

The most common answer I got so far is: "we do not talk about it".

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn´t answer mine.

What is your question that Christianity does not provide an answer?

 

[juvenissun]

It’s more than that. Everyone is included. If a philosophy were actually perfect then everyone would find it so. Two thirds of the world’s population thinks Christianity is wrong so it obviously isn’t perfect.

You still don't get it.

The system is complete regardless if the answers included in it are right or wrong. Right or wrong is a different consideration.

It is similar to evaluate a research proposal. You look at if the proposal is completed of not. Then you consider if the content is good or not.

 

[juvenissun]

You're basically trying to say, if I understand this right, that a perfect system is also self evidently demonstrable and true. But clearly this isn't the case, because even among Christians, there are disagreements about what should be included within it. Catholics value more sacraments and veneration of saints, for two examples, whereas Protestants only retained about 3 of the sacraments and also streamlined a lot of ecclesial authority down to conventions and such. Basically, even Christianity as a whole can't agree on orthodoxy, let alone a single philosophical explication of everything within it.

That is enough. It does not have to be true.

Nobody in Christianity is debating on its framework structure (otherwise, it becomes a cult). All debates are about details. And as I said, this fact is a symptom of perfectness.