Christianity as a philosophical system?

[quatona]

I will try to argue with you.

What would be the point? Based on what premises or paradigms are you going to argue - the ones that your worldview is built upon or mine?
(Depending on these options, the outcome is predictable, anyway)

 

[quatona]

Either I will try to help you to solve you question,

Well, my questions are answered quite fine, thank you: Without the assumption of a deity existing.
Now, I will admit that Christianity offers some more or less elegant solutions/answers to some more or less interesting questions/problems - however, these problems/questions are created by Christian preassumptions, and both the problems/questions and the answers/solutions are completely insignificant to me.
Why would I ask questions that don´t make sense to me, just so I can get answers that post hoc necessitate the questions?

or I will try to modify my recognition to Christianity.

Which part of your Christian worldview would you like to modify?
Why?

Besides: if you want me to humour you and to point out inconsistencies of your Christian view so that you can modify them I first would have to know the particularities of your view - there seem to be roughly as many Christian worldviews as there are self-professing Christians.

 

[quatona]

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.

I am under the impression that whenever we are allowed to add an extra axiom we won´t have much problems creating an internally consistent ("perfect") philosophy.

Yes, the consequence of that single extra axiom is that it produces a sole authority.

To me it seems like this is not a consequence but the very preassumption. I have yet to be shown how a god - should such exist - is an authority of sorts, and even less a sole authority (other than by definition of the respective god-concept).

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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?

So you admit that you're being purely subjective in saying that the origin question is fundamental? Then your argument falls apart as to why I should even respond to your question. I don't think it's important and a Zen response to your question could range around any number of answers to koans, which reflect the same idea that we shouldn't be attached to any particular paradigm as the end all to our questions and searching.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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"?

Our behaviors are guided by telos to an extent, I'm not saying otherwise, except that our telos should be dynamic. We shouldn't have one end goal in mind and dismiss any other as insufficient or unnecessary. If my overall goal in my life is to help the world and improve our state of knowledge/wisdom about some subject, then that's what will motivate me.


And now you're just getting into meta ethical questions. Determining what good is doesn't necessarily require a teleological model. Nor does determining why you should be good require an end goal in mind.

A general principle of the Golden Rule would suffice in itself as to why one should be good by virtue of sympathy and mutual understanding. You don't need any goal necessarily to see why you should be good. But you don't need to know exactly what your future is in order to still have some goal in mind.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

In short, this boils down again to the notion that Christianity is objectively perfect, regardless and independent of our mind's investigation of it. And this just seems to really make your statement pointless, because we can't ever demonstrate it, it's just an axiom to answer the objection that debate wouldn't make a system perfect in itself or self evidently so. You're saying that we have subjective relationships to this objectively perfect system, so that even if it APPEARS to be imperfect, it's still ACTUALLY perfect regardless of if it appears to be so or not.

That only compels debate and discussion in a limited sense, since we have believers already certain that the system is perfect even if they don't have any significant evidence. Instead, they view the diversity and even blatant contradictions within the system as somehow manifestations of a greater perfection than we can understand. And that just seems to smack of normative relativism, that is, everything is basically equal because we can't know anything with certainty that is objectively so.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

No, clearly the questions of origin aren't fundamental, except in the sense that we are instinctively compelled to seek answers to them. That doesn't mean they're fundamental in that they are necessary to a fulfilled and meaningful system. I can feel compelled and meaningful in my practice of Zen, for instance, without ever contemplating where the world and the universe came from or where they're going to end.

Just because you can interpret some answer from the scriptures doesn't mean it's actually correct or justified in the whole context of those scriptures. People can interpret the passages about Lucifer and the like to suggest that Satan is identical to Lucifer without considering the scholarly consensus that Lucifer was a title, not a name of a prehistorical entity like Gabriel or Michael for two examples.

Any answer you present can be contradicted by another answer which opposes that answer's conclusion and affirms the opposite. There are Christians who believe Satan is more metaphorical and figurative than some actual malevolent demon. Not to say they don't believe the Satans in the Bible to all be figurative or metaphorical, but simply not supernatural in nature.

 

[The Nihilist]

BLIND POST

So the answer is no, right?

 

[juvenissun]

Just my 2 cents here:

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

Big questions. But believe it or not, it has all been addressed.

Take the first one: Christianity is the best among all which clearly (and satisfactorily) solve any problem concerned to evil. What is the problem about evil do you have?

 

[The Nihilist]

Big questions. But believe it or not, it has all been addressed.

Take the first one: Christianity is the best among all which clearly (and satisfactorily) solve any problem concerned to evil. What is the problem about evil do you have?

Hey guys, check it out! A christian thinks christianity is awesome! I've never seen that before!

 

[juvenissun]

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

I am not a philosopher. I do not know what subset philosophy has. I might do better on a multiple choice question in that case.

But "a set of" a system IS a system. Isn't it? You may compare this subset with other subsets, I think Christianity would be the best subset in your classification.

 

[juvenissun]

What would be the point? Based on what premises or paradigms are you going to argue - the ones that your worldview is built upon or mine?
(Depending on these options, the outcome is predictable, anyway)

Depends on the human nature, which should only have one version.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, my questions are answered quite fine, thank you: Without the assumption of a deity existing.
Now, I will admit that Christianity offers some more or less elegant solutions/answers to some more or less interesting questions/problems - however, these problems/questions are created by Christian preassumptions, and both the problems/questions and the answers/solutions are completely insignificant to me.
Why would I ask questions that don´t make sense to me, just so I can get answers that post hoc necessitate the questions?

Which part of your Christian worldview would you like to modify?
Why?

Besides: if you want me to humour you and to point out inconsistencies of your Christian view so that you can modify them I first would have to know the particularities of your view - there seem to be roughly as many Christian worldviews as there are self-professing Christians.

OK, it seems you are seeking a challenge. Here it is one for you:

What is the purpose of your (or my) life on the earth?
Please be simple and to the point. I will try to understand.

The point of this question is try to point out a potential problem of your view, if it is something different from that in Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

I am under the impression that whenever we are allowed to add an extra axiom we won´t have much problems creating an internally consistent ("perfect") philosophy.

To me it seems like this is not a consequence but the very preassumption. I have yet to be shown how a god - should such exist - is an authority of sorts, and even less a sole authority (other than by definition of the respective god-concept).

Your second paragraph argued against your first paragraph. If just one axiom is needed to solve big problems, it must be an excellent one.

Your second paragraph addressed a problem on the property of God, which is indeed a topic in Christianity. Christianity does have a good answer to this problem.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But "a set of" a system IS a system. Isn't it?

No, it's a collection of systems that aren't necessarily designed to be understood together. I wouldn't call that collection a system.

You may compare this subset with other subsets, I think Christianity would be the best subset in your classification.

Christianity isn't a philosophical system.

Unless you describe for me the system you mean, I will have little idea what you are talking about. That makes it difficult for me to reply.

What is the purpose of your (or my) life on the earth?

Please answer first. You are the one claiming that your philosophical system is perfect, not me. Your claim of the perfection of your system won't be supported one tiny bit even if you could prove to me that my system is worthless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

So you admit that you're being purely subjective in saying that the origin question is fundamental? Then your argument falls apart as to why I should even respond to your question. I don't think it's important and a Zen response to your question could range around any number of answers to koans, which reflect the same idea that we shouldn't be attached to any particular paradigm as the end all to our questions and searching.

There should be a way to pick one and to focus on. It is a very important choice and one could not do that just according to one's feeling. More importantly, the one you pick should last. You could not focus on this one today and on that one tomorrow. The one you focused on should be a life-time one.

May be your focus to relieve the worldly pain. But what about pain outside this world? How do you know it does not matter? How do you know that there isn't one which is above all these second level concerns?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey guys, check it out! A christian thinks christianity is awesome! I've never seen that before!

That's almost exactly what I thought, to the letter

 

[juvenissun]

No, it's a collection of systems that aren't necessarily designed to be understood together. I wouldn't call that collection a system.



Christianity isn't a philosophical system.

Unless you describe for me the system you mean, I will have little idea what you are talking about. That makes it difficult for me to reply.



eudaimonia,

Mark

OK, please tell me what should be in a system and you will have them all in Christianity.

It has a beginning, a process, and an end. It has a structure, and has rich contents. It has answers and methods to all conceivable questions.

What else is needed?

 

[juvenissun]

Hey guys, check it out! A christian thinks christianity is awesome! I've never seen that before!

You are not logic.

It should be: Christianity is awesome. So, I, and others, want to be a Christian.

This thread gives you a chance to question it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

OK, please tell me what should be in a system and you will have them all in Christianity.

It has a beginning, a process, and an end. It has a structure, and has rich contents. It has answers and methods to all conceivable questions.

What else is needed?

Any philosophical system does not merely present positions, but presents carefully reasoned justifications for those positions.


eudaimonia,

Mark