What is Christian Philosophy and for what purpose does it serve?

[Agra man]

So can I get some input on what he just sent me?
He said stuff about an inner and outer conscious the outer controlling emoiton and can be taken while the mind consciousness remains then I asked what he meant and he said this

Different levels of consciousness.

The inner conscience Bering the back of the mind, the outer conscience Being the front of the mind.

The subconscious holds information that is just below the surface of awareness like dreams,
Or where traumatic events are stored that we care not to remember.
Such events can come to surface, such as emotional scars deeply buried later on in life.

The subconscious is also attached to awareness ie the outer coincidence
Or the front of the mind.

 

[FireDragon76]

Tertullian's rhetoric on this issue is great, but he also employed methods, language, and concepts that came from philosophy's influence on him. And, those who were more open regarding their use of philosophical tools and concepts made a clear distinction between the philosophies of their day and their faith in Christ, that the latter was the priority, including Origen.

Poor Origen. In his own day, he was so beloved. People said when he preached the Word came alive. The only person who didn't like him was one jealous bishop in Alexandria. Lol. The council a few hundred years later that condemned Origenism and the circumstance surrounding it are altogether suspect, grain of salt I say. He should be read on his own merits, I think. He is by no doubt one of the earliest systematic thinkers and one of the faith's greatest exegetes. I say that admitting he had some ideas that were out there.




I was told a story, perhaps apocryphal, about Barth's early lectures on Schleiermacher. He gave the lectures with a bust of Schleiermacher on the desk; Barth was a severe critic of Schleiermacher's systematic theology. At any rate, at the end of the series, after he had shown all the flaws in S's system, he smashed the bust into pieces. I don't know what that says about Barth, but that would have been entertaining to see.

I'm not a fan of Barth's simplistic historicism (and neither was Bonhoeffer). He blamed Schleiemacher for everything bad Germany did. Completely negating what we know today about the power of demagogues, especially in a crisis like Germany was facing (wheelbarrows full of money just to buy bread).

In my my, Neo-Orthodoxy is a theological dead end. It pretends to reject liberal theology, but it's deeply indebted to it, but wants to continue to use Biblicist style religion as a cudgel (and Bonhoeffer recognized this as well).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I'm not a fan of Barth's simplistic historicism ... He blamed Schleiemacher for everything bad Germany did ... what we know today about the power of demagogues ...

In my my, Neo-Orthodoxy is a theological dead end. It pretends to reject liberal theology, but it's deeply indebted to it, but wants to continue to use Biblicist style religion as a cudgel (and Bonhoeffer recognized this as well).

I got the impression Barth is a fundamentalist. You could put "historicism" in ""'s. (Is it the sort of thing Popper is against?) Perhaps all fundamentalists are cudgelling (not so) "liberal" theologians. (Tim Gloege in Guaranteed Pure traces an episode in marketing of premium religion and the reversing of maximums and minimums for facile ecumenism: true ecumenism should be individual and not institutional.)

Nietzsche said that the god of Bismarck (whose Kulturkampf sought to strongarm in matters of religion) was dead. According to St Paul many leaders who had not discerned the gifts in the people making up the body had become dead in the water, dead hands, dead wood, dead on their feet, a dead weight.

Since I got into hermeneutics - in which I set my own syllabus - I have become more believing.