[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /lit/ - 2158

File: 1443763198237.png (1.36 MB, 300x153, 35412355_p0.jpg)


What do you think about Christian philosophy?
Do you have a favorite Christian philosopher (or author for that matter)?

Mine are aquinas, eckhart, john of the cross, augustine, kierkegaard, balthasar, and of course based maritain.


File: 1443763627487-0.png (2.12 MB, 200x200, Kierkegaard, S - Fear & Trembling-Repetition [Writings, Vol. 6] (Princeton, 1983).pdf)

File: 1443763627487-1.png (1.37 MB, 200x200, John of the cross - dark night of the soul.pdf)


I prefer to go straight Bible + Prayer + Meditation. Christian philosophers are as unnecessary as the pope.


C.S. Lewis


It's spooky.


File: 1443794178809.png (1.18 MB, 200x142, 1423522899805.jpg)

This is what most protestants say, but the pope is not unnecessary.
the catholic church is the Christian center of the world and its doctrine is just as important today as it was in luther's time.

"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
The "sacred science" as aquinas calls it, is founded upon the study of divine truths, revealed to us by revelation.
For protestants, the bible really is a matter of interpretation, because the majority of them are not prepared to understand things like divine mysteries or for that matter the bible.
Granted, knowledge is not a prerequisite for divine truth, but it almost always accompanies it.


File: 1443801755202.png (49.59 KB, 200x200, 1385581288165.jpg)

>for protestants
the popes do the same thing, every one with different opinions on and interpretations of the same old texts. why would meanings and "the truth" change over time?


I always liked Leo Tolstoy's Christian Anarchism philosophy.


File: 1443802378246.png (630.42 KB, 200x114, Praise.png)

>Christian philosophy thread
>No mention of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ would be mine.


I really like Origen and a lot of the Gnostic or Christian Mystic authors.

I've also been reading Augustine's City of God for the past month which has been alright so far, but I wish his condemnation of paganism wasn't so long. Also been reading Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses which has been pretty good so far.


File: 1443850328445.png (899.09 KB, 200x140, 902297.jpg)

The pope doesn't just change catholic doctrine, the church has a good spirit of reformation, guided by the holy spirit.
The popes have different personalities, and they place different importance on different subjects as they relate to our ever changing world.
However, the doctrine is built from the top-down.


File: 1444628436358.png (31.47 KB, 132x200, inner christianity.jpg)

I thought this book was pretty good. A little new agey, but still a good resource for those studying historic Christian mysticism.


well, he's not that bad, but he has pretty unpopular views


trinitarianism doesn't make any sense and has no scriptural basis



Which trinity?


File: 1445051196379.png (277.21 KB, 200x179, Claes.full.214582.jpg)

Probably referring to the hypostatic union of the chalcedonian creed.


Whoops spelled the tripcode wrong.



What about something more along the lines of emanationism?


Mostly Kierkegaard and Lewis.


I've never considered that Christian, it has its similarities to the argument from contingency but when people begin to write things that aren't completely honest about the ontology of it, the gaps tend to get filled in quite imaginatively, and this is sort of the basis for esoterism.


>Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses which has been pretty good so far.
anyone got a link to this?
and this: >>2207

top down, but with input from the bottom. Anglican myself, so we've got a similar structure (and quite frankly, similar views, especially on issues like this).


you mean theology?


File: 1466413331382.png (287.8 KB, 200x150, Last Bus to Nowhere.jpg)

On an intellectual level, St.Aquinas is a must for me. However, St.Augustine's Confessions and the City of God (which I'm reading now) along with St.Theresa of Avilla's Interior Castle and St. Therese de Liseux's autobiography shas a nice vibe of mysticism that's somewhat lacking in Aquinas' works. I honestly don't know which aspect I like better.


Spinoza is the most Christian thinker I subscribe to.


Shameless heretic/heathen (depending on who you ask) here with very weird ideas regarding this whole thing. Don't take anything I say as being backed by anyone ever. This is not at all based on scripture or similar. It's just the ramblings of a mad man.

It has little scriptural basis because the early jews were concerned mostly with the father, being the one who actually talked to them and stuff. It's been widely accepted despite this because things don't really make any sense without it. Why did the all knowing, all perfect, being apologising for flooding the world?

I think maintaining the distinction of the trinity is very important towards an understanding of god. When you see the parts as seperate everything makes a lot more sense. Suddenly, the father is just another father. A flawed, finite being who's doing the best he can for his children and doesn't always get it right. The spirit is all powerful, all seeing, all loving and thoroughly unconcerned about anything that happens on this tiny ball of dirt at the unfashionable end of the milky way or anything else for that matter. It is mindless (sorta anyway). The reason it can be all loving, unlike us finite beings who hate on people who do things like call our name when they don't really need us, is that it does not judge at all. It loves the most despicable of men as much as the best of us because it cannot really tell the difference.

Emanationism has some sway in Jewish mysticism. From a simple reading of Kabbalah you get the idea that reality descends from God (kether) but that's just a very simple reading of things. Exactly how much kether=god or how much everything else emanates from that is something people could argue for hours about.


Question: did paul corrupt the teachings of christ or should he be considered canon ?


Paul wrote that women should keep silent in Church. Fuck Paul.


I am disappointed to see a lack of appreciation for John Bunyan in this thread.


Most philosophers who identified under a religion did so because they'd be institutionally marginalized or killed if they didn't. The synthesis of religious themes with ideas in otherwise unrelated subfields was done to superficially "label" certain texts as being politically acceptable to church authorities who regularily scrutinized the works of public academic figures. Similar to contemporary academics churning out tolerable stuff in between corporate lipservice and blatant NGO propaganda.

It's difficult to assert that there were any christian philosophers to begin with.


>It's difficult to assert that there were any christian philosophers to begin with.
You have no proof for this assertion. All you have is a hunch, which isn't anything at all.

These people are dead, so you can't put words in their mouths.


That's what I'm telling you. An authorial statement in a culture that views agnostic inclinations as mental ilness is meaningless.


Between the possibility that all of the philosophers that ever operated with a Christian mind-set were only doing so to avoid censorship and the possibility that at least some of them actually had Christian beliefs that they synthesized into their philosophies, the latter seems more likely.


Just study secific authors you retard. You'll see which ones were genuine christians and which ones weren't. Christianity started off (partly) as a topic of philosophic debates, so there's that. And then, when it became the grounding of the whole european culture, guess what ? Most people really believed in it, with or without censorship. Another thing ; there were actual atheists and people with other beliefs than christianity all throughout the history of christianity in europe. You have a very fantasmatic view of europe as one big spanish bourgeoisie under the Inquisition's scrutiny. I can guess where it comes from but this kind of generalisation is really not accurate historically.


Paul was too uptight. Jesus would be appalled.


...and I'd like to add that the spanish inquisition wasn't really that bad


True. Only 100,000 people died after about during the 400 years it was set up, so 25 people per year which is not that drastic.


I like reading about Christ directly, mostly as a historical topic. That's probably because the pastors of the church we went to as a kid were theologans. I'm not convinced at all that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of what he had to say. The early heresies are also good to study, just to try and see the different ways the original message might have been interpreted.

Also, I agree with Zizek to some degree about the nature of Christianity. It is the most atheistic religion, in that it frees the believer from the big scary god who's gonna take all your soykaf and make your life miserable, and replaces it with a trimuverate of an unconditionally benevolent god, a human being, and the general goodwill of humans. It is a very humanistic religion.