Do You Follow Aristotlean or Platonic Philosophical Thought Processes In Religious Understanding?

reply to post by WarminIndy

But Paul does say "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all", echoing his understanding of Echad. Paul was a multi-linguist. He spoke Hebrew in the synagogue, he spoke Greek as the lingua franca and he spoke Latin as a Roman citizen. His father was a Roman citizen, so by inheritance, he was as well. We also know he was a Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin, so he had all bases covered.

Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all definitely polytheists. In fact, Plato’s Academy was home to shrines and altars for many different Deities, including Eros, the Muses, Athena, Herakles and Prometheus.

Christianity is a brand of theology all it's own. The personal philosophies of Christians, however, is as many as there are Christians.

Did he have a grasp of the philosophers? Yes, indeed, but he wasn't going to stick with just one.

If Paul has a grasp of Greek philosophy, he didn't show it. He never debated or defended his brand of Christianity against Platonism or the Pythagoreans, like the early church fathers did. He never brought up any supporting arguments to indicate that he was influenced by Aristotlean thought process, either.

Aristotilean. Which I actually studied in college. The logic that is

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

He never debated or defended his brand of Christianity against Platonism or the Pythagoreans, like the early church fathers did. He never brought up any supporting arguments to indicate that he was influenced by Aristotlean thought process, either.

How do you know he didn't? Do we have any records from the Greeks for every debate? If you accept every writing by Plato or Socrates, then why not accept the written records from Paul?

reply to post by WarminIndy

How do you know he didn't? Do we have any records from the Greeks for every debate? If you accept every writing by Plato or Socrates, then why not accept the written records from Paul?

Where is the written record from Paul on the topic? It's not in the Bible. Paul's theology never addressed Aristotlean or Platonic thought and logic.

reply to post by windword


I don't know how much benefit your present correspondent is gaining from your careful analysis - but I for one am grateful you took the trouble.

One of the aspects of the Christian myth which I find interesting is to compare Peter and Paul, and see them as the two facets of a single personality.
Peter is all heart. Impulsive, emotional, brave and afraid in turn.
Paul is intellectual, cold, logical, authoritarian.
Peter was given the task of building the Church, but it was Paul who wrote most of the instruction manual, and shaped what followed -- not the fisherman.
Perhaps one lesson is that we each have our own Peter and Paul, and need to meld their various qualities so that our heads and hearts work together.

In the same way that people who are late, are always somehow jollier than those who await them, surely polytheists are a nicer bunch than the monolot.
It's just like having kittens.
If you get two or three, they will play happily together and make very few demands of their owners.
But have only one, and you'll never get any peace.

If, as happened here in England, the Divine abandons It's residence in the rocks and trees, rivers and soil, and starts looking down on your every move from up in the sky, like some vengeful drone ... then at the same time as losing your reason to respect the environment -- you learn to fear the whimsical vengeance of a tribal war-god.

I feel that god is the last thing we see.
When we see what it is, we know there is nothing else to see.

And the idea that every particle in the cosmos is divine, is perhaps the ultimate polytheism ?

mistersmith.

reply to post by mistersmith


Could it be that you only had experience with the authoritative nature of some Christians and never had the experience of joyfulness which is in the Holy Ghost? If it has been your experience that no one has ever told you that God is more than punishment and strict law, then I am sorry that happened.

I think most people assume that because I am a Christian that I believe in the harsh, puritanical ways. That's not the case with me and I most definitely am not Puritan. I certainly hope you wouldn't think all Christians would throw rocks at you, and some would throw rocks at me also.

Maybe that's the problem, people have only known about one form of Christianity. What I am hearing on these threads is that there is an assumption that all Christians are sad and inflict their sadness onto others. That's not the Christianity I follow.

On other threads I have heard that Christians beat their children, that Christians force exorcisms on children and that Christians don't love their children like others do. When I respond that it is not what Christianity is about, people still pigeonhole all Christians into that group. No one on these threads know each other personally and can only know each other by what is posted here. But if we assume all people are like one group, then it becomes evident they only know one thing about the other.

Am I expected to defend those other Christians when I am not like them and neither hold to their Puritanism? I can't and haven't. But at the same time I am lumped with them because of the Banner of Christianity. What part of my Christianity has anyone on ATS ever known other than their assumptions of my life?

I definitely am not a sad person. I don't want others to be sad because of my faith and religion and I don't expect everyone else to become Christian, but because I am hearing that Christians are mean, evil and sad, I want to know why and I want people to know that not all Christians are like that.

Do you think all Christians are the same because you have only experienced one type of Christianity and assumed all Christianity is like what you have experienced?

If I were mean, evil and sad, then already my brother that practices Wicca would be stoned, and another brother that is atheist would have been disowned. But as I love both of my brothers and respect their own views, I can only talk to them about God when they ask me questions. Darn, we even go out and have a drink together sometimes.

The first message I learned about God was that I am loved, and that's what I practice, even with mean, evil, sad people who also do not believe in God. Could it be that all along you have only experienced those other Christians? If that is so, then I am sorry for that. But we all are not the same and I hope that you can look past your prejudices to see the rest of us as human beings with our own views about life and religion. But I can't let my faith be defined by such a narrow view.

reply to post by WarminIndy


It is clear that you did not understand my thoughts, or realise why I ended my last response with QED.
I expressed myself as clearly as I could, but failed to communicate. Don't worry if it makes no sense to you.
You have your own path.
As I have mine.

mistersmith.

mistersmith
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

It is clear that you did not understand my thoughts, or realise why I ended my last response with QED.
I expressed myself as clearly as I could, but failed to communicate. Don't worry if it makes no sense to you.
You have your own path.
As I have mine.

mistersmith.

mistersmith

You have expressed yourself clearly. And you are not the first person to think like you do. You are not the first person that I have ever discussed philosophy or religion with and you certainly won't be the last.

I get what you mean. But at the same time you will have to also address how you perceive Christianity. I get it that you are metaphysical. Can I ask this, if I had presented God in a metaphysical manner, how would you have perceived my faith then?

What I hear all the time is this..."you Christians just don't get God and you don't get us". Is that any reason then to assume I know nothing because I have perceived God differently than you? Did you come on this thread to dispute with a Christian about how the Christian doesn't get God?

Be metaphysical if you wish, that's your choice and your right. But the original question was...what is your thought process? It wasn't about who is right or wrong, but what your thought process is and how it leads you to certain conclusions. It was not about who was more right, Aristotle or Plato, but how their thought processes led them to their conclusions as well.

Thought process: noun the process of using your mind to consider something carefully;

From my experience, as a Christian, there is very little thought from others about how we think. If I am expected to think about how you think, then there should be an equality of considering how I think. I have expressed that and yet not one of you have said "oh, that's how you think". None of you have been able to look past the label of Christianity to say "you just don't get us". Well maybe you just don't get us either. And that's what this thread was about, to explore why we think the way we do.

I have not one time said in this thread "you must think the same way as me". Have I made you feel that way? But I do get placed into a defensive position, that is assumed it comes from an offensive position. I even gave windword a star for playing the Fifth Dimension.

But will you at least consider that I the way I think is just as valid? I asked if you had experienced other Christians that were mean and cruel. I apologized for that. But I also wanted to know what motivates you when discussing Christianity.

It's about the thought processes and not about who was right or wrong. So, do you see outside of the box or at the box itself?

reply to post by WarminIndy

God is infinite, and that's what we cannot comprehend, because we are finite. Our salvation dependent upon us would then be finite as well.

I disagree that "we are finite." I believe, along with 3NL and windword, that we reincarnate until eventually reuniting as a "car part" of "God the whole".

REINCARNATION is REAL, and makes the most sense. We are ALL God....
what is it you don't get about the "Divine Spark" that resides within all of us??

I know New-Age stuff is, like ( ), scoffed at by many on this forum....
but just today I was reading this: CHRISTIANITY AND REINCARNATION; WHO INVENTED THE "ONE-LIFE" BELIEF ANYWAY?

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself states, in regard to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, that "anyone asserting the belief in the preexistence of souls (reincarnation) would be anathema."

anathema = cursed, damned, excommunicated

Today, two thirds of all the people living on planet Earth believe in reincarnation. Those who feel they have one life to live now find themselves in a steadily declining minority.

The Eastern-based philosophy of past lives continues to make more and more of its presence felt throughout the Western world. If one interprets the principals of reincarnation with an open mind and heart, it will not take long to appreciate the reasons for its growing popularity.

Reincarnation does not require an angry God to judge and punish us after we pass on. Rather, this belief system tells us that God loves us unconditionally, but it asks us to take responsibility for our thoughts and actions. All of it is governed by a Universal Truth that applies anywhere in the universe: What we put out comes back to us, this lifetime or next.

There is solid evidence that some of the early philosophers, Christian fathers and saints believed in and supported that concept.

Who were some of these people?

- Plato (582-507 B.C.)
- Origen (185-254 A.D.)
- St. Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)
- St. Gregory (257-332 A.D.)
- St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

Note: please visit their connections to reincarnation
at the end of this article (1)

I had been raised a catholic and was taught from an early age that we only have one life to get it all right or there was hell to pay (literally). The church asked me to trust them on this one. They programmed me to believe that they had all the answers and asked that I place blind faith in their teachings.

Sometime during the first 600 years of early Christianity, several major events happened...

Early references to reincarnation in the New Testament had been deleted in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
In the sixth century, the Second Council of Constantinople ruled that reincarnation was a false belief punishable by persecution and death.

At the same time, the Church and the Roman Emperors knew that the concept of prior lives would weaken and undermine their power over their followers, since it would give these people too much time to achieve salvation. The threat of a Judgment Day and punishment by an angry God at the end of one's life worked a lot better to control the masses.

And HERE are the 'referenced writings:

(1) Referenced writings on reincarnation:

"Know that if you become worse you will go to the worse souls, and if better, to the better souls; and in every succession of life and death you will suffer what like must fitly suffer at the hands of like"

Plato - (582 - 507 B.C.), The Republic


~~~



"Every soul... comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of it previous life. Its place in this world as a vessel appointed to honor or dishonor, is determined by its previous merits or demerits. Its work in this world determines its place in the world which is to follow this."

Origen - De Principiis (early church father) (185 - 254 A.D.)


~~~


"... it is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth, it must be accomplished in future lives."

St. Gregory - (257 - 332 A.D.)


~~~


"The message of Plato, the purest and the most luminous of all philosophy, has at last scattered the darkness of error, and now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think they lived together, or rather, since so long a period of time separates them - that Plato was born again in Plotinus."

St. Augustine - (354 - 430 A.D.

Anyway, I gave you a star for an interesting thread. (Been pretty boring around here lately.)

It becomes murky when we don't understand certain concepts, so in order to understand, we insert our worldviews into it.

It seems to me, Indy, that you FREELY insert your own 'worldview' into OTHERS' concepts. Also known as "projection". You seem very willing to 'interpret' what others say - or don't say, but "imply" (according to YOU) - without trying to understand them.

The work of communication is NOT to "decide what the other means," but to ASK for clarification. It is ON YOU to make clear what you say, and it is FOR OTHERS to make clear what THEY SAY.

You don't seem to get that part of it. If I talk to you in Spanish (or any other language you do not understand), will you then "decide" what I am "saying"? Or will you ask for it in language that YOU understand??

reply to post by WarminIndy

Hasn't the Age of Aquarius happened yet? I was born in 1967, so I should have seen the Dawning....

No, you were too young to remember it. If you even were born yet. A little too young. Your mom and dad, though, would have been aware of it...

The Age of Aquarius (performed by the 5th Dimension) was on stage in 1967 (The Summer of Love) when I was taken (by my mom) to my first concert; they opened for 'The Monkees'. I was, like 8. (I was born in late 1958).

No Experience necessary: Hendrix actually opened a few 1967 dates for The Monkees, at the suggestion of Dolenz, who had seen the guitarist with bluesman John Hammond in New York and at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival.

The opening sets didn't sit well with young Monkees fans, so the bill was short-lived. "I remember once at the Whisky (a Go Go), Jim Morrison and The Doors were booed off the stage because they were opening for Johnny Rivers," Dolenz says. "The same thing happened with us and Jimi." Hendrix's opening slot may have become pop-culture legend, but he wasn't the group's only well-known support act. Other, more successful openers included the 5th Dimension and Ike and Tina Turner, says Dolenz. "But to go early to the show, and to listen to Jimi play, that was fabulous," Tork says.

I'll never forget it. So, yeah, the Age of Aquarius is a WELL KNOWN astrological event, and we are only just entering it.
(I'm glad I was spared the Jimi Hendrix opening act. I never knew that!! Mom would have HATED it, and me, too, probably. Hendrix? Meh, never did like his stuff. "Zcuse me, while I kiss this guy".......that's what I always heard him singing.)

You've heard of "Indigo Children" and "Starseeds", haven't you?

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

God is infinite, and that's what we cannot comprehend, because we are finite. Our salvation dependent upon us would then be finite as well.

Who says you are infinite? An Eastern mystic? How do you know he was telling the truth? What standards do you apply to determine if he was true? This should be all a part of your consideration in your thought process. You have determined this how? Simple question, that's all. Don't read into it that I am attacking your position. I just want to know how you reached it.

I disagree that "we are finite." I believe, along with 3NL and windword, that we reincarnate until eventually reuniting as a "car part" of "God the whole".

Thank you for saying you disagree. So you were led to your conclusion by the thought process that...

makes the most sense.

to you.

We are ALL God....

Even Christians with Christian beliefs? Or do we have to change our worldview to become God? How does it work that even those of us who don't get it are God? Am I not God yet because I haven't changed my mind, or am I God even believing there is a God beyond?

what is it you don't get about the "Divine Spark" that resides within all of us??

Are you frustrated with me because I don't see it your way?

I know New-Age stuff is, like, scoffed at by many on this forum....
but just today I was reading this: CHRISTIANITY AND REINCARNATION; WHO INVENTED THE "ONE-LIFE" BELIEF ANYWAY?

There will always be scoffers. But are you frustrated that they as well don't see it your way and to them it does not make sense? Is it such a terrible thing to not see it your way? And aren't they also God with the divine spark? If the divine spark causes them to think differently, then is it the same divine spark as you have?

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself states, in regard to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, that "anyone asserting the belief in the preexistence of souls (reincarnation) would be anathema."

anathema = cursed, damned, excommunicated

I am not Catholic and cannot pronounce Catholic anathema onto anyone.

Today, two thirds of all the people living on planet Earth believe in reincarnation. Those who feel they have one life to live now find themselves in a steadily declining minority.

Does that matter then? If they are all God, is it because they accepted Eastern beliefs, or are they God because they are God? If being God means that you have all-knowledge, then Western and Eastern thought does not matter anymore. And as far as that goes, Eastern thought is also a product of man trying to describe the spiritual, is it not?

The Eastern-based philosophy of past lives continues to make more and more of its presence felt throughout the Western world. If one interprets the principals of reincarnation with an open mind and heart, it will not take long to appreciate the reasons for its growing popularity.

So? Justin Bieber and twerking are popular also, but we are not all Beliebers or twerkers.

Reincarnation does not require an angry God to judge and punish us after we pass on. Rather, this belief system tells us that God loves us unconditionally, but it asks us to take responsibility for our thoughts and actions. All of it is governed by a Universal Truth that applies anywhere in the universe: What we put out comes back to us, this lifetime or next.

And people thought that up as well.

There is solid evidence that some of the early philosophers, Christian fathers and saints believed in and supported that concept.

Who were some of these people?

- Plato (582-507 B.C.)
- Origen (185-254 A.D.)
- St. Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)
- St. Gregory (257-332 A.D.)
- St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

Note: please visit their connections to reincarnation
at the end of this article (1)

We've already established that I am Aristotlean because of my thought processes. All of those also had their own thought processes. We can discuss them if you wish, but just because they saw it that way means that none of us are obligated to think so.

I had been raised a catholic and was taught from an early age that we only have one life to get it all right or there was hell to pay (literally). The church asked me to trust them on this one. They programmed me to believe that they had all the answers and asked that I place blind faith in their teachings.

It wasn't me that said that to you. But you would place blind faith in a yogi who tells you that you are God, because it makes sense to you? 3 billion people throw themselves in the Ganges River because a man told them to.

Sometime during the first 600 years of early Christianity, several major events happened...

Early references to reincarnation in the New Testament had been deleted in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
In the sixth century, the Second Council of Constantinople ruled that reincarnation was a false belief punishable by persecution and death.

Is Constantine enough to cause you to believe you are God?

At the same time, the Church and the Roman Emperors knew that the concept of prior lives would weaken and undermine their power over their followers, since it would give these people too much time to achieve salvation. The threat of a Judgment Day and punishment by an angry God at the end of one's life worked a lot better to control the masses.

And what does this matter to you?

reply to post by windword


WoW!!! Hey, can you throw us a link to where we can learn more about that? Please? wind?
That is utterly fascinating.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


BRAVO, 3NL!!!

Bravo....

this was the best post I've read in a lloooooonnng time. *nonexistent thumbs-up* and an applause (from just me).

reply to post by mistersmith


Dear Mr. Smith,

Words for appropriate welcomage and appreciatiness fail me.

Thanks for joining ATS. Your post is brilliant.

I started learning about Zen about 21 years ago. My kids were a toddler and an infant. I studied Alan Watts, and tried (and succeeded in, several times!) reaching the 'enlightenment'. It is so darned short-lived!! But, once you've experienced it, you never EVER forget it.

That feeling of Oneness with all - that super-knowledge that 'everything is just right, just the way it is.'

I'm sorry so few people are too 'conservative' to try it. ('Conservative' being a relative term here. Zen is FAR older than Christianity...but it's too 'radical' and 'New-Agey-Mumbo-Jumbo-Kumbaya' for lots of 'conservative Christians'.)

reply to post by WarminIndy

I didn't make your window, you did. You invited me to see through your window, there may be an elephant out there, but you aren't sure. So I just assume that for the next time, you could either ask the elephant experts or you could adjust your window size. It's not my fault your window isn't big enough to see the elephant.

But........
*scratches head*
...didn't you just say that God is too complicated/complex for us to 'see' the whole? Yet you dismiss mistersmith as argumentative, which means YOU made your OWN window to LOOK AT HIM.

Seems to me you got your stance bassackwards here. You remind me of the poem "Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary." When did you pick up that habit? (My son as a toddler called it a 'have-it').

wildtimes
Anyway, I gave you a star for an interesting thread. (Been pretty boring around here lately.)

It becomes murky when we don't understand certain concepts, so in order to understand, we insert our worldviews into it.

It seems to me, Indy, that you FREELY insert your own 'worldview' into OTHERS' concepts. Also known as "projection". You seem very willing to 'interpret' what others say - or don't say, but "imply" (according to YOU) - without trying to understand them.

The work of communication is NOT to "decide what the other means," but to ASK for clarification. It is ON YOU to make clear what you say, and it is FOR OTHERS to make clear what THEY SAY.

You don't seem to get that part of it. If I talk to you in Spanish (or any other language you do not understand), will you then "decide" what I am "saying"? Or will you ask for it in language that YOU understand??

edit on 10/5/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Is your purpose here to convince me that you are right and I am wrong? If you aren't here to convince me, then why do you try so hard?

I have said nothing here to force anyone to see it my way. I have merely replied with my own questions about certain views. I do have the right to ask questions, don't I?

I am sorry if someone does not like the questions, but they have to be asked if we are expected to accept them at face value. It's not about someone being clear enough in what they believe, but for considering a subject, isn't it wise to ask questions that don't make sense?

For this thread, I asked a simple question, which is your thought process? Have you accepted that I have a way that I think? Is it ok for me to think this way?

A wise man searches out a matter, doesn't he?

You see, not everything your side makes sense to me either. Is it so terrible for me not to see it your way? And if I did understand it, then am I obligated to believe you?

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I didn't make your window, you did. You invited me to see through your window, there may be an elephant out there, but you aren't sure. So I just assume that for the next time, you could either ask the elephant experts or you could adjust your window size. It's not my fault your window isn't big enough to see the elephant.

But........
*scratches head*
...didn't you just say that God is too complicated/complex for us to 'see' the whole? Yet you dismiss mistersmith as argumentative, which means YOU made your OWN window to LOOK AT HIM.

Seems to me you got your stance bassackwards here. You remind me of the poem "Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary." When did you pick up that habit? (My son as a toddler called it a 'have-it').

edit on 10/5/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

I didn't dismiss him as argumentative, I simply wondered why he didn't get a bigger window or asked elephant experts. He invited me to look out his window so I did. He's the one who assumes it may be an elephant, so I was just wondering if it is an elephant or not.

You are asking me to see something that isn't clearly defined yet for you. That's why it is important to not jump to conclusions about anyone, including me.

What do you know about me other than what I post on here?

reply to post by WarminIndy

[Regarding the link in my post about Christianity and Reincarnation]There will always be scoffers. But are you frustrated that they as well don't see it your way and to them it does not make sense? Is it such a terrible thing to not see it your way? And aren't they also God with the divine spark? If the divine spark causes them to think differently, then is it the same divine spark as you have?

Whoa, Indy.

First of all, chillax. You really get riled up by these discussions; I am not sure why, but once more I will note your 'defensiveness' (at least in your interactions with me).

I think you posted an excellent thread, and starred you for it.

What is it about my (and others' views) that causes such spiteful reactions?

Now - to your questions:
Am I frustrated? Sure I am! Yep!

Is it a terrible thing to not see it my way? I don't know, possibly, but not for me. It only makes me kinda sad for you. If you are living out of fear of "hell" and eternal punishment, though, yeah: it's TERRIBLE ....for YOU.

And finally, a two-parter:

And aren't they also God with the divine spark? If the divine spark causes them to think differently, then is it the same divine spark as you have?

Yes, they are all "also 'God' with the Divine Spark".

Why would you not want to welcome them as members of a global Truth? What is so threatening to you about Eastern Thought? You might at least check it out (if it doesn't cause you to have a stroke just imagining it). The bottom line, Indy, is the Golden Rule.

I would think that since THIS is the ONE common theme running through ALL religions, that GOD would live up to it as well. Treating others the way HE WOULD WANT to be treated.... that is the key. God is about LOVE, and UNITY.

No eternal cloud-perching with wings, halo and harp; no eternal hellfire and brimstone....just, chance after chance to figure it out. You seem so afraid!