question about Christianity

#251
#251
therealUT said:
True religion should never be about Him; it should simply focus on your own morality. Kant has some extremely profound thoughts on Christianity, ecclesiastical faith, and true religion. I would suggest a reading of Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.
Click to expand...

I think Kant would implode the minds of many posters in this thread. I wish more Christians were acquainted with the philosophy Søren Kierkegaard though. In my opinion, Kierkegaard's philosophy (in comparison to Kantian philosophy) seems to mesh better with current Christians beliefs.
 
#252
#252
PKT_VOL said:
I think Kant would implode the minds of many posters in this thread. I wish more Christians were acquainted with the philosophy Søren Kierkegaard though. In my opinion, Kierkegaard's philosophy (in comparison to Kantian philosophy) seems to mesh better with current Christians beliefs.
Click to expand...

When it comes to matters of religion and Christianity, Kierkegaard is anti-philosophy; he regards revelation as the only thing that matters and says that reason does not even belong in questions of religion.

Kant is the exact opposite. He views the question of religion from a perspective of only reason.

You are correct, though. Kierkegaard's "philosophy" meshes much better with held Christian doctrines and tenets because they are irrational, exclusive, and based almost solely on the expectation of divine mercy.

Kant's thoughts are rejected by many "Christians" because his thoughts are too rational, they deny the divinity of Christ, they are absolutely universal, and they are based almost solely on the actions of carrying out moral duties.
 
#253
#253
KiffinKiller said:
He believes in evolution? ha! What an idiot!
Click to expand...

Evolution is NEARLY a fact. There's evidence of it everywhere. No im not just talking about Humans either. Other animals too. Millions of years ago whales walked on land. That's why they still have leg bones although they live in the ocean now. Example of evolution. Birds are related to Dinosaurs, and have several similar traits as reptiles also. More examples. I can go on all day. Not a insult in any way just proving my point. I'm a atheist, and will talk about religion with anyone as long as my beliefs are respected also and it stays friendly :hi:
 
#254
#254
therealUT said:
Kant's thoughts are rejected by many "Christians" because his thoughts are too rational, they deny the divinity of Christ, they are absolutely universal, and they are based almost solely on the actions of carrying out moral duties.
Click to expand...

Is it not astonishing that many Christians would reject the philosophy of someone that denies the divinity of Christ ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#255
#255
Berry4Heisman14 said:
Evolution is NEARLY a fact. There's evidence of it everywhere. No im not just talking about Humans either. Other animals too. Millions of years ago whales walked on land. That's why they still have leg bones although they live in the ocean now. Example of evolution. Birds are related to Dinosaurs, and have several similar traits as reptiles also. More examples. I can go on all day. Not a insult in any way just proving my point. I'm a atheist, and will talk about religion with anyone as long as my beliefs are respected also and it stays friendly :hi:
Click to expand...

KK knows this and was joking... But Inb4 SJT tries to refute your statement.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#256
#256
therealUT said:
When it comes to matters of religion and Christianity, Kierkegaard is anti-philosophy; he regards revelation as the only thing that matters and says that reason does not even belong in questions of religion.

Kant is the exact opposite. He views the question of religion from a perspective of only reason.

You are correct, though. Kierkegaard's "philosophy" meshes much better with held Christian doctrines and tenets because they are irrational, exclusive, and based almost solely on the expectation of divine mercy.

Kant's thoughts are rejected by many "Christians" because his thoughts are too rational, they deny the divinity of Christ, they are absolutely universal, and they are based almost solely on the actions of carrying out moral duties.
Click to expand...

Right. However, I wouldn’t say that Kierkegaard is “anti-philosophy” as much as he used different logic/reason than Kant. Different people have differing opinions/definitions of “philosophy”, “logic”, and “reason.” Using a strict definition for any of those terms inadvertently ostracize alternative modes of thinking.

In defense of Kierkegaard, he admits that religion is indefensible from a purely logical stand point. I have read a few posts in which the poster alludes to not being able to rationally explain all their beliefs or the stories found within the Bible. To address this concern, Kierkegaard said that belief in religion must involve a “leap of faith” along with infinite passion. I would not posit that Kierkegaard wanted to disregard reason/logic in ALL matters concerning religion, but rather just questions concerning ontological specifics of religion. He actually took a relatively objective prospective of religion in relation to the individual, society, and organized religion. It is that later which I wish some Christians would adopt.

Needless to say, I am a fan of both Kierkegaard Kant.
 
#258
#258
Gramps said:
Is it not astonishing that many Christians would reject the philosophy of someone that denies the divinity of Christ ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Kant rejects the divinity of Christ on a very moral interpretation of the Gospels. To Kant, Christ, if he existed (which Kant does address since the current Roman historians spoke nothing of the event) was the Archetypal Man. The Gospels show that Man can reject temptations and live morally; to Kant, to make Christ divine actually destroys the entire message of the Gospel (a divinity rejecting earthly temptations is not nearly as compelling as a human doing so).

I would suggest that all persons read Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone; it might not change your beliefs, but it would surely change your actions.
 
#259
#259
God is sovreign. Yes. Creatures may have existed before but he created them. Atheism is the most ignorant thing someone can argue or state themselves as. Believing in Jesus, I can understand ones arguement or confusion. But. On that subject. I can go on and on. On a final note: if your right and I am wrong. I haven't loss much. If I am right and your wrong. Well. I hate your consequences.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#260
#260
PKT_VOL said:
Right. However, I wouldn’t say that Kierkegaard is “anti-philosophy” as much as he used different logic/reason than Kant. Different people have differing opinions/definitions of “philosophy”, “logic”, and “reason.” Using a strict definition for any of those terms inadvertently ostracize alternative modes of thinking.

In defense of Kierkegaard, he admits that religion is indefensible from a purely logical stand point. I have read a few posts in which the poster alludes to not being able to rationally explain all their beliefs or the stories found within the Bible. To address this concern, Kierkegaard said that belief in religion must involve a “leap of faith” along with infinite passion. I would not posit that Kierkegaard wanted to disregard reason/logic in ALL matters concerning religion, but rather just questions concerning ontological specifics of religion. He actually took a relatively objective prospective of religion in relation to the individual, society, and organized religion. It is that later which I wish some Christians would adopt.

Needless to say, I am a fan of both Kierkegaard Kant.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Kierkegaard does use philosophical methods to defend certain Christian practices, beliefs, and doctrines; however, his major premise to all his philosophical work is not based upon what he sees as self-evident but upon "leaps of faith", universal revelation, and Scriptural revelation.

It would be akin to me saying that due to a "leap of faith" I believe that killing persons is righteous. Then, using logic, based upon that premise, in defending an institution that exterminates persons en masse.

Kierkegaard is best described as a philosophical theologian; not a philosopher.
 
#261
#261
mscox75 said:
God is sovreign. Yes. Creatures may have existed before but he created them. Atheism is the most ignorant thing someone can argue or state themselves as. Believing in Jesus, I can understand ones arguement or confusion. But. On that subject. I can go on and on. On a final note: if your right and I am wrong. I haven't loss much. If I am right and your wrong. Well. I hate your consequences.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If you are wrong and the Hindu deities are real, you have lost plenty (same can be said of Greek, Norse, Wickan, etc., ad nauseum deities).
 
#263
#263
And what is it with Christianity that bothers you do bad. I still screw up and at times question God. But God is God. And his creation is way above my thinking.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#265
#265
Again. A religion created after God. I am not arguing religions. But only in believing in God.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#266
#266
therealUT said:
You are correct, Kierkegaard does use philosophical methods to defend certain Christian practices, beliefs, and doctrines; however, his major premise to all his philosophical work is not based upon what he sees as self-evident but upon "leaps of faith", universal revelation, and Scriptural revelation.

It would be akin to me saying that due to a "leap of faith" I believe that killing persons is righteous. Then, using logic, based upon that premise, in defending an institution that exterminates persons en masse.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you. I am not a fan of his outright dismissal of logic concerning the ontological status of the Judeo-Christian God in which he believes. However, I respect the fact that he is willing to admit such.

I believe the real contribution of Kierkegaard is his view of what role religion should play in one’s life. He thought religion should be subjective upon the individual. In other words, organized religion should not dictate what an individual believes (basically rejecting “religious dogma”). It should be based on the individuals, their life experiences, their own reason, and their own interpretation of scripture. He also advocated against attempting to convert others.


therealUT said:
Kierkegaard is best described as a philosophical theologian; not a philosopher.
Click to expand...

You say tomato, I say tomato. I think the line between theologian and philosopher is quite blurred sometimes. For me, whether a man is a theologian/philosopher begs the question; does a man who use reason (whether twisted or not) to justify their religious beliefs or does a man use reason (again, however twisted) to examine religion in an objective manner? I feel like the intention of the man is not always apparent, therefore I generally do not make a stark destination between the two.
 
#267
#267
mscox75 said:
Again. A religion created after God. I am not arguing religions. But only in believing in God.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

TRUT is arguing that you could possibly be worshipping the wrong god, and the true god would be jealous of that and sentence you to eternal damnation. Your argument for god may be one of the most ridiculous ones that I have ever read.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#268
#268
therealUT said:
If the other deities are as jealous as Yahweh, then you would lose eternal salvation for worshiping a false god. Read the stories of Baal in the OT...
Click to expand...

What if I believe that everyone including myself,deserves this eternal damnation as is?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#269
#269
arTfuldodger said:
What if I believe that everyone including myself,deserves this eternal damnation as is?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

By "as is", do you mean that the very essence of what it is to be human is deserving of eternal damnation? Feel free to believe that; however, good luck reconciling that notion with the Christian idea of an omnibenevolent creator...
 
#271
#271
MUR73 said:
what is your belief system realUT about how man came on the scene?
Click to expand...

In the beginning, there was at least one supernatural force. The universe was either created by this force alone or in conjunction with another supernatural force. The main controlling structure of this creation is science. Over billions of years, in accordance with the laws of science, simple carbon based lifeforms were both produced and mutated into more complex carbon based lifeforms. Eventually, some of these lifeforms, through the process of natural selection, became the forms of the creatures we observe in the present: humans, apes, cows, etc.

It is possible that this supernatural force is still around; I am not sold on the necessity of that proposition, though. It is possible that this supernatural force has some telic plan; not sold on that either, though.

It does seem beyond my comprehension, though, to ever imagine that this supernatural force needs and/or desires our veneration.
 
#272
#272
therealUT said:
In the beginning, there was at least one supernatural force. The universe was either created by this force alone or in conjunction with another supernatural force. The main controlling structure of this creation is science. Over billions of years, in accordance with the laws of science, simple carbon based lifeforms were both produced and mutated into more complex carbon based lifeforms. Eventually, some of these lifeforms, through the process of natural selection, became the forms of the creatures we observe in the present: humans, apes, cows, etc.

It is possible that this supernatural force is still around; I am not sold on the necessity of that proposition, though. It is possible that this supernatural force has some telic plan; not sold on that either, though.

It does seem beyond my comprehension, though, to ever imagine that this supernatural force needs and/or desires our veneration.
Click to expand...


Do you hold any religious idealogy as a possiblity of our exstence or dismiss them?
 
#273
#273
MUR73 said:
Do you hold any religious idealogy as a possiblity of our exstence or dismiss them?
Click to expand...

Of the major religious myths I have read concerning creation (Judeo-Christian-Muslim, Hindu, Greek/Platonic), I would say that each is just as possible and plausible, if one grants (which I do) the existence (even momentary) of at least one supernatural force. Since they are all possible/plausible and they all contradict, I dismiss them as myths and allegories used to explain mysteries.

I also reject the notion that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation narrative is anything more than an allegory since the narrative is split into two parts which wholly contradict each other. I also have a problem with the first two chapters of Genesis where God allows absolute darkness in the world, which he abstains from labeling "good" (something he does with every other class of things he creates). It is clear to me that a careful reading of Genesis 1 demonstrates that either Yahweh created evil or he allowed it, even before "the fall" of man (the event which most Judeo-Christian theologians use to explain the presence of evil in the world).
 
#274
#274
therealUT said:
Of the major religious myths I have read concerning creation (Judeo-Christian-Muslim, Hindu, Greek/Platonic), I would say that each is just as possible and plausible, if one grants (which I do) the existence (even momentary) of at least one supernatural force. Since they are all possible/plausible and they all contradict, I dismiss them as myths and allegories used to explain mysteries.

I also reject the notion that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation narrative is anything more than an allegory since the narrative is split into two parts which wholly contradict each other. I also have a problem with the first two chapters of Genesis where God allows absolute darkness in the world, which he abstains from labeling "good" (something he does with every other class of things he creates). It is clear to me that a careful reading of Genesis 1 demonstrates that either Yahweh created evil or he allowed it, even before "the fall" of man (the event which most Judeo-Christian theologians use to explain the presence of evil in the world).
Click to expand...

Can you explain where it contradicts itself specifically? Is the split your referencing the Torah and the New Testament? not trying to argue against you, trying to understand your point of view better. The darkness reference too, i don't understand your point there, please forgive my ignorance, i am just not latching on to what your issue is.I don't think God created evil , i believe God allows free will and ultimately he allows us to make ur own decisions. I am going o have to go back and look over Geneisis with your viewopoint in mind though.
 
Last edited:
#275
#275
MUR73 said:
Can you explain where it contradicts itself specifically? Is the split your referencing the Torah and the New Testament? not trying to argue against you, trying to understand your point of view better. The darkness reference too, i don't understand your point there, please forgive my ignorance, i am just not latching on to what your issue is.I don't think God created evil , i believe God allows free will and ultimately he allows us to make ur own decisions. I am going o have to go back and look over Geneisis with your viewopoint in mind though.
Click to expand...

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 following two separate chronologies. This distinction leaves the reader forced to either accept the first as literal truth, the second as literal truth, or neither as literal truth. Since their is no instruction as to which to accept as literal truth, the selection of one over the other would simply be personal preference; therefore, it is prudent to remain agnostic toward the literal truth of both and, until given a definitive reason to choose one, view both as allegorical.

As to the second question regarding darkness, God says "let there be Light" then he views light and sees that it is good. This is the first day; he has yet to create the celestial orbs or the sun. Light can only be interpreted in a metaphorical manner and it must be interpreted as absolute. It is not a stretch to interpret it as absolute goodness; regardless, though, it is "good" according to God. He separates this from darkness (notice, he does not destroy darkness); this darkness is absolute, there are still not stars, no sun, etc. He never qualifies dark as "good"; this is the only omission of "good" from any of his acts during the 6-day narrative. Whether the absolute darkness is absolute evil or is just not good, and therefore a gradation of evil, is immaterial in the critique: God, a being that is assigned the properties of omnibenevolence and omnipotence according to Judaism and Christianity, has either created an imperfection (a degree of evil) or has allowed it. His creation, from the beginning of the Bible, is regarded as imperfect if one carefully reads Genesis 1.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top