[TUT317]

I think what you are trying to say Tut is that Greek thinking took over from the essentially Jewish thinking that existed in early christianity, This was inevietable and started with Paul who had to explain Christ, a purely Jewish concept, to non Jews. Once we had the professional church set up by Constantine it was inevietable it should descend into philosophy. the Jewish apostles would never have set up the Roman Catholic Church, it was all they could get their mind around to realise that what they did had to include the gentiles and it took Paul to make them see that the old Jewish rules didn't apply to the gentiles. the RCC as "the Church" is a construct of later centuries and only came into existence after the split with the orthodox who have equal right to claim to be the "Church" Christ set up

Hello Paraclete,

Thank you for your contribution. You are obviously a better historian than myself.

Regards

Tut

[TUT317]

TUT317,
While I do believe that God's perfect, infinite faith can not evolve mine certainly has over the years.
Would that I have the faith I have now as a young man.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I couldn't agree more.

Tut

[Fr_Chuck]

And I want to thank you all, I don't know I have ever had a thread in christianity go this far and not end up with a free for all. *** not that we are not really off the original post but what the heck, it is Freds post.

I am not following this thread, so if it appears to be coming to a end, let me know, or report it, if it starts to go down hill.

Fr Chuck

[arcura]

Fr_Chuck,
I think this question thread has produced far more than I expected. It has given great depth to the question on why Jesus established His Church.
The post here have brought to my mind that Jesus was the first Christian philosopher and some of Hid apostles like Paul were also.
It also broadened my appreciation for what The Church stood for 2000 years ago and still does.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Hi Joe,

I can see that from the Catholic point of view that nothing can become apparent without faith. The idea of substance is of course important here. I can see a parallel with Bishop Berkeley's Idealism.

There is no doubt that faith and reason was a important contributing factor for the parting of the ways when it came to Catholic and Protestant philosophies.

I see myself somewhat fortunate because I can be a Protestant and a Kantian at the same time. This is because any type of synthesis of faith and reason is not strictly adhered to.

Kant thought religion was not the subject of reason, evidence or argument but rather a matter of feelings, motives and emotions. It becomes apparent that Kant is an ethical subjectivist.

Kant attempted to establish the existence of God through morality. As an admirer of Kant I will have to settle for," being beguiled by man".

Thanks for your efforts Joe. Not being a Catholic I found your comments and references very enlightening.

Regards

Tut

[arcura]

TUT317
I think that Kant's view of finding God to be interesting for I DO believe that believing in and practicing good morality can lead a person to God for I think that morality is a logical and philosophical proof of God's existence.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

Ok I will start another thread for our discussion. It will be titled "IS the 'Church' the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church'?". I hope you Join me there.

[JoeT777]

TUT317
I think that Kant's view of finding God to be interesting for I DO believe that believing in and practicing good morality can lead a person to God for I think that morality is a logical and philosophical proof of God's existence.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

I find Kant's views antithetical to Catholicism. I don't read much of him, but it's my understanding Kant holds to moral subjectivism. By definition this seems opposed to right reasoning in the faith or moral objectivism. The philosophy holds to an axiom that an individual is an autonomous universal morality; that is something opposed to an objective morality received from the divine. Immanuel Kant was the philosophical daddy of the 'age of enlightenment' which has brought us the French Revolution and it's day of terror (hundreds of thousands of Catholics were killed, including bishops priests, nuns, and brothers). It also was the philosophical root for Hitler's night of terror and the resulting “Jew solution', and the communist revolution. In fact, I think it was Lennon who stated that he modeled his Marxist revolution on the French revolution. This moral subjectivism is at the root of liberal-socialist politics today. I don't see much good in it.

JoeT

[TUT317]

I find Kant's views antithetical to Catholicism. I don’t read much of him, but it’s my understanding Kant holds to moral subjectivism. By definition this seems opposed to right reasoning in the faith or moral objectivism. The philosophy holds to an axiom of an individual is an autonomous universal morality; that is something opposed to an objective morality received from the divine.

JOE THIS IS TOTALLY CORRECT


Immanuel Kant was the philosophical daddy of the ‘age of enlightenment’ which has brought us the French Revolution and it's day of terror (hundreds of thousands of Catholics were killed, including bishops priests, nuns, and brothers). It also was the philosophical root for Hitler’s night of terror and the resulting “Jew solution’, and the communist revolution. In fact, I think it was Lennon who stated that he modeled his Marxist revolution on the French revolution. This moral subjectivism is at the root of liberal-socialist politics today. I don’t see much good in it.

JOE THIS IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

What you have here is a massive generalization. It is impossible to say that Liberalism is responsible for all of the above evils.

Even if it were true, this has little to do with Kant. This is because Kant is not a Liberal philosopher. Of course Kant was part of the Enlightenment movement but he was not an empirical philosopher of the type we find responsible for the French Revolution. Kant is a rational philosopher and found himself sometimes opposed to the ideas of people such as Rousseau.

I can go through Kant's vast and varied writings and find many examples which show Kant as a pacifist.

In his ANTI- REVOLUTIONARY essay," Perpetual Peace " Kant writes that the idea of a right to rebel against a government is unthinkable. His other ANTI- REVOLUTIONARY essay ,"Theory and Practice''

There is no evidence to suggest Kant was anti- monarchist.
"Whether ELECTED or UNELECTED the moral person who holds legislative power is representative of the people united as a whole and thus the sovereign".

I could keep on finding quotes which support the claim that Kant was not a Liberal, not a Empiricist, and not anti-monarchy.

If you wanted to say that Rousseau was responsible for the French Revolution I would probably go along with that. But Kant? No.

To say that Kant was responsible for the French Revolution makes about as much sense as saying that Hegel was responsible for the rise of Hitler.

Regards
Tut

[arcura]

inhisservice,
I'll take a look at the new thread.
Fred

[JoeT777]

Tut:

Apparently I hit a sore spot, Sorry about that. But, I'm not interested in the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Marx or any of the others. I don't read mental poison. Did you ever read the reference I made to Liberalism is a Sin? If you haven't you should.

But, I didn't say he was the daddy of the revolution. I said he was the “philosophical daddy.” And Hegel was similarly responsible for Hitler's 'moral philosophy'. To deny that there is no philosophical connection is ludicrous. In fact Hitler studied Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, and Treitschke while in prison writing Mein Kampf. All of them had philosophical connections to Kant. Karl Marx included much of Kant's philosophy in his “Communist Manifesto”. Nietzsche, if I recall, philosophized that “God is dead.” Collectively they make up the bigger part of modern day LIBERALISM. Do they not teach this stuff in schools anymore - or are these men made out to be big heroes today? Frankly, I wouldn't give you two cents for the lot of them.

JoeT

[monkeydamyo]

I believe that Jesus was not concentrating on creation of a church but to preach gods grace, to be the embodiment of the love that is gods will. I think he knew that as he taught people his actions would be replicated and his lessons retaught, so he just went with it, making sure his lessons were all taught. I think Jesus meant for the church to be where gods grace was taught and where we learned morals behavior/character less than a place of austere worship.

But worshiping god and teaching/acting out his love can go hand in hand, by acting out gods unconditional love, patience and forgiveness, we please god and in a way are accomplishing some of his will on earth- in doing so we are worshiping him in manner comparable to Jesus

[arcura]

monkeydamyo,
Thanks for your post.
In and before Jesus time people gathered together in an assembly to worship God.
And as you said to try to do as God directs or commands which it its own way is a form of worship.
In The Church today as in the very early Church God's word was spread, preached, learned and worshiped.
In that early Church there was also singing in the form of chants as the Jews had done and still do.
Icons and other artwork was done as is still evident today. That is also a form of worship.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[monkeydamyo]

Fred that is a very good point- there are many ways to worship, on the note of artwork, these things all draw us together, even though it may be limited to a group, it still strengthens bonds and feelings, promoting god, in my opinion is promoting love, in this case through means of beauty.

[arcura]

monkeydamyo,
That is a very good observation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Tut:

Apparently I hit a sore spot, Sorry about that. But, I’m not interested in the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Marx or any of the others. I don’t read mental poison. Did you ever read the reference I made to Liberalism is a Sin? If you haven’t you should.

But, I didn’t say he was the daddy of the revolution. I said he was the “philosophical daddy.” And as a matter of fact Hegel was similarly responsible for Hitler’s ‘moral philosophy’. To deny that there is no philosophical connection is ludicrous. In fact Hitler studied Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, and Treitschke while in prison writing Mein Kampf. All of them had philosophical connections to Kant. Karl Marx included much of Kant’s philosophy in his “Communist Manifesto”

JoeT

Hi Joe,

In answer to your first question, Yes I did read,'Liberalism is a Sin' I posted several comments at the time.

Yes, Hitler did read Nietzsche Hegel,Fichte and possibly Kant. However, I would seriously doubt that he would have understood any of them, especially Kant. Did any of these philosophers have philosophical connections to Kant? The answer is yes if you understand this connection in terms of idealism. Kant was an idealist philosopher, as was Plato, Hegel. Thomas Aquinas was also an idealist philosopher.

Joe, I am sure you would not want me to use 'blanket terms' such as expressed in the broad generalization that idealism holds that the most important element in nature of reality is mind or spirit. If I were to do this then I would have to include St. Thomas as part of the, "roots of idealism'. There are of course degrees of idealism, even extreme idealism which is found in Hegel. It is because there are degrees of idealism that more often than not idealist philosophers disagreed with each other. Don't forget that even though St. Anselm and St. Thomas were of the same tradition there was disagreement there.

If I were to lump all these philosophers together then you could quite rightly accuse me of being sloppy. Other than Kant, how does Liberalism fit into the German Idealism? How does Marx fit into German idealism? Did not Marx,"turn Hegel on his head".

Regards

Tut

[arcura]

Tut
I've been thinking about this and I wished I could answer your questions.
I just don't know enough about philosophers and their thoughts and writings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Tut
I've been thinking about this and I wished I could answer your questions.
I just don't know enough about philosophers and their thoughts and writings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't know if I can help you Fred but I will try.

It is not very useful to use very broad generalizations in philosophy, as is the case with most things. To say that all non-Catholic religions are Protestant is inaccurate and misleading.( not that anyone has said this, but it is just an example). When we look closely at individual religions we can see they are all different. The same applies to philosophy.

I can make a broad philosophical generalization and say that all philosophies can be divided into Idealism and Materialism. I will give you ONE example out of MANY examples to show why this generalization is not very useful.

Idealism is the theory that EVERYTHING can be reduced to ideas created by the mind. Physical objects are really creations of the mind. What we understand are things as they appear to us, but they are not really like appearances. It is claimed they have a reality which we don't comprehend.

Materialism is exactly the same except it claims that EVERYTHING can be explained in terms of the physical. The mind and mental events are really physical things. Some physical things like thinking only seem to be mental. It is claimed that everything can be explained as matter in motion.

I could go through history and pick out any number of philosophers and give them an Idealist or Materialist label. Sometimes the label fits, but most of the time it doesn't.

For example, Marx was influenced by German Idealism but he is not an Idealist philosopher in the Hegelian tradition. Yes, Marx and Hegel used a dialectical method in their reasoning. For Hegel history unfolds itself through this method. There is a type of 'spirit' or 'guiding hand' which results in this historical process being purposeful.

Marx on the other hand uses what is known as, Historical Materialism or class struggle. In other words, it is a physical process which determines how history is to unfold.

As we can see, to say Marx and Hegel are really no more than one and the same is totally wrong. Incidentally, this is why people say Marx turned Hegel on his head.

Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

This discussion has gotten right off the question, Why Jesus estabished a Church has nothing to do with philosopy and New Testament Christians are specifically told in scripture not to spend their time in philoposhy, Vain glorious imagings it is called

[arcura]

paraclete,
Excellent point and well made.
Yes, let's get back to the question of why (for what reasons) did Jesus establish His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred