 |
sndbay,
Please keep timing in mind.
The biblical passage is in reference to doctrine of the that time and the past NOT doctrine The Church Jesus established which is the pillar and foundation of the truth and all its teachings are based on Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Good point sndbay. This is precisely why Christ's doctrine needs, as it were, governance; certainly we don't want Scriptural understanding to run amuck. Why before you know somebody will jump up and say "Pecca fortiter, sed crede forties”; the bumper sticker translation is, sin all you want, simply 'believe' for forgiveness. That wouldn't be good, would it? There needs to be an earthly authority for as long as Christ no longer resides with us. Which of course was foreseen by Christ; “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The authority to 'bind and loose' places a Divine discipline over Tradition and the Scripture that Tradition produced, guided by the Holy Spirit, acting through the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
JoeT,
Excellent point.
Well made.
Fred
Hello Joe T,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Catholicism has a long history but it is not an unbroken tradition.
The disciplined way of thinking or reasoning required for the Catholic faith was not a consideration in the early development of Christianity.
Early Christianity was characterized by what could be termed,'pastoral Christian ethics'. Christ was considered to be a holy profit, giving divinely inspired guidance.
This is far removed from from the much more analytic approach to Christianity which we see unfold in subsequent philosophies developed by the Catholic Church.
It would seem that only after the Catholic Church developed as a social and political entity that we have a change in direction. That is, a change due to the discovery of Plato and Aristotle and their contribution to the possibility that Christians can reason their way to an understanding of 'other-worldliness'. In other words, it brings forward the possibility of a metaphysical interpretation which was not evident in early Christian thinking.
I would argue that this alone suggests there is not a 2,000 year unbroken tradition.
Tut
That is a strange doctrine Joe, because I trust Christ dwells within us even today. The Word of God, the doctrine of Christ Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are present to those that follow Christ Jesus. Our Father in Heaven watches over us, and it is His hand of power and grace that permits the revealed spirit of truth. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. (Phl 1:11)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Revel 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
In the Word of God we have the sharp sword with two edges, that cut both ways. We hold the knowledge of what is written, and warned about a church that held a doctrine of Balaam, and who presented a stumbling block before the people in continued sacrifices, worship of idols, and committing fornication.
I trust the Spirit of Truth that through prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, we hold to ONE Hope, and that ONE Hope is Christ Jesus. The ONE Faith unto death I will stand as a faithful servant, never really wanting life without Christ, and as Paul wrote "to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
My love is not for any denomination of faith, or doctrine other then the gospel of Christ Jesus. You seem to forget that you said, RRC doctrine is where your heart rest, and that Christ really didn't start your church. Because of that strange notion, I would warn anyone against such a communion gathered to trust such a lie.
We will all be accountable to our own choice. And I would clearly follow the voice, Christ Jesus. Remember, Christ Himself spoke the Words of His Father. Christ was one with HIS Father and we are to called to be one with Christ.
2 John 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
~in Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Tut, et al;
To first define “pastoral Christian ethics” I understand the meaning as an emphases on ritual to teach morals and ethics. Pastoral Christian ethics, the speculation goes, receives its 'authority' from the musings of a divinely inspired oracle for 'right' living without connection to an esoteric philosophy. First, I would suggest that you've over 'philosophized' my statements – more important, it turns Catholicism into a divine discipline of metaphysics, which it's not. Second, your comments misrepresent both Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general by reducing its ultimate goal to 'right living' as opposed to persevering in faith for salvation – the everlasting life promised us all. Under the pastoral Christian ethic label everlasting life is achieved through Pharisaical-like observances in the Law of Moses. Conversely, Catholic or the early Christian finds the modality of eternal life in faith, hope, and charity (love); the greatest of which is charity. Consequently, we can view or study Catholicism with the sciences of philosophy and metaphysics only if we give just deference to a mysticism rooted in God. A more analytical approach to Christianity, more particularly Catholicism, without this element of spirituality always moves to a meaningless point of singularity. But, by including the a spiritual theological belief with metaphysics and we can move closer to God's Truth, although some of the rigors of science are lost – you simply can't test faith.
The best example of this is St. Thomas' a priori proof (a reasoning that moves from principle to a effect; not supported by fact, i.e. non-Empiricism) to formulate God's existence. In my estimate, this is the only way to prove God's existence, yet in the world of science this falls flat because the proof assumes elements of spirituality that can't be tested. Defining man as both body and soul wherein the soul moves the body we instantly run into trouble with science, while it can analyze and test the body, the soul remains a 'mystery,' that is the essence of which is unknown. All, we can deduce, is that body and soul define life; one without other (or without both) is an earthly death. Consequently, whether a science can define spirituality, it exists and should be incorporated into its findings. From this I've come to view life (body and soul) as living in a bubble of reality surrounded by a sea of spirituality. Or, in a mathematical sense, those 'real' things that make life is a subset of those things contained in spirituality. Thus we exist in God's will.
All of which is to say that I disagree with your reasoning because it's formation leaves out the element of spirituality, not to mention being factually wrong. Christianity or Catholicism dose contain elements of patristic rituality but is not dependent on it. In short you've allowed the equations of philosophy to lead you to a single point where it can no longer continue to a conclusion, this is a point of singularity. The science of philosophy must come to function in the realm of spirituality to measure the living man, which it is incapable of doing.
JoeT
TUT317,
That is interesting but I do disagree very much.
Your attitude about the Catholic Church and history is in error.
I agree with JoeT who did a good job explaining his disagreements with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
My comment ”Christ no longer resides with us” was only meant to convey the idea that Christ currently does not walk among us in his physical body. I used the word 'resides' to imply physical occupancy of a house, home or building. He left his Messianic seat to Peter and body and soul currently resides in heaven, i.e. “no longer resides with us”.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Which ONE truth do you prefer? If you say Chritst’s Truth, then you looking for the Catholic Church. If you say a ‘Scriptural’ Truth then you are looking for the Catholic Church. And if you are saying you are looking for the same Truth the Apostles taught, then you are looking for the Catholic Church.Quote:
Revel 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
In the Word of God we have the sharp sword with two edges, that cut both ways. We hold the knowledge of what is written, and warned about a church that held a doctrine of Balaam, and who presented a stumbling block before the people in continued sacrifices, worship of idols, and committing fornication.
I trust the Spirit of Truth that through prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, we hold to ONE Hope, and that ONE Hope is Christ Jesus. The ONE Faith unto death I will stand as a faithful servant, never really wanting life without Christ, and as Paul wrote "to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
In her you will find His Name, His Word, His Faith, His Mystical Body.
You love a ‘denomination of faith’ but communion in the Scripturally founded Church of Jesus Christ is a lie? That is strange? A denomination of a faith is a ‘sub-class’ of the One True Faith in Christ, by definition they contain varying different ‘Truths’ from that found in Catholicism. So, you find all of them, collectively and individually, ‘correct’ in the Gospels and yet find the Catholic faith from which these sects broke ‘wrong’ in the Gospels; strange.Quote:
My love is not for any denomination of faith, or doctrine other then the gospel of Christ Jesus. You seem to forget that you said, RRC doctrine is where your heart rest, and that Christ really didn't start your church. Because of that strange notion, I would warn anyone against such a communion gathered to trust such a lie.
Quote:
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the DOCTRINE of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the DOCTRINE of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
JoeT
JoeT,
Well said.
Well done.
:)It is several of the reasons Christ established His Church.:)
Fred
Fred and Joe T,
If my ideas came across as Fred puts it,as 'an attitude' then I apologize.
I can assure you I have nothing against any denomination.
My posting was not intended to be a scientific attack on Catholic beliefs. In fact I didn't mention science at all. It was intended to be a historical account.
The philosophies of Stoicism, Platonism and Epicureanism were well established during the early Christian years. Many philosophies contain two elements. There is a theoretical element and a practical element. These philosophies were no different. By practical I mean philosophies that provide us with a prescription for living in the physical world.(Pastoral ethics for the want of a better word)
What I am saying is that during the early Christian years the emphasis was on the practical. By the time we get to philosophers such as St Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine we find something completely different. There is the emphasis on 'right' reasoning', ontology and deductive thinking.
Regards
Tut
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 upQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
TUT317,
Thanks for your explanation and opinion.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I didn't detect any 'attitude'. Did I miss something?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I didn't think it was an 'attack' at all. I thought my response only addressed the validity of 'pastoral ethics' so I'm a bit confused about your comment.Quote:
My posting was not intended to be a scientific attack on Catholic beliefs. In fact I didn't mention science at all. It was intended to be a historical account.
In case I didn't mention it, I think it is a very difficult thing (imposable would be a better word) to apply any philosophical field of science to Catholicism, only because we aren't dealing with something strictly of the natural world or for that matter human thought. This is probably why metaphysics fell out of favor as a science in the past couple of hundred years – you just can't 'prove' anything about something as unknown as the spiritual world is. And it seems the modern world wants 'answers' for spiritual questions as well as natural ones. In part, you might say this had a lot to do with the global warming hoax.
Yes, there are both theoretical and the practical elements. However, you can't form propositions on a complete unknown. We can make all sorts of probative postulates, but don't have a way to test them. I don't care if it Stoicism or Platonism. But, all these pre-date Christianity by some 300-years. The philosophies were already entrenched. So, it would only be natural to inherit at least the fundamental mode of reasoning. Of course the conflicting tenets were summarily dismissed.Quote:
The philosophies of Stoicism, Platonism and Epicureanism were well established during the early Christian years. Many philosophies contain two elements. There is a theoretical element and a practical element. These philosophies were no different. By practical I mean philosophies that provide us with a prescription for living in the physical world.(Pastoral ethics for the want of a better word)
There are some parallels between St. Augustine to Aristotelianism, which was 4th century B.C. and influenced both Judaism and Catholicism. St. Thomas Aquinas of course re-formulated Aristotelianism philosophy rolling it completely into much of Catholic thought. However, this was in the 13th century A.D. influencing only modern thought in Catholicism not the early Church.
Also too, don't forget that the first 300-plus years of Catholicism most of the Catholic Church was experiencing the wrath of the great persecution. In the intervening period between the ascension of Christ and Constantine it was a little difficult to be philosophical while hanging from a Roman Cross or while being eaten by a lion in the great circuses of the Roman Empire.
I disagree, I think St. Augustine and St. Thomas brought a discipline (scholasticism) to Catholicism without losing the spiritual aspects of our faith.Quote:
What I am saying is that during the early Christian years the emphasis was on the practical. By the time we get to philosophers such as St Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine we find something completely different. There is the emphasis on 'right' reasoning', ontology and deductive thinking.
JoeT
Tut,
Please accept my apology.
Somehow I thot that you had a negative attitude concerning the Catholic Church.
Apparently I was wrong.
Please and kindness,
Fred
Hi Joe T,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
No problem. I thought that you were suggesting that I was launching a scientific attack on the Catholic Church. Obviously a misunderstanding on my part.
Your position seems to be that faith is not reliant on history, language or science. No doubt you would also want to say that faith stretches across the ages unchanged to by any external influence.
It is a pointless exercise in arguing over the epistemological validity of faith. This is because there are extreme points of view ranging from the claim that faith has no validity and is nothing more than a mistaken state of mind. You and I would probably call unfounded scientific philosophy.
There is also the possibility that faith can be used to arrive a certain truths. By this I mean the belief that faith and reason co operate to give us an epistemology which naturally points to a divine purpose. The ontological argument is a product of this type of apriori reasoning. At this end of the spectrum I see faith becoming reason and reason becoming faith.
Would I be right in saying that you do not believe that faith can evolve?
I would argue that St. Thomas recognized this problem and this is why he was critical of St. Anselm. St. Anselm was caught up in Platonism while St. Thomas was influenced by Aristotle, hence his cosmological argument.
Regards
Tut
Not quite, I think you are using 'faith' to mean knowing 'God's Truth;' they are two different things. I'll try to explain below.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I don't think that it's pointless, nor too extreme of views to use the disciplines of epistemological for the study of God's revelations. I think our disagreement is in what the science is being used for.Quote:
It is a pointless exercise in arguing over the epistemological validity of faith. This is because there are extreme points of view ranging from the claim that faith has no validity and is nothing more than a mistaken state of mind. You and I would probably call unfounded scientific philosophy.
The science of epistemology is perfectly valid to explore the origin, nature, methods, and limits of natural human knowledge. It's when epistemology is used to explore the yet revealed supernatural spiritual world; this is when it seems to get into trouble. But, in the same breath, when exploring our human nature we can't completely discount the supernatural. That is to say that God works in the affairs of men in varying different ways, and this can't be accounted for in a pure science. I would disagree that 'faith' has no validity, at least as you've phrased it above; and, in matters of the divine, when in perfect cooperation with faith a clarity of mind or Truth, is the result.
I think I better explain here. There are differences in the definitions of faith and truth they aren't necessarily one in the same thing. We're starting to throw around words that seem to have different definitions for the two of us. As best I can understand, I'll parrot St. Thomas (short version).Quote:
There is also the possibility that faith can be used to arrive at certain truths. By this I mean the belief that faith and reason cooperate to give us an epistemology which naturally points to a divine purpose. The ontological argument is a product of this type of a priori reasoning. At this end of the spectrum I see faith becoming reason and reason becoming faith.
Would I be right in saying that you do not believe that faith can evolve?
Faith is a grace, a Divine efficacious gift most always requiring cooperation of the human will to work within the intellect. Virtuous faith proceeds to the virtue of hope, which is the desire of things not possessed or not yet wholly realized. Hope in its turn proceeds to a virtuous charity and love of God, and by extension the neighbor. "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not… By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made.“ (Heb 11:1-3)
Divine TRUTH on the other hand is God's will. We can unequivocally state that God=Truth and such a Truth is absolute and immutable. So, to know a certain Divine truth in Christ's time is to know the same truth today. However, what can change is the full importance of that truth. Explaining it another way, if as in science we say that God's truth is axiomatic, then that axiom remains immutable, but various different corollaries can be deduced. In this way Catholic dogmatic truth remain alive in faith. You might say that the revealed truth shines a Divine intellectual light on life; the truth is in the light, the science is in the 'particulars' of the revealed object.
O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2
Consequently, I view all the sciences of philosophy, including the discipline of epistemology, as a tool of the intellect in the process of internalizing faith in a comprehensive body of knowledge; which of course produces hope, and charity. By the way, this process works backwards too, by giving charity; we can produce hope, which in turn looks to receive faith. Thus, in being charitable to a child by teaching knowledge of God produces a hope that looks to a faith which proceeds baptism, or any of the other sacramental graces.
Considering the above, I would argue that St. Thomas and St. Anselm used two different intellectual tools internalizing or arriving at a logical understanding (knowledge) of the same cosmological Truths revealed by God.Quote:
I would argue that St. Thomas recognized this problem and this is why he was critical of St. Anselm. St. Anselm was caught up in Platonism while St. Thomas was influenced by Aristotle, hence his cosmological argument.
JoeT
Hi Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
When you say, "I think our disagreement is what the science is being used for" hits the nail right on the head.
Because I am not a Catholic I tend to see things from the outside in. As a result I tend to want to put things into neat little boxes. Unfortunately this is all that I can do. I understand what you are saying, but I still need to "box things".
I think that St. Thomas would claim that faith is a reliable source of knowledge. As good as any so to speak. Faith of course does not necessarily rely on the senses, but it can. "From invisible things visible things might be made."
This is where I think St. Thomas wants to bring in induction. There is no doubt that he was impressed by the works of Aristotle. This is also where he wants to bring the two together, hence the cosmological argument.
As you have framed it, Divine Truth is a deductive process. If what I am saying is correct do you think that Natural Theology holds that we can infer God's existence through induction and deduction? In other words would you allow for induction to be included as part of a definition of faith?
Overall I can see what you mean by the importance of claiming that faith and truth and not necessarily one and the same.
Regards
Tut
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
Me too – except you might say I put things of faith inside a bigger box of Catholicism; you might say boxes within a box.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
The Virtue of Faith might more rightly be defined as “The authority of the Apostle suffices.”Quote:
I think that St. Thomas would claim that faith is a reliable source of knowledge. As good as any so to speak. Faith of course does not necessarily rely on the senses, but it can. "From invisible things visible things might be made."
Though some say that the above words of the Apostle are not a definition of faith, yet if we consider the matter aright, this definition overlooks none of the points in reference to which faith can be defined, albeit the words themselves are not arranged in the form of a definition, just as the philosophers touch on the principles of the syllogism, without employing the syllogistic form. SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The virtue itself of faith (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 4)
Whereas faith itself would be considered; “Accordingly if we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth. For the faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it is revealed by God.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , II, II, 1)
Yes, I think the assessment is fair. I would add that the type of inductive reasoning should be thought of more as a tool called 'Aristotelianism' on the laboratory bench. The caution should be that this is weak inductive reasoning as opposed to strong inductive logic; thus it's the exceptions that, so to speak, prove the rule. Maybe I'm being too redundant, I just don't want to give the impression that we can easily move from the inductive to the deductive, normally found in science and mathematics today.Quote:
This is where I think St. Thomas wants to bring in induction. There is no doubt that he was impressed by the works of Aristotle. This is also where he wants to bring the two together, hence the cosmological argument.
No, as framed Divine Truth is still also a weak inductive logic. If it were a deductive logic we could 'prove,' analytically, the existence of God; which we can't do.Quote:
As you have framed it, Divine Truth is a deductive process. If what I am saying is correct do you think that Natural Theology holds that we can infer God's existence through induction and deduction? In other words would you allow for induction to be included as part of a definition of faith?
Therefore we most decidedly cannot use natural theology to infer anything natural science ( In fact I might argue that there is even such a thing if it relates to the divine.} Of late the only natural theology I've seen is what formed the hoax of a faith in global warming. But, since we've narrowed down the field to St. Thomas' views; he responds to the question whether faith can be an object of science:
Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that "when a thing is manifest, it is the object, not of faith, but of perception." Therefore things that are of faith are not the object of perception, whereas what is an object of science is the object of perception. Therefore there can be no faith about things which are an object of science (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , II, II, 1)
JoeT
These observations concerning faith and The Church are very interesting to me.
Much Thanks to you both,
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hello Paraclete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Thank you for your contribution. You are obviously a better historian than myself.
Regards
Tut
Fred, I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Tut
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
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
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
JoeT
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
inhisservice,
I'll take a look at the new thread.
Fred
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
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
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
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.
monkeydamyo,
That is a very good observation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hi Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
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
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM. |