What did philosophy really do to Christianity?

[mickiel]

"One of the most influential professors in the shaping of contemporary theology was Peter Abelard, (1079-1142). He is partly responsible for giving us modern theology. His teachings set the table and prepared the menu for scholastic philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, ( 1225-1274). Even before this Christianity became steeped in the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle.

The shocking historical fact is that many of the Christian church fathers were pagan philosophers and orators prior to their conversions, and the Christian faith soon began to take on a philosophical bent." ( Frank Viola pg.202).

( Much of this thread will draw from Frank Violas " Pagan Christianity", Eusebius" The history of the church", Boggs " The Christian Saga" and Rowdon " Theological education in historical perspective.") And from my own views of course. And I will draw on a few websites and articles, which I will always list the references.

Viola states, on Pg.203, " Within a century and a half after Christianity and Philosophy first came into contact, the ideas and methods of Philosophy had flowed in such mass into Christianity, and filled so large a place in it, as to have made it no less a Philosophy than a religion." Which when I read, was absolutely stunning!

When Philosophy got into the Christian bloodstream, especially Pagan philosophy, the Christian Theological Education system has never recovered from it. The fusion of Pagan and Christian elements, became a " Theology unto itself"; ( The term " Theology" used to describe Pagan beliefs).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 18 by mickiel]

Who is really shamed by the term Christian? The person who follows Christ and carries their cross or the person who doesn't?

[mickiel]

[Replying to post 18 by mickiel]

Who is really shamed by the term Christian? The person who follows Christ and carries their cross or the person who doesn't?

The term carries an historical shame in its conception, but the shame was absorbed and turned into pride. Its like someone calling you Carcasian as an insult, but you accept the term and start taking pride in it. So over the years the original intent of the term is lost, and it takes on new miracle meaning.

And Philosophy can do that; it can change the real meaning and intent of history, and develop a whole new dynamic.

[Unknowing]

The concepts of Christianity have become deeply intermingled with philosophical debate. Another point to make is the fascination philosophers have had in modern times with Christianity and its associated beliefs which has influenced greatly the religion. Nietzsche immediately comes to mind.

The influence of philosophy has shifted Christianity away from some core teachings and onto the details or dogma of who is right or wrong. The teachings of the Christ are as valuable and applicable as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and others. However the religion as a whole has gotten bogged down in deciding who is right or wrong in their interpretation and how they believe as a Christian instead of focusing on application and "living out" the concepts. However they even want to debate how you live it out. This has obviously resulted in the fragmentation you see within the religion. The variances in belief and interpretation makes on think at times we aren't even discussing the same religion. The philosophical principles have allowed individuals to analyze the belief system and challenge concepts, however is there a point where the analysis is no longer of value? At what point does the continual analysis simply create more fragmentation and the underlying sacred/mystical aspects of the religion are lost?

Another thought is that the basis of Christianity, Judaism, has a long history of debate and analysis that is to this day rigorous. However, they are in agreement on core concepts which ground Judaism. Christianity doesn't seem to have found this.

Modern Christianity doesn't place emphasis on learning the history of how the religion evolved. Discussions of how pagan rituals were absorbed into Christianity aren't normally the Sunday sermon topic. However I believe that learning these things adds depth to the faith. Christianity today is nothing like it was in the 1st century AD or in 1100 AD or in 1950. It is a continually evolving belief system which can credit philosophical thought for this ongoing evolution.

[mickiel]

The concepts of Christianity have become deeply intermingled with philosophical debate. Another point to make is the fascination philosophers have had in modern times with Christianity and its associated beliefs which has influenced greatly the religion. Nietzsche immediately comes to mind.

The influence of philosophy has shifted Christianity away from some core teachings and onto the details or dogma of who is right or wrong. The teachings of the Christ are as valuable and applicable as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and others. However the religion as a whole has gotten bogged down in deciding who is right or wrong in their interpretation and how they believe as a Christian instead of focusing on application and "living out" the concepts. However they even want to debate how you live it out. This has obviously resulted in the fragmentation you see within the religion. The variances in belief and interpretation makes on think at times we aren't even discussing the same religion. The philosophical principles have allowed individuals to analyze the belief system and challenge concepts, however is there a point where the analysis is no longer of value? At what point does the continual analysis simply create more fragmentation and the underlying sacred/mystical aspects of the religion are lost?

Another thought is that the basis of Christianity, Judaism, has a long history of debate and analysis that is to this day rigorous. However, they are in agreement on core concepts which ground Judaism. Christianity doesn't seem to have found this.

Modern Christianity doesn't place emphasis on learning the history of how the religion evolved. Discussions of how pagan rituals were absorbed into Christianity aren't normally the Sunday sermon topic. However I believe that learning these things adds depth to the faith. Christianity today is nothing like it was in the 1st century AD or in 1100 AD or in 1950. It is a continually evolving belief system which can credit philosophical thought for this ongoing evolution.

Very well stated and very well written. I agree.

[pshun2404]

[Replying to post 7 by Ancient of Years]

No the Logos was the closest Greek equivilent with previously Rabbinically accepted idea of the Memra (a visible audible manifestation of YHVH). A Rabbinical tradition that we see as culminated in the writings of the first and second century Targumim.

When John wrote John 1:1,2 he was not borrowing from Philo or Greek philosophy, he was speaking directly to the diaspora yet unbelieving Rabbis (Yeshua the Messiah IS the Memra of YHVH) Who they called the Word of God.

[mickiel]

[Replying to post 7 by Ancient of Years]

No the Logos was the closest Greek equivilent with previously Rabbinically accepted idea of the Memra (a visible audible manifestation of YHVH). A Rabbinical tradition that we see as culminated in the writings of the first and second century Targumim.

When John wrote John 1:1,2 he was not borrowing from Philo or Greek philosophy, he was speaking directly to the diaspora yet unbelieving Rabbis (Yeshua the Messiah IS the Memra of YHVH) Who they called the Word of God.

I disagree, John was talking to, writing to whoever would read it!

[mickiel]

Even simple " Word Slang" can effect a whole church. All the leaders and speakers have to do is speak a phrase, and it gets believed and repeated obsessively by the congregation. No difference when they use philosophy in their sermons, and the sheep swallow it and digest it for generations.

And start living it, whether it be vain or not.

[enviousintheeverafter]

The concepts of Christianity have become deeply intermingled with philosophical debate.

Approximating, and redefining itself in terms of, prevailing philosophical views/paradigms has always been a part of the Christian theological enterprise- it was not just a matter of origins, as the OP sort of implies (i.e. think of Aquinas and Aristotle, Tillich and Heidegger, and even contemporary theologians with contemporary analytic philosophy), but is an ongoing (and likely never-ending) process. This is one way theology has kept itself relevant; its always willing to pour the new wine of current philosophy (or science) into the old skins of accepted doctrine/orthodoxy, making whatever changes are necessary to fit the round peg of the former into the square peg of the latter.

[2Dbunk]

I find it curious that these two disciplines, religion and philosophy, are often conflated to be the same thing. To me, religion, any religion, is a way of life someone chooses to follow. It is that person's philosophy of life. Therefore, religion falls under the umbrella of philosophy, as does atheism, Zen, the Masons or communism. You'd never know it the way these various factions behave toward one another, as opposed to the academic community's (philosophers) comparatively toothless ruminations.

I cite debatephilosophy.blogspot for the root of my question. MERRIAM-WEBSTER defines philosophy thusly: (a) the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature of life, etc.; (b) a set of ideas about same; (c) a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live.

Would the universal realization of the above be a step toward remediation of a major portion of our problems? Of course, I'm a dreamer, but I think I have answered my own question.[/b]

[mickiel]

I find it curious that these two disciplines, religion and philosophy, are often conflated to be the same thing. To me, religion, any religion, is a way of life someone chooses to follow. It is that person's philosophy of life. Therefore, religion falls under the umbrella of philosophy, as does atheism, Zen, the Masons or communism. You'd never know it the way these various factions behave toward one another, as opposed to the academic community's (philosophers) comparatively toothless ruminations.

I cite debatephilosophy.blogspot for the root of my question. MERRIAM-WEBSTER defines philosophy thusly: (a) the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature of life, etc.; (b) a set of ideas about same; (c) a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live.

Would the universal realization of the above be a step toward remediation of a major portion of our problems? Of course, I'm a dreamer, but I think I have answered my own question.[/b]

Religion was once a deliver of Gods ideas, now they deliver mans ideas.