[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 119 KB, 500x524, gnostics_getting_btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14772772 No.14772772 [Reply] [Original]

How do I avoid turning my Christian faith into watered down Platonism? It seems to me so much Christian theology is is just some iteration of Plato, but this seems wrong to me. It seems an act of idolatry from God. What is Christianity without Platonic corruption?

>> No.14772781

OP here
I should specify. What are some books that explain and teach Christianity that dont refer to pre Christian, non Hebrew philosophers
Especially those that avoid Plato and hellenic thought generally

>> No.14772792

>>14772772
I would say the key component is faith anon. Dont be to upset about platonist influence since it is a core part of the religion. But as Plato tries to explain everything rational to the best of his abilities, it is the grace and transendental nature of God that rises God above simple perfect forms into something incomprehensible, but worth striving towards that infinity.

>> No.14772800

>>14772792
Whats the point of theology generally if we can rely on faith? Should I abandon philosophy altogether to maintain purity?

>> No.14772811

Hate to samefag so much but a church memeber, upon hearing that I study philsophy at University showed me this verse
>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
The more I study philosophy the more disillusioned that I am.

>> No.14772854

>>14772800
No, cultivate both. Try to understand the limits of Human comprehension will allow the faith to be all the more intimate since you will be all too aware of what you can know through the rational processes allow, and what truelly is based on faith, not a simple reflection of reason. It is a process of purifying in itself.

>> No.14772855

>>14772854
Much appreciated anon

>> No.14772861

>>14772854
So to go of this, I would recommend Kierkegaard, as he tackles this very subject of faith as a profound principle that becomes purified by philosophy which demonstrates our limitations.

>> No.14772863

>>14772772
by skipping the old testament

>> No.14772865

>>14772861
How should I begin with Kirk?

>> No.14772867

Take miracles seriously. Know that all power flows from God.

>> No.14772874

>>14772863
Not interested in gnosticism. Theres already at least one thread dedicated to that. That would actually be contrary to what i'm asking for since the hellenic influence is abundantly apparant in the new testament and hellenic distractions are what I want to avoid.

>> No.14772881

>>14772865
>>14772865
Either/Or, then Fear and Trembling. Then you can jump around. Some people say to begin with Fear because it is in parts an easier read, but Either/or Shows the formative thoughts that formulate later writings.


Also, this concept isnt purely Kierkegaards, you can even se the general principle in something like Summa Theologica, or Even Locke, Hume, or a good amount of sermons. Ive been browsing through a number of historical sermons on Librivox and have fully enjoyed the experience.

>> No.14772890

>>14772881
Thanks anon, much appreciated

>> No.14772895

>>14772890
Sure thing

>> No.14772911

>>14772890
Oh another, rabbithole you may be interested in. I live in an area that use to be predominantly Quaker, and as a rather radical protestant sect they went directly to the text for a lot of their beliefs and rejected a lot of the Greek influence. Not saying this is more authentic, but if you are looking for less hellenistic influence I found the culture rather profound. It manifested in a few ways, both very concervative and some rather liberal. In Voltaire's Letters on the english he has a whole section dedicated to them and I found it fascinating.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Letters_Concerning_the_English_Nation/pkgGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

The idea of the Inner light and all. I also know there was a book published by two eccentric Quaker sisters in the 1920s tht I found very enjoyable. a real Mary Poppens feel. And their takes on faith were likewise interesting. cant remember it though.

>> No.14772944

>>14772861
>Kierkegaard
Why would you recommend heretical bugman-tier garbage to him?

>> No.14772947

>>14772800
Philosophy is fine as long as you understand God is fundamentally unknowable in his essence. If you’re able to reason your way toward definite conclusions about God’s essence you’ve done something wrong. Read Dionysius the Areophagite’s Mystical Theology. The difference between him and a Platonist like Plotinus is that Dionysius knows that even though God is One, he is not a divinely simple Monad. He is beyond even One-ness or Unity. He is the form beyond forms, the Being beyond being. All we can use reason to do is make conjectures about His energies.

>> No.14772972

>>14772944
Well, I didn’t see any particular denomination on OP’s post, and regardless, the main theme of kierkagaard are widely applicable to most of the mainline branches. Particular parts as well as some of his own beliefs are against some dogma, but the spirt of his books is firmly Christian.

>> No.14773014

Sounds like confirmation bias.

Why, instead of trying to hold onto comforting beliefs, don't you see the truth? If Christianity is the truth then why are you afraid?

>> No.14773086

>>14772811
Then he's reading into the text, just because it uses the word "philosophy" and that must mean philosophy=bad. Almost all Biblical texts were written in long form. They're mostly not meant to be cut up as purely individual precepts (chapters and verses being later additions, just as helps). And usually, that's the preferred method of heretics.
Looks at earlier in this chapter of Colossians, for example.
>...For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ...
>...I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.
>6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
So there's an actual narrative context here. He's talking about a specific struggle with a certain type of people.
And then,
>8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Does it say philosophy is standing against the faith? No. It's warning against a group of people "taking captive" or "despoiling" through philosophy and empty deceit (based on "human tradition" and "elementary principles of this world, and not on Christ), which obviously connects with the "plausible arguments" phrase we saw earlier in the chapter. Does that mean plausible arguments = bad? When the Scripture says its the fool who answers a matter before he hears it? Clearly we define the thesis of the Scripture holistically.
Then, the chapter goes on,
>16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
>20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings?
If you know anything about the New Testament, you know this is obviously about the early controversy with ascetic Jews, often following Pharisaical customs.

>> No.14773156
File: 24 KB, 285x430, 9780917651700.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14773156

Read better theology. But theology is not really nesseseary for having strong faith. Say your prayers go to church and you will be fine.

>> No.14773170

>>14772772
why should your Christianity have anything to do with plato?

>> No.14773171

>>14773086
Good answer. Unrelated, but have you ever read Leo Strauss?

>> No.14773186

>>14773171
No. Would you recommend it?

>> No.14773236

>>14773186
Maybe, if you're interested in political philosophy, he's an interesting figure for his influence to Catholics. Ernest Fortin who has been called the "Straussian theologian." I've only recently started reading them, and I'm interested in what other Christians think.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071014175834/http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.257/pub_detail.asp#footnote5

>> No.14773268

>>14772772
Christianity is team Aristotle anon

>> No.14774506

>>14772772
I recommend you check out the St. Maximos Confessor, he wrote explicitly against platonic heresies that were corrupting Christianity at the time (Origen, Evagrius etc.pp.); his "Mystagogy" is a good short text to start, I also reccommend Von Balthasar's "Cosmic Liturgy" which gives a great exposition of his whole theological vision

>> No.14774520

>>14774506
also you might be interested in the so-called 'Syriac Fathers', which preserve a lot of 1st Century palastinian thought instead of the more 'platonist' Greek Fathers