But I can't find much in the Christian tradition that reaches the level of the upanishads in profoundity and depth. Some come close though. — Beebert

This would be where my comparison fails, yes. It's difficult to place "profundity" on a scale, and so we're now left with comparing subjective impressions. I will merely submit, speaking for myself, that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu.

There's also the point that the true religion would have to appeal to both intellectuals and the common man. The common man shouldn't find it impossible to enter just because he's not smart enough. — Agustino

I think this stands to reason, yes.

One must also take into consideration, that if the religious texts of India (now I mean Baghavad Gita and The Upanishads) are possibly more stimulating and suiting for the "intelligent", then why have Christianity often in history (and today also many protestants, catholics and orthodox) preached eternal damnation for all those who follow another religion than theirs instead of accepting them? This shows that those "less intelligent" that christianity suits for have proclaimed something they dont know which potentially causes lots of harm. — Beebert

It is my understanding that Christianity teaches that the damned go to hell, not people who follow other religions. Some individual Christians may have believed the latter, but they are, as I say, individuals.

Moreover, one could turn the question around and ask: why would any intellectual assent to the possibility of hell as an afterlife destination were it not the case that they thought it followed from the truth of Christianity as a whole? The Church Councils could have declared hell to be a fiction and universalism to be true, and yet they didn't. Why? Were they trying to make it harder to attract people to the faith? One answer would be: no, they couldn't assert any other doctrine than the one they did, since that is the one the Holy Spirit guided them to accept and promulgate. Truth does not care about our preference or lack thereof for it. It remains what it is regardless.

"This would be where my comparison fails, yes. It's difficult to place "profundity" on a scale, and so we're now left with comparing subjective impressions. I will merely submit, speaking for myself, that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu."
Perhaps but this is not surprising. Christianity comes from a mixture of hellenic and jewish thought. These are thinking traditions, and Christianity has therefore, without surprise, had a tendency to philosophize rationally and been trying to define things. The Catholic Church also, had an immense power during the middle ages. They encountered many different cultures and Christianity has encountered and been influenced by many different cultures. But I still agree with Schopenhauer that nothing compares to The Upanishads but perhaps that is a matter lf taste. No matter how great Eckehart, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine or John of the Cross is, I stil treasure The Upanishads more.

Therefore I really wonder, when you say that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu, do you then include Badhavad Gita and The Upanishads Into the Hindu writings here as something not as profound as the greatest Christian writings?

Yes you are correct. But the question remains if it is true. You almost sound like Christian or like you Believe in it. So if I May ask; why arent you a Christian?

"Hmmm - the mystical writings is what I would recommend. Like these:

Cloud of Unknowing - By Unknown
Mystical Theology - Dionysus
Theologia Germanica - By Unknown"

Thank you!

No matter how great Eckehart, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine or John of the Cross is, I stil treasure The Upanishads more. — Beebert

That's fine. I won't begrudge you your preference. But by the same token, I would prefer that you not begrudge me mine. :)

Therefore I really wonder, when you say that the best of Christian theologico-philosophical writing is as profound, if not more so in some cases, than Hindu, do you then include Badhavad Gita and The Upanishads Into the Hindu writings here as something not as profound as the greatest Christian writings? — Beebert

I would say "as" profound in those cases.

Yes you are correct. But the question remains if it is true. You almost sound like Christian or like you Believe in it. So if I May ask; why arent you a Christian? — Beebert

I wish to thoroughly acquaint myself with the primary literature of the world's religions before committing to any one of them, if I commit at all. As Aristotle allegedly said, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Hence, sometimes I may speak as though I am a Christian (or a Buddhist, or something else) when in fact I am not one. It's a way of testing claims without having to submit to them and so to engage in a kind of Socratic dialogue with myself.

That said, there are significant hurdles to overcome before I could become a Christian. These are some of the issues I have with Christianity:

- The Fall and the nature of God as revealed in Christ in light of evolution and the history and nature of life on the planet, which is and has been for hundreds of millions of years filled with disease, predation, suffering, natural calamities, and death.

- The doctrine of creation ex nihilo and why God would choose to create anything at all, given that he is apparently free in some sense to do so and already completely fulfilled by the love between the persons in the Trinity.

- Biblical inerrancy and why God appears to command genocide and other atrocities in the Old Testament.

- The permissibility of meat eating and, despite my changing views on the topic, procreation.

- Hell's reality and/or eternality.

- Whether epistemological idealism, to which I subscribe, is compatible with Christian doctrine and with the tradition I am most attracted to (Catholicism).

There are probably some other difficulties I have, but these are the main ones that I can think of. However, instead of simply ruling out the possibility of ever becoming a Christian due my prima facie disagreement with certain Christian doctrines, my goal is to explore, to the best of my knowledge and ability, the possible ways in which Christians have responded to these issues.

Sounds very good and in My view admirable. I admire the ability to follow that way that you seem to so, and to be capable to do What Aristotele said. My problem is that I am often too passionate; if something seems to wake My feelings I react A LOT and hence have a tendency to make too fast conclusions or be too ambivalent. Anyway, your problems with christianity are very similar to My problems. May I ask you What it is that makes you feel most attracted to catholicism rather than for example orthodoxy?

"The permissibility of meat eating and, despite my changing views on the topic, procreation."

Interesting. You dont think procreation should be permitted?

Sometimes you react a lot. My impressions are that some days you're very combative (like yesterday lol), and some other days you're more patient and open to discussion :P

I'd go with the likes of Heraclitus, Socrates, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein.

Dedication to truth regardless of the social consequences, basically, and while I couldn't personally achieve that level of commitment I can at least admire it from afar.

I also respect the 'normal' person who fulfills his or her domestic and social responsibilities, and in a vast majority of cases without gaining anything of significance that the world values (money, fame, material goods, etc.). Unfortunately these types don't typically make it into the history books but I'd imagine most of us know at least a few of them in 'real' life.

Activists for their cause--one greater than themselves--are also admirable as long as they're consistent and don't compensate for their complete inability to act decently a personal level with a more abstract theoretical goodness. But if you're willing to forego comforts for a noble cause then that's clearly an admirable trait, even if you're an otherwise flawed human being. In certain ways those 'defects' makes them even more admirable in my eyes.

I guess I'm pretty conservative in my opinions on this matter. Not much originality or insight here.

Interesting. You dont think procreation should be permitted? — Beebert

I do actually think it's morally permissible, but I'm less comfortable viewing procreation as a positive good in itself. In other words, just because something is permissible does not mean it is recommended. Something not being wrong does not make it right. My views on this issue are very much in flux at this point, as you can see in schop1's thread.

I might add that Christianity adds a new dimension to the issue. If hell is real and eternal, then it's a serious question whether it is morally permissible to create human beings, who may end up in it. Why provide more souls to be potentially ensnared by the Devil?

I admire my parents, they lived through WWII. raised me helped put me through school, loved me, helped make me what I am. RIP

@Thorongil

Yor point about eternal hell does araise serios questions about procreation. If it is in anyway possible that two people may create a new consince that will be damed to an eternity of suffering it does not seem moral in anway to permit that action.

But to believe that one is condemed to eternal suffering one must first believe in God, Christian or otherwise, I will merely focus on the Christian standpoint, since it is the one being talked about. The christian doctrine states that God is an all loving being. God loves every individual so much that he was willing to sacrafice his son so that or sins may be forgiven etc etc

My question is what kind of "All loving God" condemns anyone to an eternity of suffering? Either no one shall go to hell or God is not "All loving". If the former we have nothing to fear, in fact it might even be a moral act to raise children. But if the Later; in everysingle way it would be Immoral and wrong to bring a new conscience to this earth. If God were Condemning i would rather Suffer eternity in hell than to live in heaven with an evil God.

My conclusion is that afterlife does not exist, but since this has shattering implications to the foundations of almost all religion i shall not delve into the third alternative. (Unless asked).

My question is what kind of "All loving God" condemns anyone to an eternity of suffering? — Gotterdammerung

The reply will be that you're right, God doesn't condemn anyone. We condemn ourselves. God doesn't throw people into hell so much as we leap there with our own two feet. As Agustino is fond of saying, those in heaven experience the fire of God's love as bliss and those in hell as torment. God's love doesn't change in either case. The bulwark separating God's ability to whisk everyone away to heaven appears to be free will. God cannot violate it without violating his own nature, which it is impossible for him to do.

My conclusion is that afterlife does not exist, but since this has shattering implications to the foundations of almost all religion i shall not delve into the third alternative. (Unless asked). — Gotterdammerung

Lol, what's this alternative? Are you gonna pull a Sartre and say that hell is other people? :P

@Thorongil

No the third alternative is that neither heavan or hell exist. I do not need to claim like sartre that hell is other people, hell just doesn't exist.

Yes I apologize...

"I do actually think it's morally permissible, but I'm less comfortable viewing procreation as a positive good in itself. In other words, just because something is permissible does not mean it is recommended. Something not being wrong does not make it right. My views on this issue are very much in flux at this point, as you can see in schop1's thread."

I might add that Christianity adds a new dimension to the issue. If hell is real and eternal, then it's a serious question whether it is morally permissible to create human beings, who may end up in it. Why provide more souls to be potentially ensnared by the Devil?"

I also find this very problematic and agree with you 100 percent. I find it astonishing how the Catholic and Orthodox Church's priests insists that Couples should have Children (many priests go so far as to claim that being married without having Children is a sin). Not to mention most protestant denominations! It is extremely ignorant to claim that life is Only a blessing for so many reasons : First we have wars etc. But Most of all christianity's own doctrine about hell and even more the fact that Most Christian branches and theologians in history claim that Most People end up in hell (Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Pascal and Calvin to just name a few). This is very strange IMO. ESPECIALLY if you go down Augustine's path and claim that God has predestined Everything and doesnt even WANT to save all (Read City of God), a line of thought that Calvin followed. It gets more problematic: In Augustine's eyes an infant who dies without having been baptized is damned and condemmed to eternal fire. If christians were consequent, it seems to me they would try to do everything in their power to prevent people from having children. Listen to this absurdity; Evangelicals that follow MacArthur and Piper and their line of thought believe in double predestination, that God predetermines before the world began which people are saved and damned only to display his wrath and mercy for the sake of his own "glory". BUT, they also claim these two pathetically contradictory things: 1. Abortion is basically the worst sin you can commit. 2. All aborted children go to heaven...
You see, if you believe in double predestination and yet think that all aborted children go to heaven, then abortion should be considered a virtue and a great act it seems to me. Because if you dont abort the child, it will very likely go to hell.

"As Agustino is fond of saying, those in heaven experience the fire of God's love as bliss and those in hell as torment"

This view is IMO the only possibly acceptable one, but we hardly know if it is true and in tradition it doesnt have that much support. The idea is originally attributed to the great Saint Isaac of Nineveh who lived in the 7th century. He was quite probably also a believer in universal salvation though. This idea also doesnt hold much support in Scripture... In Scripture God displays his wrath and actively punishes etc... If one is to read "literally" that is. But if we understand it as Isaac of Nineveh did (Who basically Said that God's wrath is his love experienced differently), then why not as well take the next step in to understanding the whole idea of hell as a metaphor?

Yes I apologize... — Beebert

No worries :)

Does Chesterton's support of WWI not move you the tiniest bit? — absoluteaspiration — anonymous66

I'll have to look into that.

I did spend some time reading these articles....

https://www.chesterton.org/shop/chesterton-on-war-and-peace/
https://juicyecumenism.com/2013/09/02/g-k-chestertons-thoughts-on-war/
http://irishchesterton.blogspot.com/2010/07/chesterton-and-world-war-one.html (including the responses)

And the issue is a complex one.

It is extremely ignorant to claim that life is Only a blessing for so many reasons — Beebert

There is a tension between life-affirming optimism and life-denying pessimism that Christianity has never fully resolved. It's witnessed in the books of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and all across the rest of Christian history.

In Augustine's eyes an infant who dies without having been baptized is damned and condemmed to eternal fire. If christians were consequent, it seems to me they would try to do everything in their power to prevent people from having children. Listen to this absurdity; Evangelicals that follow MacArthur and Piper and their line of thought believe in double predestination, that God predetermines before the world began which people are saved and damned only to display his wrath and mercy for the sake of his own "glory". — Beebert

Yes, this is a particularly wicked doctrine that anyone with any moral fiber ought to reject. Even atheism is morally superior to such a Calvinist view, as David Bentley Hart says.

they also claim these two pathetically contradictory things: 1. Abortion is basically the worst sin you can commit. 2. All aborted children go to heaven...
You see, if you believe in double predestination and yet think that all aborted children go to heaven, then abortion should be considered a virtue and a great act it seems to me. Because if you dont abort the child, it will very likely go to hell. — Beebert

Being pro-life, I don't oppose either of these claims, but you are right that they become absurd in light of double predestination.

then why not as well take the next step in to understanding the whole idea of hell as a metaphor? — Beebert

But I would still say that, if it is agreed that hell, as the experience of God's love from a certain perspective, is real, then it can't be metaphorical. What's metaphorical is any language seeming to suggest that God is torturing people in a literal place and the like.

"There is a tension between life-affirming optimism and life-denying pessimism that Christianity has never fully resolved. It's witnessed in the books of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and all across the rest of Christian history."

I often wonder what kind of christianity Nietzsche encountered...
Anyway, regarding calvinism, I have often said that it is One of the worst and most pathetic world views a human being can hold, and I stand by that.

"But I would still say that, if it is agreed that hell, as the experience of God's love from a certain perspective, is real, then it can't be metaphorical. What's metaphorical is any language seeming to suggest that God is torturing people in a literal place and the like."

Perhaps yes. But who knows? There is unquestionably a Point in Einstein words (if you hold a rationalistic view on christianity and God): "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
But Einstein was likewise right about "fanatical atheists": "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Anyway, regarding calvinism, I have often said that it is One of the worst and most pathetic world views a human being can hold, and I stand by that. — Beebert

As would I.

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." — Beebert

Nice quote. In a sense, the Christian mystics and apophatic theologians might agree with him, who often assert that God is beyond being or existence.

Getting back to the OP. I was looking into metaphysics, and Heidegger's name came up. He is controversial because he joined the Nazi party, was an anti-Semite (he made anti-Semitic comments in his Black Notebooks written in 1931-1941 , first published in 2014), and never apologized for his affiliation with the Nazis.

So, the question is: Did his personal beliefs and affiliation with the Nazi party show flaws inherent in his philosophical conceptions? Or were his personal beliefs and affiliation with the Nazi party merely personal errors, having no bearing on his philosophy?

Getting back to the OP. I was looking into metaphysics, and Heidegger's name came up. He is controversial because he joined the Nazi party, was an anti-Semite (he made anti-Semitic comments in his Black Notebooks written in 1931-1941 , first published in 2014), and never apologized for his affiliation with the Nazis. — anonymous66

You forget:

Heidegger had a long and highly problematic romantic relationship with Hannah Arendt and a steamy affair (over many decades) with Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany before the start of World War II and resumed contact with both of them after the war.[38] Heidegger's letters to his wife contain information about several other affairs of his. — Wikipedia

I must say that, even if it might be said to some degree that a truly immoral philosopher (in this case) is someone who one more easily feels instinctively repelled by, I doubt to what the degree the argument actually endures. Shall we then extend it to institutions too? How many mistakes are too many? Once again take the Catholic Church. Shouldnt one then avoid it? Based on the immoral actions they have committed, and for which it took them sometimes up to 400 or so years to "repent" from. And your Orthodox Church too as an institution has done some wicked things. Have they repented? And if not, shall one then avoid it?

Heidegger had a long and highly problematic romantic relationship with Hannah Arendt and a steamy affair (over many decades) with Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany before the start of World War II and resumed contact with both of them after the war.[38] — Wikipedia

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it.

I have a lot of respect for the writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. She is famous for her TED Talk "The Danger of a Single Story." She's done a lot to show young people that it's unhelpful to only portray stories of privileged people. She's written several novels based on her childhood in Nigeria.

I must say that, even if it might be said to some degree that a truly immoral philosopher (in this case) is someone who one more easily feels instinctively repelled by, I doubt to what the degree the argument actually endures. Shall we then extend it to institutions too? How many mistakes are too many? Once again take the Catholic Church. Shouldnt one then avoid it? Based on the immoral actions they have committed, and for which it took them sometimes up to 400 or so years to "repent" from. And your Orthodox Church too as an institution has done some wicked things. Have they repented? And if not, shall one then avoid it? — Beebert

I don't think we can compare people with institutions. The current pope for example can't be responsible for the Inquisition.

I have a lot of respect for the writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. She is famous for her TED Talk "The Danger of a Single Story." She's done a lot to show young people that it's unhelpful to only portray stories of privileged people. She's written several novels based on her childhood in Nigeria. — Amy

I like Adichie as well, but it's worth noting that unless there are writers being nurtured in minority communities or lesser known cultures, it's difficult to read literature about those people if nobody, or hardly anybody, is writing about it! When a Adichie or Hosseini comes along, though, certainly their contributions to world literature are worthy of admiration, :)