Who's ideas about Christian Philosophy seem most right?

I am studying different Christian philosophers, and I am confused who's ideas seem most right and based on what you can use in reality. I know everyone probally has some wrong ideas mixed in with some right ones, and know one is perfect. But I am having some trouble figuring out which ideas I can use in reality, and which ideas I cannot use in reality because not much of this is based on reality thinking. Who seems more in tune with reality? Is any of it based on reality? Welcome all different opinions, and I will look at them, and what seems to make the most sense to me. Thank you!

What do you mean by 'reality'? How do you know what is real and what is not real? How does anyone know what is real and what is not real? What is the relationship between truth and perceived reality?

Hello all,


Well Windy34 when studying Christian philosophy it is important to first figure out where you stand on the philosophical issues of god’s existence, the nature of faith, which version of the Christian narrative you appear to advocate, and so on. You probably want to also clarify some of your terms and where you stand philosophically generally. For example, Belinda above rightly asks what is your meaning of the nature of reality and its relation to perception. In other words, you may have what is often referred to as “background beliefs” that are more or less supposed prior to any investigation of which schools of religious philosophy you may hold. You may, for instance, hold to the idea that reality is that which appears to the senses in a sort of common-sense realist way. If so, then this will influence your decision on which school of Christian thought you will be attracted to.


Generally, Christian philosophy is really Christian apologetics: believing thinkers attempt to philosophically defend the faith and justify particulars of the Christian orthodox story. The attempt follows along two broad schools of Christian thought: (1) what is called evidentialist apologetic approach, and (2) presuppositional apologetic approach. With (1) the general belief is that we can take our generic-common sense realist approach of the world, mixed with some sort of empirical set of arguments, and attempt to first prove god’s existence (like the Cosmological argument or even some version of the teleological argument are examples); then the move is that once god is shown to exist or is the best explanation, then such thinkers attempt to bridge the gap between some god existing as the explanation of all being to which god is to be identified, and, in this case, of course, the answer such thinkers would give is that-that god is the god of Christianity.


The second group (2) argues that group (1) is wholly incorrect! They generally assert that one cannot “prove” that god exists and that one can only take such an idea on ‘faith.’ They further argue that the best truth test that can possibly be offered is that all other systems of philosophy (Rationalism, Idealism, and Empiricism) fail, thus leaving god the only decent explanation left. The reason it is the Christian god is because the Christian narrative makes best sense of the so-called Divine texts. They argue that ultimately one must presuppose the existence of god-you cannot utilize fallen human nature to interpret accurately the fallen natural world. So, they would argue that we begin with god and go from there!


Examples of the first group would be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and so on. Examples of group (2) would be Alvin Plantinga, Gordon Clark, and Cornelius Van Til. There are mixtures between these two broad schools as well. The point is that the varieties of approaches are many and this distinction is certainly a useful one.


Many believers (especially young ones) are introduced to the faith through some very intense numinous experience and fall deeply in love with their new found faith as a result. However, there’s often much disappointment and even frustration to learn that those of the faith whose job it is to expound and defend the faith are in no near agreement with one another. It isn’t that the above schools of thought merely differ on preference! It is that their respective approaches exclude the other! As a non-believer, it is a rather puzzling thing to see that those who assert to have access to the mind and revelation of god can’t even agree on how each happens to know of that existence and the meaning of that revelation! This troubled situation reveals that the philosophical difficulties with the faith are far more severe than what the new-born believer once thought even possible!


Heading on vacation-will respond after 2:30pm Eastern Standard time U.S. today on August 1st!


Thanks all,


Eric D.

It is really hard for me to tell. I guess it is a mystery who's arguments are most correct. I have got a few philosophers down who I think might have the most correct viewpoints, but I am not sure who is the most correct among them. I am torn between either Pascal, Kierkegaard, or Kant. Pascal and Kierkegaard seem somewhat dogmatic, but nothing like Aquinas (who is really dogmatic). But I like how Pascal and Kierkegaard don't trust in reason all the time, and rely on faith. It is ok they rely on faith to a certain degree, but sometimes they can get too mystical with their faith when we really cannot know what we know. Kant is less mystical (which I like a lot), but too rational (which bugs me). Pascal doesn't get too dogmatic with his philosophical statements most of the time, but sometimes I hit a little bit of his Catholic dogmatic belief in it. Kierkegaard's faith is a little less dogmatic, but his explantions for Bible events seem a little bit mystical. I took a quiz recently at selectsmart.com for philosophers of religion and I scored Kant if you are interested in taking the quiz for yourself. I cannot agree with anybody completely among the philosophers. Who I agree with the most I am not sure yet. I am going to read more on them, but whether I come to a conclusion I am not sure.

Are you interested with Christian philosopher's interpretations of Christianity or with the philosophy of Christ himself?

You are right that those philosophers you mentioned have good points and wrong points and the two mixed up hence tend to confuse you. Now whose philosophy is more sound no one but the source of Christianity himself.

The teachings of Christ ought not to be interpreted since he himself explained them in his teachings and through his disciples as recorded in the bible.

Christian philosophers ideas are good as commentaries only not as christian guide. What should you use as guide on your life on earth as Christian (if you are) should be Christ's teachings and interpretations not someone else otherwise such interpretations are no longer Christ but that of the interpreter.

The essence of Christ's teaching is love. To love ones enemy to do good to them that hate you, to forgive, this is the essence of the Christian teaching. 'What you do to the least of these my brethren you do it also unto me' It is a call to LOVING SERVICE. When JESUS REFUSED TO SUPPORT THE STONING OF THE WOMAN ACCUSED OF ADULTERY he was acting out the love he came to teach, rather than the law. The essence of the Christian teaching rest in the words of Christ. It is not about judgement but rather about love. The great theologian Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 sought to tell us the heart of Christ teaching. 'And now abideth faith hope and love but the greatest of these is love'

The essence of Christ's teaching is love. To love ones enemy to do good to them that hate you, to forgive, this is the essence of the Christian teaching. 'What you do to the least of these my brethren you do it also unto me'

Did Jesus speak in strange, stilted language like that? Or did he use the language of ordinary folk, in an approachable, loving way?

When JESUS REFUSED TO SUPPORT THE STONING OF THE WOMAN ACCUSED OF ADULTERY

If that is what he did, he contravened his own law. The supposed event that this refers to is not in the Bible, it is a spurious addition that publishers refuse to omit.

You obviously wish to rewrite the BIBLE. You know for sure that JESUS did not prevent the stoning to death of the woman who committed adultery, this you say did not happen. . However you are missing the point . The law that JESUS taught was the law of LOVE. To love your enemies TO DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE AND ABUSE YOU. This makes the teaching of Jesus unique and the story told in the BIBLE totally plausible. You will remember that the Jewish leaders accused him of sitting and eating with sinners. It was then that he said that he did not come to call the righteous but rather sinners to repentance. I will direct you, despite you attempt to revise 'THE WORD' to Christ's teaching on judgement.'JUDGE NOT THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED....AND WHY BEHOLDEST THOU THE MOTE THAT IS IN THY BROTHERS EYE BUT CONSIDEREST NOT THE BEAM THAT IS IN THINE OWN EYE...THOU HYPOCRITE FIRST CAST OUT THE BEAM OUT OF THINE OWN EYE AND THEN SHALL THOU SEE CLEARLY TO CAST OUT THE MOTE OUT OF THY BROTHERS EYE' The language might be archaic but the meaning is clear. This teaching further underpins the story told that he stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman telling her to go and sin no more. For forgiveness is central to Christ's teaching and his consistent message of love. The law JESUS always urges us to obey is the law of unconditional love. Turn the other cheek, do good to them who use you and abuse you. A call to our higher self to treat others as we would like to be treated. This is the true power of the Christian teaching. Regardless of which story we choose to believe Christ's teaching is always about loving and forgiving. CHRIST NEVER CONTRAVENED HIS OWN LAW ,BECAUSE HIS LAW IS THE LAW OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

You obviously wish to rewrite the BIBLE.

It wasn't written in early 17th century English. The New Testament was written in language that, by historic and geographic accident or providence, was understood throughout almost the whole known world. It therefore seems particularly strange to quote it in language that the less able find difficult to understand, language that is used to lampoon faith.

UNFORTUNATELY YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE TEACHING OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AND FORGIVENESS. THAT IS THE ISSUE. LOVING YOUR ENEMIES AND FORGIVING THOSE THAT WRONG YOU. STAY FOCUSED ON THIS. IT IS THE CONTENT NOT THE FORM THAT IS AT ISSUE.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MORE THAN 2000 YEARS LATER THIS PROFOUND MESSAGE IS STILL DIFFICULT FOR US TO TRULY UNDERSTAND. IT MAY ALSO SEEM TO MOST, IMPOSSIBLY IDEALISTIC IN A WORLD OF HATE VIOLENCE AND SEPARATION.

Jesus teaching that people can love unconditional really is a paradox. He asks people to love unconditional, but people seem to be naturally self centered, and put conditions on things, so how does one love uncondtionally? But people should still be ethical even though the motive is not right.You don't have to do it so much where you get walked all over, and have no rights. It can be give up your rights once in a while for the other (which doesn't feel good, but is the right thing to do, and sometimes do not give up your rights because you have rights. Half and half. It is better than dogmatism even though the ethical has it's limits. People are so weak ethically they tend to make themselves feel better by using dogmatism like going to church and reading the Bible 500 times to make themselves feel right. Dogmatism is a really problem everywhere.

Hi Windy34,

I recently re-read the New Testament after having studied some of the old Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and Neoplatonist philosophers Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus et al. While I realise that Christianity was born out of the cooking pot of the Greco-Roman world amongst all the worlds religions of that time, The Neoplatonist perspective provides a good starting point to contrast with the views of Christianity. It was actually a popular philosophy among early church fathers like St Augustine.

I won't go into depths explaining Neoplatonism but the Neoplatonic model I use when examining Christian philosophy is this...

Since Socrates and probably before there existed a kind of Utopian thought exercise of what the ideal state consists of. Naturally, the ideal state's idealism pertains to the individuals that make it up and so a kind of moral guideline is developed. The 10 commandments is a pre-Socratic example of this kind of exercise.

Now some people's views of an ideal state and an ideal man differs, but some views are apparently more ideal than others and there is a hypothesis of one true ideal. This true ideal exists in heaven or the Platonic heaven while the tried and failed earthly examples are simply shadows or approximations of this. By discovering the correct morals and virtues and abiding by them, so it is said that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". The ultimate ideal and all that pertains to it is known broadly as the "good" and anything that is "evil" is simply devoid of good. To "sin" is to stray from the path of good.

Some people dislike the Judaeo-Christian idea of a "jealous and vengeful God", but notice that in this context God is necessarily so due to the calamities that will eventually ensue by diverging from the path of the good.

I find the three core Freudian facets of the psyche (id, ego and superego) useful to further describe this model even though some people seem to disagree with my interpretation of them. The "good" applies to all three of these concepts but with varying degrees of permanence and therefore a hierarchy of importance is developed when deciding what values are better than others. A kind of "sophrosyny" or moral balance exists. You will notice that the most important and eternal values pertain to the superego. To "serve god" rather than ourselves often means to gain total control and command over our lower selves (id and ego) by reasoning in this nature.

I don't care to speculate on the actual historicity of Jesus, but most if not all of what he is reported as saying relates perfectly to this perspective.

*Edit* I would actually like to speculate that while Plato's Republic attempts to describe an ideal state, the myth of jesus through the New Testament is an attempt to personify ideal morals and virtues in a man. To be a "Son of God" is to be an earthly representative of God. The more ideal form of man that exists in the platonic heaven.

I would suspect that anything further attributed to Jesus is the result of embellishment.

The teachings of Christ as written in the BIBLE is what I seek to address. The teaching of unconditional love. There are many people who live and express unconditional love for their fellow men who never went to Church or made a ritual of reading the Bible. Religion is not the issue , forgiveness and unconditional love is. The general view seem to be that we are are always in competition with each other because there is not enough. We do not like giving way for each other but we do so because it is ethical, though painful. I am sure that is the reality of many people especially proponents of modern Western culture. However do not believe that this is the reality of all of mankind because this is not so. There are people with very little material wealth who love and share with one another, not just in families but in communities. However we will all believe what we choose to believe,until we change our minds,if we ever do,

I recently re-read the New Testament after having studied some of the old Greek philosophers

Who had, we must suppose, read the Old Testament.

I recently re-read the New Testament after having studied some of the old Greek philosophers

Who had, we must suppose, read the Old Testament.

I wouldn't say that we must suppose it. Plato and Aristotle attribute many sources in their works that are mostly pagan; Homer, Hesiod, Heraclitus, Aesop, Euripides, Pythagoras, to name but a few... I realize the old testament details a world history that begins long before the times of the likes of Homer, but I don't think that it existed in the form you would like it to at that point.
The old testament is also of Semitic origins. Significantly geographically removed.