Christianity was fucked up by neoplatonism, when "philosophers"

Nothing exists. That nothing is god. There is nothing outside of god. We are god.
If divinity isn't just the perfect ideal of good then what the hail is it then? Aliens?

>>1863389
Islam is the most hostile to philosophy, specifically neo-platonism. Al Ghazali's 'The incoherence of the Philosophers' put an end to arab neo-platonism and philosophy in the muslim world.

>>1863389
>neoplatonism
>thinks it's toxic dogma
without the influence of neoplatonism in the writings of various early christian theologians, christianity wouldn't have the foundation that it has, and any modern christian meme-sect that eschews those theological developments is a dead meme religion. let me guess, you're a protestant, or a catholic. nice meme'ing

Neoplatonist are what made Christianity great. They attempted to formulate actual rational logos for the Church instead of going by whatever inconsistent traditional has it, as is the way the Jews do.

Judaism from my knowledge had some influence of it, which influenced some Rabbis with their theology, but not the entire religion. Same with Islam, but, from what I gather, most of their theologians follow the similar gist of utilizing philosophy to get a logos of their religion--which Neoplatonism influenced a lot of them greatly.

Modern Protestantism consequently brought the whole 'cuckoldism' of Christianity in allowing sects to interpret the bible with how they please without repercussion from a central body.

>>1864000
>christianity wouldn't have the foundation that it has
These foundations are shit tier and held back the historical development of theology and philosophy, and western traditions of thinking in general for 2 fucking millennia.

>let me guess, you're a protestant, or a catholic
I'm muslim.

>>1864073
>muslim that's against neoplatonism shitting on meme christianity
this board was a mistake

>>1864051
>Neoplatonist are what made Christianity great.
Is this supposed to be a joke? You can't be serious.

>They attempted to formulate actual rational logos for the Church
What a load of bullshit. They denied and banned all logic and used an archaic and primitive conception of ontology as basis for their stupid dogma. Imagine how great western philosophy would be today without neoplatonism fucking it up.

HOLD UP

Can anyone recommend a good book that describes, objectively and in detail, the effect neo-platonism had on Christianity in the early centuries?

All I know of that period of the Church's history is what's been written by the Church fathers themselves.

>>1863389
Everything is influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Dharma religions, Brahmanism, Buddhism all of them have Platonic ideas.

Basically, to take out the term "Neo-Plato" and just focus on the concept of "The One"

>>1864196
To clarify, I mean "effect," pertaining to theology, doctrine, tradition, etc., and how thw Church's idea of God was altered

>>1864051
>Neoplatonist are what made Christianity great
Or into a monster, Platoism seeks to manage people, not change them.

It shifts attention from the transformation of the individual to the indoctrination of the masses, Hence, it is more concerned about what people do in bed.

File: IMG_3826.jpg (47KB, 640x443px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x443px

Why couldn't Catharism last

>>1864200
That's a bold claim and I tend to disagree. Platonism and neoplatonism are more than a vague thought about unity of all things. They are rather a (very naive and archaic) system of how to think about the ontological nature of abstracta and categorical notions.

>>1864389
I disagree. All religions and philosophies bring us to the same understanding, with different languages and different cultural understandings.

Christians, some believe heaven is afterlife, some believe Christ teaches us heaven in the present, regardless, they unite by the idea of the "One" as God. Even Buddhist, who "don't believe in God" actually put faith in Buddha's teachings, and they apply the teachings, ultimately they enter into higher awareness, emptiness, the highest dharma bodies, and this could easily be equated to the "One"

>>1864456
Maybe, but that's not the point. Christians believe that god is identical with the "idea of the good", which entails in particular the paradoxical properties of being omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. You don't have that in other religions. In hinduism for example all the deities have likeable as well as dislikeable character traits. They are also subject to some deeper divine laws over which they don't have control either, while said laws don't have godlike intentionality. In judaism god is seen as mighty and powerful, so it's better to have him as an ally, but he's not necessarily infallible or merciful. In zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda is not almighty. The list goes on.

Another point is the source of morality. Christianity doesn't justify it's moral rules. They are somehow given by god and since god is the essence of "good", you "have to" follow those rules. Buddhism, hinduism and islam on the other hand teach true sympathy for fellow humans, which is a much more authentic and trustworthy source of morality.

Plato is famous for his idea of the demiurge which is a central tenet of gnosticism. Briefly the demiurge is the creator-god of the old testament, a sub-god, imperfect and evil, definitely not on par with the greater god who was represented by Jesus on earth.

To the Cathars, the Vatican was the church of Rex Mundi ( the demiurge ), that didn't please the Vatican who ended up burning them

>>1864515
Even Dharma religions, such as Brahmanism, Shaivanism, Vaisnavism, etc, even demigods become inferior, and the true God is the "One", because to devotees of Shiva, Shiva is "One" as is Krsna "the One", even the Ahura Mazda is the "One", it all depends on the person as well as what they learn.

Christianity does justify it's morality the same way Islam, Buddhism, etc. all do. You might be mistaken Christianity for a prejudice because it is equally as valid as the others.

>>1864555
The demiurge is not evil. That is radical new age gnosticism, which tries to undermine Christianity, and discourages Christians from Gnosis.

YHWH is the Monad to the Kabalist, and most of Gnosticism comes from the Kabalah.

>>1863389
Platonism is the only thing of worth in Christianity. Without it it's literally another shitskin religion fucking goats and allahuackbaring one another into 4th world standards of living.

>>1864196
I too am interested in this.

Also does anyone know the different influences it had on Roman Catholicism v Orthodox?

>>1863389
Strip your argument from its buzzwords and try again, please.

>>1863389

Actually, considering that most of the early church was Greek, to the point where most of the books of the New Testament were first written in Greek, we have no access to a Christianity without some platonic influence to it.

>>1864073
It held back the development into knuckle dragging fundamentalist heresy, yes.

>>1864515
>being omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient.

This is not a paradox.

>Another point is the source of morality. Christianity doesn't justify it's moral rules.

Go read Aquinas, divine command theory is not the only moral theory in Christianity, it isn't even the most common one.

File: 1475599505837.jpg (109KB, 1152x798px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1152x798px

>>1865054
>This is not a paradox.
0/10, try again

>>1863389
You have your assumption backwards Christianity is cucked becuase of its Semitic roots and only redeems itself in its separation from its origin by neo-platonic thought and pagan influence, which is why Catholicism is the most based of the christian denominations.

Judaism and Islam are fairly free of neo-platonism though

>>1864576
>most of Gnosticism comes from the Kabalah.
You got that a bit backward. Lurianic Kabbalah doesn't start to blossom until after 800AD, well after (generally) the vast majority of Gnostic suppression.

Of course, Hebrew mysticism existed in a number of iterations before the Gnostics, but >>1865054
>we have no access to a Christianity without some platonic influence to it.

>YHVH
>Monad
This gets tricky. In the strictest sense YHVH isn't the Highest, and isn't One Thing; it's more a nondual All Things dissolving into Ain (no-thing).

>>1863389
>My question: Are islam and judaism free of neoplatonism, or in how far are they also affected by this toxic dogma?

Early Islamic philosophy and Ismaili'ism are heavily influenced by Neoplatonism. They are also the most based, coincidentally.

>>1865164
Neither Judaism nor Islam are universalist so they are automatically less cucked than Christianity,

>>1865476
>implying the entire notion of relying on some external, powerful figure for salvation rather than searching for spiritual transcendence yourself isn't the very definition of cuckoldry

>>1865879
It sounds like you can rely on a powerful figure that is external from you and search within yourself for spiritual transformation because
God isn't separate from us, and therefore is within us.

>>1865187
Still, Kabbalah is beyond that of Gnosticism, and is Hebrew Mysticism in which the Cabalist fuses with the One, the Monad, and to the Jew, this is YHWH, which is two things, outside of "lel demiurge", YHWH is also the base which emanates/is Ain. This duality is very apparent , and is very easy to fuse.

>>1865449
>Early Islamic philosophy and Ismaili'ism are heavily influenced by Neoplatonism.

There are many esoteric dimensions of Islam, this is a good post. People see Islam negatively because they are used to watching the news, and this scare tactic prevents them from investigating the hidden truths within the Quran and Islamic practices.

That's Augustinian theology, and the Eastern Church never really adopted it since Augustine wasn't ever big in the East. It's not really a problem though, except when theologians get carried away with it, and by that I mean trying to fit Christian theology within a Neo-Platonic framework, as opposed to fitting Neo-Platonic theology within a Christian framework.

>>1864051
>They attempted to formulate actual rational logos for the Church instead of going by whatever inconsistent traditional has it
Christianity *is* traditionalist, not rationalist. The Logos of the Bible is the Logos of the Septuagint, not the Logos of the Greek Philosophers. The Sophia of Christianity is the Sophia of the Septuagint, not the Sophia of Greek philosophy.

>>1866082
Rays of truth

>>1865067

It isn't though.

It seems like a paradox because you haven't accounted for other beliefs inherent to Catholic tradition. When considering this question you also need to consider that Catholics also believe that.

A1. That God is the only being who is and can be infinitely good, infinitely powerful and have infinite knowledge.
A2. That part of God's definition is that he is uncreated.
A3. That for a creature to be good is either for it to be ordered towards God as its final end, or by participating in God's goodness.
A4. Evil is merely the privation of good.

1

>>1867938
1. When one questions why evil exists in creation, given that evil is merely the lack of good, they are only asking why creation is not better.

2. God has infinite power, thus it is always possible that God could have created a different creation with one more good being in it than the creation he created, making this creation better than the last. Hence the possible creations are like the set of positive integers, they go on as a potential infinity, always finite, but never with a greatest member.

3. If we take one creation A with X amount of goodness, and another creation B with X+Y amount of goodness both would be equally distinct from the amount of goodness that God is capable of producing. So just as 2 is less than 3, both 2 and 3 are equally distant from the infinite as finite numbers.

4. To create a creation that is infinitely good would be for God to create himself, but God by definition is uncreated.

5. It is impossible for an infinitely good creation to be created.

6. An infinitely good creation is logically impossible and all possible finite creations are equally distant from what God has the power to instantiate.

7. It is arbitrary to demand that God create a creation with X amount of goodness but not X-Y or X+Y amount of goodness in order to justify his goodness. No principled argument can be made to justify a demand for one finite degree of goodness in creation over another.

8. Given 1-7, Any creation is permissible for God and does not challenge his infinite goodness. Any attempt to specify a criteria that God would be bound to when creating must necessarily fail.

2

>>1867953
9. Any goodness that comes from a creature in creation is only so insofar as it takes part in God's goodness.

10. The creation of a creature does not add any goodness that was not there before God.

11. There is an equal amount of goodness whether God creates or does not create. Creation does not add or subtract anything from God's infinite goodness.

12. From 9-11. God has perfect freedom to choose to create or not without it compromising his perfect goodness.

13. From 8 and 12. God is free in regards to whether he creates or not, and which creation he chooses to create, and this does not compromise his infinite goodness or power in any way no matter what he chooses.