Phrozt
OP
Phrozt
10+ year member
The Drunken Snowman
- Thread Starter
- #2
Towards the end of the time of Tertullian in the late second century and early third century, some Christian officials started to recognize this problem and set about trying to find a common set of beliefs for all Christians. One of the more influential figures was a bishop named Irenaeus of Lyons. He followed the ambitions of his teacher Polycarp in creating a “universal” church for all Christians that they would call “Catholic” (Pagels, 80). Irenaeus and Polycarp urged Catholics to reject all variations of Christianity except one. Irenaeus used philosophy and theology to create a central belief system that could be followed by Christians and it became orthodox for Catholics to follow. One of the first things that Irenaeus set up was the canonized set of four gospels to make up the central core of the New Testament. He was the first to put Matthew, Mark, Luke and John together. Unlike others, however, he put John at the beginning of these, because of John’s definition of Jesus as God and because of the fact that John speaks of the beginning of creation. His four gospel core became his main force in dealing with the unification of the Christian church, and became the basis of orthodox teachings (Pagels, 81).
During this time, the bishop of Rome took notice of all the violence as he was being petitioned by Christians to do something about the rising number of attacks against them. Also at this time, more Christian groups were popping up with even more radical ideas given to them by “revelation” and “prophecy.” Because of the book of Revelations, the question as to the validity of these new “visions” from God remained unanswered, and allowed these new groups to flourish (Pagels, 89). Who was to say which people actually received a revelation from God, and which were just using God as authority for their own motivations? When Irenaeus went to Rome to try to help all of this confusion, he met opposition of his canonized four from all sides of the spectrum.
He dealt with the new “revelations” of some Christian groups with the phrase “proof of prophecy.” Irenaeus, as well as some of his contemporary followers, and even Christians of today believed that the only true revelations were the ancient prophecies that predicted things that actually happened, such as Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection. Irenaeus felt that these prophecies had empirical evidence, and were therefore clearly “from God” (Pagels, 110). He then focused on groups that had arisen from tying their beliefs to a specific apostle or apostles. He rejected those groups that only used one gospel as a focus, then rejected those that used multiple gospels, claiming that certain Christians “boast that they have more gospels than there really are… but really, they have no gospel which is not full of blasphemy.” Finally, he struck down all other forms of writings that related to the gospels such as the “Secret Book of James” and the Gospel of Mary. He concluded by saying that the only “gospel” that contained all truth was supported by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He referred to them as the four “pillars of the church” and declared that there could be no more and no less than these four (Pagels, 111). Irenaeus knew, however, that he could not stop people from seeking out new revelations, as “religious traditions that survive through time only as their adherents relive and reimagine tem and, in the process continually transform them” (Pagels, 112).
Irenaeus knew that getting rid of all other writings and adhering to the four gospels would not be enough to save the Christian movement itself. The gospels needed to be interpreted in such a way that all Christians could get the same meaning out of them, and that questions that people needed answers to were getting answered. His solution to this was creating what we now know as orthodox Christianity or, “straight-thinking” Christianity (Pagels, 113). Despite the fact that he laid down his endorsement of the four gospels, he still had a fear of people misinterpreting them, even as orthodox Christians. To solve this problem, he made everything excruciatingly clear in a five volume set called Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge (Pagels, 128). It’s also important to point out where he drew his conclusions from. Irenaeus felt that the only way to be certain that he was getting as close to God’s wishes as possible is to go as far back as he could to what he first learned. He said, “hold unmoving in [your] heart the canon of truth received in baptism.” By “canon of truth” he meant, “This faith, which the church, even when scattered throughout the whole world… received from the apostles,” which he further clarifies through a creed much like the Nicean Creed, stating a faith in: “…one God, Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and the seas… and in one Christ Jesus, the son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the holy spirit… and the birth from a virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, and the heavenly ascension in flesh… of our beloved Jesus Christ” (Pagels, 129).
One of the first things that Irenaeus abolished under his new creed was a process that some “spirited Christians” adopted, which was a second baptism that they called apolutrosis. It was through this baptism that certain groups of Christians felt that they could move themselves beyond the common group and join a “higher” group which had a “better” understanding of God and spirituality (Pagels, 136). They cited that the first baptism was to cleanse their souls, and the second baptism, apolutrosis, was for “redemption” or “release” in which they could truly be free to become better, more elite group of Christians. They even cited Jesus as saying that he had, “another baptism with which to be baptized” (Pagels, 137, 138). The problem that Irenaeus pointed out was that in all of the different groups of Christians that performed this baptism, the ritual was different. There was no established ritual that all could follow, and therefore there was no validity to any of these groups’ claims of the need of a second baptism (again, “a religion that is not the expression of philosophical truth degenerates into superstition and obscurantism”). He ended by declaring that the leaders of these groups were “frauds and liars” (Pagels, 141).
Another very important establishment that Irenaeus made completely defeated the Thomas groups’ views of their independent search for God and spirituality through their personal experiences. Irenaeus compared it with a common point that atheists made to disprove God. Irenaeus asked, “If spiritual understanding may arise from human experience, doesn’t this mean that it is nothing but human invention and therefore false?” To answer this question from both sides (both atheist and “Thomist” points of view) Irenaeus stated that, “it is heresy to assume that human experience is analogous to divine reality, and to infer that each one of us, by exploring our own experience, may discover intimations of truth about God.” What he meant is, when these groups would read John and try to figure out what “word” meant, they reflected upon what it meant in their own existence, and mistook their own interpretation for actual theology expressed in John. Irenaeus said that they invented what they found in Scripture to, “validate [their] own experience” (Pagels, 145). He dealt with personal “spiritual” revelation along similar lines by saying, “the coming of the Lord will appear unnecessary and useless, if, indeed, he did come intending to tolerate and preserve each person’s ideas concerning God” (Pagels, 146).
Along similar lines was the question of the “humanity” of Jesus. Many took from the scriptures that Jesus was indeed human, and that his divine nature was not clarified. This question that Jews as well as “heretics” had was, “What is wrong with seeing Jesus as if he were simply ‘one of us’? Haven’t we all – ourselves as well as he – been created in the image of God?” Irenaeus has two answers to this. The first is that we shattered this “affinity” between God and ourselves when the human race “surrendered to the powers of evil” in which he refers to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Pagels, 147). Also, as I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons that Irenaeus constructed his four gospel canon was specifically to deal with this question. He specifically put John first of the four to directly answer this, because only John directly links Christ with a divine origin.
During this time, the bishop of Rome took notice of all the violence as he was being petitioned by Christians to do something about the rising number of attacks against them. Also at this time, more Christian groups were popping up with even more radical ideas given to them by “revelation” and “prophecy.” Because of the book of Revelations, the question as to the validity of these new “visions” from God remained unanswered, and allowed these new groups to flourish (Pagels, 89). Who was to say which people actually received a revelation from God, and which were just using God as authority for their own motivations? When Irenaeus went to Rome to try to help all of this confusion, he met opposition of his canonized four from all sides of the spectrum.
He dealt with the new “revelations” of some Christian groups with the phrase “proof of prophecy.” Irenaeus, as well as some of his contemporary followers, and even Christians of today believed that the only true revelations were the ancient prophecies that predicted things that actually happened, such as Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection. Irenaeus felt that these prophecies had empirical evidence, and were therefore clearly “from God” (Pagels, 110). He then focused on groups that had arisen from tying their beliefs to a specific apostle or apostles. He rejected those groups that only used one gospel as a focus, then rejected those that used multiple gospels, claiming that certain Christians “boast that they have more gospels than there really are… but really, they have no gospel which is not full of blasphemy.” Finally, he struck down all other forms of writings that related to the gospels such as the “Secret Book of James” and the Gospel of Mary. He concluded by saying that the only “gospel” that contained all truth was supported by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He referred to them as the four “pillars of the church” and declared that there could be no more and no less than these four (Pagels, 111). Irenaeus knew, however, that he could not stop people from seeking out new revelations, as “religious traditions that survive through time only as their adherents relive and reimagine tem and, in the process continually transform them” (Pagels, 112).
Irenaeus knew that getting rid of all other writings and adhering to the four gospels would not be enough to save the Christian movement itself. The gospels needed to be interpreted in such a way that all Christians could get the same meaning out of them, and that questions that people needed answers to were getting answered. His solution to this was creating what we now know as orthodox Christianity or, “straight-thinking” Christianity (Pagels, 113). Despite the fact that he laid down his endorsement of the four gospels, he still had a fear of people misinterpreting them, even as orthodox Christians. To solve this problem, he made everything excruciatingly clear in a five volume set called Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge (Pagels, 128). It’s also important to point out where he drew his conclusions from. Irenaeus felt that the only way to be certain that he was getting as close to God’s wishes as possible is to go as far back as he could to what he first learned. He said, “hold unmoving in [your] heart the canon of truth received in baptism.” By “canon of truth” he meant, “This faith, which the church, even when scattered throughout the whole world… received from the apostles,” which he further clarifies through a creed much like the Nicean Creed, stating a faith in: “…one God, Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and the seas… and in one Christ Jesus, the son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the holy spirit… and the birth from a virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, and the heavenly ascension in flesh… of our beloved Jesus Christ” (Pagels, 129).
One of the first things that Irenaeus abolished under his new creed was a process that some “spirited Christians” adopted, which was a second baptism that they called apolutrosis. It was through this baptism that certain groups of Christians felt that they could move themselves beyond the common group and join a “higher” group which had a “better” understanding of God and spirituality (Pagels, 136). They cited that the first baptism was to cleanse their souls, and the second baptism, apolutrosis, was for “redemption” or “release” in which they could truly be free to become better, more elite group of Christians. They even cited Jesus as saying that he had, “another baptism with which to be baptized” (Pagels, 137, 138). The problem that Irenaeus pointed out was that in all of the different groups of Christians that performed this baptism, the ritual was different. There was no established ritual that all could follow, and therefore there was no validity to any of these groups’ claims of the need of a second baptism (again, “a religion that is not the expression of philosophical truth degenerates into superstition and obscurantism”). He ended by declaring that the leaders of these groups were “frauds and liars” (Pagels, 141).
Another very important establishment that Irenaeus made completely defeated the Thomas groups’ views of their independent search for God and spirituality through their personal experiences. Irenaeus compared it with a common point that atheists made to disprove God. Irenaeus asked, “If spiritual understanding may arise from human experience, doesn’t this mean that it is nothing but human invention and therefore false?” To answer this question from both sides (both atheist and “Thomist” points of view) Irenaeus stated that, “it is heresy to assume that human experience is analogous to divine reality, and to infer that each one of us, by exploring our own experience, may discover intimations of truth about God.” What he meant is, when these groups would read John and try to figure out what “word” meant, they reflected upon what it meant in their own existence, and mistook their own interpretation for actual theology expressed in John. Irenaeus said that they invented what they found in Scripture to, “validate [their] own experience” (Pagels, 145). He dealt with personal “spiritual” revelation along similar lines by saying, “the coming of the Lord will appear unnecessary and useless, if, indeed, he did come intending to tolerate and preserve each person’s ideas concerning God” (Pagels, 146).
Along similar lines was the question of the “humanity” of Jesus. Many took from the scriptures that Jesus was indeed human, and that his divine nature was not clarified. This question that Jews as well as “heretics” had was, “What is wrong with seeing Jesus as if he were simply ‘one of us’? Haven’t we all – ourselves as well as he – been created in the image of God?” Irenaeus has two answers to this. The first is that we shattered this “affinity” between God and ourselves when the human race “surrendered to the powers of evil” in which he refers to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Pagels, 147). Also, as I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons that Irenaeus constructed his four gospel canon was specifically to deal with this question. He specifically put John first of the four to directly answer this, because only John directly links Christ with a divine origin.
OP
Phrozt
10+ year member
The Drunken Snowman
- Thread Starter
- #3
The verses in question, used to debate Christ’s divine origin read, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God [John 1:1-2],” as well as, “all things were made through him [the word] and without him nothing was made [John 1:3].” One of the leaders of the opposing view, Ptolemy, read these passages to say that, “the infinite divine Source above reveals itself in diminished form in the divine word, which reveals itself, in turn, in the more limited form of the human Jesus” (Pagels, 150). Irenaeus argues in a form of equivalencies, citing that, “’God the Father’ is equivalent to the word, and the word is equivalent to ‘Jesus Christ.’” Irenaeus also bridged the gap between a remote God and the world with this equivalency, showing that God created the world and all things, and was not separate from any of these things, by going so far as to inhabit the world himself, through Jesus Christ as “the word made flesh.” This simple equation is what many Christians today use to profess Christ’s divine origin and it became part of the definition of orthodoxy (Pagels, 151). Irenaeus knew this claim went further than either of Matthew, Mark or Luke, in which each gospel related Jesus as having important, but human roles, such as king and prophet. Each of these gospels falls just short of, as Pagels says, “directly identifying Jesus with God, much less as God” (Pagels, 152). Also, with this assertion, Irenaeus as well as others who believed this felt that this truth found in John makes John not only different from the other three gospels, but also “more elevated” (Pagels, 153).
Irenaeus used this clarification of the interpretation of John to target groups of Christians who believed differently as “heretics.” He used this definition of “the word” to answer the question: “Who worships God rightly and who does not?” (Pagels, 153). Not only does Irenaeus rule Christian groups that opposed this interpretation as heretics, but also the Jews. He said that God rejects the Jews, not only because they killed the “Just One,” but also because they “fail to recognize Jesus as ‘the God who spoke in human form’” (Pagels 153, 154). Irenaeus called his fellow thinkers to not only recognize and shun these heretical and schismatic priests for who they are, but also to obey the true and “genuine” priests (the orthodox Christian priests). Irenaeus felt that for he and his successors in orthodox Christianity, that “making a difference between true Christians and those he calls heretics – and choosing the path of ‘orthodox’ faith and practice – is what ultimately makes the difference between heaven and hell” (Pagels, 157).
Over the next century, these changes that Irenaeus and his successors had set in motion began to form Christians into a more unified movement. The final push came at the beginning of the 4th century, when Constantine became emperor of Rome. When Constantine converted to Christianity, he set about with zeal in “Christianizing” the Roman Empire. He used funds from the Imperial treasury to rebuild damaged churches, build new ones, and even sent out grain and other necessities to help the sick, needy and poor, in the image of Jesus, as he set about helping such people (Pagels, 169). Unfortunately, with the “kindness” of Christianity that Constantine spread, also came the prejudice. Because of his position as emperor, he actually made laws against some of the Jewish practices, and basically knocked down the status of Jews in general (Pagels, 170). Besides all of the side projects that Constantine performed in the name of the Christian faith, his main project was the council of Nicaea in which, at his expense, he set about finishing what Irenaeus had started in creating standards and unification among the Christian faith.
Though many thought that Constantine pulled all the strings at the council, he actually stood back and let the bishops arbitrate and lead most of the discussions (Pagels, 171). Among the biggest of the debates came from the question of Jesus as a preacher of the Word of God, as opposed to Jesus as God himself. Bishops of Alexandria in Egypt, Alexander and Athanasius, represented the side of Jesus and God as one, while bishop Arius of Libya spoke of Jesus as preacher of the Word of God. Alexander and Athanasius attended the council with a clear determination that the phrase “of one being with” would be included in the proposed creed for a “universal” church (Pagels, 172, 173). There was so much controversy over this topic that Constantine finally stepped in and endorsed the phrase himself to end the conflict. By doing so he basically made a challenge against the phrase as a challenge of the emperor’s own orthodoxy. Because of this, Arius and a few of his loyal followers left the council entirely (Pagels, 173). Ultimately, the Nicene creed was approved and signed by all gathered, and became a document that all Christians must accept if they were to be included in the “Catholic church.” After the Creed was accepted, Constantine ordered all “heretics and schismatics” (about half of all known Christians in the empire) to cease all practices, stop meeting, and basically stop existing (Pagels, 174).
The result of the Nicaean council, other than the fact that it greatly increased the authority of “Catholic” bishops, was the Nicene Creed, which aimed to clarify the “canon of truth,” as well as a full listing of the new “canon,” which included twenty-seven of all of the known writings and gospels that ultimately made up the New Testament. This became what would tie together “orthodox” Christians into one “Catholic and Apostolic” church (Pagels, 170). Though it wasn’t put together exactly as Irenaeus had set out, it did help to accomplish the goals he had in mind. Constantine’s goals, however, were more not as strict as Irenaeus’. While he still used the council ratified doctrines to stamp out Christianity that wasn’t considered “orthodox Catholic,” he allowed some room for interpretation and discussion of the faith. He allowed this discussion in light of the fact that the Creed was the foundation to which the “universal” church idea would adhere to as an end all say all. A contemporary historian of the council, Timothy Barnes, said, “Constantine believed that all people should be Christian, but that Christians might legitimately hold divergent opinions on theological question, and that sensible Christians could disagree about doctrine in a spirit of brotherly love” (Pagels, 174).
Throughout this thesis, the “philosophical truth” as quoted in the beginning has taken on a multitude of forms. It is most interesting (to me), however, when it becomes a faith-based philosophical truth, because most (Western) philosophers are quick to distinguish the difference between philosophy and religion, while I feel they are important – essential even – to each other. As Elaine Pagels states, “This research [Pagels’ research] offers new ways to relate to religious tradition. Orthodox doctrines of God – Jewish, Christian, or Muslim – tend to emphasize the separation between what is divine and what is human… Since those who accept such views often assume that divine revelation is diametrically opposed to human perception, they often rule out what mystically inclined Jews and Christians have always done – seeking to discern spiritual truth experienced as revelation, truth that may come from intuition, reflection, or creative imagination” (Pagels, 181-182).
Irenaeus used this clarification of the interpretation of John to target groups of Christians who believed differently as “heretics.” He used this definition of “the word” to answer the question: “Who worships God rightly and who does not?” (Pagels, 153). Not only does Irenaeus rule Christian groups that opposed this interpretation as heretics, but also the Jews. He said that God rejects the Jews, not only because they killed the “Just One,” but also because they “fail to recognize Jesus as ‘the God who spoke in human form’” (Pagels 153, 154). Irenaeus called his fellow thinkers to not only recognize and shun these heretical and schismatic priests for who they are, but also to obey the true and “genuine” priests (the orthodox Christian priests). Irenaeus felt that for he and his successors in orthodox Christianity, that “making a difference between true Christians and those he calls heretics – and choosing the path of ‘orthodox’ faith and practice – is what ultimately makes the difference between heaven and hell” (Pagels, 157).
Over the next century, these changes that Irenaeus and his successors had set in motion began to form Christians into a more unified movement. The final push came at the beginning of the 4th century, when Constantine became emperor of Rome. When Constantine converted to Christianity, he set about with zeal in “Christianizing” the Roman Empire. He used funds from the Imperial treasury to rebuild damaged churches, build new ones, and even sent out grain and other necessities to help the sick, needy and poor, in the image of Jesus, as he set about helping such people (Pagels, 169). Unfortunately, with the “kindness” of Christianity that Constantine spread, also came the prejudice. Because of his position as emperor, he actually made laws against some of the Jewish practices, and basically knocked down the status of Jews in general (Pagels, 170). Besides all of the side projects that Constantine performed in the name of the Christian faith, his main project was the council of Nicaea in which, at his expense, he set about finishing what Irenaeus had started in creating standards and unification among the Christian faith.
Though many thought that Constantine pulled all the strings at the council, he actually stood back and let the bishops arbitrate and lead most of the discussions (Pagels, 171). Among the biggest of the debates came from the question of Jesus as a preacher of the Word of God, as opposed to Jesus as God himself. Bishops of Alexandria in Egypt, Alexander and Athanasius, represented the side of Jesus and God as one, while bishop Arius of Libya spoke of Jesus as preacher of the Word of God. Alexander and Athanasius attended the council with a clear determination that the phrase “of one being with” would be included in the proposed creed for a “universal” church (Pagels, 172, 173). There was so much controversy over this topic that Constantine finally stepped in and endorsed the phrase himself to end the conflict. By doing so he basically made a challenge against the phrase as a challenge of the emperor’s own orthodoxy. Because of this, Arius and a few of his loyal followers left the council entirely (Pagels, 173). Ultimately, the Nicene creed was approved and signed by all gathered, and became a document that all Christians must accept if they were to be included in the “Catholic church.” After the Creed was accepted, Constantine ordered all “heretics and schismatics” (about half of all known Christians in the empire) to cease all practices, stop meeting, and basically stop existing (Pagels, 174).
The result of the Nicaean council, other than the fact that it greatly increased the authority of “Catholic” bishops, was the Nicene Creed, which aimed to clarify the “canon of truth,” as well as a full listing of the new “canon,” which included twenty-seven of all of the known writings and gospels that ultimately made up the New Testament. This became what would tie together “orthodox” Christians into one “Catholic and Apostolic” church (Pagels, 170). Though it wasn’t put together exactly as Irenaeus had set out, it did help to accomplish the goals he had in mind. Constantine’s goals, however, were more not as strict as Irenaeus’. While he still used the council ratified doctrines to stamp out Christianity that wasn’t considered “orthodox Catholic,” he allowed some room for interpretation and discussion of the faith. He allowed this discussion in light of the fact that the Creed was the foundation to which the “universal” church idea would adhere to as an end all say all. A contemporary historian of the council, Timothy Barnes, said, “Constantine believed that all people should be Christian, but that Christians might legitimately hold divergent opinions on theological question, and that sensible Christians could disagree about doctrine in a spirit of brotherly love” (Pagels, 174).
Throughout this thesis, the “philosophical truth” as quoted in the beginning has taken on a multitude of forms. It is most interesting (to me), however, when it becomes a faith-based philosophical truth, because most (Western) philosophers are quick to distinguish the difference between philosophy and religion, while I feel they are important – essential even – to each other. As Elaine Pagels states, “This research [Pagels’ research] offers new ways to relate to religious tradition. Orthodox doctrines of God – Jewish, Christian, or Muslim – tend to emphasize the separation between what is divine and what is human… Since those who accept such views often assume that divine revelation is diametrically opposed to human perception, they often rule out what mystically inclined Jews and Christians have always done – seeking to discern spiritual truth experienced as revelation, truth that may come from intuition, reflection, or creative imagination” (Pagels, 181-182).
OP
Phrozt
10+ year member
The Drunken Snowman
- Thread Starter
- #4
Through philosophical argument, differing theological opinions formed as the early Christians came into existence in the world. Each group had their own foundation to stand on for their own reasons. Because of the problems that ensued, having a split up group that was not well received by any government and that could not even find a central core of “truth,” a new philosophical truth had to be imposed. With Irenaeus and his four gospel canon as the core of this new philosophical movement, many other, “deviant” forms of Christianity were stamped out. Because of this, we just recently (in the last 200 years or so) began to discover lost archives of “Christian” theology, including random “lost gospels”, the dead sea scrolls, and ancient texts found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, which contained many of the lost gospels, including the gospels of Thomas and Peter. Finally, through more philosophical discourse that took place at the Council of Nicaea, headed by Emperor Constantine in 325, certain Christian standards were set, yet they agreed to leave the door to further interpretation and revelation at least partially open. Though theology played a large role in each of these important periods over the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, it was rational thought (albeit faith-based) that determined the results of each of these time periods.
Because of the person I am, how I was raised, and the experiences I’ve gone through personally and with others throughout my life, I will always question religion, or at least parts of it. Recently I’ve learned that there is a place within myself for faith in God and Christianity, but I also feel that it is a duty to myself to understand what it all means, and that requires examination and analysis. I feel that the tools I need to do this were largely given to me through my philosophical studies. Through this thesis, I hope that I’ve proved how it is possible to use rationality, argument, and critical thinking to understand religion and faith. Better yet, I hope to have proved how philosophy is imperative to religion for providing a way to understand God and faith and all of the concepts that come with religion that are not easy to grasp. In tying the “true view” of philosophy (using rationality and philosophy to change the world now, rather than to just study and learn old philosophy) within my thesis, I would say that changing the way the bible and the Christian faith is looked at would be one of the most rewarding philosophical endeavors that I could undergo. A lot of people say that God should not be questioned. A lot of people are even afraid to think about it. In my own understanding of God, I would think that he/she/it would want his creations to question him to better understand him and the importance of spirituality in their lives.
Bibliography
Deutsch, Eliot. “Vedanta,” in Introduction to World Philosophies. Ancient World Wisdom handout #4.
Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief, the Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003.
Because of the person I am, how I was raised, and the experiences I’ve gone through personally and with others throughout my life, I will always question religion, or at least parts of it. Recently I’ve learned that there is a place within myself for faith in God and Christianity, but I also feel that it is a duty to myself to understand what it all means, and that requires examination and analysis. I feel that the tools I need to do this were largely given to me through my philosophical studies. Through this thesis, I hope that I’ve proved how it is possible to use rationality, argument, and critical thinking to understand religion and faith. Better yet, I hope to have proved how philosophy is imperative to religion for providing a way to understand God and faith and all of the concepts that come with religion that are not easy to grasp. In tying the “true view” of philosophy (using rationality and philosophy to change the world now, rather than to just study and learn old philosophy) within my thesis, I would say that changing the way the bible and the Christian faith is looked at would be one of the most rewarding philosophical endeavors that I could undergo. A lot of people say that God should not be questioned. A lot of people are even afraid to think about it. In my own understanding of God, I would think that he/she/it would want his creations to question him to better understand him and the importance of spirituality in their lives.
Bibliography
Deutsch, Eliot. “Vedanta,” in Introduction to World Philosophies. Ancient World Wisdom handout #4.
Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Belief, the Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003.
mikeyboc
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Veteran
Is there a Cliff Note's version? I am not reading all of that.
I got to the middle of the second section before i said f it. Pretty good writing, I must say. YOu topic choice is horrible, IMO, but hey, you take it in stride //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Your bilobiograpy is weak... I'd have to say that even though your paper is solid thoughout you should have a more comprehensive one not only for "wow" factor but to compare and contrast what other researchers say about the same thing... For any research paper I did we neeeded at least 5 text sources to achieve an A grade.
It seems that your paper is a summary of the Pagels book with is a no no, unless it was the class textbook or something I'd diversify your sources a little, even if they are just affirming waht Pagel wrote about.
It seems that your paper is a summary of the Pagels book with is a no no, unless it was the class textbook or something I'd diversify your sources a little, even if they are just affirming waht Pagel wrote about.
YOu should also try to attribute the holy bible if you use the quotes...
Excellent paper otherwise though, it seems like aot more history than argument in some of it but this history is essential to the point of how the corruption of philosophical truth results in the religion going to hell.
How long did it take to write?
How long did it take to write?
OP
Phrozt
10+ year member
The Drunken Snowman
- Thread Starter
- #11
goddamit
Why do ppl always think it's a history paper!@!@ I didn't even list dates... I just gave a breif history of the situation, then I presented the options and how they were debated!
- This was my senior thesis for my Philosophy major that I did last year.
- Why so few sources?? I started reading the Pagel's book at 8:00pm the night before the paper was due... I wrote the paper from 11:30 to 4 in the morning.
I got a B- on it.... mostly because it was more political than philosophical reasons that the cannon ended up being structured as it was. I knew this, but it was clearly MUCH too late to do more research and change the topic.
I realize this is a poor way to write a paper of which an entire 3 credit semester class is devoted to.
Why do ppl always think it's a history paper!@!@ I didn't even list dates... I just gave a breif history of the situation, then I presented the options and how they were debated!
- This was my senior thesis for my Philosophy major that I did last year.
- Why so few sources?? I started reading the Pagel's book at 8:00pm the night before the paper was due... I wrote the paper from 11:30 to 4 in the morning.
I got a B- on it.... mostly because it was more political than philosophical reasons that the cannon ended up being structured as it was. I knew this, but it was clearly MUCH too late to do more research and change the topic.
I realize this is a poor way to write a paper of which an entire 3 credit semester class is devoted to.
I ****ing hate you now... That would have taken me weeks.
But since you are obviously much smarter than the average joe, it still looks like you did spend weeks on it by law of averages //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif I'm doubly impressed by it just because the fact that it took you so little time yet remained even then cohesive enough to still pass as good work. And as far as it goes you had to include that history because it seemed that as christianity spread the philosophy became tainted.
... So why did you wanna share this paper again? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif
... So why did you wanna share this paper again? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
