Name a more influential figure in European history, I'll wait.

Name a more influential figure in European history, I'll wait.

>inb4 Jesus
European Christianity was shaped by (neo)Platonism

Don't bother replying if you haven't read at least his most important dialogues.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Tell me how many cities (not gonna say villages) have an edifice to honor Plato and how many have edifices to honor Jesus, how many persons in Europe are christians and how many are platonists and then say again why Plato was more relevant and important.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't prove anything. Jesus was honoured, because people were Christians and Christianity in Europe is more in the spirit of Platonism than in the original spirit of the bible.
      Something like the crusades doesn't seem very Christian to me (love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek), but it was still filled with Christian symbolism and carried out in the name of the Christian god.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Europe is more in the spirit of Platonism than in the original spirit of the bible.
        Tell me you are a millennial/zoomer without actually telling it. Tell that to a persons from old generations and he will laught at your face, much better, get out of your ecochamber, move to a rural area and start talking them about Plato and other mental gymnastics and count how much time pass before they laugh at you.
        Then make another thread champion 😉

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You know what this is? This is a painting of Thomas Aquinas with Aristotle to the left and Plato to the right.
          >"Aquinas has been described as "the most influential thinker of the medieval period" and "the greatest of the medieval philosopher-theologians.” His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy is derived from his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory."
          Wow so one of the most influential "Christian" thinkers was actually a Platonist?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Loving your neighbor is protecting your neighbor. If you love your neighbor you don't want Muslim hordes to take them over. If you do unto others, you wouldn't want Muslim hordes to take over. Also turn the other cheek was never referring to the government or things like national defense. Several centurions were seen as faithful and devout in the NT and highly praised. We live in a fallen world so we have to often choose between 1 command or the other. Protecting thy neighbor is loving thy neighbor.

        1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 also show that God wills governments to punish evil and reward good. The Crusades as a defensive war arguably did this.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, you're correct, Jesus is the true embodiment of the European warrior spirit and would've definitely approved of the crusades.
          As a true warrior he fought back against the Romans and took back his homeland from these foreign invaders ... oh wait he got crucified instead.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus wanted the Romans to win and wanted the garden gnomes to die at the time. This is evident in certain parables and different sayings showing the garden gnomes would be replaced, killed, and their cities burnt down. You're assuming God still chose the garden gnomes. Jesus went willingly to the crucifixion and it was predestined to happen before the foundation of the world. He even had legions of angels He didn't use.

            We live in a fallen world and we have no choice but to sin. This is pretty much reality. So we choose the sin that results in lesser harm.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're just proving my point here. Jesus willingly let himself be crucified so that foreign people can take over his homeland and slaughter his people (Yes Jesus and his followers were ethnically gnomish).
              This is quite the opposite of the morals and ethics Europeans had during history (also in post-Christian times). European morals and ethics always had truth and honour as their highest values and were willing to die fighting for these, as it was their duty. My point being that these morals are much closer to Platonism than Christianity, which underlines my original claim that Plato was the most influential person in European history.

              This is what Jesus would've done if he were an embodiment of the European spirit: He would've convinced the people of Judea to take up arms and fight the romans, make himself the new king of Judea by force and kill everyone that goes against him (the garden gnomes).
              Now that sounds more similar to the Crusades, right?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                First of all, we believe in the trinity. Because we believe in the trinity, all events of the Bible were God ordained and approved of by all members of the trinity. This means that everything has to deal with God's plan, not one specific morality or another.

                I'm saying those with unconditional election are the new chosen people. People were always chosen by faith but back then it was garden gnomes whom God chose to give faith to.

                I'm saying in the case of the Crusades, it would be a sin to fight and a sin not to fight depending on which passages you favor so you may as well pick the sin that you favor. Again, God chooses whom to save or not to save before the world's foundation. God also puts all governments into place. If God did not will the crusades to happen, they would not have happened because everything is under God's sovereign decree. God does decree sin like the sin of what the Romans did to the garden gnomes for instance.

                I'm not thinking in terms of ethnicity but in terms of religion, in elect vs. non elect. If Muslims took over, more people would be damned and be non-elect so God influenced things so this would not happen and more people would remain the elect.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >so you may as well pick the sin that you favor
                >If God did not will the crusades to happen, they would not have happened because everything is under God's sovereign decree
                So who made the choice? The crusaders or god?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                God by influencing or authoring our choices in cases where the plan MUST be done. In cases where it doesn't have to be done according to His will, original sin takes over and God doesn't stop the results of original sin unless it interferes with the plan.

                God can be the author of sin. Consider:

                "From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” (John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My morality mostly cares about the eternal salvation of myself and others. The afterlife is my bottom line. Yes God predestines and knows who is saved or not but God also uses us as instruments to do so and uses our convictions. Everything else to me is secondary to that. If my choices are

                1. Sin and more people get saved or
                2. Refrain from a sin and fewer people get saved

                I'm choosing number 1 every single time.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm choosing number 1 every single time.
                So would I, but that wouldn't be a very Christian choice or else you would be rewarded for it.

                Option 1 is the right choice but you get punished for it, option 2 is the wrong choice and you get rewarded. Yeah I'm definitely sticking to Platonism, this shit is retarded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not punished for it because we're saved by faith alone and grace alone. I would be saved either choosing option 1 or option 2. If you're saved you're saved no matter what and if you're damned, you're damned no matter what. Yes God transforms you on the inside but in some cases you have no choice but to sin.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't really see how I'm being irrational. Everyone will sin. This is a given. I find it rational to take free salvation even if I do sin. "Master morality" or "slave morality" mean nothing to me, only the bottom line of my own salvation.

                Oh right I forgot how Christianity works, you don't face consequences for your actions as long as you repent and have faith.
                Stalin could've confessed his sins and gone to heaven, whereas in Platonism he would've been reincarnated as the lowest of life-form and lived a life full of suffering in his next life.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's better to kill people and not be sorry than it is to be sorry
                why

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Never said that and even so it is only slightly better if you're sorry for it, doesn't change that you committed atrocious act. Not being punished for your wrongdoings is worse than being punished for it. According to Plato this is even true for the perpetrator. He will be a happier and better person if he is punished rather than if he's not, doesn't matter if he's sorry for it or not.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or dying an unbeliever or non-worshipper, all can be forgiven.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Alright I'll rape your mum and then repent, you'll turn the other cheek right?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No because I don't have to do this to go to heaven. You really don't know how this works do you? I would shoot someone who did that then ask God forgiveness and be forgiven.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also another Pagan misusing the Bible. I can't "love my neighbor" or "honor my mother" or "do unto others" while letting you do this. As no matter what I do it's a sin I'd kill you and you'd go to hell. Because I repent and have faith, I go to heaven. This is exactly how it works. I am saved by my faith and you are not.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't really see how I'm being irrational. Everyone will sin. This is a given. I find it rational to take free salvation even if I do sin. "Master morality" or "slave morality" mean nothing to me, only the bottom line of my own salvation.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also in Christianity, we use both Testaments of the Bible. We use 66 or more books depending on denomination. Since we believe in the trinity, we can argue that all parts of the trinity agreed with what happened in the OT. If you don't have a trinitarian perspective though, this argument doesn't work.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          The holy trinity? Sounds a lot like Platonism, which makes sense, since Plato very likely had a significant influence in the creation of the old testament.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying I don't get when people try to limit Christians to only using 4 books out of the Bible when we use an entire Biblical canon. It makes zero sense.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus didn't exist so he's not a historical figure.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >name a more influential figure in European history

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >remains unrefuted

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The post French revolution period is only a small part of European history. Yes, empiricism is regarded very highly today and seen as the "truth", but it doesn't explain everything in our current world.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >important dialogues.
    He has none. Just look at this thread, nobody even wants to talk about him.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    late plato and heraclitus are my favorite philosophers

Your email address will not be published.