Historically, Christians have often appealed to Platonic philosophy and argued that God is the absolute principle of reality, equating him with the Monad of Neoplatonist thought. But the problem with this is that the God of the Old Testament is explicitly portrayed as an anthropomorphic god of the Bronze Age. He is shown as physically sculpting a man from clay, dining with Abraham, feeling emotions like anger and jealousy, etc. He only takes this more abstract Platonic interpretation from the Gospel of John and onwards. You cannot reconcile the Old Testament’s depiction of God with Platonic philosophy if you view literally any of it as historical (which it isn’t). The only way to properly reconcile any literal interpretation of the Old Testament with Platonic philosophy would be to view the God of the Old Testament not as the absolute principle of reality, but as a flawed lesser being. But this is Gnosticism and thus can be thrown out the window as a legitimate defense for Christianity since most Christians reject Gnosticism.More generally, the only way for Christians to reconcile the Old Testament with Platonism philosophy while still holding onto the belief that God is the absolute principle of reality would be to view the entire thing as an allegory. But Christians only view select parts as allegory, they believe other parts are literally describing historical events which is problematic since even in these parts, God is shown as being anthropomorphic (especially since Moses literally views his backside at one point).
>>18437255Hence why polytheism is more logical than monotheism. Monotheism is centered on a God who is simultaneously an absolute principle and a personal, emotional creator. This conception of God is illogical and cannot be equated with the Monad of Platonic philosophy as it is far too emotional and personal to be the absolute principle of reality. Polytheism avoids this contradiction by distributing divine functions among lesser beings and it is a better map of the human psyche, representing various facets of the human experience (war, love, wisdom, etc) as distinct entities rather than a single, often contradictory deity. Yes, the gods all emanate from the Monad and are part of a cosmic order (in contrast to unordered chaos), but they are still separate individuals from each other hence the diversity of all things for if there were only one god, then all things would have the same shape, size, and color. The reason why religions differ from each other is simply because certain cultures just view the divine in different ways that are all shades of the truth rather than standing on their own and the reason religions evolve over time is because the human understanding of the divine changes similar to how our understanding of science can change over time. The gods of different pantheons are merely different names for the same divine archetypes. The Abrahamic religions’ insistence that they are the absolute truth and that all other religions are “false” is ironically what makes them the false religions.
ok bro. take a look at the upanishads actually inspired by god or the sermon on the mount actually spoken by god.
>>18437255Viewing Jesus as uncreated and co-equal to God is inherently anti-Platonic anyways.>>18437258Polytheism was an incoherent mess that saw the world as ultimately unintelligible and beyond our control. The gods were something to respect and fear, not something to understand. Plato and the others forged the basis for monotheism and original polytheism has been logically abandoned ever since.
>>18437332>Polytheism was an incoherent mess that saw the world as ultimately unintelligible and beyond our controlNot incoherent + the universe is beyond our control.>Plato and the others forged the basis for monotheismMonism is not monotheism nor is it incompatible with polytheism. If Platonism is “proto-monotheism,” then you’d have to admit the ancient Egyptians were monotheistic since they believed that all the gods were aspects of a single divine source that was unknowable and beyond human comprehension (Platonism was even inspired by this). There is a massive difference between “the gods are all aspects of a single source” and “the gods are false.”You have never read Plato nor do you understand platonic philosophy. You are ignorant and know nothing of true wisdom. I bet you don’t even that that Plato still defended traditional religious practices and believed they were valid ways for the masses to access the divine. Platonism is not a replacement of paganism but simply the intellectual side of it.
>>18437442I affirm that gods ascribed by these traditions are merely aspects of the nature of existence categorized for our human understanding. That simply also exists in monotheism and all your criticisms about monotheism with God being a personal and emotional creator just apply to Christianity. >Platonism is not a replacement of paganism but simply the intellectual side of it.It's an intellectual philosophy used to make your daily life understandable. It can mold into any tradition that doesn't explicitly deny core principles, which in the modern day is only Christianity. Religions like Hinduism also have the Brahmin and other aspects but without the Platonic/Neoplatonic interpretation you end up with the country of India.
>>18437255define "Mainstream Christianity"
>>18437255Uhh you see god is capable of anything so he could have literalyl done that stuff also those things are metaphors AND since god is utterly transcended those things that would require some sort of body are actually undertaken by an emnation aka the angel of the lord enjoy hell.
>>18437464>That simply also exists in monotheism and all your criticisms about monotheism with God being a personal and emotional creator just apply to Christianity.Again, the Christian conception of God is far too personal and emotional to be equated with the Monad of Platonic philosophy. Other monotheistic religions like Islam and Judaism also believe in a personal and emotional God.>It's an intellectual philosophy used to make your daily life understandable. It can mold into any tradition that doesn't explicitly deny core principles, which in the modern day is only Christianity. Religions like Hinduism also have the Brahmin and other aspects but without the Platonic/Neoplatonic interpretation you end up with the country of India.And the only traditions which don’t contradict or deny its core principles are “pagan” traditions. Christianity by-default cannot be reconciled with Platonism since Christians reject the idea of worshiping lesser beings and adhere to commandments like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” There’s also the fact that alongside Hades, Tartarus, and Elysium, Platonism also believes in reincarnation and Christians reject reincarnation.Also, the comparison to India is ridiculous considering that Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are Muslim, have the same issues as India. Other countries who adhere to “pagan” traditions today like Japan don’t have the same issues as India.>>18438131Catholicism and to a lesser extent Orthodoxy.>>18438137Historically Christians have tried to appeal to Platonic philosophy to defend their religion, thus we will use that as a basis to argue on. I am simply pointing out that Christianity’s core tenants contradict Platonism. Also, emanations of the Monad are metaphysical spirits in Platonism and Jesus, who had a physical body of flesh and blood, could not have been a metaphysical spirit.
>>18437255There is also the other old option of piecing out a substantialist materialism from the scattered writings of the presocratic philosophes, less to make the hearts of christians cheered then to set the pens of the scholars of the presocratics to the laborious art of translating texts and bringing fresh insight to the field
Imagine writing so much shit without even really understanding what god means in this context
>>18438329Jewish mysticism and Islamic mysticism don't believe in a personal God. It's the interpretation that matters which is why I'm saying the Platonic philosophy is more important than the religion for coherency.
