If that be so then Bible should be a philosophical I think this is where my problem with your text, and indeed this whole thread, lays. I am a Christian. I don't care if Christianity, or the Holy Bible, is considered to a philosophy by anyone. document. It is not.
Christianity is based on:
1. God exists. And His existance is beyond our understanding
2. God created the world out of nothing ie creatio ex nihilo, about 6,000 years ago. Only certain Christian groups hold that Bible should be understood non figuratively and even amongst those groups "the date" when God founded everything is not universally agreed on.
3. Creation was in six days and seventh God rested. See above, same situation
4. Jesus was born of a virgin. Yes
5. You either believe or go to hell for eternal burning. Unless, for the second time in this post and who knows how many many times for the thread, you have never heard of Jesus.
1. If you see Upanishads, you will find all thoughts well argued. But Bible starts abruptly: In the beginning... No background, no philosophical preparation, nothing. Just like that.
For last 2,000 years Christians have been trying to prove the existence of God and failing. His existance is beyond our understanding. You seem, to a non Hindu, to have a good grasp of concepts of Hinduism. But "proofs" aren't that important for Christians, faith is. I'd query your claim Christians have been trying to prove God's existance. Some Christians, sure. But, all... don't believe that Centuries before Jesus, Nyaya had advanced nine proofs for existence of Brahma. They are the superset of all the }proofs" of Christian "philosophers". They were pounced upon by all the other Hindu schools of philosophy and shredded to pieces, and were discarded. All Hindu philosophers are agreed that such proofs cannot exist.
2. Ex creatio, in all fairness, was considered in Chhandogya, but rejected summarily.
Aruni replied to his guru "My dear how can anything come out of nothing?". Matter was not pursued further.
Christian philosophers have tried to prove it can happen. Augustine depended on Plato and his IDEAS. If something can be thought of it exists. Ergo, creatio ex nihilo can be thought and hence did happen. QED. But my dear, you can think of a barren woman's son too. No doubt Augustine's philosophy failed spectacularly in every sphere, be it creation, free will, hell fires or whatever.
Later Aquinas tried Aristotelian logic. And we know how deficient it is compared to Nayaya, Buddhist and Navya Nyaya logic. Latest is Kalam argument, a few centuries old. That is even a more spectacular damp squib.
Someone's logic is a damp squib, Thomas Aquinas was using deficient "Aristotelian" logic... While your points might make sense to you I; A) have no idea what, and mostly, who you're talking about and suspect that B) Once again you're raising points of no important to Christians. Kind of a Strawman argument. Is strange you mention Thomas Acquinas in this context, and not on the "proof" of God's existance as, to my understanding Aquanis's largeest influence on current "Christian Philosophy" would be an appreciation of his work by some who "prove" God by imaging Him as a doing i.e. as a verb and seek to comprehend omnipresence by His lack of application of power.
3. Creation was in six days? Really? And God was tired by Sunday ans slept!! Really? An omniopotent God gets tired? Once again, taking the Bible literally is not advised
It is known that world is much older. Latest estimates show it to be 13.8 billion yrs old. BUT, even there there are problems. Some quasars are found to at least 30-40 billion years old!!
4. Jesus born of virgin. Such thoughts are much older in western civilizations, though such a phenomenon cannot happen, else it would have repeated by modern science. Umm... what? How about I.V. insemination? And once again omnipotent.
5. Believe or go to hell. In fact NT goes further than that. If you have heard of Jesus, even accidentally, and fail to believe then hell is for you. Why didn't you write this in your introduction?
What about newly born babies who die? They too should go to hell Good point. No doubt Christian hell must be full of babies too. What is this philosophy? Augustine did invent a concept of Limbo for such babies. Call it the fate of Trishanku, neither here nor there.
In fact Christianity is not at all based on any philosophy. Rather an attempt has been made to push philosophy under it. Disagree with you, but respect your opinion and can understand why you'd believe that.
.
, but theoretically the same goes for other faith also.
