In layman's terms please help? I'm too stupid to understand..?

in consideration of the theology of the early christian fathers, expound upon your reasons either for or against the plausibility of reconciling christian doctrine to platonism.
In layman%26#039;s terms please help? I%26#039;m too stupid to understand..?
1) What is platonism?





2) Christianity does not need to be


%26quot;reconciled%26quot; with any other doctrine,


anywhere, anytime.
In layman%26#039;s terms please help? I%26#039;m too stupid to understand..?
Christian doctrine and Platonism expound the best ideal in all aspects of life and are not contradictory - that%26#039;s in a nutshell.
Reply:As the great Bill Clinton said....it depends upon what the definition of %26quot; is %26quot;, is.
Reply:Platonism at least purported to be logically based.


Christianity made no such pretense.
Reply:Not too stupid to seek help and ask intelligent questions....





However, Platonism, including Plotinus%26#039; neoplatonism as a %26quot;footnote%26quot; to Plato, is quite Christian, in this wise:





Plato coined the word %26quot;hypo-thesis%26quot; to mean %26quot;standing under%26quot; Mind, Good. Iff Plato%26#039;s Mind Good is Abraham%26#039;s God, Good, they are identical to the purity with which the Platonist %26quot;stands under%26quot; Mind, a la Saint Paul%26#039;s %26quot;let this Mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.%26quot;





Plotinus%26#039; neoplatonism is %26quot;One Mind Soul%26quot;-individuation. In this Awareness (Plotinus Is One Mind Soul-realized), One Good, i.e. One Mind Soul, is Pure Truth, and error, or energy-veiling, e-veiling, eviling, has no Cause, but is obfuscation or erroneous evil-willing.





Thus, %26quot;reconciliation%26quot; is %26quot;easy%26quot;--iff one defines terms clearly, and tautologically: i.e., Mind = Mind, understanding = letting this Mind be with your which was also in Christ Jesus.





The fruits of %26quot;practicing Platonism%26quot; are what distinguish or unify that practice with Christianity. If Spirit%26#039;s Joy, Peace, and Love are discerned in the Platonist, then, for all practical purposes, that individual is simply a %26quot;member of a different sheepfold,%26quot; of which Jesus stated there were %26quot;many%26quot; for which He cared and tended.





In real life, many Platonists (of the few who are) are not particularly Joyful, Mindful, etc., and, in real life, many so-called Christians are too concerned with types and forms of ritual, and not especially recognizing their Spiritual brethern and sistern across denominational lines, not to mention in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.





The early Church fathers were especially concerned to develop a canon, exclude or confront e.g. gnostic and other heresies, etc. These concerns relate as well, e.g. %26quot;special knowledge%26quot; and %26quot;Christ as Light%26quot; but not %26quot;in the flesh,%26quot; which can--again, given clear definitions of terms--be related or equated with some %26quot;readings%26quot; or interpretations of e.g. neoplatonism. So, %26quot;As you like it,%26quot; unless you find clear statements and reasoning in e.g. Polycarp and Irenaeus, Valentinus, et al.
Reply:%26quot;Augustine seems to have practically plagiarized Plato. Substitute %26quot;god%26quot; for %26quot;the good%26quot; and %26quot;the divine%26quot; for %26quot;the forms%26quot; and there you have it: Augustine%26#039;s philosophy. He even adopts the technique of argument by analogy from Plato.%26quot;


http://www.essortment.com/all/staugustin...





%26quot;Saint Augustine had an entirely different definition of evil and linked it to the realm of God and obedience to him alone. Evil, to Augustine, was anything which was ignorant of God and his importance (Augustine 35). Augustine鈥檚 God was the epitome of justice and innocence, the only being that was truly free of evil (37).%26quot;


http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/...





Thus, we have the makings of the Dark Ages, where all men are considered to have evil in them, and other men are charged with the task of making certain that all men %26quot;toed the line%26quot; of the Church%26#039;s dogma. The men who had other ideas went underground or simply kept their mouths closed and became the %26quot;yes men%26quot; of Church dogma. These were the %26quot;Dark Ages%26quot; because the light of reason was not allowed to shine through.





That, however, is not what either Plato or Augustine would have wanted; but it%26#039;s what they got because of the backward epistemology and metaphysics they each used.





%26quot;The attitude which Plato encompassed in his Republic, regarding a higher power, differed greatly from that which St. Augustine so tightly embraced. In Confessions, Augustine attempted to be pure and win the approval of God (Augustine 175).%26quot; ibid





The Church wanted to win the approval of God. Its policy allowed no laymen for over 1000 years, to prevent heresy. Boethius was the last layman before the Dark Ages struck.





It was not until Thomas Aquinas put Aristotle into Christianity, thus banishing Plato (though not forever) that we very slowly came to accept the common sense position that every man could, on his own, know God, a point that Martin Luther made against the infrastructure of dogma.





Plato%26#039;s %26quot;forms%26quot; did not work well in Christianity, contributing directly to the mentality that the Church%26#039;s ends were to be met by any means. That in itself is the most evil of principles, allowing literally anything.