I am enjoying how this thread is going so far. Everyone seems to be attempting to adhere to the requests made in the OP and many good questions have been asked.
Anyone have anything else?
Anyone have anything else?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Love is not the only attribute to God. Justice is another very important one. Jealousy is an expression which follows the attribution of justice.
That's not deliberate cheating. It's said to indicate that the person has earned that very prestigious degree. On the other hand, using it as, for example, calling oneself "Dr. Smith," is something that would be done in certain instances but not others. And the terminology varies somewhat with the university and with the passing of time. The reason for the word where it doesn't seem to you to belong is because "philosophy" meant something less specific to one discipline than it does today when we think of the person as having studied philosophers and their theories. Here's Vocabulary.com's definition of this: "The original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or "wisdom." When someone studies philosophy they want to understand how and why people do certain things and how to live a good life. In other words, they want to know the meaning of life."
In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe
So, Brahman is the most powerful god. BUT, if I do not worship Brahman, but worship a less powerful Hindu god, it is OK to Brahman. Right?
If that is true, then I agree Brahman is not a jealous god.
But, that is not the nature of the Christian God. He IS jealous. And I think He should and has to. That is what a monotheistic religion is. I don't see anything wrong with this particular nature (definition) of the Christian God.
Yes, why do you think it acceptable to deceive someone if doing so furthers your theological commitments in some way?Why do I think it acceptable to deceive someone if it furthers a theological commitment of mine?
I wasn't referring to this specifically. Presumably you would have protected such children from harm even if your theology didn't demand it? (Sadly, however, it appears that you would have subjected them to harm if that's what your theology required).One theological commitment that I have is that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such that are as children. Such that were as them that were brought unto Jesus to receive His blessing.
Now, this is one of my beliefs. Given a particular scenario, I am persuaded that it would be acceptable to engage in an intentional act of deception if by so doing, one of these children would be rescued from the evil intentions and machinations of fallen man.
Many of my brothers and sisters did just this during the Nazi era in Germany. They intentionally deceived certain Nazis who, if they had not, would have sought to fulfill their egregious machinations on certain Jewish children. We share the same theological commitment i.e., that children should be protected from the evil that fallen men would subject them to.
I would have done the same.
Given your position (DCT), our intuitions regarding perfection are meaningless as a guide. According to you, whatever God does, he is perfect by definition. I don't see how that precludes him from being able to lie.It is self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition that lying is not an act that an essentially axiologically perfect being can perform in the same way that the three fundamental laws of logic are self-evident by virtue of the deliverances of intuition.
There is a more general question embedded in this: what makes one a good philosopher? I would argue that intellectual honesty is of paramount importance to good philosophy. Sadly, I have serious doubts about your intellectual honesty (1). I am not mentioning this to cast aspersions on your character, but to make you cognisant of how your approach is inimical to good philosophy, and to hopefully encourage some self-reflection on your philosophical praxis.What makes me a philosopher? This is much more simple. I am one who philosophizes.
When philosophers speak of God being perfect they intend to signify the idea of God possessing the greatest array of compossible great-making properties. The term “great-making properties” is generally used in the literature to signify those properties that it is intrisically better to have than to not have.
Of course multitudinous volumes have been created on this issue and the above is a nut-shell summation.
So a Ph.D. in physics can only be called a philosopher?
Hi Eu,
To your examples above, you may want to add 1 Kings 22:20-22, and 2 Kings 19:6-7. In fact, it probably isn't too much to say that it is these two passages, and any other that might be like them, that influenced Paul when writing 2 Thessalonians 2:11.
Also, as to your first example from Ezekial, I find that it reads a little differently when taken in context rather than ... out of context ... as you have it.
So, as you can see, God doesn't need to lie...
2PhiloVoid
No, that would be a physicist.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I am not that enthusiastic about this thread. Being allowed to ask one question and getting a frustratingly non-responsive answer without the opportunity to ask further...I am enjoying how this thread is going so far. Everyone seems to be attempting to adhere to the requests made in the OP and many good questions have been asked.
Anyone have anything else?
If one is not an atheist, then one can.
Having mercy, so the justice is fulfilled.
Christian philosophy contributes to the advancement of knowledge of human kind in the same way that philosophy in general does
, with the added benefit of presenting us with an account of man as one created in the image and likeness of an essentially axiologically perfect being to have rule and dominion over the earth but who through the use of his free will, relinquished said authority and dominion and caused not only himself, but the world wherein he lived, to fall from its original state. It tells us, among other things, that man by virtue of who he is, has intrinsic worth.
Yes, why do you think it acceptable to deceive someone if doing so furthers your theological commitments in some way?
Presumably you would have protected such children from harm even if your theology didn't demand it?
If so, why does he get a degree called "Doctor of Philosophy"? Why not just "Doctor of Physics"?
You ignored this bit:Since this question was one you already asked, I shall answer the next question which you have written below.
I was referring more to specific doctrinal obligations, such as the divinity of Christ. Why do you think it is acceptable to deceive someone if it furthers that doctrine in some way?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?