- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.
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.
If you think your truth is complete, all that means is that you're ignoring the missing pieces. You do not know everything, and it will do nothing for you to think that you do.
There is a simple but effective arguments against it: In my worldview those grounds that your "truth" allegedly covers don´t even exist, in the first place.What I said in further is that my truth covers wider ground than your truth. And I do not see any argument against that.
Reality.My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth?
If so, there must be some questions in your mind that Christianity can not answer to your satisfaction. I like to know those questions. Would you share?
Who or what created the Christian God?So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.
It is purely logical.I will be honest with you, juvenissun. This has got to be one of the poorest attempts at a logical deduction that I have ever seen. This is not worth my time.
This has been a friendly discussion, and I thank you for that.
But: When you want to unfold a perfect philosophical system, and already before the very first step in is construction you admit that this first step argument may not be complete I get really bored and frustrated. A logical deduction is as weak as its weakest step, and an incomplete logical deduction isn´t a logical deduction at all.
Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). Fallacy.If there were no life after this life, then this life would be meaningless.
Says who? Is that supposed to be another additional unnecessary premise you want me us to accept for the sake of the argument?But this life has to be meaningful,
Or is it meant to be logically deduced from anything? In which case you would have to walk us through this deduction instead of simply making the claim.
Argument from consequence. Fallacy.so, there must be (my) life after this life.
Sorry, but seeing what you present here as logic I certainly don´t trust your judgement as to what´s logical. The time of "believe me" is over.In fact, this has been illustrated very well by what's said in the Book of Job. (believe me, all arguments in there are pretty logical based on the axiom I mentioned)It lasted as long as you were allowed to put up your unnecessary premises ("axioms"). Now is the time to show us what you´ve got.
I´m not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me here. In short I read it as "Not only I, but Christianity as a whole doesn´t like your answer. Therefore Christianity is a perfect philosophical system." or "If your answer were correct. Christianity would have it wrong. This is impossible, because Christianity has it right."That is why I asked you what is the meaning of (this) life to you? And I don't like your answer (not satisfied by logic reasons). You may say this is MY recognition. But such a recognition of mine comes from Christianity. If there were no Christianity, I will not have such an understanding. And my understanding is not deviated from Christianity. So even it is mine, but it still belongs to Christianity.
Or something.
If so, there must be some questions in your mind that Christianity can not answer to your satisfaction. I like to know those questions. Would you share?
Buddhism preaches: do this and you get peace.
Christianity preaches: you are a sinner, repent.
Which one would comfort people at the first touch? Why does the Christianity look stupid on this "recruiting effort"?
In order to evaluate a system seriously, one has to get in, to understand
So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.
John 3:8 said:The wind [or spirit, depending on translation] blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
A property of perfection is inclusive. If it is perfect, then you will be part of it, like it or not.
What I said in further is that my truth covers wider ground than your truth. And I do not see any argument against that.
My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth?
I am saying whatever you have, it is too narrow and has a lot of questions unanswered.
If I asked you a question, you say I don't know or I haven't thought about it, or I don't care, that is not good.
Is answering question a purpose of any philosophy?
There is a simple but effective arguments against it: In my worldview those grounds that your "truth" allegedly covers don´t even exist, in the first place.
If "covering a wider ground" were a quality in itself, I could come up with a truth that covers an even wider ground than yours: It would e.g. even answer the question: "Who created God?".
It is purely logical.I will be honest with you, juvenissun. This has got to be one of the poorest attempts at a logical deduction that I have ever seen. This is not worth my time.
This has been a friendly discussion, and I thank you for that.
But: When you want to unfold a perfect philosophical system, and already before the very first step in is construction you admit that this first step argument may not be complete I get really bored and frustrated. A logical deduction is as weak as its weakest step, and an incomplete logical deduction isn´t a logical deduction at all.
Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). Fallacy.
Says who? Is that supposed to be another additional unnecessary premise you want me us to accept for the sake of the argument?
Or is it meant to be logically deduced from anything? In which case you would have to walk us through this deduction instead of simply making the claim.
Argument from consequence. Fallacy.
Sorry, but seeing what you present here as logic I certainly don´t trust your judgement as to what´s logical. The time of "believe me" is over.It lasted as long as you were allowed to put up your unnecessary premises ("axioms"). Now is the time to show us what you´ve got.
I´m not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me here. In short I read it as "Not only I, but Christianity as a whole doesn´t like your answer. Therefore Christianity is a perfect philosophical system." or "If your answer were correct. Christianity would have it wrong. This is impossible, because Christianity has it right."
Or something.
In my simplified logic deduction, the only thing not clear is what a "meaningful life" is. Assume we know what that is, then my logic is perfect.
I don't think you want to discuss what a meaningful life is. So, that is it.
I present an idea in the OP. You said it is not your interest. Whatever I said is not in your worldview. What a good reply that is.
It's not so much questions that cannot be answered, it's moreso a paradigm that does not make me feel fulfilled. I do not feel meaningful in believing anything like the general Christian theories of salvation.
-----
Buddhism is simpler in that it doesn't get into the guilt from one's own actions that are given that state of sinfulness from outside oneself, from Adam. Buddhism simply says, this is the path, you walk it at whatever stage you are in. Seems much simpler and yet complex in application that it is open to all.
That's the first verse that came to mind. The Bible says that you cannot know the entirety of your truth. It is incomplete. Jesus recognised this.
Quite simply, you do not know what you've missed. Although the nature of God, the purpose of the universe and the events of the future are all an important part of your truth, but you do not know them. You can merely speculate.
You must believe this stuff. Not me.
Living beings. Notably, human beings.
That's assuming I understand your question correctly.
eudaimonia,
Mark
You mean you do not want to take a look of it. Well, yes indeed, nobody can force you to do that.
Christian scripture has inconsistencies (Yahweh is both almighty and capable of being repelled by iron chariots, Judas died from suicide by hanging and miraculous explosion), Christianity is vaguely defined, and Christianity doesn't explain many of the problems in philosophy: for instance, it has no answer to the mind-body problem, the nature of knowledge, the ideal form of governance, the free will debate, the nature of truth, or the problem of universals.
Hardly a perfect philosophical system.
The emphasis in my last post was on you. You need to be convinced about your philosphy et al. Not me. You need to make your case. It is not that I need to. You do. You need to make your case for it, for yourself. Not me, against it, for you.
You see?
No. I have already been convinced.
You are not. And you don't want to see it.
You have to admit that all the problems you mentioned have been debated between Christians and non-Christians.
If there are debates, then both sides MUST have their argument. It would mean that Christianity HAS answers to all the problems. Only people wanted to question the answer.
Can you debate some, or all the problems with Eudaimonism or Buddhism? I doubt it. For example, what does Eudaimonism say about the ideal form of governance? If you read the Book of Samuel, or even the Book of Acts, the Christian version of answer is right there. The two Books are written thousand years apart, in totally different environment and situation, yet the answer is the same.
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?