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.
It isnt difficult to make up an answer to that question. You did it in the very next post when you said this:It would also include "why" did God do it, and more.
It is very very difficult to make up one, particularly a complete one.
It may be philosophical, but it is also entirely made up and entirely worthless except to quell peoples fear of uncertainty. There isnt a shred of sound evidence to support it. The only thing emptier than empty here is your so-called explanation.God creates or not creates. If not creates, then there will be nothing but God Himself. Notice here the word "nothing" means not even time or space. No time, no space and no material and no energy. It is much more emptier than just empty.
God compares that situation with the situation if He creates, It is not hard to understand why does He creates.
I think this explanation is very philosophical. Why is it not?
This is exactly the type of question not even touched by other philosophy/religion. But Christianity says something about it.
God creates or not creates. If not creates, then there will be nothing but God Himself. Notice here the word "nothing" means not even time or space. No time, no space and no material and no energy. It is much more emptier than just empty.
God compares that situation with the situation if He creates, It is not hard to understand why does He creates.
I think this explanation is very philosophical. Why is it not?
Is a theological system also a philosophical system? why not?
A very improper argument. Thus, it needs no reply.
If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?
What is perfect? I think you may say that it is something you, or anyone else, can not find anything wrong with it. For example, I can say that something is wrong with Buddhism, or with Islam. Then neither of them is a perfect philosophical system.
What is wrong? In this case, first, if it is not complete, then it is wrong. Second, if it has internal logic conflict, then it is also wrong.
What is complete? It is a system which addresses everything you are, or anyone else is, concerned about. Then is complete.
This purpose of this thread is not to convince you on anything, but is begging you to challenge, or to convince me. I do think Christianity is a perfect philosophical system.
I want to know what is the question you have but is not answered in Christianity.
I´m not a selfless person. You ask me to do you a service - what are you offering in return?Because I think it is. And I want a challenge. Just in case I am wrong.
I´m not a selfless person. You ask me to do you a service - what are you offering in return?
What are you going to do with it?
To tell from the thread so far you are likely to tell me that Christianity does answers the question to your satisfaction.
Yes it can be, but Christianity isn't theology. Theology is something tacked on to Christianity in the form of Apologetics. We can discuss Augustinanity or Aquinasanity, but those are simply Augustine's or Aquinas's attempts to defend Christianity, and not Christianity itself. They didn't add more Holy Scriptures.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Now, is Christian Theology a philosophical system?
Jevunissun (quote) If I suggested that Christianity is a perfect philosophical system, how would you argue against it?"
(reply)
I would argue that not only is Christianity not the perfect philosophical system, but that Christianity can often be the opposite of philosophy.
Philosophy is often about questions that cannot be answered; Christianity is often about answers that cannot be questioned
Ken
The primary source of your difficulty is that you think from the start that those questions are fundamental as opposed to simply possible questions we can ask. Some possible questions are indeed basic, such as whether we can trust our sensory input or questions about ethics or logic, but some questions, such as cosmology or eschatology, seem to me less practical and more prone to speculation over any concrete answers that have relevance to our present lives. Which is why I tend to be a Buddhist in the Zen sense more than Theravadan or Vajrayana
Just because you want to know doesn't mean that it's something that is in your best interest. You might want to know many things, but will that make you more fulfilled? That's where Buddhism and Daoism differ strongly with religions based in a permanent afterlife like heaven/hell. Why should your future determine what you do now? Unless you're a strong determinist, your future is essentially unknown and there are only so many limiting factors on your life, such as your health, etc.
I wouldn't say there's one Orthodox buddhism either, but as I said, I'm not strictly a Buddhist.
something being self evident is different than it being experientially evident. You might have the experience that Christianity is true by experience, but Christianity is clearly not self evident like concepts of numbers or colors, which for the most part, all humanity can understand without much complexity.
How can debates be a sign of perfection if perfection is completion? If something is complete, wouldn't debates be basically pointless? You seem to say that something is objectively perfect, even if it appears subjectively imperfect, which is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too; debate Christianity's truth while also believing it is true without you really needing to debate about its truth
As people have already pointed out, there are questions that Christianity would basically answer the same to. How can we understand the Trinity? Why did God create so many humans only to condemn most of them to hell? Why did God create "Lucifer"?
Just because Buddhism chooses not to answer what you think are fundamental questions doesn't make it incomplete or imperfect, since as I argued, perhaps your fundamental questions aren't all so fundamental.
Christianity, like (nearly) every religion, is not just a theology, it is a tool of statecraft and a very profitable business.
The difference between theology and philosophy seems to hinge on the source of your authority. Philosophy draws from rules of rhetoric and logic established over time, whereas theology draws from holy texts and then tries to formulate them systematically. Theology is religious philosophy, whereas philosophy can manifest in philosophy of religion.
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?