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.
Problem is your reason is not necessarily reasonable, simply saying you have some basis that is compelling to you does not mean it is compelling to others or should be regarded as such.Yes.
See 1 Peter 3:15.
Except divine command theory is still well and above probably one of the more popular meta ethical structures used in Christian thought, even if it's obviously tweaked to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma through dishonest tactics to avoid ethical subjectivism, yet still advocate it in principle through a perfect judge like God.For some Christians, this is really viewing their theory through a false dichotomy. Many Christian ethicists are not so shallow as to reduce morality to simple a matter of obedience to an omnipotent authority figure, there needs to be theological reflection on what the image of God means, and so on.
Except divine command theory is still well and above probably one of the more popular meta ethical structures used in Christian thought, even if it's obviously tweaked to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma through dishonest tactics to avoid ethical subjectivism, yet still advocate it in principle through a perfect judge like God.
And assuming God's existence doesn't lend credence to a moral theory that requires a presupposing of God to give it basis in the first place, it's circular reasoning
The problem remains that someone being good and consistent with their worldview doesn't make the worldview true in the claims it makes, only that it can be internally consistent and help someone be a better person.
It's the inverse of a similar problem in saying something is wrong merely because there are hypocrites within a worldview in the first place, neither of these extremes undermines or adds credibility to a position if we're talking about its truth rather than practical pragmatic benefits that can be found outside of it.
Not sure what's really counted as mainline, given how fragmented Protestant denominations are in the first place. Even just in my neck of the woods in the South, you could go a couple of miles and probably find several Protestant denominations around.It depends... in mainline Protestant or Catholic theological discourse, divine command theory is not prominent.
Truth claims and moral claims are not the same thing, not to mention the distinction of truth as something objective in itself versus being objective in our pursuit is important, because truth is not arguably a substance, but an assessment we make of things in terms of accuracy.Some philosophers, especially in the American tradition, consider pragmatism the only realistic way we can deal with truth claims.
A strengthened heart.What is your reason for your hope ...
Truth claims and moral claims are not the same thing, not to mention the distinction of truth as something objective in itself versus being objective in our pursuit is important, because truth is not arguably a substance, but an assessment we make of things in terms of accuracy.
Someone having the sentiment that something is true because it helps them is instrumentalist and oversimplifies the idea of something being true when it is making claims that either are unevidenced or unfalsifiable (the afterlife, for instance)
Not sure what's really counted as mainline, given how fragmented Protestant denominations are in the first place. Even just in my neck of the woods in the South, you could go a couple of miles and probably find several Protestant denominations around.
Your extreme skepticism doesn't seem compatible with human flourishing. It's one thing to debate this in the asbtract, and uphold an attitude of absolute skepticism, but real people in actual societies do need to be able to live with both facts and values they believe are true.
That seems purely based on a tradition that not everyone is going to acknowledge, so it's little different than any idea of orthodoxy rooted in the same notions of a common memetic propagation rather than actually being able to demonstrate the veracity of the claims apart from tradition and supposed revelations, which is more presuppositions I don't take at face value because that's a con jobThe historic mainline churches are the so-called "Seven Sisters", such as the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Church, etc. They are all united in more or less accepting higher critical methods for understanding the Bible.
Yet people can have hope of a comparable nature to yours and not gain it from your belief, why is your faith any better or more justified merely because you have a sentimental response to the stimuli you claim is God? This isn't as simple as you'd like to make it: your feelings are not the sole foundation for truth and quote mining your book that's essentially an idol by any stretch of the word, even the esoteric use in Christian circles, is circular reasoning with confirmation bias instead of honestly considering that you might be wrong and indoctrinated no lessA strengthened heart.
Psalm 31:24 Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD.
I regard the idea that religion is better for society with skepticism, I don't regard the idea of virtues and applying them to society with skepticism except insofar as they lean towards potential authoritarianism.
That seems purely based on a tradition that not everyone is going to acknowledge,
Because Buddhism can also be strongly argued as more philosophy when you strip away the needless supernatural aspects that color later developments versus the more practical and introspective Theravada aspects. And honestly, I'm only Buddhist in the description because it can at least give some answers that a label like atheism doesn't really lend itself to (because it's only a question in response to whether God exists or not, rather than the afterlife, morality, metaphysics, etc)You identify as a Buddhist so you need to consider just how skeptical you are, and quite possible explain that, because honestly I am baffled by this sort of default rejection of religion as a method of approaching truth. Because while Buddhism may not be exactly like Abrahamic religions in its epistemology (an understatement), it is widely considered to be a religion, since it is concerned with questions of ultimate meaning or significance.
By your own admission it's diverse and I never said it was applicable to all Christians, of course there are other positions, but divine command ethics in some form or fashion appears to be very common in Christian thought, even if that very likely is applied more in the laity than scholarship, in which case I'd rephrase my statement with that in mind.You are the one speaking in broad, sweeping generalizations about an entire religion that is highly variegated. I am merely pointing that out. There is no one Christian approach to ethics, there are several, with divine command theory only being one.
Because Buddhism can also be strongly argued as more philosophy when you strip away the needless supernatural aspects that color later developments versus the more practical and introspective Theravada aspects.
Ultimacy in the sense of an ideal is distinct from ultimacy as something to be realized and that's a major difference in Buddhism and Hinduism to an extent from Christianity, Islam and Judaism (in its own way), where the Dharmic "faiths" are more a path of liberation, Abrahamic faiths are about seeking salvation externally
rejecting aspects of Buddhism I don't find reasonable is certainly something that leads to misconceptions, but I find the alternate labels in the "non religious" categories lacking, so I stick with this, in spite of many misunderstandings that have spread about Buddhism that I try on occasion to correct.
But more importantly, there appears to be an underlying Western exoticizing of the East in particular understandings that exist about Buddhism (and Hinduism, among other Dharmic religions) and I've seen it even recently with people insinuating that Buddhists worship Buddha or other nonsense
By your own admission it's diverse and I never said it was applicable to all Christians, of course there are other positions, but divine command ethics in some form or fashion appears to be very common in Christian thought, even if that very likely is applied more in the laity than scholarship, in which case I'd rephrase my statement with that in mind.
Situational ethics is one as well, a view I'd find much more reasonable by contrast, probably one you wouldn't be opposed to and may even agree with a great deal in the Christian manifestation, which seems to be one of the early forms by Joseph Fletcher
I never said I spoke for all Buddhists, pretty sure I insinuated the oppositeOnly some Buddhists consider them needless. A very tiny minority who identify as "Buddhist" that are mostly confined to western countries and do not speak for the Sangha as a whole. Even those who may not understand the concepts literally, influenced by Buddhist Modernism, do not dismiss their spiritual utility altogether.
Secondly, the concept of the "supernatural" is a Christian category that doesn't apply to Buddhist cosmology.
That's a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding, but one that is frequently spread a meme among those who are ignorant of the subject. Quakers (who generally consider themselves to be Christians, at least in the US) do not believe in seeking salvation externally, because the Inner Light is, well... inner. Likewise, there are forms of Buddhism that believe in tariki or "Other Power" as the primary praxis of their sect or school, even though their metaphysical and epistemological commitments are Buddhist.
Not sure I remotely was doing that or where you got the idea I was, because I was correcting ideas that are not even applicable to most Buddhists and thus are engaging in that problematic generalization I never argued was a good thingIt's not your place to define a religion that is practiced by hundreds of millions of people, many of whom may not agree with your narrow definition of what is, and is not, proper Buddhism.
Many Buddhists actually do, contrary to your insinuations. It's not nonsense. Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha and they pay their respects to him as a teacher, and in most contexts that involves veneration, both of his manifestation on earth in the form of Shakyamuni, and also in the form of the Buddha that transcends his earthly appearance (the Nirmanakaya and Dharmakaya).
I wonder sometimes if Gautama would be proud of them.You identify as a Buddhist so you need to consider just how skeptical you are, and quite possible explain that, because honestly I am baffled by this sort of default rejection of religion as a method of approaching truth. Because while Buddhism may not be exactly like Abrahamic religions in its epistemology (an understatement), it is widely considered to be a religion, since it is concerned with questions of ultimate meaning or significance.
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?