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.
Sometimes, yes - but as wisdom grows through personal experience, I find that those selfish desires cease. It is said that full awakening/enlightenment is required for complete resolution of all selfishness. So, until then, it's a work in progress.
It is my personal observation that they cease. I have absolutely no desire for fancy cars, for example - a desire I used to have.They never really cease, they just hide deeper.
For Buddhists, it's not about resources, or knowledge in regards to the world around us or the stars. None of that solves the core problem. They only temporarily address symptoms of the problem.Just look at human history, we are getting progressively more knowledgeable, we have thousands of years of history and vast prior wisdom in books. We are not getting any better, when there is no resources, we kill each other, when there are a lot of resources, we still envy and kill each other, with better weapons
Haha I totally forgot about that one.And of course there's always Augustine's famous "Lord, make me pure... but not yet!"
You're right. I think my analogies are ok, but do breakdown if they get scrutinized enough, because it's complicated. There is that faith thing that needs to be considered as well. You are better than me at articulation, I really liked one of your recent posts when you described how a person must experience faith, that it's impossible to purely articulate it. You perfectly articulated how it can't perfectly be articulated haha.But yeah, I think what's going on is probably bigger than just the freedom to believe or not.
Then add to everything that there are simply mysteries where explanations aren't even attempted to be given to us yet. Some speculations are required because it's ungiven knowledge. Christianity is so intimidating sometimes, I wonder if some of the mysteries that we just don't yet understand, that after we understand these mysteries they will actually be the revelation to us that there was nothing that we needed to be intimidated about in the first place?? But unfortunately we just don't understand yet. This of course is tied into the faith thing, a word that drove me crazy for many many years. But this 'Faith' thing (faith that in the future we would understand) would be like that higher state of enlightenment that the Buddhists talk about.But I find some of the implications of Christian theism to be pretty intimidating sometimes, and that is despite flirting with universalism a bit. (Or maybe even because of it--real universalism is kind of intimidating in its own way.) I wish I were sure, but I am also nowhere near ready for that.
This is my story of a miracle that happened to me 20 years agoNo, I don't think I saw it! Do you have a link?
In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.
Fraid so, they were derived from the ten commandments and also equality under the law because all humans were created in the image of God. No other religion teaches this.The concept of human rights did not originate with Judeo-Christian principles.
Judaism is at least 4000 years old, I would hardly call that new. What are actual Christians?yg: If you want to be precise in the realm of religion - it was the Hebrews, and then Israelites that founded Christianity - which took pieces and parts of the Hebrew spirituality relationship, and claimed authority. Judaism is relatively new - considering the Hebrews immediately after Christ were actual Christians, and that the OT continually and constantly prophesied the coming of Christ.
Not sure what you are saying here.yg: That is the problem with Western exceptionalism - especially in the context of religion and progress: for some reason, the world must ignorant of the history of how the state came to be in order to "appreciate" the contribution in which the world basques - thanks to "Judeo-Christian" principles.
I DO agree that all ten commandments should be followed and that they are the only authority on law.yg: You aren't Judeo-Chritian if you can't even agree that all 10 commandments should be followed, or that God and Christ are the only authority on Law.
yg: That is another religion that uses Judeo as a buzzword to draw upon the foundation without being a part of it. You are not a Christian if you breed mother and son, father and daughter for the purposes of making more strong slaves with preserved gene in the generations. You do not infect an entire population with what you call an STD in order to study the effects like animals.
yg: You do not burn people because they seem to fit the definition of witchcraft according to your interpretation of the bible. That is precisely because Christ Himself told us that we have the authority to judge/execute sinners if we are without sin. And, since Christ is King, you commit a grave infraction against the Kingdom if you decide by your own will to execute someone when the King has neither given a decree, nor moved to do it Himself.
yg: Much of the Western "Judeo-Christian" progress was on the backs, necks and in the blood of plenty of imperialism and slaughtered persons. The message that "built" and forged the progress we think of today was from deceit, treachery, blood and turmoil. The good that came out of it was residual consequence.
yg: Honestly, do you even know what god you worship? Capitalism is king; competition permeates even down to what you think of as basic biological foundation. Western civilization has always abandoned Christian principles; in fact, every generation has abandoned God. The West of modernity is not special at all. Imperialism is not Christian. At all. The Church exploited imperialism to spread the alleged word through FEAR.
yg: I have most certainly, and absolutely abandoned Western "Christian" principles. I won't be a part of a church that does not do what their alleged Arbiter tells them to do - yet convicts others of all sorts of alleged egregious action and character. They choose pieces of their holy canon they choose to adhere to that feeds prejudice and ignorance. You don't do the thing that were done in the name of the Most High God if you are for Him - and if you justify it personally, or for someone else then you are enabling such actions. You don't forget evil in an attempt to try to hide and erase it from history.
Yes, there has been some people that have tried to cover up the bad things western societies have done, but it usually comes out in the long run especially in a western society because they believe that the truth should be rooted out and revealed because that is a Christian principle.yg: Western exceptionalism is the veneer needed in order to continuously hide what has been done in the name of hypocrisy and bloodlust. Of course, the West isn't new in this; what is new is the continuous denial of history as if everyone else is misinformed.
People remember, and they told their children. Their children remembered, and told their kids. That is how rewriting history continuously fails at the foundation - through knowledge and wisdom.
yg: Usually I ignore people like you on these forums because it tempts me to assume you are of the camp that calls me a demon for wanting to obey all laws of God - as has been done on these forums. The curious things is that you could ignorantly associate me with an apostasy while at the same time remaining completely ignorant of my spiritual alignment. Since this was our first interaction, consider this a hard responsive welcome.
yg: If you want to make a comment on my spiritual alignment, you should ask me what my alignment is first. At worst, I made my faith "Other Religion" so that people would ask, "What is your 'religion.'" It would be at that time I gave a full testimony. You don't even give me the decency of asking me what my faith is. I am not bothered or offended, it honestly bores me to deal with such hackneyed claptrap. If people are making statement like mine it is likely because of experience and cynicism in human honesty, character and goodness. I don't blame them; I said that the hypocrisy in the church give atheist and agnostics a decent argumentative point.
I agree. I have very rarely brought it up in here, and when I have I have always pointed out that it really sucks that it is ONLY awesome proof for me alone. Unless a person really really trusted me a lot. I also have pointed out that if you were the person listening to such a story, it is very very important who is telling it!! I have joked in here before that if I were ever to hear my older brother tell a paranormal story I would probably believe it more than if I saw it with my own eyes lol, because I know how over the top skeptical he is. Now my sister? She's an honest person. However, she has a ghost story about once a month lol.In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.
Did you have an experience? I have to trust your report. Was your experience "real"? I have no way of knowing. Can I compare it to something? Well... there's the rub.
I'm definitely an over thinker, and I have definitely wondered 1,000 times why I would have such a powerful experience but not the next person. For this reason I have been very interested in philosophy and atonement theology lately. These deep questions of 'What precisely does believing in Jesus mean??' are very interesting. I know what it means for the positive cases (meaning an obvious Christian, I know what it means in their case). But I really struggle with people who GENUINELY think Jesus is as factual as Peter Pan (because I can relate, I been there before). I said it before in here, I have an extremely hard time with the concept of a person's fate with God resting on that person's opinion on how they decipher historical data!I don't talk much about that. It's not that great of a "mystical experience", and I do lack the horrible background history of guilt and drugs and partying that seem to be necessary for a "real Christian conversion story".
I never was religious. Due to certain points in my family history, I hadn't been part of a church as a child, though I got the normal religious eductation in school and pre-school. (I'm German. Religious education is part of our normal school system, in my childhood even more so than now.) I knew the topics. I didn't believe them. They didn't make sense to me and I quite often got into trouble for asking questions. Something that never happened to me in any other fields in school.
I always had been a curious child. I sought for understanding. For the meaning behind the understanding. "Faith" escaped me. In a society where religion is a main societal factor (though in a different way than the USA), being an atheist in the pre-internet era wasn't easy. I was quite alone with my doubts and thoughts.
It wasn't until university that I met people that I could talk to about this topic, believers, unbelievers. Christians and non-Christians. But still, non of it made sense. Nothing that I did, nothing that I was told to do.
I was trying so hard to find an answer, understanding, meaning. Somewhere there MUST BE an answer, understaning, meaning. I bothered me, that there were so many people claiming to have it, and I couldn't see it.
Then, one day while I was riding my bike back from lessons, it hit me. And I really mean: it HIT me. Like a hammer, like lightning from the sky. I almost fell from my bike.
There doesn't NEED to be an answer, understanding, meaning. There are questions that do not have an answer, that are meaningless, that cannot be understood. It's just people chasing blindly after these things that they will never really find.
That was, coincidentially, also about 20 years ago... a few years more. In a way, this sudded experience changed me completely. It wasn't a "conversion" or even "deconversion" experience. I had been an atheist before, and I still am an atheist now.
But it completely changed my feelings out this whole question. It calmed my mental tempest. It has been my guidance and my consolation during the last quarter of a century, and some very hard time.
"Stuff happens".
You might have gotten in trouble out of a fear reaction. The only time I ever go to a catholic church is for family events. I find myself sometimes just looking at the priest and thinking "I wonder how much you know??" I'm not sure though, a guy I work with says his priest is pretty knowledgeable. I have a hard time thinking my priests/nuns or religion teachers back in school could field objections like this forum, as opposed to just throwing a person out of class in anger if they spoke up about objections. Nobody in my class challenged them though, but it was grade school, I went to a public high school.and I quite often got into trouble for asking questions. Something that never happened to me in any other fields in school.
There are plenty of questions left with a simplistic entity as well, and not a lot of reliable answers. Sometimes it is not about the answers that one system gives and the other does nor, or the questions that one system ignores and the other tackes.Oh, absolutely. That's why classical theists think the doctrine of divine simplicity is so important. If God has got a whole bunch of attributes, we're dealing with a compound entity and there are plenty of questions that need to be asked.
Isn't that also semantics? Or even the lack of semantics? Naming things, not distinguishing them?If, on the other hand, rather than God being something that is both intelligent and volitional, we say that God is intellect and God is will, and these two things are ultimately the same, we're in different territory.
Agreed. Perhaps even less than you think.On the other hand, I do not think there are that many attributes that really need to be posited for the universe to make sense.
Human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers. Parents control and coerce their children, out of a desire for their wellbeing. Is that now a sign of love - even if it leads to murder and mayhem - or is it as sign of murder and mayhem, even if it is done out of love?I would say that only one of the two behaviors is crucial for human wellbeing, and it's not the one that leads to murder and mayhem. There is actually some interesting psychological research on the topic of spirituality--George Vaillaint has got an interesting book on it from the perspective of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
That in itself is a very subjective judgement.Now, if the question is objectively speaking, does one type of behavior have real value that the other lacks, I'd agree that that's a much more difficult question. I also think there's only one religion which by its very nature adequately jumps the subjective-objective divide, which is why Christianity is so very interesting to me these days.
Change happens. For "better" or for "worse". That's the way it works. The alternative would not be human. I don't think this is a sign of defeat. There is no victory, so there cannot be defeat either. The game is all there is.Ideology and idolatry, and hints of original sin, though I would attribute it to evolutionary processes rather than a literal Fall. On the left, we are so obsessed with tolerance that we shatter into a million pieces and cease to be tolerant even to each other; meanwhile, I am quite convinced that what happened on the Christian right in the United States last year was an exercise in apostasy, though I will not go into that. This is of course at the societal level, but I see the same self-destructive tendencies everywhere.
I do think it ties into authenticity and responsibility and a handful of other issues that were identified by the existentialists, but I think there's an element of idolatry going on as well, especially with regards to ideology. Sartre referred to his "conversion" to Marxism as almost religious, and I see that at play now as well. On all sides. I see very little but hypocrisy and self-defeat at the end of that particular road.
If you really think that, you do think there is a way out. One where we are not on our own. This is what makes you Christian... this way you think is the way out.But I think there's no way out and that we are lost on our own. Which makes me either an Absurdist or a Christian, I suppose.
Wise words.I would say you need both. The myopia shows up as much for a Creationist who's intent on pointing out every potential problem in the Theory of Evolution, as if that somehow tears down the whole thing, as for the scientist who thinks that evolution somehow proves materialism. Neither view is perfect, so you need to step in before you can step back out again.
Fraid so, they were derived from the ten commandments and also equality under the law because all humans were created in the image of God. No other religion teaches this.
I don't know any Christians that believe or have done those things.
Actually nowhere in the bible does it say you should burn a witch. And where it says they deserve the death penalty is only under the Old covenant, ie the old Hebrew theocracy. Jesus never commanded us to restore the old theocracy. The ancient Hebrews were held to a higher standard. However since the death penalty for murder was commanded prior to the theocracy, it applies universally to all societies and nations.
Maybe the material progress was partially accomplished by doing evil, but I am referring to the moral progress which was due and a consequence of our founding on biblical principles. Those principles allowed us to realize that we did some bad things in the past but we continued to work toward the goal and high standards of our biblical principles and that caused us to get better and better over time.
At present there is increasingly unprincipled capitalism but originally it was principled capitialism based on Christian principles. The bad form of capitalism started in the early 19th century with not Christians but rather the Social Darwinists. And we have been becoming more materialistic ever since. I never said imperialism was Christian. The US was not really imperialistic. I admit that not all churches have done a good job of spreading the Word, but many have. Not all aspects of imperialism are bad, it did allow pagans to learn about Christianity, such as the British ending widow burning in India.
That would be absurd to call you a demon, if you want to obey all the laws of God, that is a GOOD thing, though of course that will not get you into heaven, but it is good that you want to obey Gods laws.
I did not make a comment on your spiritual alignment, I was making a comment on your political alignment, many theologically liberal Christians want us to abandon our founding principles and deny that the US and the West was founded on biblical principles as well as many other religions. But I have no idea whether you are a liberal Christian or an atheist, or a pagan or a jew, or a Buddhist or etc. I have no idea. I would like to hear what your beliefs are, since you seem to use some Christian terminology, I am curious.
I think the very fact that different systems can reach completely opposite answers to the same questions, all claiming reason, arguments and authority... this should give us pause to think.
If the "ground of existence" really is inexpressible and incomprehensible, it should be no wonder that talking about it will lead nowhere. Philosophers should know when to stop.
Human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers. Parents control and coerce their children, out of a desire for their wellbeing.
That in itself is a very subjective judgement.
If you really think that, you do think there is a way out. One where we are not on our own. This is what makes you Christian... this way you think is the way out.
I don't there is a way out either... which is a good thing, because it would be a way out of being human. We are not lost. We are where we are, and this includes wishing for another place. Paradox, but human.
Thank you!This is my story of a miracle that happened to me 20 years ago
In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.
Did you have an experience? I have to trust your report. Was your experience "real"? I have no way of knowing. Can I compare it to something? Well... there's the rub.
I don't talk much about that. It's not that great of a "mystical experience", and I do lack the horrible background history of guilt and drugs and partying that seem to be necessary for a "real Christian conversion story".
I just referred to it as a drug I guess because I didn't wanna have to explain. It was only pot, which in the drug world is a joke, and pretty predictable as to when it's out of your system. I didn't have a 'Drug Problem' as much as I'd say i had a terrible sensitivity to it. I never did anything stronger because I knew if pot made me get that bad, my head would explode on something like LSD.Thank you!
I would be somewhat concerned about any mystical experience that involves drugs, though that certainly doesn't mean they're not real. I've got a friend who is no longer an atheist because of experimentation with LSD (I think he's a technicality away from Buddhism now), and shamanism has always been a thing, but I would still be cautious trying to put too much of an emphasis on it!
But yeah, I've experienced stuff a little bit like that. Nothing so extreme, but sudden preternatural calm... yes.
It is my personal observation that they cease. I have absolutely no desire for fancy cars, for example - a desire I used to have..
That is because the leadership of the church was corrupt during the Dark Ages and withheld the bible from the laity. After the Reformation when the bible became more widely disseminated Europe started improving in all areas especially in science and modern science came into existence, ie the ongoing systematic self correcting study of the universe, Islamic society never achieved such a thing and treated women horribly, European society came up with the concept of chivalry because of the biblical principles about treating women as you would your mother if they were older and your sister if they were younger. And also treat your wife as if she was your own body. The period you are referring to in Islamic societies was shortlived. Christian founded modern science continues on to this day producing great goods for humanity which far outweighs the bad things done in western societies. Millions of lives have been saved.I think we believe our own publicity far to much. Whilst western Europe was languishing in the dark ages, Islam built a stunning civilisation with scholars and scientists of all faiths living together and advancing knowledge.
'dave: Western civilisation has done some brilliant things and soem appalling things, as have all civilisations but none of them needed god to be good or bad.
I just referred to it as a drug I guess because I didn't wanna have to explain. It was only pot, which in the drug world is a joke, and pretty predictable as to when it's out of your system. I didn't have a 'Drug Problem' as much as I'd say i had a terrible sensitivity to it. I never did anything stronger because I knew if pot made me get that bad, my head would explode on something like LSD.
The only time I ever go to a catholic church is for family events. I find myself sometimes just looking at the priest and thinking "I wonder how much you know??" I'm not sure though, a guy I work with says his priest is pretty knowledgeable.
Ironically one of my brothers also had a really bad reaction to marijuana, he ran away from it and never looked back. I had bad highs but it took awhile before the bad high hyper paranoia began to leak into my sober life, it would even be there days after the high, way past the point of effected brain chemistry. Reaching that point was the last straw, I quit. But that night when I did it again was just a very unwise decision on my part. And the next day, knowing that the brain chemistry reaction part was over only added to my distress because I knew that you are supposed to be out of the woods when the high is over, the realization that being sober wasn't helping caused the distress to mount and get even worse.Ahh, yeah. I would not expect anything too weird with marijuana, but at the same time, I'm really not sure if effects on brain chemistry would outlast the high itself. Though I'd agree that that still sounds like an odd reaction.
I admit that I was speculating. Until I actually quiz a priest I won't really know. But my memory in Catholic Church was never ever learning anything whatsoever...just a bunch of standing, then kneeling, sitting, stand again, etc. I just figured if this guy was knowledgeable why would he never drop some good knowledge on us?I would honestly expect Catholics to be more knowledgeable. Whatever its problems, the tradition has got a ton of resources. My Episcopal priest is former Catholic, and he is super knowledgeable.
Haha. But I think we've established from my pot stories that I'm crazier than you are lol.Which is great. I need a priest who can handle my special brand of crazy.
It depends on what you would consider "vastly" different. If they "agree" on the basic principle, and all the details are different, I would consider that "vastly different" just as if they agreed on all the details and related it all to a different basic principle.Sure, if you think different systems are reaching vastly different answers. I don't think that at all. Greek influenced Abrahamic traditions are going to use different language than, say, Vedic religions, but I think the differences are overstated, at least as far as the concept of God goes. Obviously there are bigger differences between how the religions view the relationship between God and the world, but I'd rather toss a bunch of Scholastic and Vedanta philosophers in a room and lock the door than tell the lot of them to shut up.
Paradoxical. If they are after "eternal and non-local truth", and one of these truths is "we cannot make any statements beyond this point"... they should not disregard it in their further quest. That doesn't mean they should stop questioning, but if your main conclusion starts to contradict your basic premises or the reasoning you use... you should start to question that.No, they shouldn't. I just started reading a book by Thomas Nagel, and there's this lovely comment at the beginning:
"If truth is our aim, we must be resigned to achieving it to a very limited extent, and without certainty. To redefine the aim so that its achievement is largely guaranteed, through various forms of reductionism, relativism, or historicism, is a form of cognitive wish-fulfillment. Philosophy cannot take refuge in reduced ambitions. It is after eternal and nonlocal truth, even though we know that is not what we are going to get."
Not always, sure. But they do. That's why I said, human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers.Not always out of desire for their wellbeing, and lines can certainly be crossed--and often are. What starts as desire for someone's wellbeing can easily turn into something quite different, even if we continue telling ourselves otherwise. There's no more simplistic an answer than saying there's no line and it's all the same thing.
There is only one religion to make this specific claim about transcendence. Not the only religion to claim transcendence in general.No, it's more of a theological one. Subjectivity is an aspect of the human condition--we seek always to transcend ourselves, but true objectivity is of course impossible. We can reach and reach, but only one religion makes the claim to have actually transcended human nature: God becomes Man so that Man might become God.
This now gets back very nicely to the original topic of this thread: radicaly different answers to... well, and here's the problem I see: I don't think all these groups / humans / religions / philosophies are asking the same question.I think Buddhism is the only other religion that really addresses the issue, though its answer is radically different.
And all these groups / humans / etc cannot ask the same questions, because there is no answer to an important prior question: what does it mean to be human?I hope so. But I have no idea if Christianity is anything but a mirage, and don't see how it could be possible even in principle to answer that. If it's a way out, it's one that by its very nature is equally mired in the problem of subjectivity. Though to be a truly human way out, I suppose it would have to be.
Without being able to define "(not quite truly) human" or "truly human" they are doomed from the start. But it sounds nice. And sells better.On the other hand, a lot of Christian theology talks about becoming more truly human rather than viewing humanity itself as something to be escaped.
It depends on what you would consider "vastly" different. If they "agree" on the basic principle, and all the details are different, I would consider that "vastly different" just as if they agreed on all the details and related it all to a different basic principle.
Paradoxical. If they are after "eternal and non-local truth", and one of these truths is "we cannot make any statements beyond this point"... they should not disregard it in their further quest. That doesn't mean they should stop questioning, but if your main conclusion starts to contradict your basic premises or the reasoning you use... you should start to question that.
There is only one religion to make this specific claim about transcendence. Not the only religion to claim transcendence in general.
And all these groups / humans / etc cannot ask the same questions, because there is no answer to an important prior question: what does it mean to be human?
There might not even be "an" answer to this question... because subjectivism.So how is someone going to decide on "one true way to God for" all, when they cannot demonstrate the basic problems behind this question?
Without being able to define "(not quite truly) human" or "truly human" they are doomed from the start. But it sounds nice. And sells better.
That can indeed be a problem. Sometimes those quarreling over details can be more deadly enemies that those of completely opposite systems.Have you ever seen a discussion between an Evangelical Protestant and an Orthodox here? There are plenty of situations where they are saying almost the same thing, but the vocabulary is so different and prejudices so engrained, especially on the Protestant side (many of the Orthodox here are former Protestants), that communication is impossible.
Neither can you tell how much they are the same. And, consider, you don't have the limit of only two systems. You would need to be a universal genius to get a synthesis of all of human philosophy. And, knowing humanity, it's wouldn't get you anything.I live in that space where Christian theology meets postmodern social criticism, so there are barriers to communication on all sides, since I neither talk like a traditional Christian nor like a secular humanist. Point being, I don't think you can tell to what extent details are really different without being fully literate in both systems.
I'm not certain I parsed that correctly. I try to split it up... let me know if I get it wrong.Which is honestly one of the biggest reasons I am a theist at all. I think the idea that reason can get us nowhere at all is in direct contradiction with a couple centuries worth of scientific advancement, so if refusing to commit to certain ideas, like that the basic laws of physics are themselves grounded in something external, means that the whole thing tumbles and falls, I will commit.
As I said before, I don't think either of these positions basically matter. With God or without... reality doesn't change.I'm still pretty apophatic and disinclined to make positive claims about God's nature, but nobody on either side of the question is obliged to hold positions they think are logically inconsistent with reality.
Again, as I said, claims of transcendence are quite difficult to demonstrate. It's a little bit like claims of a life after death. Everyone who is here to make such a claim is by definition not dead.True, but I don't think that other claims work. Only Christianity and Buddhism's are of real interest to me.
Yes. And if it isn't true, it is irrelevant. But that right now is another problem with the claims of Christianity. If it is true, it would be your job to prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. It would be your duty.Well, if Christianity is true, it is by the very nature of its claims the one true way to God for all. What that might mean is a different question altogether, and I'm far from comfortable with the brands of Christianity that insist upon specific, usually narrow interpretations, but I don't think it's my job to somehow prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. Either it is or it isn't, and that doesn't depend upon my ability to demonstrate it one way or the way.
Perhaps the true wisdom lies in knowing when it is right to give up, to know when an issue is unsolvable, instead of simply declaring it so, because you don't think it's your job to go further?The thing is, I don't think the problem of subjectivism gives us license to give up altogether and declare the issue unsolvable. Once you go down that route, postmodernism stops being a critique of other systems and turns into a dogma itself. I actually do think there are some serious universals at play--the fact that you can find fullblown existentialist thought in Ecclesiastes makes me believe that we have always been asking the same thing. So I don't see vastly different questions; I see variations on a theme, and am happy to investigate that particular theme and see where it might lead. Even if it ends up leading in a direction I'd been avoiding.
Which doesn't really define it, if you look closely. It just shifts the focus... and badly.They do define it, though. It ties right in with the way Christianity views the relationship between God and humanity. Made in the image of God and so forth.
A lot of the scientific advancement of the last couple of centuries has been made in direct contradiction to the "reason" of the centuries before that. And "reason" alone never has made these advancements. All of that had to be tested and confirmed by observations.
This isn't the basis of scientific advancement or science at all. Science works perfectly if we assume that the laws of physics are grounded in physical existence itself. Science even works better this way.
So why would you commit to a certain idea, based on a false conclusion?
Yes. And if it isn't true, it is irrelevant. But that right now is another problem with the claims of Christianity. If it is true, it would be your job to prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. It would be your duty.
I see that as one of the main problems, the main internal contradiction, of Christianity: the claim of bringing salvation for the world, without being able to bring salvation for the world.
Which doesn't really define it, if you look closely. It just shifts the focus... and badly.
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?