sapphi_snake said:
C1. No, this point had nothing to do with Christianity. If you interpreted it as that, that's your problem. Outside of that, well, yes I can... and I did. Helping others is seen by all cultures as good. You did not. The fact that all cultures see helping other as good is both false, and even if true, does not prove what I asked you to. I asked you to prove that an goodness is an intrisic quality of helping others, meaning not a quality attributed by a culture to said practice (which is sibjective, because what one culture considers to be "good", another one can consider to be "bad"). I'm waiting for you to prove that (which you cannot). D. Hell is presented in Eastern Orthodox theology as a place of punishment, and eternal torture. God is the "great architect", he's the one that designed EVERYTHING, including the consiquence of disobeying him. So the reason people end up in hell is because he designed things that way. Never heard that "one does not need to be Eastern Orthodox to get into heaven", but one does need to believe in god, accept god, accept Jesus, respect god's commands, repent for their sins... yeah, but they don't have to actually be Eastern Orthodox. Also yes, immanent critique is limited to only internal criticisim. Not according to Habermas. |
C1) How does what he said have nothing to do with Christianity?
B. Show one culture where this exists. You say you've shown it, but all you've done is said "this exists" without even being able to go so far as name a specific culture.
C) Yes I can, and I did. There will NEVER be a society or culture that belives helping others isn't good, because culture couldn't exist otherwise, and therefore good and evil couldn't exist otherwise.
D) Actually, no, your wrong.
On both counts. Hell is a state of being primarily and a place secondly, and god doesn't send you anywhere... and in general you still don't get Eastern Orthodx Christianity. I can't blame you though, if I got dragged to a church I didn't believe in, I suppose I wouldn't pay any attention either. Though, then again I doubt i'd be argueing about it.
"God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to raise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction
And considering you didn't even know what immanent critque was 72 hours ago, i'm guessing your just throwing a name out there without any clue what he was actually talking about.
A very dangerous thing to do when talking about philosphers.
Espiecally when you are trying to disregard moral universalism.
Because well... he's a moral universalist... and generally that's part of his problem with immanent critique.
Basically to adopt his point, you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism.
Either stance I really wouldn't have atrributed to you, because it would either suggest that
A) Homosexuality was evil, but isn't in some parts of Europe and in the USA, but STILL is evil in some parts of the world like Africa and China.
or
B) That murdering a child is neither good nor evil, no matter how you get pissed off when his murderer gets released early from jail and gets a new life.
However by argueing that there are no moral universalism or moral absolutes you are argueing one of the above two positions.
Well that and he thought that rather then immanent crique having just one person, should have more then one uninterested party having an arguement rather then one person argueing himself... since it's hard for most people to outhink each other in a chess game and similarly without two unimpassioned indivudals, the single indivdual may miss proper criticism or create improper criticism because... well it's hard for most people to argue themselves or play chess vs themselves.
In otherwords, at this point you basically have to sacrifice an arguement, with basically no payoff here, since the two arguements basically contradict your points, yet not mine. If anything, all Habermas' views do is suggest you were even less qualfied to judge that statement then I suggested... and in general if anything would help christianity in the process and not hurt it.
