Free DHTML scripts provided by Dynamic Drive
welcome to our humble abode!
posted by »|m|u|n|i|r|a|« at 6/01/2005 05:22:00 pm
I'm slightly confused about the actual difference between the 2 versions of the Divine Command theory. Aren't they just reciprocrating each other? In essence, is there a real difference between the 2? Perhaps I am just confusing myself.
they're different: 1st is saying that whatever God determines to be right or wrong becomes right or wrong for us and we may not question it, it may not make sense to us, for example, followers of earlier prophets had some things that was made halal for them which is now haram for us, only because Allah has commanded so.the 2nd is saying that some things are inherently right and some are inherently wrong, not by God's will, rather God had told us to follow those thing because they are right. It is presupposing that right and wrong isn't determined by God, God realised right and wrong by some judgement and therefore human beings can also use judgement or reasoning to determine right or wrong themselves. This also supposes that if God varies in His rules/commads it means He lasped into error or misjudgement! Can u see the blasphemous nature of this idea? As if God's creatures have the same ability as He...?!?!
Somehow, the wording in the article didn't convey THAT particualer message to me. I see now that I was erroneous in my understanding. Thanks. Must now rework the entire thoguht process.
It should be thought...there is no "thoguht" in the English dictionary...apologies folks.
which article are you talking about? the web article or the book excerpt???
Post a Comment
<< Home
5 Comments:
I'm slightly confused about the actual difference between the 2 versions of the Divine Command theory. Aren't they just reciprocrating each other? In essence, is there a real difference between the 2? Perhaps I am just confusing myself.
they're different:
1st is saying that whatever God determines to be right or wrong becomes right or wrong for us and we may not question it, it may not make sense to us, for example, followers of earlier prophets had some things that was made halal for them which is now haram for us, only because Allah has commanded so.
the 2nd is saying that some things are inherently right and some are inherently wrong, not by God's will, rather God had told us to follow those thing because they are right. It is presupposing that right and wrong isn't determined by God, God realised right and wrong by some judgement and therefore human beings can also use judgement or reasoning to determine right or wrong themselves. This also supposes that if God varies in His rules/commads it means He lasped into error or misjudgement! Can u see the blasphemous nature of this idea? As if God's creatures have the same ability as He...?!?!
Somehow, the wording in the article didn't convey THAT particualer message to me. I see now that I was erroneous in my understanding. Thanks. Must now rework the entire thoguht process.
It should be thought...there is no "thoguht" in the English dictionary...apologies folks.
which article are you talking about? the web article or the book excerpt???
Post a Comment
<< Home