To be a person is to be with …, to be a sharer, a receiver, a lover. Thomas himself … and call for a new, explicitly relational conception of the very nature of the person as such, wherein relationality would become an equally primordial aspect of the person as substantiality.” 5 Ratzinger claimed that within trinitarian theology “… lies concealed a revolution in man’s view of the world: the undivided sway of thinking in terms of substance is ended relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality….” 6 Clarke himself wrote, Norris Clarke, Josef Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, dared to reproach “St. He wrote that the trinitarian persons “… who indwell one another in the Love that God is constitutes the Communion of Love or the movement of reciprocal Loving which is identical with the One Being of God.” 3 Eleonore Stump insisted that “… since, on the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are not reducible to something else in the Godhead, then, persons are an irreducible part of the ultimate foundation of reality….” 4Īccording to W.
secondary-property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate.” 2 Thomas Torrance also proposed elevating the metaphysical importance of the divine relationships. But I think this is accounted for and grounded in the Trinity.” 1 He continued by affirming the following statement by John Zizioulas: “Love is not an emanation or ‘property’ of the substance of God … but is constitutive of his substance, i.e., it is that which makes God what He is…. He wrote “… I am convinced that divine love is essential to God … that holy love is of the essence of God. Thomas McCall argued that God’s inner-trinitarian relationships are essential to the very being of God. Many others have recognized the importance of adding God’s inner-trinitarian relationships to our metaphysical categories of substance and essence. Thus, my TMT focuses on God’s triunity and shows how loving relationships exist at the deepest level of ultimate reality. Including these relationships provides a more complete picture of how God is the source of morality.
To leave out these relationships, by saying morality is merely based on God’s nature, ignores important aspects of God which help explain how He is the foundation of morality. Within Christian theology, it’s important to include the dynamic, loving, inner-trinitarian relationships in our understanding of metaethics. As part of this argument, I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature. However, which understanding of God, the Christian’s or the Muslim’s, is a better explanation for objective morality? In this paper I argue that Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for objective morality than Islam’s God. God is the best explanation for objective moral truths. Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:
0 kommentar(er)
