Yes morality to a degree is intuitive

Which is why I'm saying it's intangible

Striving for virtue is the main path towards it

That's why muslims call trinitarianism paganism
The intuitive way to express an unkowable god is to say he is unknowable, not to lay out a complex multiplictious nature of him which ppl can understand

not sure if anyone has explained this

the criteria for inclusion in the new testament wasw

1. it had to be attributed to an Apostle, either directly written by or written on behalf of

2. it had to be widely accepted

3. it had to have some value and not contradict the rest of the new testament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

This is the earliest list of canon we have

the oldest fragment we have is from the Gospel of John and is within a hundred years of it being written

@Mr. Nessel yes but the clear difference between Christianity is that God, loving His creation, reveals Himself to it and became a part of it, without losing His divinity. Islam just believes their god is utterly unknowable. Except what he revealed to his prophet, I guess.

Now this is probably best for <#668911109562040371>, but I'm curious about your ontology regarding 'good'

What is 'good'

You say it is intangible, but imply it must be knowable somehow

How does one know, therefore, if something is good? By what process to they intuit or recognize good? How does one measure what is good versus not good?

> Striving for virtue is the main path towards it
How does one know what is virtuous?

Well you can't know for certain. The point is you're able to reach for it but never grasp it fully

@A B S O L U T I S T i would also like you to answer why sola scriptura leads to degeneracy

You only have your intuition to rely on and the drive to be good

As opposed to amoral characters which refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an objective good existing

@Mr. Nessel Now I agree with the existence of an objective good, and I agree that in the world before the Incarnation all man had was intuition to guide them. But where I disagree is where good is passive.

If there is an objective good, there must be a Telos to the Cosmos. If there is a Telos, there is an ideal state of the Cosmos. And if there is an ideal state to the Cosmos, that benchmark must have been set by something. It makes sense that whatever unmoved mover set the Cosmos into being (and in doing so set it's ideal form) would also endeavour to correct whatever flaws have appeared within the Cosmos back towards its original Telos.

So, that's why the Incarnation is such an important event. It's is literally the sustainer of the universe, good-embodied, that came personally to course-correct, for lack of a better term.

I sort of see it as an emergent property. Not somethign handed down to us arbitrarily

Not a benchmark but yes it's idealistic

@Skellington phones about to die, but I will answer your question

What is an ideal then?

A perfect way/state of being

Often unattainable

Nonetheless still somehing worth striving for, distinctly positive

Well how does one know perfection?

People don't

Which is why I say good is intangible

But if perfection exists there has to be a benchmark for it

No, it's an abstraction

The ideal is not an actual state which has been achieved at some point

It doesn't need something to create it as a benchmark

If there is an idealized perfection the implication is that there is some sort of point, however impossible to reach, were something goes from being "imperfect" to "perfect" no?

Well yes in theory and in practice we'll never actually reach it but have to nonetheless continue reaching for it to the best of our abilities

Which I certainly appreciate