But also simultaneously we have to be skeptical of the opposite. ie Christianity or any other philosophy/religion can’t have the absolute moral guidelines.

I’m a moral absolutist but I don’t think any currently existing philosophy can’t possibly be the moral guideline. A combination of principles, ideas, practices, sure. One religion, one group, very very skeptical.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think you are grasping the concept of the symbolic meaning imbued in religious traditions. From that point of view one can assume that there are particles of truth in the numerous traditions. However I would contend that there is a hierarchy among those traditions and that some, and specially one, is more truthful that the others.

In my view I don't think we can accurately judge the traditions (example, Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, different churches) per se and establish a hierarchy there. It's too relative and abstract.

But I do think there's hierarchies of groups of principles within any and all traditions.

In my view, principles are our best bet at creating any sense of understandment. In other words, I do believe some principles are MUCH more important than others, and there we can and should create a hierarchy of principles.

Christianity and Buddhism can be as evil as everything else. Principles > individuals > groups.