Because it bears repeating.....and the failure of reasoning is yours because you can't think beyond your particular faith.
While you'll deny anything that questions your preconception. i.e. the fundamental crux of the issue.
Leopard's Spots
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
While you'll deny anything that questions your preconception. i.e. the fundamental crux of the issue.
God's Truth
New member
You just described yourself.
God's Truth
New member
Your faith in yourself and the person you learned that junk from.
You don't have (spiritual) faith in yourself?
Perhaps that's why you're so desperately preparing for an external replacement.
God's Truth
New member
You are silly.
Perhaps. Though, why should I take the word of someone who has no faith in themselves? :idunno:
God's Truth
New member
What you said about me is made up just like your beliefs.
My "beliefs" come from the spiritual faith in myself which doesn't require my morality spoon-fed to me like a child. Spiritually speaking, you're an empty vessel eager to be filled with another's systematic rules and dogma.
Being held by a religious tether which demands a God disposed offering of freewill? How sadly contradictory and unnecessary.
God's Truth
New member
Yep, a bunch of false and worthless thoughts about me and yourself.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Huh?
(Exactly...)All devout truths are relative. There's no one exclusive claim to their veracity.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I had asked you a question ("Decided by whom?") about what you had said, and you did not answer my question. You reacted to the question I had asked you in a manner as though you thought I had not really asked you a question, but rather, had said something for you to express agreement with ("Exactly.")
I definitely would never say any nonsense like "All devout truths are relative. There's no one exclusive claim to their veracity." So, forgive me for disappointing you, but you're mistaken if you thought you and I were in agreement about something.
I was really asking you about whom you were talking about when you said, regarding a proposed debate, "And how would the 'winner' be decided?" For, every deciding--every decision--belongs to some person: no person, no decision. So, I was essentially asking you to (so to speak) fill in the blank with the name, or description, of some person, or party of persons:
Did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, agree with quip?", or did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, oppose quip?" Which?
God's Truth
New member
Don't you want to know for sure what you believe about Jesus?
Why not try to do whatever Jesus says and find out what happens?
:doh:
As wanting as it may be...your question "Decided by whom?" IS the answer; it's as far as the inquiry may objectively educe. The point being that relative, unprovable truths lend themselves to limited, biased authority.
What I know of Jesus was that he is one of many messiahs...the truth of which must rely upon the faith of the adherent.
Pascal's wager functions well within any religion/belief. Ex. Why not try to do whatever Muhammad says and find out what happens?
God's Truth
New member
Don't you want to have experience and not just have an opinion?
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, according to you, nobody ever decides--because (according to you) it is impossible to decide--that somebody has won (or lost) a debate. In other words, though we hear, all the time, people saying things like, "He won that debate," or "She lost that debate,"--according to you, people saying such things are not deciding that so-and-so won, nor that so-and-so lost. And, according to you, since one can't decide that someone has won (or lost) a debate, he can't possibly decide rightly, nor wrongly that they have won (or lost) it.
Also, LOL @ "relative...truths" and @ "unprovable truths".