Meta-narrative

@kellyjay said
We all give witness to the truth we believe in, and when we are right and not, does
not change because we accept or reject it, molding our opinions.

You are free to "give witness" to whatever you want, KellyJay. You can even refer to it as "the truth". That's your prerogative too. You can also claim that you "know" that it's "true". But you cannot escape the fact that all you have is a set of personal opinions and those personal opinions are all that you contribute to the conversations.

@fmf said
You are free to "give witness" to whatever you want, KellyJay. You can even refer to it as "the truth". That's your prerogative too. You can also claim that you "know" that it's "true". But you cannot escape the fact that all you have is a set of personal opinions and those personal opinions are all that you contribute to the conversations.

So you say as you express your opinion!

@kellyjay said
So you say as you express your opinion!

That's all either of us is doing. Spiritually speaking, believe what you want. But the whole notion that you are somehow describing "objective truth" is intellectually and linguistically ludicrous. You are belittling yourself, KellyJay.

@fmf said
That's all either of us is doing. Spiritually speaking, believe what you want. But the whole notion that you are somehow describing "objective truth" is intellectually and linguistically ludicrous. You are belittling yourself, KellyJay.

That is all you are doing, I agree.

@kellyjay said
That is all you are doing, I agree.

Both of us, KellyJay.

-Removed-

If he said he believed in God then and not now, that is different than saying I once
had a relationship with God, oh wait, God never really existed, but I still had a
relationship with God at one time.

Either God is real and always was, or God is not real and never was; since his
opinion now as he calls himself an Athiest, then at no time could he have had a
relationship with God because, as he now claims, God was never real if you take
him at his current word, which I do. That, however, says he never really knew the
Lord ever by his mouth, not mine. At best, he had an opinion, and Jesus being real
he has now aligned himself against Jesus, saying God never came in the flesh by
scriptural definition anti-Christ.

God is not someone conjured up by us, though many people claim there are other
gods that are not, or they misrepresent the God who is. He is the one who created
everything and everyone, in whom we have our being, and maintains the whole of
creation and everything and everyone in it. Making this understandable why he
goes after others claiming all they can offer are opinions on reality because that
truth does not line up with his current set of beliefs he now proclaims. Now he just
casts all beliefs down as opinions as if our opinions shape reality, instead of just
shaping our worldviews.

@fmf said
Both of us, KellyJay.

Speak for yourself.

@kellyjay said
Speak for yourself.

We are both being subjective.

@fmf said
We are both being subjective.

We are both offering our opinions about reality, right or wrong. Our opinions are
just us offering up our points of view; however, we are either accurately describing
reality as is or not. Even your (It's all just our opinions) is just an opinion.

If we were talking about something being dangerous, that could kill us if we did
something this way or that way, even though everything said, pros and cons are
all just opinions as we express them, the ones based on the reality of what we are
talking about would either kill us or not would be the correct one, despite it being
an opinion. So to dismiss something said about a reality-based topic because
someone who is only offering an opinion is missing the point about the object we
are discussing. You want to deny the possibility of something that transcends the
universe, even though many things we all agree are part of the universe that have
nothing material in their makeup exists; you already accept such things; you want
to deny very possibly God, so you dismiss Him out of hand.

The meta-narrative, from beginning to end, encompasses all things; while personal
opinions reside in one's self only, our opinions, our worldviews, they can accept or
reject that which doesn't conform with reality as we want it to be, and we can even
hold conflicting views as true at the same time. Its only reality-based views that
correctly encompasses all of the truth of reality that has correct merit. Simply
rejecting something because it is offered up even as a subjective point of view
because it is a subjective point of view could be missing the reality that may be
accurately identified in it.

If something is true, it is true, always, everywhere, at all times, for everyone no
matter how we feel about it. Opinions change as the wind blows.

@kellyjay said
We are both offering our opinions about reality, right or wrong. Our opinions are
just us offering up our points of view; however, we are either accurately describing
reality as is or not. Even your (It's all just our opinions) is just an opinion.

Exactly. At last. You've finally got it.

@kellyjay said
If something is true, it is true, always, everywhere, at all times, for everyone no
matter how we feel about it.

When it comes to supernatural beings and phenomena, we can but speculate