@sonship saidHave you even bothered to read this conversation? dj2becker uses the word "objective" as a shallow gimmick which he repeats over and over and over again ad nauseam regardless of what is in the posts he's ostensibly replying to. I'd be surprised if you endorsed it on an intellectual level. Or is it just because dj2becker is saying something-anything to divegeester. Have you not read the thread?
@dj2becker
Is that an objective truth or your subjective opinion?
You're in trouble now dj2becker. You just wait until divegeester gets around to answering you on that one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 19
@sonship saidAs anticipated he has run off. If he does return I highly doubt that he’ll answer the question.
@dj2becker
Is that an objective truth or your subjective opinion?
You're in trouble now dj2becker. You just wait until divegeester gets around to answering you on that one.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Sep 19
@sonship saidStill waiting for his answer on how it’s supposedly possible for one subject opinion to be debunked by another subjective opinion. Seems that has him in a flat spin.
@dj2becker
Is that an objective truth or your subjective opinion?
You're in trouble now dj2becker. You just wait until divegeester gets around to answering you on that one.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Sep 19
Have you even bothered to read this conversation? dj2becker uses the word "objective" as a shallow gimmick which he repeats over and over and over again ad nauseam regardless of what is in the posts he's ostensibly replying to. I'd be surprised if you endorsed it on an intellectual level. Or is it just because dj2becker is saying something-anything to divegeester. Have you not read the thread?
I have not read this entire thread from the start.
However, what I read, contrary to what you say, I think dj2becker is sin trying to help some people. You see it as gimmickry. I see someone trying to help some of you see the dilemma of thinking truth ends up only subjective personal opinion of each individual.
What that philosophy does FOR you, it does TO you.
Personally, I came out of the 1960s culture. In the early twenties when I first began to read the Bible on my own, voluntarily, with a heart opened to God, a verse hit me in Romans with the help of someone more experienced. (Derek Prince by name).
It was pointed out that "the judgment of God is according to truth ..." (Rom. 2:2a)
I think on that day I realized that I had taken a kind of popular philosophy too far beyond what is healthy and sane.
The problem as I see with the belief in Absolute Truth is that objectors to this will bring up that it is too often impossible to live this way practically. I am speaking for myself.
I mean a perfect code of conduct is bound to have exceptions.
I list of laws to follow is bound to not be able to cover certain nuanced situations.
Objectors to absolute truth notice - "So since we cannot practically live as if there are some perfect rules, we better argue that there is no absolute truth."
But that we fail to live absolutely for the absolute truth, I think is another problem. And to write down a list of absolute laws to live by is a problem because of exceptionally fine and nuanced circumstances.
I see that as another problem. But absolute truth is. God is, I believe.
Truth is believable.
19 Sep 19
@sonship saidAssertions about "truth" based on speculation regarding supernatural things, and the "faith" that consists of such speculations, which are expressed through assertions, which are fashioned into religious dogma, are all entirely in the realm of personal opinion [and aspiration] and subjectivity, regardless of how certain you are that you are right.
I see someone trying to help some of you see the dilemma of thinking truth ends up only subjective personal opinion of each individual.
19 Sep 19
@sonship saidThat you are speaking for yourself is why it's called "subjective".
The problem as I see with the belief in Absolute Truth is that objectors to this will bring up that it is too often impossible to live this way practically. I am speaking for myself.
19 Sep 19
@sonship saidIf your religious beliefs and your personal beliefs rooted in them help you to live a morally sound life, then good for you.
I mean a perfect code of conduct is bound to have exceptions.
I list of laws to follow is bound to not be able to cover certain nuanced situations.
Objectors to absolute truth notice - "So since we cannot practically live as if there are some perfect rules, we better argue that there is no absolute truth."
But that we fail to live absolutely for the absolute truth ...[text shortened]...
I see that as another problem. But absolute truth is. God is, I believe.
Truth is believable.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Sep 19
3 edits
@fmf saidAnd once again how do you know that what you’re saying about supernatural things is true if it is merely your subjective opinion? Arguing from a position of relative truth is self defeating regardless of how ‘sure’ you may be that you’re right. In fact you can’t be sure about anything anymore within a framework of relative truth.
Assertions about "truth" based on speculation regarding supernatural things, and the "faith" that consists of such speculations, which are expressed through assertions, which are fashioned into religious dogma, are all entirely in the realm of personal opinion [and aspiration] and subjectivity, regardless of how certain you are that you are right.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@fmf saidBeing ‘morally sound’ within a framework of moral relativism is like saying the sky is blue but everyone is free to describe blue as whatever color they want.
If your religious beliefs and your personal beliefs rooted in them help you to live a morally sound life, then good for you.
As Eric Metaxas said, “The logical conclusion of relativism is absurdity. Non-sense. A worldview that undermines its own premises.”
@dj2becker saidI think you will find for some an absolute truth about religion is there are no absolutes, ignoring the absoluteness of that absolute! 😉
If somethings (like the laws of physics) can be true for everyone even when speaking for yourself, why can’t the same be true about supernatural things?
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidThe things BOTH of us are saying about supernatural things are merely our subjective opinions.
And once again how do you know that what you’re saying about supernatural things is true if it is merely your subjective opinion?
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidThere is nothing "self-defeating" about what I am saying.
Arguing from a position of relative truth is self defeating regardless of how ‘sure’ you may be that you’re right.
You insisting that you are "arguing from a position" of "absolute truth" does not make any of your speculation and assumptions about the supernatural realm "objective".
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidOur moral compasses are the means we use to apply our subjectivity to our actions and interactions. The Bible stuff you are convinced is "absolute truth" is just part of the "nurture" you have experienced - i.e. something you have got from your human environment - and it informs and gives substance to the subjectivity which you channel through your moral compass and which enables you to make decisions as a moral agent.
Being ‘morally sound’ within a framework of moral relativism is like saying the sky is blue but everyone is free to describe blue as whatever color they want.