@kellyjay saidNonsense, KellyJay.
Stop being so obtuse! I have said when our opinions match reality that is truth. You want to just twist this discussion into a meaningless opportunity to come up with an insult you can go the way of your friend.
"Reality"? About supernatural things?? "Reality"?
Really, KellyJay?
It is not me who is being obtuse.
Here is how it is is:
"The Truth" = when KellyJay's opinion about "reality" + KellyJay's opinion about ideology line up.
You are firmly in the realm of subjectivity and no amount of sloganeering will render it "objectivity".
@fmf saidYou disagree with the point that compasses that do not point to true morals are useless for morals
Nonsense, KellyJay.
"Reality"? About supernatural things?? "Reality"?
Really, KellyJay?
It is not me who is being obtuse.
Here is how it is is:
"The Truth" = when KellyJay's opinion about "reality" + KellyJay's opinion about ideology line up.
You are firmly in the realm of subjectivity and no amount of sloganeering will render it "objectivity".
@secondson saidBut to those who don't accept the message of love, the message of wrath isn't going to turn them.
What happens to those that don't love Jesus?
Shouldn't you have enough love for them to warn them about the wrath to come?
In the verse I quoted from John 3:36 Jesus gave the warning. Why? Because He loves the sinner is why.
Or are you afraid of a little persecution for telling the truth?
@kellyjay saidI have addressed your subjective use of the term "true morals" and therefore your assertion that something is "useless for morals" is just one subjectivity piled upon another subjectivity.
You disagree with the point that compasses that do not point to true morals are useless for morals
@fmf saidAleksandr Dugin thus proposes what amounts to a sort of radical relativism. He is personally an Orthodox Christian, and he believes this describes the ultimate reality, but he does not make any effort to remove the ability of other societies and nations to also operate towards their own end as if there is an ultimate reality separate from his understanding of it.
There is no one "truth". Even if everyone were religious, you'd have staunch Catholics, Methodists, conservative Jews, Hari Krishnas, gay Christians, devout Muslims, evangelical Christians, Buddhists, Pentecostals, Sikhs, Mormons, liberal Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, different subgroups of Hindus, liberal Muslims, far right Christians far left Christians and the list goes on.
...[text shortened]... that "fixed direction" you have been touting to your personal code and use it to engage with others.
Basically, he proposes the opposite of some globalized democratic ethic, and insists rather that each region should be fit to operate along its own guidelines and concept of the reality.
It's a better model than yours because a Hindu family in a Christian state can definitely continue being Hindus, and the Christian state can continue propagating a Christian vision for its Christian culture.
In the globalized democratic form, a vacuum is created by hard secularism (to be distinguished from soft secularism).
By the way...
I'd like you to interact with KellyJay's statement that it looks like you missed/dropped:
Yep when the compasses don't show truth, its everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.
@philokalia saidI have addressed KellyJay's subjective use of the term "truth" - as if he is being objective about it - ad nauseam. You don't appear to be following the conversation. Please read people's posts.
I'd like you to interact with KellyJay's statement that it looks like you missed/dropped:Yep when the compasses don't show truth, its everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.
@fmf saidAw, you didn't pick up on the shift in rhetoric that Kelly's statement actually provided.
I have addressed KellyJay's subjective use of the term "truth" - as if he is being objective about it - ad nauseam. You don't appear to be following the conversation. Please read people's posts.
Even if the Hindu religions are not true, the Hindus within these religions try to follow a truth, which is far different than people following whatever they think is truth.
You are attacking the wrong part of the argument.
@philokalia saidIn terms of what I have been talking about, yes a Hindu family can definitely continue being Hindus in a Christian state that is propagating a Christian vision/culture. You appear not to be reading the posts on this and other threads.
It's a better model than yours because a Hindu family in a Christian state can definitely continue being Hindus, and the Christian state can continue propagating a Christian vision for its Christian culture.