You will reject this...

Originally posted by vistesd
You’ll find that these threads seldom run on one track for very long—in addition to the theme of your opening post on this thread, we have entertained questions of what coercion means and the nature of truth statements. Good questions, good discussion.

Understated encouragement is rare indeed. Thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There is no greater "specificity" than absolute... all else represents varying percents

of academic skim milk, ladled with the worn ladle of debaters' technique. 🙂

Not so. Specific and absolute are not synonyms. You have used the word "absolute" in a sufficiently general way so that bright people have questioned exactly what you mean by it.

That is not entirely your fault, and some of the misunderstanding may well be ours, since statements about absolute truth have been bandied about on here before--with various understandings and intentions by the folks who bandied them. We may just not be sure how you're using it, and your examples have not been isomorphic.

So I will ask the specifc question: by "absolute" do you mean "without exception" within the parameters of the subject under discussion? For example, your statements of theological truth may well be without exception if there is a God, etc.; modus ponens is true without exception in any coherent world, whether there is a God or not.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Understated encouragement is rare indeed. Thank you. 🙂

Okay, we've done enough mutual back-slapping tonight: back to argument! 😉

But I'm packing it in for a while. See ya later.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am a bit confused, too. But I think what you and Mephisto are getting at with “context” is good, and perhaps the best question is: What is a non-contextual truth versus a contextual one? (By contextual, I mean context-dependent for it’s truth-value.)

Under a correspondence theory of truth, as LJ and Starrman recently hammered into me, a statement S i ...[text shortened]... ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_a_priori. None of Grampy’s examples fall into this category.

RE: #2. God does have rules. That's the flip side of the 'coin of the realm' of absolute truth. Unconditional rules not subject to change.

His Sovereignty and Omniscience got it right the first time (in Eternity Past) and His Integrity/Immutability always do the same thing.

Absolute truth is absolute truth by definiton of its impeccable source.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The worm of memory in your soul (the worm that dies not) will one

day recall the opportunity dismissed by your post relative to mine.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. Again.

Originally posted by vistesd
Just a quick note: I don't think the Orthodox churches have a doctrine of purgatory--and they view Rome as the first revisionists, leading to the Great Schism of 1054. The Protestant Reformation was revision of the revisionists. Sola scriptura was a brand-spanking new and innovative doctrine in the 16th century.

Although myself a former Protesta ...[text shortened]... r claims to have preserved the original oral tradition of the church to have some merit.

Orthodox churches espouse a very different understanding of purgatory (although I doubt that they themselves would identify the doctrine.) As I understand, in Orthodox theology, when the body dies, the soul is judged. From there it either enters a state of limited bliss or torment until the last day when it enters either hell or heaven. A soul during this persiod may, however, be saved by the prayers of the faithful.

This almost identical to the Catholic understanding: both recognise two judgement days; that there exists a state of temporary purgation; and that the soul can be saved by the prayers of a community. I expect that Orthodox members only disavow the term "purgatory" because there eschatological view of this state is not as a means of purgation culminating in heaven. The same issue exists in the Eastern Catholic Church - they generally do not use the term "purgatory" either, but neither consider there to be any significant theological distinction between them and the Roman church. Unfortunatly, I can only rely on anecdotal experiences with these churches as I am not familiar with the Eastern Catechisms.

(Incidentally, on Sunday I will have a friend ordained as a priest in the Ukranian Catholic Church. He only moved from the Roman a few years ago. Although there are no substantial theological tensions between the two churches, he tells me that learning the Ukrainian ecclesiastical language and culture has completely changed his understanding of Catholic doctrine. I suppose the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is analogous: the differences simply linguistic than propositional.)

But for the purposes of discussion, in which Grampy Bobby claimed that it is all about money-grab, the two churches can be lumped together. Orthodox churches do offer the requiem mass for the salvation of souls.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. Again.

Meph, of all International Grandmasters, past and present, whom do

you hold in the higherst esteem? Please name the top three. Thanks.


-gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Meph, of all International Grandmasters, past and present, whom do

you hold in the higherst esteem? Please name the top three. Thanks.


-gb

For one reason or another I can't edit my post properly. I was giving personal reasons for my selection of Euwe, Tal and Spassky.

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, we've done enough mutual back-slapping tonight: back to argument! 😉

But I'm packing it in for a while. See ya later.

Vistesd, you might enjoy "The Flight Into Egypt." This lesser known six page poem by W.H. Auden contains a few signature lines toward

the very end of Part Three, 'Narrator' which I read the other evening, again, for the first time. If you're unable to read the entire piece,

at least pick up with, "There are bills to be paid..." through "God will cheat no one, not even the world of its triumph." Rare glimpse.


🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Vistesd, you might enjoy "The Flight Into Egypt." This lesser known six page poem by W.H. Auden contains a few signature lines toward

the very end of Part Three, 'Narrator' which I read the other evening, again, for the first time. If you're unable to read the entire piece,

at least pick up with, "There are bills to be paid..." through "God will cheat no one, not even the world of its triumph." Rare glimpse.


🙂

If you agree with Auden's mora devotional and theologically explicit poetry, do you also agree with his homoerotic? What is your stance on his snogging boy pupils?

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you agree with Auden's mora devotional and theologically explicit poetry, do you also agree with his homoerotic? What is your stance on his snogging boy pupils?

Focus is on a few lines of his work... not upon his weak decisions from

a position of morbid gratification/weakness or his pitiful profligate

life, Of course you were well aware of that before your gratifying post.



🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Of course you were well aware of that before your gratifying post.

I had no idea. I thought you might be an Auden fan.

P.S. I like how you end every post with a smiley. It gives a very happy mood to your posts.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
PASCAL"S WAGER



Blaise Pascal entertained all of these same preliminary questions,

logical contradictions and obstacles as well. Perhaps you're already

familiar with the classic conclusion of his life long search for absolute

truth, referred to by scholars for centuries as "Pascal's Wager"...



#1. If I believe in God as revealed i ...[text shortened]... tal. Yes, you will live at one of two addresses for all eternity.


Choice is up to you.

I wasn't familiar with Pascal's Wager, though I've heard many people express similar thoughhts ("why not believe--nothing to lose---...). The only thing that doesn't fit is Mr. Pascal's saying that the choice is up to us. A common misconception about Christ and salvation is that we do not "choose" God---God chooses us. This seems to be an axiom of all the Protestant churches that I've attended in my lifetime.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I had no idea. I thought you might be an Auden fan.

P.S. I like how you end every post with a smiley. It gives a very happy mood to your posts.

Still a kid... it's my job to be happy and like to see others happy too.



😀 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 😀

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I wasn't familiar with Pascal's Wager, though I've heard many people express similar thoughhts ("why not believe--nothing to lose---...). The only thing that doesn't fit is Mr. Pascal's saying that the choice is up to us. A common misconception about Christ and salvation is that we do not "choose" God---God chooses us. This seems to be an axiom of all the Protestant churches that I've attended in my lifetime.

Pink, human history is all about the excercise of free will. Denominations are man made. Their positions often reflect truth mixed with error.

Whole issue is... "What do you think of Christ?" Two thieves at Golgotha were there for the same reason but chose to go different ways.


🙂