The Christian Warrior

Sharky · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Susan
AMEN gunnysgt.

I rebuke the satanic unbelievers in the holy name of JESUS! Be gone!

Can satanic unbelievers change?

What i'm more worried about is the devil who keeps baby feeding them lies. oh man how i wish i had my baseball bat here right now! Spiritual baseball bat

.

Gunny · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Freodin

I ask you for your help, for your understanding. Will you give it to me, or hold it back?

MATTHEW 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

MATTHEW 9:13
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

MARK 2:17
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Gunny · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Sharky
Can satanic unbelievers change?

LK 8:26 And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.

LK 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

LK 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

LK 8:29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

LK 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

LK 8:31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

LK 8:32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

LK 8:33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

LK 8:34 When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.

Sharky · Oct 27, 2002

awesome gunny. lucky i read the next part after that man Jesus healed in my bible.

two feathers · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jedi

...as far as going "over the top" is concerned, you must realize that when ever you start to avidly debate against what someone holds to be true and precious to them, you're not going to get a warm response all the time. When you attack something that someone believes in, the person who holds the belief sees it as an attack on himself (or herself), since that belief is a part of who he (or she) is. I have yet to figure out a way where you can debate against something that people stand by, and somehow not come across as an attacker. The atheists, while flaunting their intellectual might, should realize this from the very beginning.

my statement of "over the top" had nothing to do with the debate in hand. it had to do with susan's heartless post to
freodin. insulting someone is not a way to share the love of christ.

and what would it hurt to explain why you've posted a certain scripture. there is no harm in that. it would only help others understand it better. freodin made a good point.

Jedi · Oct 27, 2002

Jedi, if you can show me a conclusive line of reasoning from Atheism (the non-believe in God - which I adhere to) to Moral Nihilism, you might have a point.

I have practically taken you by the hand in explaining this to you. Ignoring the points doesnt mean they dont exist. But just for the sake of argument, Ill do it again.

If Atheism is true, then all values are subjective (this would include the values of truth and falsehood). If so, then all values are equal in worth, since no subjective opinion is any better than another (This makes truth and falsehood equals). As such, truth and falsehood should be equally sought after, since falsehood is just as good as truth (since truth doesnt always benefit you, nor is it always the most comfortable thing to deal with).

But such a line of reasoning does not exist. I have pondered these question longer than you are alive. My reasoning is conclusive.

Age and wisdom do not necessarily go hand in hand.

We may start a new discussion about this question in Apologetics. It is inappropriate for this forum.

I dont see why the occasional debate couldnt take place in a General Discussion forum. That would be like moving every thread to the apologetics forum every time two fellows disagreed on a subject and insisted on talking about it.

Regarding your useage[sic] of [sic]: I think it is also inapropriate[sic] in an informal discussion - but if you want to continue to use it, please dont only remark on my errors, but give me a correction. I am always trying to improve my command of the english[sic] language.

Its a mere formality. When quoting someone, I do this just to attribute the mistakes to their correct source (to clarify that I didnt misquote the person by typing a few mistakes in quoting them). Besides, if you wanted me to give you a correction, this is a fairly tidy way of doing it, since it tells each word that needed to be corrected. Nothing personal. People have done it to me on occasion, and I dont mind at all.

my statement of "over the top" had nothing to do with the debate in hand. it had to do with susan's[sic] heartless post to
freodin. insulting[sic] someone is not a way to share the love of christ[sic].

And thats exactly what I was talking about the hostilities that people encounter when attacking a belief held dear to others (The very reason why Susan probably felt prompted to retaliate the way she did). This will be the case nearly everywhere you go to debate. Im not saying I agree with such hostilities, but they are understandable.

and what would it hurt to explain why you've posted a certain scripture. there[sic] is no harm in that. it[sic] would only help others understand it better. freodin made a good point.

I never disagreed with his point. I merely said that the Atheists should expect such replies when avidly attacking someone elses beliefs (You shouldnt be shocked). Ive received the same sort of replies from Atheists when debating against them (only their replies contain more insults and name-calling). As long as we live in our world in its current condition, such replies seem inevitable.

blader · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jedi

No, its not. Saying No, it isnt so! wont get you anywhere, since youre doing nothing but begging the question.

There a difference between denying a claim without any evidence, and refuting a claim about my beliefs that I know is not true, because I would know what I believe a lot better than you do. And what I believe is not what you say I believe. Therefore, that is sufficient to refute you, as far as I am concerned. My evidence is that, well, I don't believe what you said I should believe. You either believe me or you can say I'm lying. Either way, it really makes no difference to me, because I know what I believe.

My, that was a mouthful.

blader · Oct 27, 2002

Its a mere formality. When quoting someone, I do this just to attribute the mistakes to their correct source (to clarify that I didnt misquote the person by typing a few mistakes in quoting them). Besides, if you wanted me to give you a correction, this is a fairly tidy way of doing it, since it tells each word that needed to be corrected. Nothing personal. People have done it to me on occasion, and I dont mind at all.

Jedi:

In informal conversation, on a board like this, why would anyone attribute an error inside the QUOTE tag to you, if that's what you're worried about? You don't type in the quotes manually anyway, you just press the quote button, so the clarification is unnecessary. That, and it gets annoying fast. But do as you please, that's just my opinion.

blader · Oct 27, 2002

Let me just address your reasoning on this whole subjective truth thing here, as you seem to like to use it quite often:

If Atheism is true, then all values are subjective (this would include the values of truth and falsehood).

How do you define "value?"

If so, then all values are equal in worth, since no subjective opinion is any better than another

Not so. My subjective opinion is better than any other. And that's my subjective opinion, which is really the only opinion that matters. Objective opinions don't exist in my worldview, remember?

(This makes truth and falsehood equals).

Objectively, yes. But objectivity does not exist in my worldview, so the above statement would not apply. What I regard as truth is therefore more desirable than what I regard as falsehood.

As such, truth and falsehood should be equally sought after, since falsehood is just as good as truth

Not so, because...

(since truth doesnt always benefit you, nor is it always the most comfortable thing to deal with).

An unproven wild assertion. Truth benefits us a lot more often than lies. Lying has consequences, and falsehoods are unbeneficial, more often than not. I don't know about you, but that's at least been my experience... subjectively speaking. =)

GraftMeIn · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Sharky

What i'm more worried about is the devil who keeps baby feeding them lies. oh man how i wish i had my baseball bat here right now! Spiritual baseball bat .

I agree Sharky. You seem to be worried about the right thing here.

We must always remember that the unbelievers are no different than we are. God loves them just the same, he wants them to come to repentence. They along with ourselves are the reason he sent Jesus to die for our sins.

It is satan that leads them astray with his lies, If only they could see that. It would thrill my heart and soul to see them grab hold of the love and redemtion that is sitting there waiting for them.

 

 

GraftMeIn · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Freodin

I ask you for your help, for your understanding. Will you give it to me, or hold it back?

This is the very question you should ask God. He is willing to give you understanding, and he is the only one who can.

Jedi · Oct 27, 2002

There a difference between denying a claim without any evidence, and refuting a claim about my beliefs that I know is not true, because I would know what I believe a lot better than you do.

This isnt necessarily true. There are some atheists who know more about Christianity than some Christians do. The same can be said for Atheism.

And what I believe is not what you say I believe. Therefore, that is sufficient to refute you, as far as I am concerned.

But you havent refuted anything. You have only said No, it isnt so.

In informal conversation, on a board like this, why would anyone attribute an error inside the QUOTE tag to you, if that's what you're worried about?

Come now, Mr. Blader. Youve done this to me once or twice in the past. Who are you to speak? Was it merely out of spite? Anyway, its a formality/professional touch that takes me less than a second to do (given my typing speed is usually around 120 wpm, with little or no mistakes).

You don't type in the quotes manually anyway, you just press the quote button, so the clarification is unnecessary. That, and it gets annoying fast. But do as you please, that's just my opinion

Actually, I have yet to push the quote button. I merely copy and paste for the most part, but not everyone knows that. I see nothing wrong with a little bit of clarification.

Let me just address your reasoning on this whole subjective truth thing here, as you seem to like to use it quite often:

Sure, lets have at it.

How do you define "value?"

Worth. The value of a dollar is another way of expressing its worth. Or as Webster.com puts it, relative worth, utility, or importance.

Not so. My subjective opinion is better than any other. And that's my subjective opinion, which is really the only opinion that matters. Objective opinions don't exist in my worldview, remember?

Thats fallacious. You may see your subjective opinion as being the best, but what happens if someone else sees theirs as being the best? A neutral party would have to see them both as equals, and so every subjective opinion is equal to another (from an objective/neutral perspective).

Suppose there were a test given, and on this test was the question "What do you think is the best color?" If one man answered "green," and another man answered "brown," no answer would be any better than another, since its a question based completely on subjective opinion, and the teacher grading it is impartial.

An unproven wild assertion.

You mean to say that truth always benefits you and is always comfortable to deal with? Thats quite absurd.

Truth benefits us a lot more often than lies. Lying has consequences, and falsehoods are unbeneficial, more often than not. I don't know about you, but that's at least been my experience... subjectively speaking. =)

So now you are no longer talking about how truth is good and falsehood is bad, but rather which will benefit you more, and whatever benefits you should be followed (this is, of course, presupposing that you should be benefited). If you can lie, cheat, and steal your way to the top, its okay, because it benefited you. The only reason you seem to have to seek the truth is if it benefits you. This being the case, truth and falsehood arent really the issue, but whether or not something benefits you regardless of its veracity.

Faithful1 · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by gunnysgt
As Christians, do we negate the use of God's Word because the unredeemed reject, deny and oppose Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
.......

Awesome message, Gunny! Keep it up!

"Preach the Word; be at it in season and out; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all lonsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure (listen to) sound doctrine..." IITim.:4

Faithful1 · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Freodin
Ok, the word of God is foolishness to me, I don´t have the mind of Christ.

So I need someone who is less foolish than me, but foolish enough to relate the concepts I don´t understand to me.

I ask you for your help, for your understanding. Will you give it to me, or hold it back?

It ought to obvious to you Freodin; it is not OUR job to GIVE YOU UNDERSTANDING - That's the job of the Spirit Of God. And since you have rejected Him, you will never get the understanding you seek. You will always be resigned to the futility of trying to start arguments with Christians, blaming them for not GIVING YOU the proper understanding of Scripture.

If you don't ACT on what you already KNOW to be the truth, you don't deserve to have any more.
You've already recognized one truth , you said, "I know I am a liar and need repentence....."
If you act on that truth and DO REPENT, then God Himself will give you more understanding to take the next step.

If you are not courageous enough to ACT upon what you already know you need to do...then we are smart enough not to argue with you (or tell you why we use Scripture) until you DO come to receive the Spirit of Christ.

Faithful 1

We are commanded to PREACH the Gospel, not to explain WHY we use Scripture.

Faithful1 · Oct 27, 2002

Hey Jedi,
try Titus 3:9 AND 10

Freodin · Oct 27, 2002

Jedi

And thats exactly what I was talking about the hostilities that people encounter when attacking a belief held dear to others (The very reason why Susan probably felt prompted to retaliate the way she did).

A dearly hold belief: that you may not comment your usage of Bible quotes?

That was all I asked for. I did not even ask for comments on the quotes, but only one the posters usage. Is it blasphemous now to comment on your own actions?

If Atheism is true, then all values are subjective (this would include the values of truth and falsehood). If so, then all values are equal in worth, since no subjective opinion is any better than another (This makes truth and falsehood equals).

This is incorrect. That a value is subjective does not mean that each subjective value is equal.
"Subjective" defines where a value comes from, not how it relates to other values.
Let´s take an example from a realm outside of morals: money.
The value of your dollar bills is subjective - it exists because people agreed on it. Each bills value is subjective. Now go to a shop, buy something for 100$ and pay with a one dollar note. If you can get the shopkeeper to accept that a hundred and one dollar bill have the same value, you have proven your point.

So, subjective values can indeed be different.

Faithful1:

It ought to obvious to you Freodin; it is not OUR job to GIVE YOU UNDERSTANDING - That's the job of the Spirit Of God.

You got me wrong. I did not ask for understanding of the quotes that are posted. I asked for understanding of the posters intention. And that is within the responsiblity of the poster, not God.

You've already recognized one truth , you said, "I know I am a liar and need repentence....."

You give me a prime example for my initial request. The reader (you, in this case) does not always understand the intent of the writer.

If you want to quote me, do it right. I said "I may be a liar...". I have lied at times, and so Susans calling me "liar", even if inappropriate in this context, may be justified. But as I am not and have never been part of any conspiration, this accusation was wrong.
It did not mean that I lied about my faith, any statement I made about God or Christians, Susan, or anything regarding this discussion.
Nor did I assert any accepted need for repentence regarding my faith.

You got me wrong.

But if you don´t want to discuss me until I "receive the Spirit of Christ" - well, don´t. I don´t mind. Have a nice day.

Marcel · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by gunnysgt
As Christians, do we negate the use of God's Word because the unredeemed reject, deny and oppose Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

It is my contention that the Gospel message is an offensive message to those that reject, deny and oppose God. I believe God's Word is either the power unto Salvation as it states or God's Word is errant.

I believe that God's Word is inerrant and authoratative. I recognize that those that greatly reject God(The Father, The Son[Jesus Christ] The Holy Spirit )would prefer absoultely no scripture posted at all. Once again, the message of the cross is offensive to those that are perishing. They view it as utter foolishness. God's Word commands the Christian to not be daunted by this and go forward with the Gospel message.

The spiritual battle that takes place on this website truly is not a battle between flesh and blood but rather between children of the light(Those In Christ) and the children of disobedience. God's Word confirms this spiritual battle and if as Christians we diminish or hamper the utilization of the sword of the Spirit, God's Word we are accountable to God for our own disobedience to His Word.

I believe firmly we are living in the latter days and that as Soldiers of Christ we must have firm resolve to state the Gospel message of Jesus Christ regardless if it offends those that reject, deny and oppose God.

A Passage from, The Christian Warrior by Isaac Ambrose(1502-1664)

EPH 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Statement of the Doctrine to be Handled

1. All God's peple must be warriors.

1. All God's people must be warriors.

The wicked refuse to engage in this war. Instead of fighting the Lord's battles, they take up arms on the enemy's side. They spend their time in chambering and wantonness, in idleness and carnal security. They are altogether ignorant of Satan's assaults and of their own danger. Oh, that their eyes were opened to see their perilous condition! Oh, that such men knew their danger in time to escape it! They are not the Lord's soldiers, but the devil's revilellers. They will not fight against Satan, and Satan will not disturb their sleep. So they are in convenant with death and hell.

All the people of God, from first to last, are, and must be, engaged in this spiritual warfare, and can say, "We do not war against the flesh; 'the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, " 2 Corinthians 10:4. Such has been the language of the saints in all ages; they were all in the war, even the most holy of them all. Job, Moses and Aaron, Lot and David, the Patriarchs and the Prophets. All had their fiery trials. And so those under the gospel: Peter was winnowed, Paul was buffeted, and even Christ himself was led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Must all God's people war with devils? Then consider what religion will cost you. The Christian soldier must endure hardness. Saints must be winnowed, buffeted, tried, and tempted. Wars and dangers shall be their portion. And through much tribulation must they enter into the kingdom of God. See how Paul is in labors, in stripes, in prisons, in deaths. He was always in perils wherever he went. Christianity will cost you much here and save you forever. Than be a Christian that you may be a conqueror.

Are we to fight against sin and Satan, the world, and the flesh? Then, courage, Christians! Be not dismayed. Are you afraid of the formidable enemies? Go forth in the strength of the Lord God and He will put all your enemies shortly under your feet. Satan's fiery darts and all your trials shall do you good, and be to you as waves to the ark, as the whale to Jonah, as the fire that brightens the iron, as the mill grinds the wheat, or as the fire that separates the dross from the gold. Do you feel your spirits sharpened, your pride subdued, your flesh cooled, every lust mortified, and every grace invigorated by these temptations and trials? Tell me, are you not roused to make earnest and ardent prayers by these war's and conflicts? Are not Satan's temptations like bellows to blow the fire of devotion in your soul, and like a hedge of thorns to keep you from going astray? Oh, vain men! Be not afraid of the war, but enlist into the armies of Christ, and fight valiantly under the banner of the cross. It is an honarable war; Christ invites you to it, and promises to cover your head in the day of battle and to crown you in the end. And what more would you have? "Put on the whole armor of God, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might, and He is engaged to give you the victory."

End of passage from, The Christian Warrior by Isaac Ambrose(1592-1664)

The full title of Isaac Ambrose's book is, The Christian Warrior-Wrestling with Sin, Satan, the World, and the Flesh.

II TIMOTHY 2:3
3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

II TIMOTHY 2:4
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Father God, may I and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ be about the business of doing your Kingdom work. May we not forsake from our duties, our allegiance to the Spotless Lamb of God, that shed His precious blood to set the captives free! Lord, I pray that as soldiers of Christ we may boldly proclaim God's Word until our breath is stilled and body dies! Father God, the days are short and there is not time for slumber. Revive us my Lord! Send down latter day rain upon us, to awaken us to our duty as bondservants of Christ! I pray Father God that ChristianForum may come under complete submission and the control of your perfect will. I pray these things in the name above all names, Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. Amen.

ROMANS 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Without even knowing your trackreccord, I dare to boldly assume you are verry, verry ineffective at what you wish to accomplish.

Jedi · Oct 27, 2002

Hey Jedi,
try Titus 3:9 AND 10

Haha, I think you're right. It's like talking to a brick wall.

A dearly hold[sic] belief: that you may not comment your usage of Bible quotes?

I was speaking in general. Im pretty sure Susans reply wasnt solely due to the fact that you wanted further elaboration, but probably because of discussions past youve participated in.

This is incorrect. That a value is subjective does not mean that each subjective value is equal.

Oh, really? So my subjective opinion that green is the best color might rule over your opinion that another color is the best?

"Subjective" defines where a value comes from, not how it relates to other values.

Subjectivity is all about equality of thought (No opinion is better than another if everything is truly subjective). If every value is subjective, then every value is what each person wants it to be, and so theres no real set value at all.

Lets take an example from a realm outside of morals: money.

Sounds like fun.

The value of your dollar bills is subjective - it exists because people agreed on it. Each bills value is subjective. Now go to a shop, buy something for 100$ and pay with a one dollar note. If you can get the shopkeeper to accept that a hundred and one dollar bill have the same value, you have proven your point.

Ah, a witty example, yet not entirely accurate. What youre talking about is an agreed upon standard that enables the value to stay constant (no matter what you think its value may be), and so it becomes a sort of objective standard based on consensus. Let me explain. If something is subjective, it is characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind (Webster.com). In this case, money is no longer subjective to the individual, but to the whole, which makes it objective to the individual (No matter how much I may believe my one-dollar bill is more valuable than a hundred dollar bill in the eyes of the public, its not. The dollar may be worth more than a hundred to me, but not to them, since they have an agreed upon standard by which my opinion doesnt follow). This doesnt make my opinion any less valuable than the next mans, but only means that my opinion doesnt fall into consensus thought, and since the standard is set by consensus thought, my opinion isnt accepted as the standard.

You can also get very mixed up here. A man could say, This one-dollar bill is worth more than a hundred, and it could be taken as two different statements: 1) This one-dollar bill is worth more than a hundred to me and 2) This one-dollar bill is worth more than a hundred to everyone else. It depends on what he means by his statement that determines whether his statement is true (based on his individual, subjective preference), or false (based on the more objective standard that exists outside of his opinion that has been set by the consensus). Again, this doesnt mean this fellows opinion that a one-dollar bill is worth more than a hundred is unequal to anyone elses, but only that his opinion doesnt fall within the ruling consensus. Simply because a thought doesnt fall within the views of the consensus doesnt automatically make the thought any less valuable.

How about we throw out the variable of consensus? Suppose two men are stuck alone on an island, and both of them find a dollar bill of some sort, but its so faded that the type of bill is hard to determine. One man is feeling optimistic and says this dollar bill (whatever it may actually be) is worth 100 dollars. The other man, not wanting to get his hopes high, says this dollar bill is worth only 10 dollars. Whose subjective opinion is right? Does one opinion have more weight than another in this case (now that weve crushed consensus thought)?

Ill repost my color example just for kicks. Suppose there were a test given, and on this test was the question "What do you think is the best color?" If one man answered "green," and another man answered "brown," no answer would be any better than another, since its a question based completely on subjective opinion, and the teacher grading it is impartial.

Now back to morality and truth. If the value of truth is subjective, then it can be whatever you want it to be (its your opinion after all). Just because not everyone else thinks the same way (like in the instance of the dollar) doesnt mean your opinion is wrong. If everyone in the world liked the color blue the most, it wouldnt mean that my opinion that green is the best color is all of a sudden incorrect. Its a mere matter of subjective opinion versus subjective opinion, and consensus is only might not necessarily right (People see a 5-dollar bill as being worth 5 dollars because the might of consensus set that as the standard not because that piece of paper is actually worth something).

Truth is also different than money. Consensus determines how useful the dollar is by setting such a standard. This is not the case for truth (since a lie can often times be far more useful than the truth). The only reason you would want to follow the standard set by consensus concerning money is that its in your benefit. You cant say this about truth (ask any lawyer, and youll get an idea of how often its more beneficial to lie than to tell the truth). If it is more beneficial for you to lie, why tell the truth? Because consensus tells you to? Why should you listen to the consensus if doing so doesnt benefit you (like it did in the case of the dollar)?

Gunny · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Marcel
Without even knowing your trackreccord, I dare to boldly assume you are verry, verry ineffective at what you wish to accomplish.

To the contrary, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ has used me to help others, specifically those suffering from addiction. I have been in His service since 1984, helping minster to those bound by addiction be it substance or behavior.

I have lived my life over the course of the last nineteen years to be in the service to God(The Father, The Son[Jesus Christ], The Holy Spirit) in whatever capacity He sees fit. I have sought higher education soley to be used by God in both the secular and non-secular(Christian) counseling field.
I have no greater desire than to be used by the very God that saved me from certain alcoholic destruction so many years ago.

I only desire that I please and glorify the God I serve for I have been saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the only name unto Salvation.

Freodin · Oct 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jedi
Oh, really? So my subjective opinion that green is the best color might rule over your opinion that another color is the best?

Depending on subject and circumstace: yes, it would. If the question was how to dye your hair - go on, dye it green if you think it is the best colour.

Subjectivity is all about equality of thought (No opinion is better than another if everything is truly subjective). If every value is subjective, then every value is what each person wants it to be, and so theres no real set value at all.

You are contradicting yourself. If every value is what each person wants it to be - they don´t have to be equal.

From an outside position, these values might be seen differently, but that does not make this outside view objective. It is still subject to the perception of the outside viewer.

Ah, a witty example, yet not entirely accurate. What youre talking about is an agreed upon standard that enables the value to stay constant (no matter what you think its value may be), and so it becomes a sort of objective standard based on consensus.

"Sort of objective", now what is that? It is still subjective. It is subjective to the minds and perceptions of the people who agreed on this value.
The printed pieces of paper still have no value of their own.

Let me explain. If something is subjective, it is characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind (Webster.com). In this case, money is no longer subjective to the individual, but to the whole, which makes it objective to the individual (No matter how much I may believe my one-dollar bill is more valuable than a hundred dollar bill in the eyes of the public, its not.

Thank you for proving my point. You have just discovered a way how atheists establish values - by consensus.
If you have accepted that there is a way for individual to establish an objective value without any reference to God, your basic argument has just failed.

How about we throw out the variable of consensus? Suppose two men are stuck alone on an island, and both of them find a dollar bill of some sort, but its so faded that the type of bill is hard to determine. One man is feeling optimistic and says this dollar bill (whatever it may actually be) is worth 100 dollars. The other man, not wanting to get his hopes high, says this dollar bill is worth only 10 dollars. Whose subjective opinion is right? Does one opinion have more weight than another in this case (now that weve crushed consensus thought)?

We haved crushed the consensus thought?

Hey, what kind of argument is this?

"There is no way that atheist can establish non-equal values!"

"Well, what about consensus?"

"Yes, but let´s ignore consensus. What other way is there? Hah, told you so!"

Ill repost my color example just for kicks. Suppose there were a test given, and on this test was the question "What do you think is the best color?" If one man answered "green," and another man answered "brown," no answer would be any better than another, since its a question based completely on subjective opinion, and the teacher grading it is impartial.

Thats why values can be subjective. "Green" and "brown" in this example are objectively not better or worse than the other - but subjectivly they are.

Now back to morality and truth. If the value of truth is subjective, then it can be whatever you want it to be (its your opinion after all). Just because not everyone else thinks the same way (like in the instance of the dollar) doesnt mean your opinion is wrong. If everyone in the world liked the color blue the most, it wouldnt mean that my opinion that green is the best color is all of a sudden incorrect. Its a mere matter of subjective opinion versus subjective opinion, and consensus is only might not necessarily right (People see a 5-dollar bill as being worth 5 dollars because the might of consensus set that as the standard not because that piece of paper is actually worth something).

Truth is also different than money. Consensus determines how useful the dollar is by setting such a standard. This is not the case for truth (since a lie can often times be far more useful than the truth). The only reason you would want to follow the standard set by consensus concerning money is that its in your benefit. You cant say this about truth (ask any lawyer, and youll get an idea of how often its more beneficial to lie than to tell the truth). If it is more beneficial for you to lie, why tell the truth? Because consensus tells you to? Why should you listen to the consensus if doing so doesnt benefit you (like it did in the case of the dollar)?

Another thing that I´d like to point out: there is more than one possible value system.
You evaluate "truth" here by a system of "usefullness". This is possible - and valid. It is not objective, though.

But you can use other value systems, like "ability to descibe reality" - which would give totally different values to "truth".

Why should I listen to consensus? A meaningless question? If I don´t listen to consensus, there is no consensus.
If I cannot be convinced that I should agree on a certain value, then that´s it - I do not agree.
But that does not exclude the possibility to adhere to another consensus, nor the possibility for me to hold a system of values with defined and different values.

The Christian Warrior

Rockin dude!

Remnant

Remnant

Rockin dude!

of the wilderness

Knight

Evilutionist

Evilutionist

Evilutionist

The Masters Gardener

The Masters Gardener

Knight

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Quixotic Cloggie

Knight

Remnant

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Similar threads