You don't get to dictate what rules my conclusions, try another tactic that isn't intellectually arrogant and condescending. And I don't see any reason to ask any entity to reveal itself to me, because I see no remote evidence to take seriously that they are anything more than people's delusions and fantasiesGood try...
I used to look thru Buddhist glasses as well.
Jesus is God.
Ask Him to reveal Himself to you.
Maya will no longer rule your conclusions.
Consciousness is emergent and supervenient upon brain states, an abstract experiential phenomenon, but not invalid merely because of that because we have common aspects in regards to an awareness of oneself, of time, of others, etc.Well where did our conscious come from? Perhaps a fish?
A question for you. Is it morally wrong to rape and murder a child?
WRONG | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
MORAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
As to logic I am admittedly lacking. And I am a walking example of a poisoned human being in need of a saviour.
Another question: do you think you are a good person?
So merely feelings over facts? Irony of ironies: mere experience matters more than any evidence that may contradict it, which amounts to solipsismI am not presenting argument the final arbiter is relationship not logic.
You don't get to dictate what rules my conclusions, try another tactic that isn't intellectually arrogant and condescending. And I don't see any reason to ask any entity to reveal itself to me, because I see no remote evidence to take seriously that they are anything more than people's delusions and fantasies
So merely feelings over facts? Irony of ironies: mere experience matters more than any evidence that may contradict it, which amounts to solipsism
I didn't claim I was absolutely objective, did I? If you can point out these delusions, feel free, but don't act superior because you can appeal to an absolute authority that demands obedience, that's the kind of attitude that leads to enabling totalitarians for the "good of society"Including your own???
Except you'd have to demonstrate such a spirit is a real substance and not merely some abstract concept that's not falsifiable in the slightest and amounts to magical thinking instead of anything realistic about psychology and related phenomenaNo I am not talking Human feelings.
I am talking a much deeper level - direct communication with the Human Spirit, not through the senses of the body.
I didn't claim I was absolutely objective, did I? If you can point out these delusions, feel free, but don't act superior because you can appeal to an absolute authority that demands obedience, that's the kind of attitude that leads to enabling totalitarians for the "good of society"
Except you'd have to demonstrate such a spirit is a real substance and not merely some abstract concept that's not falsifiable in the slightest and amounts to magical thinking instead of anything realistic about psychology and related phenomena
Except love is not a substantive thing, it's experiential, you're equivocating and making a category error to boot based on a demand for a teleological origin and then conflate it with a quality ascribed to actions based on benefitsUnless the absolute authority is Love itself.
Anecdotes are insufficient and if you think it'll change anything, you're hopelessly simplifying standards of what is true
Saving doubters from doubt sounds like an awfully insecure thing to try and do, @cloudyday2.
The conspiracy of silence. See the most loving, kind, together family, a family of “brilliant apologists,” (who the topic creator won’t discuss apologetics with) clearly aren’t great apologists, right? If your family were the most brilliant people wouldn’t you want to lean on their great qualities and try to follow them. They’re wonderful, but not so wonderful I “buy” what they’re selling. Instead there’s silence.
.
Anecdotes are insufficient and if you think it'll change anything, you're hopelessly simplifying standards of what is true
And even just skimming over it, this is confirmation bias and question begging. If Jesus is assumed to be true merely because of novelty or supposed fulfillment of prophecies (which is nebulous at best in trustworthiness, given prophecies create a paradox in their fulfillment based on people's interpretations of it, like preterism versus futurism or such in Christian eschatology), then you haven't demonstrated it apart from the book that already assumes from a skewed narrative that Jesus was alluded to in the OT rather than offering evidence that isn't biased towards the conclusion in its premises
Anyone can spin that things will happen that fit their warnings about the world getting worse, given that such a thing isn't an unreasonable conclusion with fallible humanity in the first place: we screw up, bad things happen because of various factors even if we progress to become better by other standards (life expectancy, etc)
You're starting with the idea that I need to take Jesus seriously when I haven't agreed to that, nor do I see reasoning that isn't biased towards the conclusion by faulty assessment of supposed evidence. And taking Jesus seriously doesn't mean I buy into the dualist metaphysics you espouse separately from that and potentially tie back into Jesus' ministry or whatnot, the leaps in logic are astounding and not in a good way
I'm a little puzzled by your post, but if I've offended you somehow then I'm sorry.Saving doubters from doubt sounds like an awfully insecure thing to try and do, @cloudyday2. Doubts aren’t usually dangerous but rather they’re healthy, although if there’s anything shameful to do with doubts, it’s sometimes the foundation upon which some doubts are fostered.
For example, a couple of men could hold the same belief about you but ground that belief upon different (unequal) foundations. The belief is that you’re a person of low moral character (just for a thought experiment.)
Mr. Smart believes you’re a person of low moral character because you often cheat him in games of chance, lie about your achievements and slander your other half while in his company.
Mr. Silly believes you’re a person of low moral character because he doesn’t much like the colour of your skin.
The same beliefs, both correct beliefs insofar that yes you’re a cheat, liar and verbally abusive to or about your other half. You’re a person of low moral character and each man has your number. It’s the foundation of Mr. Silly’s belief where the problem appears, his issues to do with race are no doubt a source of harm and upset to him and everyone he shares them with (his family included.) He pulled the trigger on you out of ignorance and pride rather than dare admit to having a misguided foundation upon which his beliefs were built, that’s often unbelief in a nutshell (minus the correct conclusion.)
Or as the old saying goes “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”jk jk jk lots of luv honest
There’s loads of content to respond to if you or @RoseCrystal want to exchange on the more exciting parts of this topic, points that might bring about a more enlightening conversation for everyone, rather than going deep into “someone did this” or “you’ll never believe who’s getting fired.” Or worse the conspiracy of silence, which says more than you or I ever could about the openness of the people we are writing to.
The conspiracy of silence. See the most loving, kind, together family, a family of “brilliant apologists,” (who the topic creator won’t discuss apologetics with) clearly aren’t great apologists, right? If your family were the most brilliant people wouldn’t you want to lean on their great qualities and try to follow them. They’re wonderful, but not so wonderful I “buy” what they’re selling. Instead there’s silence.
They’re by the sounds of an earlier message blamed by the TC for being too emotional, due to which the topic creator doesn’t feel confident in having an open conversation with them (lest they worry.)
Again silence. So far as I can read there’s no full disclosure here (because who are we to have access to something so private,) but there’s also no full disclosure or unguarded communication in the real world either (where a loving family do deserve an open and honest opportunity to share life together.)
Of course if none of this applies I’m sure there will be no hard feelings, just thankfulness that their situation is so much better than the one I mistakenly described! If any of the above applies however, it takes courage and honesty to admit to that.
I'm a little puzzled by your post, but if I've offended you somehow then I'm sorry.
Not true at all. I am not trying to expose you or throw stones at you. It is a legitimate question people answer with difficultybecause if I answer anything other than the affirmative, you're going to call me a hypocrite
I'm trying not to shoot myself in the foot...you're just shooting yourself in the foot
I guess this is not the place to debate so I would simply ask. Do you see morality objectively or subjectively? From an internal source, or an external source?My actions can be good or bad in terms of a few standards
Well.. enjoy your day - some have ears to hear, some don't.
By the way I don't believe in the rules of argument, or the tool of the intellect when dealing with spiritual matters.
Not true at all. I am not trying to expose you or throw stones at you. It is a legitimate question people answer with difficulty
Maybe take a step back and consider with humility whether an argument made, however sincere, could still be flawed instead of already starting with the conclusion you're rightI'm trying not to shoot myself in the foot...
I guess this is not the place to debate so I would simply ask. Do you see morality objectively or subjectively? From an internal source, or an external source?
Okay. I hope you can find some peace today/tonight. Have a good one!Bull, people pretty much always would condemn rape and murder because they're defined that way. And it's not circular, it's a specific qualification about the acts in question that are violating human autonomy and agency, either by taking their life or violating their informed enthusiastic consent to a sex act.
A better question would something like, is consensual sex between two people not married moral? Because then you have differing opinions and standards for what makes that particular act moral or immoral rather than being agreed upon to be wrong by definition, as in the case of rape, which applies as wrong regardless of who it is done to, child or adult
Maybe take a step back and consider with humility whether an argument made, however sincere, could still be flawed instead of already starting with the conclusion you're right
Somewhat loaded question because you haven't qualified what is meant by your use of objective and subjective, which don't have singular usage in meaning. I would say it's more by an internal source that has external agreement, which is to say it seeks objectivity, it isn't something objective, because then we can't really assess it at all, since morality is not a science. Us starting as subjects in assessing morality does not mean that is the only standard, but we should not merely subject ourselves to an authority and accept that as right, it's slavish and totalitarian to go to the other extreme of dogmatic absolutist morality versus relativist/nihilist morality
Just admit you're a solipsist then
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?