is true debate really possible??

[thepromiseofgrace]

we are going off topic, please get back on track.

is true debate possible not what do we believe in.

 

[WoundedDeep]

This is just another way of saying "I'm right; you're wrong." What makes you think you do have a "solid basis of truth already in your hands"?

My life experiences testify to it. Truth leads to righteous living being an outcome of believing in God of the Bible - that is how I am confident I have the solid basis of truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My life experiences testify to it. Truth leads to righteous living being an outcome of believing in God of the Bible - that is how I am confident I have the solid basis of truth.

What about other people's life experiences? Can they invoke their life experiences and say "I am confident I have a solid basis of truth. My life experiences testify to it." Would you accept this assertion from someone else? Why, or why not?

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

if you don't get back on topic i am going to request this be removed.

 

[WoundedDeep]

we are going off topic, please get back on track.

is true debate possible not what do we believe in.

Its hard, seeing how people are bent on challenging everything we say.

Well, true debate is not possible on matters of faith because it is not an intellectual pursuit to begin with. Faith in itself is a pursuit of what is good, righteous and consistent with societal wellness. People are short-sighted as to what is good to them in the long run, so debates on such matters boils down to what they want to hear rather than the truth.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Its hard, seeing how people are bent on challenging everything we say.

Well, true debate is not possible on matters of faith because it is not an intellectual pursuit to begin with.

i think you are right, matters of faith are not always clear cut because of the nature of faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

if you don't get back on topic i am going to request this be removed.

Wouldn't it be considered relevant to the question of whether a true debate is really possible? Can you really have a "true debate" with someone who insists that their personal experiences trump everything else anyone has to say, no matter how well-evidenced? Can you have a "true debate" with someone who equates being noble to agreeing with them and who considers anyone who disagrees arrogant?

 

[WoundedDeep]

i think you are right, matters of faith are not always clear cut because of the nature of faith.

Yes, and the fact that faith is a pursuit of goodness (what I added into my previous post). The fact that people are short-sighted and cannot know what will be good for them in the long run ultimately means they will debate about faith based on what they think is good rather than what is truly good (which is the nature of truth itself).

As a sidenote (and in answer to oppositions), truth always leads to good and righteousness. Teachings that motivate people to be good and righteous originate from truth itself, and this is only testified by personal experiences rather than verbal debates. Pride, selfishness, greed and all other vices oppose the truth and are its enemies. Yet this world is rampant with those vices. God, being the source of truth and the goodness that comes from truth, cannot be out of the equation. The reason this world is rampant with pride etc is because it does not acknowledge God. Again, truth is proven by realities, not debates.

Truth, apart from personal experiences, cannot be verified or debated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Its hard, seeing how people are bent on challenging everything we say.

Well, true debate is not possible on matters of faith because it is not an intellectual pursuit to begin with. Faith in itself is a pursuit of what is good, righteous and consistent with societal wellness. People are short-sighted as to what is good to them in the long run, so debates on such matters boils down to what they want to hear rather than the truth.

You don't need faith to pursue "what is good, righteous and consistent with societal wellness." Considering those things is very much an intellectual pursuit. In my view, faith can sometimes impede that pursuit by insisting that what is good matches whatever the person believes their God wants, even if what they believe their God wants is detrimental to others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, and the fact that faith is a pursuit of goodness (what I added into my previous post). The fact that people are short-sighted and cannot know what will be good for them in the long run ultimately means they will debate about faith based on what they think is good rather than what is truly good (which is the nature of truth itself).

As a sidenote (and in answer to oppositions), truth always leads to good and righteousness. Teachings that motivate people to be good and righteous originate from truth itself, and this is only testified by personal experiences rather than verbal debates. Pride, selfishness, greed and all other vices oppose the truth and are its enemies. Yet this world is rampant with those vices. God, being the source of truth and the goodness that comes from truth, cannot be out of the equation. The reason this world is rampant with pride etc is because it does not acknowledge God. Again, truth is proven by realities, not debates.

Truth, apart from personal experiences, cannot be verified or debated.

So, no to science?

 

[WoundedDeep]

You don't need faith to pursue "what is good, righteous and consistent with societal wellness." Considering those things is very much an intellectual pursuit. In my view, faith can sometimes impede that pursuit by insisting that what is good matches whatever the person believes their God wants, even if what they believe their God wants is detrimental to others.

When you decide something to be good, you already have faith in it. So, its nonsensical to say you don't need faith to pursue good. Deciding if something is good or not is certainly not an intellectual pursuit.

BOT: When people want to have true debates on faith, they need to know on what basis they are doing it. An intellectual debate is not true debate for faith because it does not even acknowledge what faith means and what's the purpose of faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When you decide something to be good, you already have faith in it. So, its nonsensical to say you don't need faith to pursue good. Deciding if something is good or not is certainly not an intellectual pursuit.

Maybe it's not an intellectual pursuit for you, but don't assume that applies to others.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Maybe it's not an intellectual pursuit for you, but don't assume that applies to others.

So intellectually, how do you define good and evil? And how is that definition different from what faith tells us?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So intellectually, how do you define good and evil? And how is that definition different from what faith tells us?

Before I answer that, what does faith tell us?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Before I answer that, what does faith tell us?

Anything that does not originate from selfless love is not good.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Anything that does not originate from selfless love is not good.

How does faith tell you that?

 

[WoundedDeep]

How does faith tell you that?

Isn't it your turn to answer my question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Isn't it your turn to answer my question?

I'm not certain how to go about answering it because I don't know how you derived that conclusion from faith, or why you couldn't have derived that conclusion without faith. I think that, if we are serious about ethics, pursuing it "intellectually" is an obligation, not a hobby. It involves asking deep questions about what it means to be good, how best to achieve what is good, and how to evaluate the success rate. These are all intellectual exercises animated by ethical principles that are themselves subject to scrutiny.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I'm not certain how to go about answering it because I don't know how you derived that conclusion from faith, or why you couldn't have derived that conclusion without faith. I think that, if we are serious about ethics, pursuing it "intellectually" is an obligation, not a hobby. It involves asking deep questions about what it means to be good, how best to achieve what is good, and how to evaluate the success rate. These are all intellectual exercises animated by ethical principles that are themselves subject to scrutiny.

My question was "how is good and evil defined, intellectually". You have not answered that. Or perhaps, intellectuality does not offer such a definition?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My question was "how is good and evil defined, intellectually". You have not answered that.

In my defence, you haven't answered my question either: how are good and evil defined by faith?