Kimmel is Back

[childeye 2]

So the place to be is on the fence, never taking a strong position because it might offend others.
I don't buy it

I wouldn't buy it either even because you're misrepresenting what I said.

I'm talking about an objective view of two subjective views. There can be no self-interest in "taking a strong position" when your interest is trying to find the objective view.

Remember? I said that in a valid left/right dichotomy the objective view is at the center between two opposing subjective yet equally valid views. At the center is agreement, fairness, balance and justice.

Look at one of your hands and let's say that it represents 'give', and that your other hand represents 'take'. Now I ask you, in the moral/immoral context within a society, do you give more than you take? If you gave the same that you took, there would be an equal balance, fairness, justice, agreement. Now let me elaborate on that thought.

These are examples of valid Left/right dichotomies. They are objective views of two subjective equally valid views --> Buyer/seller, Democracy/autocracy, worker/employer, consumer/supplier. <-- Notice that each side has their own subsets of give/take showing that they are two opposing subjective views.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

To me you're speaking about the difference between the carnal and the spiritual mind. Because for me, the sentiment expressed in the words 'carnal vanity' implies the futility of comparing oneself with others and feeling either lifted up or put down in the process. The reasoning of the carnal mind is bound to end in hypocrisy because it judges as if goodness is manifested through the carnal effort of each individual to not be bad.

It's therefore easy to introduce the false premise, often present in propaganda, that the left/right dichotomy represents two absolutes such as good/evil or true/false, or right/wrong, and therefore that either the right or the left must be responsible for Charlie Kirks murder.

This improper use of a left/right dichotomy occurs only because people don't understand that the left/right dichotomy represents two opposing SUBJECTIVE views that are both equally valid. That is to say that the LEFT/RIGHT dichotomy denotes an OBJECTIVE view existing at the center where there is agreement, fairness, balance and justice. OBJECTIVELY, a person on the right can lean left and still be to the right of center, and a person on the left can lean right and still be to the left of center.

Subsequently, the carnal mind works the ends against the middle in hypocrisy, and the spiritual mind works the ends towards the middle in loving others as oneself.

I'm no better than anyone else on earth.
But there are people who choose the wrong path in God's eyes.

I disagree with your opinion here overall.
Maybe to better understand where you're coming from, what denomination, if any, are you?

 

[childeye 2]

I'm no better than anyone else on earth.

But there are people who choose the wrong path in God's eyes.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I disagree with your opinion here overall.

It's not my opinion; I had to learn these things. Maybe you disagree with my articulation? Show me a single sentence that you disagree with.

Maybe to better understand where you're coming from, what denomination, if any, are you?

I'm not of any. As a theist, I see one source of the energy that formed all things. The Imagery I trusted in is contained in the Christ.

 

[Tuur]

Since movements like social cancelling and similar resulted in someone taking offense having precedence over the constitution .. well we all know what a body without a constitution is like, it's prone .. just prone.

Ah...no. If you're referring to the US Constitution, the 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." There is no law that says an American who takes it upon himself to urge his employer's customers to go elsewhere is subject to dismissal, but I know of no company who wouldn't do just that. The idea that the 1st Amendment allows someone to say anything they please without any repercussions whatsoever is flat-out wrong.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

I'm not of any. As a theist, I see one source of the energy that formed all things.

...thanks for your reply to this, it makes things clear.


Thanks for your opinions, but like I said, I disagree.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[childeye 2]

Thanks for your opinions, but like I said, I disagree.

They are not my opinions; I had to learn how to use these dichotomies through study. You say you disagree, but you don't say what you disagree with specifically. You didn't put forth a single sentence that you disagreed with when asked.

Are you afraid to learn something and find out you're wrong? For the scriptures teach that a wise person loves instruction, but a fool despises correction.

 

[childeye 2]

childeye 2 said:
I'm not of any. As a theist, I see one source of the energy that formed all things.

...thanks for your reply to this, it makes things clear.

Just saying that Monotheism means One God to trust in for everybody. One Christ Image. One Holy Spirit. One Faith.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ah...no. If you're referring to the US Constitution, the 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." There is no law that says an American who takes it upon himself to urge his employer's customers to go elsewhere is subject to dismissal, but I know of no company who wouldn't do just that. The idea that the 1st Amendment allows someone to say anything they please without any repercussions whatsoever is flat-out wrong.

For a while there, that's how it was being applied. But good to know.