Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ha ha ha... he'd eviscerate your subjective faith claims in seconds flat. Ha ha ha.
*ETA: I've actually heard guys like you call his show numerous times, only to be embarrassed and left with their tale between their legs.
Ha ha ha.
That's great but would you mind explaining your point?
I see you meant that a some philosophers gave a meaning for their use of the term. Then by the definition given by Loudmouth I am not a subjectivist. That definition definitely does not follow the term that they applied it to.Subjectivism is a non-colloquial category of existential ontology.
I see you meant that a some philosophers gave a meaning for their use of the term. Then by the definition given by Loudmouth I am not a subjectivist. That definition definitely does not follow the term that they applied it to.
Once again, morality is relative. You can call me a "relativist" if you want to unless that word has a philosophical definition that does not follow the word. I am not a huge fan of philosophy. Yes, it does have some uses. But it seems that is has far more abuses.
I don't recall seeing a response from PF to this post:
----------------------
Let's try this exercise. How would any of the following sources for the origin of life on earth effect the theory of evolution?
- Abiogenesis
- Panspermia
- Fiat creation by God
- Something kooky like being a science class experiment by hyper-dimensional high school students
A legend in your own mind. Ha ha ha.
I must admit though, for some reason, your arguments from incredulity are slightly less boring than others that come through here.
Ha ha ha.
If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope; (and yet evolution is only a hypothesis anyway).Nope. But it was already removed from legit science classrooms a long time ago cause it was proven to not to be a legit science. Irl I don't think any rational Christian entertains creation science any more than they would the earth being flat. Folks on the internet old enough to be my grandpa just get their kicks having peeing contests about it it seems, maybe cause they don't have anything else to do w their time.
Pick one. How would it affect the study of evolution?Certainly the positive knowledge of any of them as the causal mechanism would affect the direction of future study and present understanding.
How would depend on which one is true.
If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope.
Pick one. How would it affect the study of evolution?
Good question. Sleeping on it and I will answer.
If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope; (and yet evolution is only a hypothesis anyway).
Reminds me of this exchage between these 2 guys concerning evolution in the schools [there is also a 1999 version of this movie]:FutureAndAHope said: ↑
So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.
Good luck with that. Try to get it taken out of the classroom or try including creationism in the classroom and you'll be sued into oblivion. If you have the money for lawyers and don't mind losing, go for it. Kitzmiller vs Dover was an embarrassment for intelligent design advocates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it. You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.
Okay, here is Gods objective morality:
1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)
All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.
Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?
That's honestly the goofiest interpretation of subjectivism that I have ever heard.
And I am not being rude. A philosophical tenet is what we believe. Our ontology. Evidence for our belief is epistemology. The elements that give us reason to believe our ontology.
So subjectivism is the belief that whatever I think up in my head is the truth. The rock solid undisputable truth, because I thought it up. And I really can't trust anything else anyone else thought up.
So you are saying that faith and subjectivism are the same?
Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it.
You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.
Okay, here is Gods objective morality:
1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)
All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.
Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?
Nope. I hate myself, nothing would be worse than if I decided to treat other people as I would myself. Or view them as badly as I do myself. I would end up hating people more, and less reasonably.Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it. You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.
Okay, here is Gods objective morality:
1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)
All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.
Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?
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?