Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[Not me]

And I responded with a consensus opinion of NT scholars and historians.

And?

In Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

And?

In Christ, Not me

And, what?

 

[DogmaHunter]

“We” is me and you.

I don't seem to remember agreeing on that point with you.
In fact, I keep asking you to define it first, so that there actually is a point to agree or disagree on in the first place.

But you categorically refuse to define the jargon you are using.
So yea....

Since you have stated that you believe there is a thing called “righteousness”, what is that thing?

It doesn't matter how I define the term - I'm not the one who brought it up.
YOU are the one who brought it up and you mentioned it as being a critical ingredient in a method to find out if a god exists or not.

For me to be able to use your method, YOU are going to have to define what YOU mean by it.

Knowning that there are many versions of many things in this world

Again irrelevant. Only the version YOU have matters to the point that YOU are making and the method that YOU are describing.

But are they not exactly that, a version of the thing and not the thing itself. Let us not concern ourself with this or that version, but whether the thing itself exists.

What thing? Unless you define it, I don't know what you mean.

So the question is; does righteousness exist?

Define what YOU mean by it and then I'll be able to see if I agree that it exists or not.

Since “we” have agreed it does exist.

No. There is a thing that *I* refer to with that label that I agree exists.
But if you mean something else by it, then I don't know if I agree that it exists.

Let's illustrate, because it seems as if I'm going to have to explain this word for word for you to get it....

Suppose that by the word "toilet", you mean a magical chair by which we can travel through time and space, while I use that word to describe a place where I can go and take a poo....

If you then ask me if I agre that toilets exist and I answer that with "yes".
Then do we really agree that toilets exist?

Obviously, we don't - because the thing YOU define as "toilet" is very very different from what I mean by the label "toilet".

Get it now?

So, instead of trying to set up this silly dishonest trap of yours, stop asking me if I agree to your ill-defined terms and actually define the terms first.

Coming full circle. Righteousness is “that which is right”

According to your religion? According to your denomination? According to the Nazi's? According to the KKK? According to Putin? According to ISIS? According to secular humanism?

See?

That is what righteousness is in itself. Go and do that and you will meet God.

I've been doing that all my life, according to how I define rightousness. Haven't met any gods.

So I guess that's that, then?

 

[Not me]

Truth can be demonstrated, with facts.

True, but than truth would have to exist first. Does it?

In Christ, Not me

 

[DogmaHunter]

Question; does truth exist?

Yes, in the sense that things are how they are and not how they are not.

This "truth" isn't necessarily known though.

 

[bhsmte]

True, but than truth would have to exist first. Does it?

In Christ, Not me

Facts can help demonstrate, what is most likely to be true.

If you claim to have truth, feel free to demonstrate. We will wait patiently.

 

[Not me]

A property is not a tangible object, correct.

“property” are you talking about a “quality” ?

In Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

“property” are you talking about a “quality” ?

In Christ, Not me

As in “attribute,” yes.

 

[Not me]

And, what?

Facts can help demonstrate, what is most likely to be true.

If you claim to have truth, feel free to demonstrate. We will wait patiently.

I never claimed to “have truth”

In Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

As in “attribute,” yes.

An attribute is not a quality or property if our meaning of quality and property are the same.

In Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

An attribute is not a quality or property if our meaning of quality and property are the same.

In Christ, Not me

Clearly they’re not then. Inertia is a property of matter. It does not exist on its own. Frequency is a property of a wave function. It does not exist on its own. Truth is a property of a proposition. It does not exist on its own.

 

[Not me]

I don't seem to remember agreeing on that point with you.
In fact, I keep asking you to define it first, so that there actually is a point to agree or disagree on in the first place.

But you categorically refuse to define the jargon you are using.
So yea....



It doesn't matter how I define the term - I'm not the one who brought it up.
YOU are the one who brought it up and you mentioned it as being a critical ingredient in a method to find out if a god exists or not.

For me to be able to use your method, YOU are going to have to define what YOU mean by it.



Again irrelevant. Only the version YOU have matters to the point that YOU are making and the method that YOU are describing.




What thing? Unless you define it, I don't know what you mean.



Define what YOU mean by it and then I'll be able to see if I agree that it exists or not.



No. There is a thing that *I* refer to with that label that I agree exists.
But if you mean something else by it, then I don't know if I agree that it exists.

Let's illustrate, because it seems as if I'm going to have to explain this word for word for you to get it....

Suppose that by the word "toilet", you mean a magical chair by which we can travel through time and space, while I use that word to describe a place where I can go and take a poo....

If you then ask me if I agre that toilets exist and I answer that with "yes".
Then do we really agree that toilets exist?

Obviously, we don't - because the thing YOU define as "toilet" is very very different from what I mean by the label "toilet".

Get it now?

So, instead of trying to set up this silly dishonest trap of yours, stop asking me if I agree to your ill-defined terms and actually define the terms first.



According to your religion? According to your denomination? According to the Nazi's? According to the KKK? According to Putin? According to ISIS? According to secular humanism?

See?




I've been doing that all my life, according to how I define rightousness. Haven't met any gods.

So I guess that's that, then?

“We” have agreed there is this “thing” called righteousness, correct?

than the question was asked “what is it”

The answer is “that which is right”

Than the question was, people have different definitions of what the word righteousness means. Which is correct. So the question was asked what is righteousness “in itself” not anyone’s particular version.

Than it was answered again; righteousness is that which is right. For that is what righteousness is.

In Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

Clearly they’re not then. Inertia is a property of matter. It does not exist on its own. Frequency is a property of a wave function. It does not exist on its own. Truth is a property of a proposition. It does not exist on its own.

Which is not the same attributes, properly or quality?

In Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

I never claimed to “have truth”

In Christ, Not me

Oh, ok, I just keep seeing you use the term "truth".

But if you don't claim to have any truth, that's cool.

 

[gaara4158]

Which is not the same attributes, properly or quality?

In Christ, Not me

I don’t know because I don’t know how you’re using those words. Refer to my other examples to understand what I mean by “property.”

 

[Not me]

Oh, ok, I just keep seeing you use the term "truth".

But if you don't claim to have any truth, that's cool.

But I do believe you can “know truth”

In Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

But I do believe you can “know truth”

In Christ, Not me

Cool.

 

[Not me]

I don’t know because I don’t know how you’re using those words. Refer to my other examples to understand what I mean by “property.”

Than how can you say they are the same?

In Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

Yes, in the sense that things are how they are and not how they are not.

This "truth" isn't necessarily known though.

True, it (truth) be known.

In Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Than how can you say they are the same?

In Christ, Not me

They’re not identical, but you were asking for a synonym so I did my best. Do you still not understand what I mean by “property?”