30 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFSo tell me then if a universal justice system does not exist, why do you pretend to know exactly what 'justice' entails?
But elephants do exist. Their existence is not in dispute. If i was unaware of their existence, you could simply show me one. Try another analogy.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou asked me for my definition of justice and i gave it. I offered my view on why it exists, how it changes, how it varies, and how it can't be characterized as manifesting itself in "exactly" one way, and the reasons for this. I gave examples.
So tell me then if a universal justice system does not exist, why do you pretend to know exactly what 'justice' entails?
You, on the other hand, haven't responded to or addressed any of this. You have simply insisted that there is some other system of justice that you imagine and prefer, that you think is perfect, that you call "real", and the details of which you seem to think are unknowable or, in practical terms, none of our business.
And you think it's me who is 'pretending' to know something in this conversation and not you? That's rich. If anything, you sound like you've never discussed the concept of justice 'out loud' before and the topic arising like this has blindsided you.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have insisted that some sort of "justice" meted out by a supernatural figure is "real" and "universal" but you have been unable to describe it beyond insisting that it exists and you certainly haven't demonstrated that it does.
Actually I have, but it obviously does not fit into your subjective 'relative opinion' of what justice is, since if there is no 'correct universal justice system' all you have is your subjective relative opinion of what constitutes justice.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999I'm quite sure Jesus dying for your sins and mine is such a piece of garbage to you.
I still cannot get over this piece of garbage:
within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God
LOL 😀
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd claiming that it isn't worth your time to simply provide a Biblical reference to back what you said somehow isn't you trying to do a bit of belittling of your own?
To you it isn't worth my time as I told you, you don't have conversations you look only for
ways to belittle.
Originally posted by KellyJayYour continued stalling means that the Bible contains no support for this statement : "..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God. I got it.
To you it isn't worth my time as I told you, you don't have conversations you look only for
ways to belittle.
But rather the Bible preaches the complete opposite. Complacency is foolish. Seeking, looking, searching etc is recommended.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999I'll give you scripture and if you object, you must answer my points as I answer yours.
Your continued stalling means that the Bible contains no support for this statement : "..within the Christian faith we are not to strive to acquire some level of understanding of God to reach some higher plain in the Christian faith our walk is with God. It is God reaching to us not us reaching to God. I got it.
But rather the Bible preaches the complete opposite. Complacency is foolish. Seeking, looking, searching etc is recommended.
This means no, "you figure it out" or running off because questions are put to you.
I've no trouble giving scripture to my beliefs.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayOK proceed and let your quotes match your statements.
I'll give you scripture and if you object, you must answer my points as I answer yours.
This means no, "you figure it out" or running off because questions are put to you.
I've no trouble giving scripture to my beliefs.
Originally posted by sonshipThe problem with your position is that you are insisting that in the Christian cosmology it is consistent for souls to remember their life post-mortem, but that it is not for souls to be able to remember lives after they have ended in cosmologies containing reincarnation. Your justification for this is "God sorts it out". So you've added a necessity claim for souls to retain memories. However, surely this is nomological - there is nothing inconsistent with a possible world where God doesn't need to sort it out and the soul remembers it's mortal existence in whichever afterlife it is destined for, independently of the state of memory of the mortal part during life, and so by extension there is nothing inconsistent in possible worlds similar to the actual world in which reincarnation pertains and souls do remember previous lives although the physical mind of an incarnation only has access to the current life. So I don't think you've established necessity.I'm not sure what your point is. The Christians posting here are defending a statement along the lines of: "God is a necessary condition for absolute justice.".
it is hard for me to see anything else but arbitrary opinion in moral decisions unless there is God.
If you don't like the rapist, murdering pedophile, well that's just your o ...[text shortened]... distant from the ONE cosmic Oversoul Force should be TASKED to reincarnate in the first place ?
But if there is no absolute Person then whose person's opinion should we put as the ultimate standard ?
Well, either this is objective in some way, which seems to be implied by the word "absolute", or it's not. Now, if it is objective then we don't need to rely on anyone's opinion to determine it, it's determined in the way the absolute temperature scale is. If on the other hand it isn't objective then you have to accept LJ's claim that your position is subjectivist.
You seem to be strongly attached to a notion that without a single globally governing personality nothing is possible. Roughly speaking your position seems to be: "Necessarily, if there is no God then nothing else can exist either.". So there is no way that anything could have come about, never mind life, without a God. This has led you to insist that a personality is necessary for something a personality isn't necessary for, in this case the memory of souls.