Go back
C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

Spirituality

diver

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
121464
Clock
20 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
Because the last time I was accused of doing something and offered an explanation I was trolled endlessly. I have a perfectly valid explanation but I’m not going to let you have the satisfaction of trolling me again.
This continued behaviour cannot be good for you.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
20 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
You must be enjoying your witch hunt.
I don't think you are any kind of "witch". And there is no "hunt" going on. There is no need to be so paranoid. You are simply being asked to explain your behaviour earlier on this thread [on page 7] and your evasiveness ever since.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
20 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
I am actually quite interested in what the word ‘integrity’ means to someone who's worldview is built upon a foundation of relative truth.
"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.

dj2becker

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
Clock
20 Apr 20

@divegeester said
This continued behaviour cannot be good for you.
Whatever you say Dr Phil.

dj2becker

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
Clock
20 Apr 20

@fmf said
"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.
It was based on a comment made in this thread. But obviously only we only have to start a new thread when it suits you.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
20 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
It was based on a comment made in this thread. But obviously only we only have to start a new thread when it suits you.
I don't need to start a thread about it because I already know what the word "integrity" means. According to YOUR definition of the word, have you been behaving with integrity on this thread.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
20 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
I’m not really even sure you know what that word means within a framework of relative truth.
Why did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?

Ghost of a Duke

Joined
14 Mar 15
Moves
29783
Clock
20 Apr 20

@fmf said
Why did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?
Because he is a profoundly sad individual and has nothing else to offer the forum but endless posts about 'subjective' this and 'absolute truth' that.

(An algorithm would show he uses those expressions in 89% of his posts, irrespective of the topc).

BigDogg
Secret RHP coder

on the payroll

Joined
26 Nov 04
Moves
155080
Clock
20 Apr 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@fmf said
"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.
Oh please dear god no. 😯

diver

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
121464
Clock
21 Apr 20

@dj2becker said
Whatever you say Dr Phil.
My comment was sincerely pitched.

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37328
Clock
21 Apr 20

@secondson said
Well don't. Refer instead to the main point of my assertion in the first post I made on the previous page.
Was that the one where you labelled the physical universe as ‘Creation’ and then used that ‘Creation’ as evidence of a ‘Creator’?
I take it that you have some evidence that the universe was actively created. Otherwise it’s just another circular proposition hinging on your own subjective opinion regarding the supernatural origins of a physical universe.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 20

@kevcvs57 said
I take it that you have some evidence that the universe was actively created.
He also offers, as evidence, the assertion that it is "obvious".

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37328
Clock
21 Apr 20

@fmf said
He also offers, as evidence, the assertion that it is "obvious".
Must be nice not to be bound by any evidential requirement’s for a theory on something as profound as life, the universe and everything.

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
Clock
21 Apr 20

@kevcvs57 said
Must be nice not to be bound by any evidential requirement’s for a theory on something as profound as life, the universe and everything.
It's also "nice" to take the profoundly subjective notions one settles for, having speculated about supernatural things and aligned oneself with some form of codified superstition [a.k.a. religion], and declare them to be the "objective" basis of "absolute" truths, unbound, as you say "by any evidential requirements".

"Nice" is right. And, of course, if it makes someone feel "nice", they should go for it. But if they make assertions about it in public, they should expect some debate and discussion and dissenting views.

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37328
Clock
21 Apr 20
Vote Up
Vote Down

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Because he is a profoundly sad individual and has nothing else to offer the forum but endless posts about 'subjective' this and 'absolute truth' that.

(An algorithm would show he uses those expressions in 89% of his posts, irrespective of the topc).
Are any of the other 13 marieke’s still posting and or playing chess on this site.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.