- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 21
3 edits
. Your assertions about "the objective Divine" are subjective and personal. They are not objective. The same can be said about the assertions I make about your belief in supernatural things: they are subjective and not objective.
You say:
My assertions of the objective Divine- subjective and personal to me.
Your assertions about them - subjective and personal to you.
Instead of shifting to attack my integrity, explain WHY I should not understand you to mean above that subjective and personal assertions, EITHER mine or YOURS are not objectively true, but only subjective, personal, relatively to the asserter as true?
No use you deflecting to attack my integrity. Unless you can explain what I see above is.
My assertions are relatively true.
Your assertions are relatively true.
But at least you are above it all objectively to know that this is the true case in an absolute sense.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 21
2 edits
FMF, Let's just cut to the chase.
Do you know Jesus lied ?
Ie. You know that He is not the Son of God.
Is that true truth?
I suspect that you'll elect to say He either never claimed or acted in such a manner.
I suspect that you'll avoid calling Christ a liar by saying others said things FOR Him that He never said.
I suspect you'll avoid the question by blaming Christ on imaginative lying other people - like some Galilean fishermen perhaps?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 21
2 edits
No, I think truth exists. What I'm saying is that your conjecture about supernatural things and my conjecture about supernatural things are both subjective and not objective. You can insist that your conjecture is "the truth" 10,000 times. It makes no difference. If that's your coping mechanism, so be it.
It is not repetition that I am depending on.
It is rather that you cannot erase Jesus from history.
He's there and not going away.
Now He was either truth telling.
Or He was mistaken and self deceived.
Or He was insane, even wickedly so.
Or other people ingeniously concocted Him and conspired to deceive the world for centuries to come after the time of Jesus.
Then He could be simply be the truth and saying the truth and acting in a manner that vindicated His truthfulness.
Which of these scenarios are you going to commit to?
I don't think 10,000 repetitions are needed. I think one or two good honest looks at Jesus Christ should put one on the right track. I think it is the denying of such a Person which calls for the denier to invent 10,000 excuses to do so.
22 May 21
@sonship saidWe can be objective about things like what the temperature is outside, how many people live in my street, or what the law is regarding abortion in Indonesia. When you and I speculate about non-empirical things, the assertions that arise out of our conjecture are, by their very nature, subjective, regardess of how certain or sincere we are about them. Even your claim that your belief in Jesus is objective is a subjective claim.. Your assertions about "the objective Divine" are subjective and personal. They are not objective. The same can be said about the assertions I make about your belief in supernatural things: they are subjective and not objective.
You say:
My assertions of the objective Divine- subjective and personal to me.
Your assertions about them - subjecti ...[text shortened]... t at least you are above it all objectively to know that this is the true case in an absolute sense.
22 May 21
@sonship saidother people ingeniously concocted Him and conspired to deceive the world for centuries to come after the time of Jesus.
... you cannot erase Jesus from history.
He's there and not going away.
Now He was either truth telling.
Or He was mistaken and self deceived.
Or He was insane, even wickedly so.
Or other people ingeniously concocted Him and conspired to deceive the world for centuries to come after the time of Jesus.
Then He could be simply be the truth and sa ...[text shortened]... manner that vindicated His truthfulness.
Which of these scenarios are you going to commit to?
I see Christianity as a kind of cult of personality centred on a figure ~ perhaps a composite of more than one person, but we'll probably never know for sure ~ created quite deliberately decades after his execution by the Romans.
Decades of 'Chinese whispers' passed on by all manner of people and groups, and sub-groups, all in many respects in competition with each other; dozens of other supposedly 'eye witness accounts' rejected; nothing finalized until literally hundreds of years later, when corporate Christianity had finally finessed its fastidiously assembled text.
I have no doubt that all manner of emotions and elements were in play: earnestness, hysteria, ambition, good-intentions, fervour, imagination, conjecture, melodrama, faulty memory, errors, omissions, assumptions, embellishments, fascination, zealotry, creativity and, yes, most likely deceit as well in some cases.
Countless people, over many, many years. What's the upshot of 'survival of the fittest' when accounts of magical things are competing for the hearts and minds of potential subscribers? The product of all this has been a very successful and enduring religion.
22 May 21
@sonship saidI have not been deflecting. I am tackling you head on. Your suggestion that I have said "truth doesn't exist" is false. You're either being low-integrity by using this strawman, or what I am saying is going over your head.
No use you deflecting to attack my integrity. Unless you can explain what I see above is.