- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Southern Baptist ban on women pastors fails in historic vote
Posted on 6/23/24 at 4:19 pm to Seldom Seen
Posted on 6/23/24 at 4:19 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
Southern Baptist ban on women pastors fails in historic vote
This is misleading, and I don't believe the article is accurate. The SBC already bans women pastors. This would have allowed the executive committee to expel churches for allowing women pastors without that expulsion needing to come before the convention for a vote, similar to how it is currently done for LGBT-affirming churches in the SBC.
I would have liked this to pass, but this definitely does not allow women pastors in SBC churches, as this line from the article would lead me to believe:
quote:
The Southern Baptist Convention rejected Wednesday a constitutional ban on women pastors
In actuality, the SBC bylaws already ban women pastors and just last year one of the largest SBC churches was expelled for allowing them.
This post was edited on 6/23/24 at 5:04 pm
0
Posted on 6/23/24 at 5:24 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Looks to me like you have given up trying to defend your positions and your faith and have resorted to trolling.
No. I’m just holding you to your claim that morality is subjective, giving you an example of something that is objectively wrong, and asking for a logical refutation of that example- which you cannot provide. Though, I admit to a moderate amount of trolling. But, like I said, I thought you would find it humorous.
quote:
I can’t give you an example of how that could ever be morally acceptable using subjective ethics.
Bingo. Because it is objectively immoral.
quote:
Maybe you should look at Nazi ethics if that interests you.
Great point. If the nazis had won the war, and forced their own twisted ideology on the world- would they be morally justified? Does might = right?
quote:
Maybe you should check out the ethics of the Yahweh-worshipping ancient Canaanite raiders who allegedly killed all those women, children, and babies all across lower Canaan a few thousand years ago.
Lol. I know this is ultimately where you want to steer the conversation. You don’t like being the defendant, huh? That should tell you something about your worldview. It’s indefensible. No, you want to be the judge, jury, and executioner. But, if all morality is truly subjective, then by what standard do you judge the actions of the Canaanites?
quote:
Subject was dead a month ago. I had already explained to you in all the detail I could to get my point across to you. You may disagree with my viewpoint, but I think you should accept that I answered your question.
Well, I think you tried. But, it is an impossible task. That’s all I wanted you to see.
quote:
It’s worth reiterating that there is nothing objective contained within the Bible anyway
God is the objective standard by which we measure morality. The Bible is God’s Word. It’s full of objective truths. The 10 Commandments, Proverbs, and on and on. But, those are just the well known and obvious ones. How about this:
Romans 8:7 (NASB95): 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
This is you, to a tee.
The bottom line is, that you have to steal from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the world around you.
quote:
I regularly attend Catholic mass, go to communion, and do all the charitable stuff so that my kids will fit in well at Catholic school and so that the other parents won’t think I’m a godless heathen.
It ticks me off some that my tithing is contributing to the indoctrination of the brains of the gullible and to pay off the settlements of paedophile priests. But my kids ain’t going to public schools with the dregs of society and the blue haired tranny teachers.
They are smart kids. They will figure it out one day (that Christianity is fantasy) and I will have to explain to them that we purposely kept them ignorant for their own good so they could have the best childhood and get the best education.
You want all of the benefits of Christianity on one hand, but want to destroy it with the other. You are a gravely conflicted individual.
quote:
It would be nice if you would response to my point rather than evading the question
It would be nice if you would make one point. But you don’t. You try to overwhelm people with a Gish gallop style of argumentation (oh the irony
). Which is why I chose to hone in on the issue of objective morality. You see, if there is no objective standard of truth and morality, then there really is no point in arguing, as there would be no definitive right or wrong position. Perhaps you should consider C. S. Lewis’ arguments for objective morality.
1) Quarreling between two or more individuals. When quarreling occurs, individuals assume there is an objective standard of right and wrong, of which each person is aware and one has broken. Why quarrel if no objective standard exists?
2) It’s obvious that an objective moral standard exists. Throughout history, mankind has generally agreed that “the human idea of decent behavior [is] obvious to everyone.” For example, it’s obvious (or self-evident) that torturing a child for fun is morally reprehensible.
3) Mistreatment. One might say he does not believe in objective morality, however, the moment he is mistreated he will react as if such a standard exists. When one denies the existence of an objective standard of behavior, the moment he is mistreated, “he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair!’ before you can say Jack Robinson.”
4) Measuring value systems. When an individual states that one value system is better than another, or attempts to replace a particular value system with a better one, he assumes there is an objective standard of judgment. This objective standard of judgment, which is different from either value system, helps one conclude that one value system conforms more closely to the moral standard than another. Without some sort of objective measuring stick for value systems, there is no way to conclude that civilized morality, where humans treat one another with dignity and respect, is better than savage morality, where humans brutally murder others, even within their own tribe at times, for various reasons.
5) Attempting to improve morally. Certainly, countless individuals attempt to improve themselves morally on a daily basis. No sane person wakes up and declares, “My goal is to become more immoral today!” If there is no absolute standard of good which exists, then talk of moral improvement is nonsensical and actual moral progress is impossible. If no ultimate standard of right and wrong exists, then one might change his actions, but he can never improve his morality.
6) Reasoning over moral issues. When men reason over moral issues, it is assumed there is an objective standard of right and wrong. If there is no objective standard, then reasoning over moral issues is on the same level as one arguing with his friends about the best flavor of ice cream at the local parlor (“I prefer this” and “I don’t like that”). In short, a world where morality is a matter of preference makes it impossible to have meaningful conversations over issues like adultery, sexuality, abortion, immigration, drugs, bullying, stealing, and so on.
7) Feeling a sense of obligation over moral matters. The words “ought” and “ought not” imply the existence of an objective moral law that mankind recognizes and feels obligated to follow. Virtually all humans would agree that one ought to try to save the life of a drowning child and that one ought not kill innocent people for sheer entertainment. It is also perfectly intelligible to believe that humans are morally obligated to possess (or acquire) traits such as compassion, mercifulness, generosity, and courage.
8) Making excuses for not behaving appropriately. If one does not believe in an objective standard of behavior, then why should he become anxious to make excuses for how he behaved in a given circumstance? Why doesn’t he just go on with his life without defending himself? After all, a man doesn’t have to defend himself if there is no standard for him to fall short of or altogether break. Lewis maintains, “The truth is, we believe in decency so much – we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so – that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.”
By refusing the existence of a transcendent, objective standard of morality- you forfeit the ability to appeal to anything beyond personal preference and opinion. It’s pure foolishness.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 10:32 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Prodigal Son
Great post, sir.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 4:34 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
God is the objective standard by which we measure morality. The Bible is God’s Word. It’s full of objective truths. The 10 Commandments, Proverbs, and on and on.
Why just the 10 Commandments? There are actually more than 10, but I’m quite sure you violate many of the others. Were the others just subjective?
Posted on 6/24/24 at 4:51 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
If Christians would worry more about what the Bible says than what the SBC, or ANY other denomination says, there would be no need to vote on anything like this. It’s clear.
Yep, so clear that there are hundreds of denominations and religions built on the same "clear" book. All of which think many if not most of the others are wrong enough that they are still doomed to eternal torment despite their beliefs in the supposed same god.
This post was edited on 6/24/24 at 6:15 am
Posted on 6/24/24 at 10:48 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
God is the objective standard by which we measure morality
Your god is a figment of your imagination.
quote:
It’s full of objective truths.
There is nothing objectively true contained in the Bible. I’ve showed you this more times than I can count. Hell, there’s nothing objectively anything in the Bible because “the Bible” doesn’t agree with itself comparing book to book or even within books.
quote:
This is you, to a tee.
No, I am not hostile to your god. I don’t reject your god. I simply do not believe in the existence of your god, because I have no evidence for, but an overwhelming evidence against. I don’t hate your god, and I don’t hate the tooth fairy or the boogey monster or the Cookie Monster.
quote:
The bottom line is, that you have to steal from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the world around you
Pure ignorance and stupidity right there, I am sorry to have to state. I don’t believe in a solid dome firmament, nor do I believe the earth is 6000 years old or flat, and I don’t believe a magical Superman in the sky had to kill himself to pay a ransom to himself to satisfy himself so he could save us from a hell that he created. I don’t believe demons cause sickness or that demons are lurking around every corner trying to tempt us to do something bad. There’s nothing true about the world that is contained within the Bible.
quote:
By refusing the existence of a transcendent, objective standard of morality- you forfeit the ability to appeal to anything beyond personal preference and opinion. It’s pure foolishness.
I don’t forfeit anything. I can and do appeal at will. Even if there was a god, and even if that god was your god Yahweh Sabaoth, the Bible still doesn’t contain objective morality because the morality contained within is not objective. I’ve given you plenty of examples, and I know you are capable of understanding, but you refuse to comment on or even acknowledge the examples I’ve given you. You know your position is indefensible but your will to believe in imaginary tales overrides the logical part of your brain.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 6:29 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Why just the 10 Commandments? There are actually more than 10
Yeah. 613 in the Old Testament alone. All of which were derived from what Jesus called the greatest commandments- to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and the second- to love your neighbor as your self.
quote:
but I’m quite sure you violate many of the others
No doubt. I can’t even keep the two that Jesus spoke of. But that’s the whole point of the law- to point us to the fact that we cannot keep the whole law. And, therefore, we are in need of a Savior. That is exactly what substitutionary atonement is all about. Look it up. God created beings of free will; knowing that we would initially fail- and so He also provided a means to escape the penalties of sin (which is death) by offering Himself as the sacrifice for our salvation. It’s really pretty simple, when you think about it. God is eternal. He is the perfect standard of righteousness. Anything short of that dies, and is therefore not eternal. All of humanity; from Adam and Eve, to the last humans walking the earth before judgement, and all of the actions/inactions of mankind- are to be likened to a child touching a hot stove. It is the necessary education that is required to bring a God-like understanding of the nature of all sin to lesser beings without compromising their free will.
quote:
Were the others just subjective?
Some were, sure. I can’t recall all 613, but I know that a lot of the dietary laws were subject to a particular people at a particular time in history. But, even an atheist, if he’s being honest, can recognize that the laws that deal with how we treat each other are objectively valid- throughout all of human history.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 7:14 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:How did you come to that conclusion? Obviously there are millions of Jews around the world who are still keeping those dietary laws. What makes you say they are no longer valid?
I know that a lot of the dietary laws were subject to a particular people at a particular time in history.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 7:16 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Some were, sure. I can’t recall all 613, but I know that a lot of the dietary laws were subject to a particular people at a particular time in history.
How do you know some were? And how do you know some were only subject to a particular people at a particular time?
Posted on 6/24/24 at 8:03 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Your god is a figment of your imagination.
Who’s trolling now?
But seriously, don’t you see how you routinely make truth claims that you admittedly cannot prove? You’re like one of those contestants on the first couple episodes of American Idol who really thinks he can sing. So fitting. And, I’m not trolling. I’m just letting you know you have a visible booger in your nose. 
quote:
There is nothing objectively true contained in the Bible. I’ve showed you this more times than I can count.
Really? Nothing? Murder, theft, adultery- not objectively wrong? You got some splainin to do. Try to explain to your wife how adultery is not objectively wrong, and report back. That Catholic school tuition is going to be a real drain- once you factor in alimony, child support, and medical expenses.
quote:
Hell, there’s nothing objectively anything in the Bible because “the Bible” doesn’t agree with itself comparing book to book or even within books.
We’ve been over this- ad nauseam. There are logical, rational, and reasonable explanations for every apparent contradiction. We all have the same evidence. Our interpretations are inevitably based upon the lense through which we see. I readily admit this- as it is exactly what the Bible teaches. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the possibility of being wrong- because the implications of being wrong are too much to bear. Who is more trustworthy? Someone who is willing to admit he may be wrong- or someone who will stop at nothing to be right? Who is more desperate? Someone who has nothing to lose? Or someone who has everything to lose? Your position, by default, is one of incredible weakness.
quote:
No, I am not hostile to your god. I don’t reject your god.
Do you even read your own posts?
quote:
I don’t hate your god, and I don’t hate the tooth fairy or the boogey monster or the Cookie Monster.
Show me one single post of you railing against the Cookie Monster, and I’ll believe you.
quote:
I don’t believe in a solid dome firmament, nor do I believe the earth is 6000 years old or flat, and I don’t believe a magical Superman in the sky had to kill himself to pay a ransom to himself to satisfy himself so he could save us from a hell that he created. I don’t believe demons cause sickness or that demons are lurking around every corner trying to tempt us to do something bad.
Obviously. But you sure do believe in building and attacking straw men. So brave!
quote:
There’s nothing true about the world that is contained within the Bible.
The historical accuracy of the Bible has been, and continues to be, verified by hundreds, if not thousands, of archaeological discoveries. The Pilate Stone, for example. You are really embarrassing yourself.
quote:
I don’t forfeit anything. I can and do appeal at will.
Ah. But, you do. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are stealing from the Christian worldview. Your naturalistic/materialistic worldview cannot account for these things. Where does free will come from- in a materialistic worldview? How does your worldview describe what it means to love your children? It doesn’t. It only steals from the Christian worldview. And, as we have learned from the objective truth of the Bible- stealing is wrong.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 8:35 pm to L.A.
quote:
How did you come to that conclusion? Obviously there are millions of Jews around the world who are still keeping those dietary laws. What makes you say they are no longer valid?
Do these millions of Jews, that you speak of, confess Jesus Christ as Lord? Have they not read:
Mark 7:15–19 (NASB95): there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [“?If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] 17 ?When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He ?*said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and ?is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
Posted on 6/24/24 at 8:37 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
How do you know some were?
See previous post.
quote:
And how do you know some were only subject to a particular people at a particular time?
It’s called deductive reasoning by reading comprehension. The 66books of the Bible, by 40~ authors, tell a cohesive meta narrative from Genesis to Revelation. It’s pretty obvious (to me) that God has been educating humanity according to our ability to learn- the way a Father teaches His children. (With love and patience)
This post was edited on 6/24/24 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 6/24/24 at 9:21 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:Most Christians are Gentiles. The Law of Moses was never intended for Gentiles.
Do these millions of Jews, that you speak of, confess Jesus Christ as Lord?
quote:
Have they not read:
Mark 7:15–19 (NASB95): there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [“?If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] 17 ?When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He ?*said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and ?is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
But Jesus also said this:
quote:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17
Jesus was a Jew. Are you saying that he did away with His Father's Law? Are you suggesting that there is progressive revelation? That God told the Jews one thing for 1200 years, them told them something else that was contradictory? If so, I assume that you are a Mormon, because Mormons believe in progressive revelation. Most other Christians do not.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 9:23 pm to Seldom Seen
This is what happens when a breakaway, heretical sect founded 1600 years after Christ’s ascension and founding of his church strays from the truth of Christ’s Holy Church.
Posted on 6/24/24 at 9:24 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
It’s called deductive reasoning by reading comprehension.
You’re making it up. I get it. Just like how all those contradictions in the Bible magically disappear when you decide that they should. Posted on 6/24/24 at 9:56 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
But seriously, don’t you see how you routinely make truth claims that you admittedly cannot prove?
Except that I prove over and over that there isn’t any truth about our reality contained within the Bible. Admittedly? Shiiiittt, I prove it all the time. I can’t prove a supernatural being doesn’t exist, but I can prove the subject matter of the Bible to be patently false, and I do.
quote:
You’re like one of those contestants on the first couple episodes of American Idol who really thinks he can sing.
You are like Dr. Sam Beckett in the body of Jimmy LaMotta, before you make your big discovery.
quote:
Murder
If God said they had it coming, then it ain’t murder!
quote:
theft
The Israelites stole the Egyptians livestock and treasure and then stole the land of the Canaanites. But they had it coming didn’t they, because they were so displeasing to Yahweh Sabaoth! So it ain’t theft!
quote:
adultery
Even “Jesus” said Yahweh’s laws were barbaric and savage. Yahweh says to stone adulterers. Jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The objectivity of what we should do to adulterers is killing me!
quote:
Your position, by default, is one of incredible weakness.
My position is one of rational thought and sensibility. It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want. Facts don’t care about my feelings.
quote:
Do you even read your own posts?
I often wonder if you read mine and actually take the time to understand what I am stating. I don’t reject “God”. There’s nothing to reject. I reject your baseless assertion that your particular god exists. There’s a difference.
quote:
Show me one single post of you railing against the Cookie Monster, and I’ll believe you.
If guys like you started a death cult asserting the Cookie Monster created the universe and killed his only son as a sacrifice to himself so that he would be capable of forgiveness, and that everyone who doesn’t believe that nonsense is doomed to an eternity of torture, let me know.
quote:quote:Obviously. But you sure do believe in building and attacking straw men. So brave!
I don’t believe in a solid dome firmament, nor do I believe the earth is 6000 years old or flat, and I don’t believe a magical Superman in the sky had to kill himself to pay a ransom to himself to satisfy himself so he could save us from a hell that he created. I don’t believe demons cause sickness or that demons are lurking around every corner trying to tempt us to do something bad.
You don’t know what a straw man or a fallacy even is apparently. You have a right to be ashamed for believing in such things, as it is shameful, but it’s no straw man fallacy. That’s what the Bible teaches.
quote:
The historical accuracy of the Bible has been, and continues to be, verified by hundreds, if not thousands, of archaeological discoveries.
Except archaeologists have proven that most of the Bible is bullshite. No Adam. No global flood. No Abraham. No Moses. No mass exodus from Egypt. No conquest of Canaan. No unified Israel/Judah under David/Solomon. No David. No (real) Solomon except that he was named after a Canaanite sun god. There probably was a real Omri, a real Mesha of Moab, a real Hezekiah, a real Josiah, a real Cyrus, a real Pontius Pilate, but most of what is attributed to the ones that did exist are all fabrications and the rest are literally fabrications confirmed to be false by the consensus of modern archaeologists.
quote:
The Pilate Stone
Very cool. Wake me up if something is found dating to 30-40CE about Jesus of Nazareth.
quote:
you are stealing from the Christian worldview
How ironic coming from someone whose worldview comes from the religion of Midianite raiders mixed with the Canaanite pantheon further appended and modified by Persian Zoroastrianism and then mixed with a little Greek personal savior cult nonsense.
There’s nothing original about Christianity.
Modern morality and ethics and our modern criminal justice system and basis of our laws outright rejects the biblical morality. A major problem with biblical morality is it is not just one morality, but many conflicting ones, with the worst supporting genocide and slavery. And child sacrifice.
quote:
32And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.
There is nothing objective in the Bible concerning morality. Certainly not on the subject of child sacrifice.
Sad.
Posted on 6/25/24 at 5:11 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Prodigal Son
I know how much you like clowning around, and I know you have thick skin. I thought you might like to see this short 4 minute video of you and Foo having a discussion about atheists.
ETA: would probably help if I included the link to the video.
Analysis of interview with an atheist
This post was edited on 6/25/24 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 6/26/24 at 8:23 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
If the nazis had won the war, and forced their own twisted ideology on the world- would they be morally justified? Does might = right?
One problem when analyzing a subjective morality is that people use an objective morality to do so, and one should not conflated two. If the Nazis won, and are the majority, it doesn’t make them morally justified. They are wrong simply because I think they wrong. Everyone in the world can think they are right but if I think they are wrong, I can say their actions are immoral and try to persuade others
At the very least Christians use a combination of subjective and objective morality, at the most their morality is subjective just like an atheist.
What makes God morally objective, his existence, his nature, his laws, or his conveyance of those laws? Can you have moral objectivity if it’s interpreted wrong?
To me, it doesn’t seem like Christians actually act in accordance to objective morality, and actually use subjective morality. There are so many subjective interpretations resulting in different sects, denominations and traditions, and then add in prayer for individual subjective messages… How is God’s conveyance of his message in this way objective? If God provides an objective morality, but it’s able to be so widely interpreted subjectively, getting lost in translation, then it’s subjective before one can attempt to even understand it.
Not to get on topic of individual prescriptions but more rhetorically, how does a Christian objectively say that something like slavery is bad when it’s condoned by God? Or renouncing woman’s silence, or contradictions on the topic. One has to negotiate with the text, and that’s not objective. How do you objectively decide that something modern is right and wrong, like receiving blood transfusions, or letting a three year old use a tablet for hours and hours. I imagine you can find a verse or chapter that confirms your biases, and can see how as an individual one can point to a certain scripture and say “this is why I do this”, but at the same time Christians do not adopt all of the prescriptions, and sometimes only half a prescription. Is this not a subjective perspective?
Let’s say if morality is objective, varying interpretations wouldn’t make it subjective, you might just be wrong. So it’s possible to have moral objectivity and everyone be wrong? And also no way of knowing for sure what the rules actually are?
So Christians and Muslims can both have objective morality, even though they may contradict each other?
This kinda seems like not actually having morals that are objective, but just feeling or believing like they are objective.
This post was edited on 6/26/24 at 11:13 am
Posted on 6/26/24 at 9:06 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You’re making it up. I get it. Just like how all those contradictions in the Bible magically disappear when you decide that they should
All interpretation is “made up.” Interpretation is subjective by nature. It’s the truth inference to the best explanation, according to the presuppositions of the interpreter. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a correct interpretation, or many incorrect interpretations. As far as contradictions in literature go, biblical or otherwise, if the apparent contradiction can be reconciled- then it is not necessarily a contradiction.
Posted on 6/26/24 at 11:10 am to Prodigal Son
So it’s objective not because it is conveyed by God, but because you believe it is? So you could be wrong and it’s still be objective. To clarify, it’s not objective because you’re right, it’s subjective because you think you’re right, and in line with a creators desires? You would likely say that Islam is not right, but In the same way you view morality, a Muslim would think his morality is objective also. Would you agree?
I think I see your point about interpretation, that they’re all created in the mind, and leads us down some esoteric metaphysical conversation about what can really be known.
Some interpretations we feel more confident about that others, feel more certain about. We know when someone’s really mad at us, or thankful. If those things are possible, then it would follow that if God intended to have a relationship with us, there would be no reasonable non-belief. I imagine this is part of the argument of divine hiddenness.
I think I see your point about interpretation, that they’re all created in the mind, and leads us down some esoteric metaphysical conversation about what can really be known.
Some interpretations we feel more confident about that others, feel more certain about. We know when someone’s really mad at us, or thankful. If those things are possible, then it would follow that if God intended to have a relationship with us, there would be no reasonable non-belief. I imagine this is part of the argument of divine hiddenness.
This post was edited on 6/26/24 at 11:22 am
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News