It sure is quiet on the thread I started.
Then let’s make it difficult.
Eternity can only be “sensed” (for want of a better word) as eternity by God. We sense only “time”.
We CAN accurately REMEMBER a past occurance which is accurately described as “good arising from evil” (via the assistance of the Church), we can never properly assess present situations which may or may not be described as “good arising from evil”.
Of course he did!
He was a subjectivist! Subjectivists are by definition always wrong, which they themselves will tell you is the truth, because to them no one is ever “right”, and they are not exempt from their own rules! )So when the subjectivists argue thatSubjectivists are by definition always wrong, which they themselves will tell you is the truth, because to them no one is ever “right”, and they are not exempt from their own rules!
(Though, they will then state that they are perfectly right about no one ever being perfectly right. Go figure!
Since even what is “little known” is only a small portion of what COULD be known within that “little bit”, there’s always more unknown than known, regardless of the amount actually known.
So the subjectivist accepts conclusionsSince even what is “little known” is only a small portion of what COULD be known within that “little bit”, there’s always more unknown than known, regardless of the amount actually known.
All is despair for the subjectivist, because he stands on, and for, nothing but the provisional.
When pressed the subjectivist will simply invoke the magic spell, “That’s YOUR interpretation!”, and run like a whipped dog.
No. They have innumerable explanations. What they DON’T have is a sound base, or rather a proper base, on which their explanations are built. Since all knowledge is “sand”, that’s all they have to build on, and it’s not surprising that their “structures” are nearly self-undermining.
Since their basic “foundation” is a self-contradiction (“I know absolutely that nothing can be known absolutely!”) they can put ANYTHING up as “God” (emotion, scientism, economics, blah blah blah, etc) and whatever they DO put up as “God”, which they call the “Great Ordering Principle of the part of the universe I’m interested in today”, is a superstition, which is what “superstition” means, of course. (Super - Stit, “scaredycat worship of false deity”)
You would expect WHAT from Godless Institutions of Anti-God Engineering?
Uh, it’s a form of rationalism, where the “rationale” is “whatever!”. Sort of the “Valley Girl” of philosophy. Although, she seems to be in desparate need of some anti-depressants, and possibly some time off from the Shopping Mall.
What did I do, and please seek professional help if any untoward symptoms manifest from your trying to apply any of my “help”!
So subjectivists reason toward nothing?
Your help was helping me understand subjectivism. Thanks for your concern. My reasoning was off yesterday. I will seek professional help if I think it is necessary.What did I do, and please seek professional help if any untoward symptoms manifest from your trying to apply any of my “help”!
Danger Will Robinson!!
They reason toward “whatever”, which essentially means they reason toward whatever their “God” is, which is usually some form of “that which makes me feel better”.
I was merely saying that I don’t hold myself up as ANY sort of authority in anything, and (with great dread) HOPE that no one else does so either.
No we don’t.
Anyway, to get back to responses to the original posting:
Maybe I was a bit rash,
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
By “destroyed” I mean “de-personed”. Or, in another way, “FREED of one’s eternal existence”, which when the devil is finally sent to his hell he will WANT (he will prefer oblivion) but which he will never be freed from by being utterly “destroyed”.
Oh, ok then ill agree with that!
I’m discovering a whole lot of statements here that need addressing. First of all, there’s the question of evil. Is evil a ‘satan’ (tempter) outside of the self? I’d say that bronze age people viewed it that way because their consciences has not been very refined at that point. We can equate the variance by noting the difference called “nuance” in the MacCain and Obama discussion at Saddleback Church. Obama’s reply was ‘nuanced’ in that he recognized that some of the evil is within us all and colors our actions in shades of grey. McCain’s reaction was what I’d call “Fundamentalist”; his response about evil is a flat “Defeat it!” It doesn’t reside in him, but is in a particular “enemy” whom we can slay in the manner of ‘St. George and the Dragon’ imagery.
Interesting. How about this:
Let’s suppose God created several spirit beings called angels, and gave them free will. One of them becomes prideful and rebels. Several other angels join him and are cast out of heaven.