Leopard's Spots

quip

BANNED
Banned
You are just repeating your failed beliefs and reasoning.
Because it bears repeating.....and the failure of reasoning is yours because you can't think beyond your particular faith.


You just say anything and don't know what either book teaches.

While you'll deny anything that questions your preconception. i.e. the fundamental crux of the issue.
 

God's Truth

New member
Because it bears repeating.....and the failure of reasoning is yours because you can't think beyond your particular faith.




While you'll deny anything that questions your preconception. i.e. the fundamental crux of the issue.

You just described yourself.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
What you said about me is made up just like your beliefs.

My "beliefs" come from the spiritual faith in myself which doesn't require my morality spoon-fed to me like a child. Spiritually speaking, you're an empty vessel eager to be filled with another's systematic rules and dogma.

​Being held by a religious tether which demands a God disposed offering of freewill? How sadly contradictory and unnecessary.
 

God's Truth

New member
My "beliefs" come from the spiritual faith in myself which doesn't require my morality spoon-fed to me like a child. Spiritually speaking, you're an empty vessel eager to be filled with another's systematic rules and dogma.

​Being held by a religious tether which demands a God disposed offering of freewill? How sadly contradictory and unnecessary.

Yep, a bunch of false and worthless thoughts about me and yourself.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
(Exactly...)All devout truths are relative. There's no one exclusive claim to their veracity.

I had asked you a question ("Decided by whom?") about what you had said, and you did not answer my question. You reacted to the question I had asked you in a manner as though you thought I had not really asked you a question, but rather, had said something for you to express agreement with ("Exactly.")

I definitely would never say any nonsense like "All devout truths are relative. There's no one exclusive claim to their veracity." So, forgive me for disappointing you, but you're mistaken if you thought you and I were in agreement about something.

I was really asking you about whom you were talking about when you said, regarding a proposed debate, "And how would the 'winner' be decided?" For, every deciding--every decision--belongs to some person: no person, no decision. So, I was essentially asking you to (so to speak) fill in the blank with the name, or description, of some person, or party of persons:

And how would the "winner" be decided [by ____________]?


Did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, agree with quip?", or did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, oppose quip?" Which?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I had asked you a question ("Decided by whom?") about what you had said, and you did not answer my question. You reacted to the question I had asked you in a manner as though you thought I had not really asked you a question, but rather, had said something for you to express agreement with ("Exactly.")

I definitely would never say any nonsense like "All devout truths are relative. There's no one exclusive claim to their veracity." So, forgive me for disappointing you, but you're mistaken if you thought you and I were in agreement about something.

I was really asking you about whom you were talking about when you said, regarding a proposed debate, "And how would the 'winner' be decided?" For, every deciding--every decision--belongs to some person: no person, no decision. So, I was essentially asking you to (so to speak) fill in the blank with the name, or description, of some person, or party of persons:




Did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, agree with quip?", or did you mean, "And how would the 'winner' be decided by those who, on the point up for debate, oppose quip?" Which?

:doh:

As wanting as it may be...your question "Decided by whom?" IS the answer; it's as far as the inquiry may objectively educe. The point being that relative, unprovable truths lend themselves to limited, biased authority.

And how would the "winner" be decided [by NOBODY]?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Don't you want to know for sure what you believe about Jesus?

What I know of Jesus was that he is one of many messiahs...the truth of which must rely upon the faith of the adherent.

Why not try to do whatever Jesus says and find out what happens?

Pascal's wager functions well within any religion/belief. Ex. Why not try to do whatever Muhammad says and find out what happens?
 

God's Truth

New member
What I know of Jesus was that he is one of many messiahs...the truth of which must rely upon the faith of the adherent.



Pascal's wager functions well within any religion/belief. Ex. Why not try to do whatever Muhammad says and find out what happens?

Don't you want to have experience and not just have an opinion?
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
:doh:

As wanting as it may be...your question "Decided by whom?" IS the answer; it's as far as the inquiry may objectively educe. The point being that relative, unprovable truths lend themselves to limited, biased authority.

So, according to you, nobody ever decides--because (according to you) it is impossible to decide--that somebody has won (or lost) a debate. In other words, though we hear, all the time, people saying things like, "He won that debate," or "She lost that debate,"--according to you, people saying such things are not deciding that so-and-so won, nor that so-and-so lost. And, according to you, since one can't decide that someone has won (or lost) a debate, he can't possibly decide rightly, nor wrongly that they have won (or lost) it.

Also, LOL @ "relative...truths" and @ "unprovable truths".
 
Top