Lord, liar, lunatic, legend?

[BeBMan]

I was referring to Strayboy's post initially with the 'proof' thing:

Christ is risen, and I have proof in my life. If you are too cool to seek truth in your life, but rather trust in a retconned hexadecimo-fecta, I feel sorry for you.

I'd accept the 'proof in my life' line as his personal belief, but from what follows I understand he thinks his belief should go for others then as well because of what *he* calls 'proof in my [his] life'.

[Jon Miller]

'proof in my life' I take to mean his personal experience.

And yeah, he (and I) think that you can have that personal experience too.

I don't read that as him asking you to have faith in his personal experience, in fact, he flat out says 'seek truth in your life'.

JM

[rah]

So if you were God you'd do a better job is what you are saying?

No I'm saying your god isn't much of a god if he chooses to help the psycho

I don't know about that. I know myself and I don't want that kind of power.

I don't either, but obviously your god has some screwy priorities

He can see all ends, I cannot.

Yes, he can see an end where helping pysco ***** find her coffee cup is much better than helping millions of starving kids. I can see why you worship him. He makes no sense either.

[Sirotnikov]

Objectively, there's just no comparison between the two.

We also have eyewitnesses of David Copperfield flying on stage, of alien spaceships and of elvis still being alive.

All this makes your point on objectivity very silly, and your standards for objectivity even sillier.

[BeBMan]

Well, if I hear something of 'proof' I expect something that others can follow. A 'proof' that just goes for me personally is kinda strange - would you accept it if I told you I found 'proof' that there is no god and that you better seek to get this as well?

edit: this was re JM

[rah]

We also have eyewitnesses of David Copperfield flying on stage, of alien spaceships and of elvis still being alive.

All this makes your point on objectivity very silly, and your standards for objectivity even sillier.

and you're surprised why?

[Sirotnikov]

Nothing wrong with calling them truths.

Saying that they can be scientifically proven is wrong.

There is a large difference.

JM

eh.... troublesome but i can accept that to some extent.

problem is it gives way to anyone defining 'his personal truth' the way he wants it. that annoys me.

[Sirotnikov]

and you're surprised why?

i'm not.

[Ben Kenobi]

But stating that other historical works are also unreliable doesn't actually back up your case, in fact it weakens it.

And Neitzche makes the same point that relative proof is not absolute proof. The choice then is discarding all we know of the past, or accepting that relative proof is sufficient.

[MikeH]

The choice isn't between not accepting anything and accepting everything.

[Jon Miller]

Well, if I hear something of 'proof' I expect something that others can follow. A 'proof' that just goes for me personally is kinda strange - would you accept it if I told you I found 'proof' that there is no god and that you better seek to get this as well?

edit: this was re JM

There is all sorts of proof and evidence that is on a personal level.

For example, I think that chocolate is pretty tasty, so would recommend that others try chocolate.

Now, this is just personal preference. Which I agree is a bit different.

Or I think that Gene Wolfe is a great author, and so would recommend others try reading him. And I actually think that he is a great author, I don't think being a good author is just the same as liking an author, because otherwise some of the others of warhammer 40k books are better. It is something I have personal experience with (reading Gene Wolfe, and numerous other novels, both good and bad), and have drawn conclusions from that personal experience.

But I can't say that there is scientific proof that Gene Wolfe is a great author.

JM
(And personally, I like some authors who aren't good at all. And I don't like other authors, even some I think are quite good.)

[MikeH]

Ben, Jon is a great example of a Christian with his head screwed on. Taking his faith on his own terms, not taking everything literally but as I think it was meant, as kind of a spiritual guide within the context of the modern world.

If everyone religious was like him, and actually I think the vast majority of Christians are, at least in the UK, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. Christianity is about love, tolerance and forgiveness. All very laudible. In fact, when taken like that and ignoring all the Old Testament nonsense only the God part is really contentious.

[Jon Miller]

eh.... troublesome but i can accept that to some extent.

problem is it gives way to anyone defining 'his personal truth' the way he wants it. that annoys me.

That has always been the case, though. Everyone has their own 'personal truth'.

Really, the key point for discussion is to find a common ground somewhere in the multitude of beleifs and philosophies that every person holds or has held/etc.

And then base the conversation on that.

The issue with scientific truths is that they are based on a philosophical background which is very common in some parts of the community of humanity (but less common than you would think... I am refering to post modernists, but there are also quite a number of people who just don't bother to understand the philosophy that science is based on and so don't have that shared philosophical background).

There is actually some Christians and Randists that I can't really talk to because their assumptions make so that it takes too much effort for me to communicate ideas (and I have given up, basically).

JM

[Sava]

in other good news- this poll proves we have at least 33 actual people visiting the OT.

20 of which are DL's

[Ben Kenobi]

If everyone religious was like him, and actually I think the vast majority of Christians are, at least in the UK, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. Christianity is about love, tolerance and forgiveness. All very laudible. In fact, when taken like that and ignoring all the Old Testament nonsense only the God part is really contentious.

What on earth makes you think I believe in modernity, let alone post-modernism?