Is 4U really Godless?

[Lisa0315]

I'll refute you, I have done it before I'll do it again. We all know this is a godless website.

There is no such thing as godless any place.

Psalms 139:7-16 7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth F374 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F374) not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance F375 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F375) was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, F376 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F376) which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

[NewGuy101]

There is no such thing as godless any place.

Psalms 139:7-16 7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth F374 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F374) not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance F375 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F375) was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, F376 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ps+139:8&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F376) which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
I'm still trying to figure out how that verse even relates to what you are talking about. Please clue me in.

[Lisa0315]

I'm still trying to figure out how that verse even relates to what you are talking about. Please clue me in.

You said this is a Godless place. David says that there is no place he can go in which God is not there.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

You said this is a Godless place. David says that there is no place he can go in which God is not there.

Lisa
I think you are missing the meaning of the word godless. Either that or you are playing dumb. By your logic I'm guessing that means that God is in hell as well.


god·less http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈgɒdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnglɪs/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god-lis]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1.having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. 2.wicked; evil; sinful.

[Lisa0315]

I think you are missing the meaning of the word godless. Either that or you are playing dumb. By your logic I'm guessing that means that God is in hell as well.


god·less http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈgɒdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnglɪs/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god-lis]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1.having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. 2.wicked; evil; sinful.

Then, say sinful place instead of Godless. There is no place in the universe that is Godless. Think about it.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Hmm. God is here because we are, but the structure of it and what's premitted here make it unBiblical, for sure.

I think we need to be careful to differentiate, because it's an important point.

[Tangeloper]

Jumping in here for a second...

RE: Any place being Godless...

Matthew 18:20

So, while there are many here that are NOT Christians, or THINK they are Christians it remains that in the midst of even TWO believers coming together in a situation GOD is there also.

As well, it is accepted that GOD is EVERYWHERE! So, to say that Foru.ms is a GODLESS place is putting it a bit over the top, I believe.

As a moderator I can see where one might not be free to speak their mind for fear that others will not understand how someone with such strong beliefs could be impartial when it came to RULES, but one CAN and some DO maintain beliefs while working within a secular system.

As Christians we have to do this on a daily basis in the Real World. This forum is, sad as it may be, just another example of having to live our lives in that way -- as Christians, but in a secular world.

Politics and being in the staff or "government" of any place in today's day and age if fraught with problems of this sort. It's no surprise that it is here too. However, to suggest that one must GIVE UP their beliefs in order to be a moderator I cannot understand.

As for the problems that you have with liberals NewGuy... There IS a way to stand up for firmly held beliefs without being disrespectful of others. The way we choose our words can either put people on the defensive which automatically works against us, or we can explain things with love, and compassion which COULD open the door to their eventual understanding...

The Lord doesn't want anyone coming to the table out of Fear, or Shame. He welcomes us to the feast in LOVE and compassion... And THAT is how we should help our fellow man to understand their sins and why their views are wrong according to the scriptures -- not with hatred, malice, fear and shame... Those things only drive people further away from God, and distort his message, IMHO.

We, as Conservative Christians, need to be the LIGHT in the midst of darkness. We need to exemplify HIS message in our actions, and this website NOW gives us a tremendous opportunity to do so -- even if we are not personally comfortable with taking on this task. Perhaps it is a CHALLENGE to us! Satan cannot overcome the believers unless we LET him!!! God will always conquer and by our fruits they shall know us, and hence shall know the Lord our God! Those who are truly able to be saved will SEE through the lies of unbelievers, and if we stay true to our beliefs and convictions based on Scripture WE will be able to BE the light of the Lord here... STILL...

OK, those are my $.02 on this situation. Thank you for starting this thread Lisa, I think it's a good thing...

I've got my flame suit on, so I'm ready for anything you all throw at me!!! LOL

-- Tange

[tulc]

By your logic I'm guessing that means that God is in hell as well.

uhmmm isn't that what vrs 8 said?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
tulc(just thought it should be pointed out) :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Jumping in here for a second...

RE: Any place being Godless...

Matthew 18:20

So, while there are many here that are NOT Christians, or THINK they are Christians it remains that in the midst of even TWO believers coming together in a situation GOD is there also.

As well, it is accepted that GOD is EVERYWHERE! So, to say that Foru.ms is a GODLESS place is putting it a bit over the top, I believe.

As a moderator I can see where one might not be free to speak their mind for fear that others will not understand how someone with such strong beliefs could be impartial when it came to RULES, but one CAN and some DO maintain beliefs while working within a secular system.

As Christians we have to do this on a daily basis in the Real World. This forum is, sad as it may be, just another example of having to live our lives in that way -- as Christians, but in a secular world.

Politics and being in the staff or "government" of any place in today's day and age if fraught with problems of this sort. It's no surprise that it is here too. However, to suggest that one must GIVE UP their beliefs in order to be a moderator I cannot understand.

As for the problems that you have with liberals NewGuy... There IS a way to stand up for firmly held beliefs without being disrespectful of others. The way we choose our words can either put people on the defensive which automatically works against us, or we can explain things with love, and compassion which COULD open the door to their eventual understanding...

The Lord doesn't want anyone coming to the table out of Fear, or Shame. He welcomes us to the feast in LOVE and compassion... And THAT is how we should help our fellow man to understand their sins and why their views are wrong according to the scriptures -- not with hatred, malice, fear and shame... Those things only drive people further away from God, and distort his message, IMHO.

We, as Conservative Christians, need to be the LIGHT in the midst of darkness. We need to exemplify HIS message in our actions, and this website NOW gives us a tremendous opportunity to do so -- even if we are not personally comfortable with taking on this task. Perhaps it is a CHALLENGE to us! Satan cannot overcome the believers unless we LET him!!! God will always conquer and by our fruits they shall know us, and hence shall know the Lord our God! Those who are truly able to be saved will SEE through the lies of unbelievers, and if we stay true to our beliefs and convictions based on Scripture WE will be able to BE the light of the Lord here... STILL...

OK, those are my $.02 on this situation. Thank you for starting this thread Lisa, I think it's a good thing...

I've got my flame suit on, so I'm ready for anything you all throw at me!!! LOL

-- Tange
Very, very good point Tange! :thumbsup: :hug:

[NewGuy101]

As for the problems that you have with liberals NewGuy... There IS a way to stand up for firmly held beliefs without being disrespectful of others. The way we choose our words can either put people on the defensive which automatically works against us, or we can explain things with love, and compassion which COULD open the door to their eventual understanding...

The Lord doesn't want anyone coming to the table out of Fear, or Shame. He welcomes us to the feast in LOVE and compassion... And THAT is how we should help our fellow man to understand their sins and why their views are wrong according to the scriptures -- not with hatred, malice, fear and shame... Those things only drive people further away from God, and distort his message, IMHO.

Sorry, but unlike many of you here I will not submit to the structure of our culture much less of that of the liberals. The push for tolerance and "love" has it's a nice perceptions on the outside but the truth is that any thinking individual would realize that this is just a cover for a worldview that is blantly against the biblical worldview.

I wanted to make it clear that I have no doubt in my mind that God is with us. But because God is with us that doesn't imply WE should be here, nor does it imply we should be submissive to the liberal infultration.

If I am being direspectful, SHOW ME WHERE I am. I keep getting accused of different actions. But where is the evidence that I am being accused of?

Lisa, I think you should be more careful to read what I write insted of jumping to conclusions. The term "godless" is clearly defined, not by me but by the dictionary. I have never stated that God isn't here or is not in control of the situation. I think that my reformed background would speak more clearly about my views of God and his soverignty.

[tulc]

For you GreenMunchkin. :wave:
tulc(have a good night) :)

[NewGuy101]

...so you really are a liberal atheist and proud of it? You really are an atheist christian? :scratch:
tulc(just curious) :)
It's called a parody..think about it for a bit.

[tulc]

tulc(never stops being curious) :)

[GreenMunchkin]

:hug::hug::hug:

Please don't fight. It's making my stomach hurt.

You both see it completely different, and that's ok, but please please don't bait and fight.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Lisa: You must look at your objective absolute in the terms of a subjective interpretive ideology.

You're thought is entirely contingent upon the viewpoint that one may display such things. For instance I am quite godless, because i am an atheist, i find that there is no god. But you, on the other hand, feel incarnated with the holy spirit.

[NewGuy101]

Ahhh! Ok, which of these does it fall under?
and who were you parodying? :scratch:
tulc(never stops being curious) :)
take a wild guess

[NewGuy101]

:hug::hug::hug:

Please don't fight. It's making my stomach hurt.

You both see it completely different, and that's ok, but please please don't bait and fight.
Greenie you know I love you, but if don't like it don't read it.

[tulc]

For instance I am quite godless, because i am an atheist, i find that there is no god. But you, on the other hand, feel incarnated with the holy spirit.

Uhmmm actually you believing or not believing in God doesn't alter my belief He is in fact where you are. See the difference? You don't see His presence? That's fine I can't convince you He's there, nor will I try. That doesn't change the fact that He's there. :)
tulc(just a thought) ;)

[NewGuy101]

Lisa: You must look at your objective absolute in the terms of a subjective interpretive ideology.

You're thought is entirely contingent upon the viewpoint that one may display such things. For instance I am quite godless, because i am an atheist, i find that there is no god. But you, on the other hand, feel incarnated with the holy spirit.
us atheist sure believe in some crazy stuff, imagine that a world without absolutes and sex is our whole point to life. So fullfilling.

[GreenMunchkin]

Lisa: You must look at your objective absolute in the terms of a subjective interpretive ideology.

You're thought is entirely contingent upon the viewpoint that one may display such things. For instance I am quite godless, because i am an atheist, i find that there is no god. But you, on the other hand, feel incarnated with the holy spirit.Aww, y'all didn't think this was adorable? Love this post. So, so cute!

[GreenMunchkin]

Greenie you know I love you, but if don't like it don't read it.True... am a cretin for stuff like that. That being said, in this case, if it gets all fighty, am gonna have to help with the modding, and you're both lovely, so that'd SUCK.

[NewGuy101]

True... am a cretin for stuff like that. That being said, in this case, if it gets all fighty, am gonna have to help with the modding, and you're both lovely, so that'd SUCK.
I think my post was well within the rules.

[GreenMunchkin]

Oh, no, it completely was. But it felt like it was becoming fisticuffy :sorry:

Besides, there's no wrong time to give hugs :hug:

[Tangeloper]

Sorry, but unlike many of you here I will not submit to the structure of our culture much less of that of the liberals. The push for tolerance and "love" has it's a nice perceptions on the outside but the truth is that any thinking individual would realize that this is just a cover for a worldview that is blantly against the biblical worldview.

I wanted to make it clear that I have no doubt in my mind that God is with us. But because God is with us that doesn't imply WE should be here, nor does it imply we should be submissive to the liberal infultration.

If I am being direspectful, SHOW ME WHERE I am. I keep getting accused of different actions. But where is the evidence that I am being accused of?

Lisa, I think you should be more careful to read what I write insted of jumping to conclusions. The term "godless" is clearly defined, not by me but by the dictionary. I have never stated that God isn't here or is not in control of the situation. I think that my reformed background would speak more clearly about my views of God and his soverignty.
Well, I'm not being submissive to them in the least... And you don't have to submit in order to show basic human respect. If you are doing so then that's great. The only reason I brought it up is because many times you have been targetted by these people, and while it's true that most of the time you only get flak when you're over the target, sometimes finding common ground with someone and going from there is a BETTER way of persuading them of your position. It was only a suggestion... I personally haven't witnessed any of your conversations, I am only going by what you have said about being reported and such... Even here among us you are showing, IMHO, a little bit of hostility and I don't think ít's warranted, frankly.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Uhmmm actually you believing or not believing in God doesn't alter my belief He is in fact where you are. See the difference? You don't see His presence? That's fine I can't convince you He's there, nor will I try. That doesn't change the fact that He's there. :)
tulc(just a thought) ;)
Heh, this is a perfect example of the contingency, to say otherwise would be denying the case. We cannot derive our conclusions based upon the absolute that you propose(even though i don't feel god, he is there-as your example example). It's inane to state otherwise, and it is also self-deceptive.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

us atheist sure believe in some crazy stuff, imagine that a world without absolutes and sex is our whole point to life. So fullfilling.
I think i get your sarcasm, else i believe you're mocking me.

GreenMunchkin: I suggest not being so condescending about my view.

[GreenMunchkin]

GreenMunchkin: I suggest not being so condescending about my view.Heh. Suggestion noted :D

Being adorable isn't a bad thing, though, by the way :P

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Heh. Suggestion noted :D

Being adorable isn't a bad thing, though, by the way :P
Well of course, i'm very pretty-i know this quite well, my girlfriend reminds me everyday. But what it creates is a possibility for my seriousness to be revoked do to a view that i am not worthy to be noted because of my age. It is a common mistake for peers to create a bias of the younger generations.

[GreenMunchkin]

Well of course, i'm very pretty-i know this quite well, my girlfriend reminds me everyday. But what it creates is a possibility for my seriousness to be revoked do to a view that i am not worthy to be noted because of my age. It is a common mistake for peers to create a bias of the younger generations.Yes, I can quite imagine that's pesky :D

I hereby solemnly swear not to under-rate your intelligence due to your being young and pretty.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Yes, I can quite imagine that's pesky :D

I hereby solemnly swear not to under-rate your intelligence due to your being young and pretty.
Well, i can't believe you since you have already done it. How do i know you're not crying wolf and tricking me? How do i know you have not already fallen into this condescending view of me?

[Hentenza]

Well, i can't believe you since you have already done it. How do i know you're not crying wolf and tricking me? How do i know you have not already fallen into this condescending view of me?

Because if you knew GM you would know that she is one of the sweetest people in this world and she would not do that.;) Hang around for a bit and you will find out.:wave:

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

As long as Lisa comes out from her conservative lair to converse. I'm up.

[GreenMunchkin]

Well, i can't believe you since you have already done it. How do i know you're not crying wolf and tricking me? How do i know you have not already fallen into this condescending view of me?You can't possibly know. Maybe I have... maybe I haven't... incidentally, were I to have any view of you, I wouldn't fall into it; rather I would step gracefully. Not that I have. Or have I? :P

Because if you knew GM you would know that she is one of the sweetest people in this world and she would not do that.;) Hang around for a bit and you will find out.:wave:Aww, shucks, Hen :hug: Fankoo. Y'ain't so bad yaself :hug:

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You can't possibly know. Maybe I have... maybe I haven't... incidentally, were I to have any view of you, I wouldn't fall into it; rather I would step gracefully. Not that I have. Or have I? :P

Aww, shucks, Hen :hug: Fankoo. Y'ain't so bad yaself :hug:
Depends upon you're decision, your conscious outlook on the situation. Your conscience does things to you that help this situation, let's hope it's not deformed.

[GreenMunchkin]

Depends upon you're decision, your conscious outlook on the situation. Your conscience does things to you that help this situation, let's hope it's not deformed.Ha! Well aren't you a charmer :D

My conscience is prefectly formed, thankyouverymuch. Not that my conscience is remotely relevant, of course. My instincts, though... well, they're all over this.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Ha! Well aren't you a charmer :D

My conscience is prefectly formed, thankyouverymuch. Not that my conscience is remotely relevant, of course. My instincts, though... well, they're all over this.
So your libido is doing all the talking now?

[GreenMunchkin]

So your libido is doing all the talking now?:scratch: Colour me confused!

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

:scratch: Colour me confused!
Hm?

[GreenMunchkin]

So your libido is doing all the talking now?

Hm?Alrighty. Wanna clarify the red bit for me? Ya lost me in a major way.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Alrighty. Wanna clarify the red bit for me? Ya lost me in a major way.
I was making a joke. About sexual desire being instinct(such as Freud proposed). The sexual yearnings and desires from our libido. And Freud said it was our instincts that drove this sexual sanction of our mind.

[GreenMunchkin]

I was making a joke. About sexual desire being instinct(such as Freud proposed). The sexual yearnings and desires from our libido. And Freud said it was our instincts that drove this sexual sanction of our mind.Indeed. That Freud was a hoot. He was also barking mad. You don't wanna believe him too much.

But, fyi, mentioning libido to a woman near twice your age is somewhat less than appropriate. Terribly Freudian :P

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

.

[GreenMunchkin]

I know, that's why i made the joke.

You wanna edit that for me? Not an acceptable thing to say round these parts.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You wanna edit that for me? Not an acceptable thing to say round these parts.
List the posts. You're bumming me out.

[GreenMunchkin]

#42 needs to go like yesterday.

After that, you can carry on trying to wow me with your stunning intellect :P

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

#42 needs to go like yesterday.

After that, you can carry on trying to wow me with your stunning intellect :P
How flattering.

[GreenMunchkin]

How flattering.Aww, don't pout :hug:

Turn that frown upside down and all that good stuff.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Aww, don't pout :hug:

Turn that frown upside down and all that good stuff.
I said it was flattering, how is that interpreted as being angst filled?

[NewGuy101]

I think i get your sarcasm, else i believe you're mocking me.

GreenMunchkin: I suggest not being so condescending about my view.
A little from column A and a little from column B.

BTW I don't think it's condescending, it's the mathematical reprocautions of a materialistic worldview.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

A little from column A and a little from column B.

BTW I don't think it's condescending, it's the mathematical reprocautions of a materialistic worldview.
Sadly it's not a materialistic view.

[NewGuy101]

Well, I'm not being submissive to them in the least... And you don't have to submit in order to show basic human respect. If you are doing so then that's great. The only reason I brought it up is because many times you have been targetted by these people, and while it's true that most of the time you only get flak when you're over the target, sometimes finding common ground with someone and going from there is a BETTER way of persuading them of your position. It was only a suggestion... I personally haven't witnessed any of your conversations, I am only going by what you have said about being reported and such... Even here among us you are showing, IMHO, a little bit of hostility and I don't think ít's warranted, frankly.
As I stated before I will not compromise the Gospel. There is nothing to compromise with the liberals or our postmodern culture.

[NewGuy101]

Sadly it's not a materialistic view.
Oh really? What is it then?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Oh really? What is it then?
A phenomenology.

[NewGuy101]

A phenomenology.

I see you like playing semantics is a materialistic phenomenology better definition for you?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I see you like playing semantics is a materialistic phenomenology better definition for you?
Nope. Phenomenology is only aquirable through an ontology, atleast in the perspective of human matters. It's more of a perspectivism than anything.

[NewGuy101]

Nope. Phenomenology is only aquirable through an ontology, atleast in the perspective of human matters. It's more of a perspectivism than anything.
What's your point, atheism assumes naturalistics pressupositions? How can it be better defined than that?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

What's your point, atheism assumes naturalistics pressupositions? How can it be better defined than that?
Only certain aspects of atheism pursue empirical domains. Just because some of us do not believe in god, does not mean we can be confined to materialistic corners.

[NewGuy101]

Only certain aspects of atheism pursue empirical domains. Just because some of us do not believe in god, does not mean we can be confined to materialistic corners.
*sigh*

NO thinking atheist would ever support a source of knowledge outside of naturalistic epistemology. It would invalidate their position.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

*sigh*

NO thinking atheist would ever support a source of knowledge outside of naturalistic epistemology. It would invalidate their position.
*sigh*. Naturalistic epistemology cannot account for the presence of nothingness. The nothingness itself negates the chance of a materialism to exist by itself.

And thinking atheists are the one who proposed this theory, sometimes naturalistic epistemology does not win against an individual metaphysic.

[NewGuy101]

sigh*. Naturalistic epistemology cannot account for the presence of nothingness. The nothingness itself negates the chance of a materialism to exist by itself. Every athiest that I know has stated that existtence in itself must be a natural cause. "Nothingness" as you are defining it (which isn't clear) is just nonexistant in our world...like a fairy.

And thinking atheists are the one who proposed this theory, sometimes naturalistic epistemology does not win against an individual metaphysic. Individual metaphysic?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Every athiest that I know has stated that existtence in itself must be a natural cause. "Nothingness" as you are defining it (which isn't clear) is just nonexistant in our world...like a fairy.

Individual metaphysic?
It's non-existence is what defines it as non-materialistic. I don't think you fully understand nothingness in the terms that i describe it.

of course, individual metaphysic-phenomenological ontology creates an individual metaphysic.

[NewGuy101]

It's non-existence is what defines it as non-materialistic. I don't think you fully understand nothingness in the terms that i describe it.
Again, how do you address nothingness if it's not there? Why bother even defining it? How can I understand a term if you didn't really define it?



of course, individual metaphysic-phenomenological ontology creates an individual metaphysic
So basically what you are saying is that all we are left with is perspectivism? So much for truth.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Again, how do you address nothingness if it's not there? Why bother even defining it? How can I understand a term if you didn't really define it?


So basically what you are saying is that all we are left with is perspectivism? So much for truth.
That's partially my fault. Nothingness is merely the presence of the being-that-is-not-there. The fact that the thing is, but is-not when we view it.

Truth depends entirely upon one's interpretation of it. And we thus get right back at where i started with this argument-the truth that is addressed here is contingent upon the subject percieving it.

[NewGuy101]

That's partially my fault. Nothingness is merely the presence of the being-that-is-not-there. The fact that the thing is, but is-not when we view it.

Truth depends entirely upon one's interpretation of it. And we thus get right back at where i started with this argument-the truth that is addressed here is contingent upon the subject percieving it.
So truth doesn't exist?

eh..so much for ethics.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

So truth doesn't exist?

eh..so much for ethics.
Did i say that? How silly. You are also taking the prospect of the individual purely as an individualism-it's been a mistakable trend for philosophy to do. Just because truth is not absolute does not mean ethicalities and morality are thus anarchistic in their nature-it simply is not so.

I wonder where you learn your philosophy, you sound like a secular humanist.

[NewGuy101]

Did i say that? How silly. You are also taking the prospect of the individual purely as an individualism-it's been a mistakable trend for philosophy to do. Just because truth is not absolute does not mean ethicalities and morality are thus anarchistic in their nature-it simply is not so.

I wonder where you learn your philosophy, you sound like a secular humanist.
Didn't say they were anarchisitc, but if anarchism isn't the answer all you are left with is pragmatism. Neither would work, or would be justifiable. In that sense hitlers slaugther is no different than americas civil rights movement.
.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Didn't say they were anarchisitc, but if anarchism isn't the answer all you are left with is pragmatism. Neither would work, or would be justifiable. In that sense hitlers slaugther is no different than americas civil rights movement.
.
I did not mean entirely anarchistic-i am not approaching this subject as a political definition. And no, it does not lie within an petty pragmatic approach. What you suggest is that the ethicalities are entirely undefinable-which is not the case. Though this does not suggest an absolute to the morality that you are bringing forward.

You must take things from a perspective of an individualistic collectivism* to gain an accurate depiction of not only individual decisions, but of sociological interaction. I don't believe you are doing so. What you are trying to show me is that since the ethicalities HAVE to be pragmatic, then the individual alone would find the decisions of Hitler and the civil rights movement to be one in the same in terms of violence, and reasons.

But, the general case of this is that, the case of the pragmatics is that they deny the cartesian self and it's reflection-which is a major flaw that the empiricists also did. Their nature of man came from our ultimate consequences to aquire meaning and truth-neither of which apply to what i am explaining. What they suggest is that we become aware of our moral dilemmas only after we have drawn conclusions-that we are self-aware only after we realize our issues.

I wish i could explain better, pragmatism is not my cup of tea.

[NewGuy101]

I did not mean entirely anarchistic-i am not approaching this subject as a political definition. And no, it does not lie within an petty pragmatic approach. What you suggest is that the ethicalities are entirely undefinable-which is not the case. Though this does not suggest an absolute to the morality that you are bringing forward.

You must take things from a perspective of an individualistic collectivism* to gain an accurate depiction of not only individual decisions, but of sociological interaction. I don't believe you are doing so. What you are trying to show me is that since the ethicalities HAVE to be pragmatic, then the individual alone would find the decisions of Hitler and the civil rights movement to be one in the same in terms of violence, and reasons.

But, the general case of this is that, the case of the pragmatics is that they deny the cartesian self and it's reflection-which is a major flaw that the empiricists also did. Their nature of man came from our ultimate consequences to aquire meaning and truth-neither of which apply to what i am explaining. What they suggest is that we become aware of our moral dilemmas only after we have drawn conclusions-that we are self-aware only after we realize our issues.

I wish i could explain better, pragmatism is not my cup of tea.
Ok so you are left with what since you seem to attack everything I say but you fail to provide a viable solution.

[PaladinGirl]

No, Foru.ms is not really godless. It is a Christian based message board as Erwin has said countless times. If it is really so godless, why are you all here? :scratch: :confused:

[Lisa0315]

Lisa: You must look at your objective absolute in the terms of a subjective interpretive ideology.

You're thought is entirely contingent upon the viewpoint that one may display such things. For instance I am quite godless, because i am an atheist, i find that there is no god. But you, on the other hand, feel incarnated with the holy spirit.

Hi EPE, You are not Godless. You just think you are. Just because you do not believe in God does not mean that He doesn't exist.

Think on this for a moment: Did the Native Americans exist before they were discovered by Europeans?

Lisa

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Ok so you are left with what since you seem to attack everything I say but you fail to provide a viable solution.
I've already stated my solutions, but you seem to not require yourself to infer upon them. My solution is quite simple, and i have pointed it out with my rebukes against your arguments.

I am left with an individual collectivism, that judged through the cartesian self is a world of both existents and non-existents, both of which are present. Does this help you any better?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Hi EPE, You are not Godless. You just think you are. Just because you do not believe in God does not mean that He doesn't exist.

Think on this for a moment: Did the Native Americans exist before they were discovered by Europeans?

Lisa
Did the fountain of youth exist even though the spanish believed it to exist?

You need to look at this through the eyes of a duality.

[Lisa0315]

Did the fountain of youth exist even though the spanish believed it to exist?

You need to look at this through the eyes of a duality.

The Spanish never actually found the Fountain of Youth. The natives, on the other hand, were found.

So, God has been found by millions. Just because you haven't yet, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Lisa

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

The Spanish never actually found the Fountain of Youth. The natives, on the other hand, were found.

So, God has been found by millions. Just because you haven't yet, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Lisa
God has also not been found by millions, just because you say he exists does not mean he does exist. I don't exactly want to get into a theological battle-this was not my intention. I merely hope you realize that the contingent is more along the lines of openly interpretive.

[Lisa0315]

God has also not been found by millions, just because you say he exists does not mean he does exist. I don't exactly want to get into a theological battle-this was not my intention. I merely hope you realize that the contingent is more along the lines of openly interpretive.

Sure I understand that. I was just trying to say that just because something has not been proven yet, does not mean it will not be proven at some point.

The problem is that by the time you get absolute proof, it will be too late. Faith is the bridge between evidence and proof.

Lisa

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Sure I understand that. I was just trying to say that just because something has not been proven yet, does not mean it will not be proven at some point.

The problem is that by the time you get absolute proof, it will be too late. Faith is the bridge between evidence and proof.

Lisa
Testing is the bridge between evidence and proof.

[Lisa0315]

Testing is the bridge between evidence and proof.

Spiritual things must be tested by Spiritual tests. You cannot apply Physical Tests to the Spiritual Realm.

Lisa

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Spiritual things must be tested by Spiritual tests. You cannot apply Physical Tests to the Spiritual Realm.

Lisa
That is a contingent proposal. XD

Happy Birthday!

Or should i say.....sad birthday?

[Lisa0315]

That is a contingent proposal. XD

Happy Birthday!

Or should i say.....sad birthday?

Not at all sad. How can one ever be sad when Christ resides within them?

I imagine 40 sounds pretty old to you, huh! :D

Lisa

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Not at all sad. How can one ever be sad when Christ resides within them?

I imagine 40 sounds pretty old to you, huh! :D

Lisa
You're about 24 years older than me. Taking out the months of course.

[NewGuy101]

I've already stated my solutions, but you seem to not require yourself to infer upon them. My solution is quite simple, and i have pointed it out with my rebukes against your arguments.

I am left with an individual collectivism, that judged through the cartesian self is a world of both existents and non-existents, both of which are present. Does this help you any better?
Again that leads to purely subjective ethics. You cannot seem to understands that ethics cannot exists without absolutes. By your logic what the Nazis did was fine if they woudl have gotten away with it.

[NewGuy101]

God has also not been found by millions, just because you say he exists does not mean he does exist. I don't exactly want to get into a theological battle-this was not my intention. I merely hope you realize that the contingent is more along the lines of openly interpretive.
They claim to have found him. How can you deny them? Is it because of your atheistic pressupositions? Clearly you have no method of determining if they have or havent?

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Again that leads to purely subjective ethics. You cannot seem to understands that ethics cannot exists without absolutes. By your logic what the Nazis did was fine if they woudl have gotten away with it.
You don't seem to understand the common morality lies with the collectivism that lies within the individual.

Clearly, i have the interpretation of ontology through the only force that can properly observe it, and observe anything-and that is an existential phenomenology.

[GreenMunchkin]

This thread is laugh out funny :D Really.

[Albion]

In your picture, which one of you three is the actual holder of the site--"Existence," "Precedes," or "Essence?" -- and who is who in the picture?
;)

[MrJim]

This thread might as well be in Chinese...my little mind isn't following it :D

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

This thread might as well be in Chinese...my little mind isn't following it :D
^_^ Mine either. :P

[Tangeloper]

I've already stated my solutions, but you seem to not require yourself to infer upon them. My solution is quite simple, and i have pointed it out with my rebukes against your arguments.

I am left with an individual collectivism, that judged through the cartesian self is a world of both existents and non-existents, both of which are present. Does this help you any better?
May I suggest leaving the big words at home? While I understand the vocabulary you are using, it just doesn't do the job well when you are trying to relate to a wide variety of people...

Also, in the second to last sentence, do you mean to use the words existence and non-existences?

[Tangeloper]

You don't seem to understand the common morality lies with the collectivism that lies within the individual.

Clearly, i have the interpretation of ontology through the only force that can properly observe it, and observe anything-and that is an existential phenomenology.
Collectivism does not lie within an individual. Surely you must realize that collectivism refers to a group think dynamic, and not individualistic tendencies... Also, when you say that there is a common morality, I would remind you that in the minds of criminals and psychopaths this is not true. Human beings are not naturally moralistic creatures. These things are developed through the gaining of wisdom and understanding as we age. It is not intrinsic to a human beings nature...

Also, let me see if I am understanding you because again you are throwing around a bunch of big words that are NOT necessary in explaining your position. In your last sentence are you saying that you interpret the metaphysical essence of things using the only way available to you which is through your existence and directly observable experiences. And that your experiences in growing self-awareness preclude you accepting anything outside what you have experienced yourself?

I would caution you that in our world of six-billion plus people there are many who have experienced things well outside what you could have possibly directly observed in your short 16 years on this earth. This is not a dig against your age -- it is a simple fact. Also, how can you accept these philosophical theories as fact and truth at your age when you yourself are only learning these things from the experiences of others and their theories? Therein lies the danger, especially for someone who is as intelligent as you appear to be (or at least try to portray yourself as). You need to keep your mind open to possibilities, and to consider the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, there are things that sentient human beings, other than yourself have experienced that prove to them the existence of God.

[tulc]

Wouldn't this be the "Sodom test"? If only 10 rightous can be found...etc.? Surly there must be more then 10 rightous people on foru.ms?
tulc(who spends alot of time in the gay threads,thinks it's nice to use the Sodom scriptures on MY side for a change!) ;)

[GreenMunchkin]

How does the "Sodom test" work, please? In other words, wassat? :scratch:

[MrJim]

Genesis 18: 20 Then the Lord said, Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know. 22 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham drew near and said, Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? 26 And the Lord said, If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. 27 Abraham answered and said, Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five? And he said, I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there. 29 Again he spoke to him and said, Suppose forty are found there. He answered, For the sake of forty I will not do it. 30 Then he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there. He answered, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 31 He said, Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there. He answered, For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it. 32 Then he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there. He answered, For the sake of ten I will not destroy it. 33 And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Collectivism does not lie within an individual. Surely you must realize that collectivism refers to a group think dynamic, and not individualistic tendencies... Also, when you say that there is a common morality, I would remind you that in the minds of criminals and psychopaths this is not true. Human beings are not naturally moralistic creatures. These things are developed through the gaining of wisdom and understanding as we age. It is not intrinsic to a human beings nature...
Indeed, i understand what a collectivism is, and i understand what i said and i remain with my statements. I do understand what a collectivism is, but it is possible to unify the two. "When i make my decision, i make it for all of man"-in most cases, atleast within civilized society(by the accepted definition of the term) we don't make most of our decisions based entirely upon the aspect that we do whatever we want-of course to do so would create a philosophy that is entirely individualistic and not very applicable to the sociological relationships we all exhibit. We are naturally social animals, and we also make naturally social distinctions between our decisions. Though i may choose to, for instance, kill somebody-the thought goes through my mind: How does this benefit anybody else? What will my peers think? These thoughts of how others may view may make me realize what i have done to be incredibly daft, and incredibly inhuman, but never-the-less i am effected by my own viewing of my society and how it observes me.

I never said there was a common morality-even to suggest i did would be negating my entire argument. What you suggest though, is that we are not naturally moral characters, and this is exactly so. But we do have a capibility to form morality-something many other things cannot exhibit.

Also, let me see if I am understanding you because again you are throwing around a bunch of big words that are NOT necessary in explaining your position. In your last sentence are you saying that you interpret the metaphysical essence of things using the only way available to you which is through your existence and directly observable experiences.

The words are necessary, unless you want to find a simpler vernacular to help me explain them, i would be much obliged. But until then, stop complaining about big words, because that just kind of makes me laugh. I've learned most of these words from my vocabulary quizzes in sophmore year(English III is my next two trimesters). And i don't think you have much room to talk, i believe you are using much larger variables with your writing aesthetic-making you create an oxymoron. :P

But onto the point; Yes/No, to a degree. Most metaphysics are not directly effective in assisting the state of the individual in the now. I am saying through a phenomenology(which is not a metaphysic) we are directly capable to observe and gain essence from the force of being pushed through life by our will. We are able to judge through phenomenology the objects and people(s) that can assist with this yearning to live. We observe an ontology(a metaphysic) to assist us in this unpredictable formulation.

And that your experiences in growing self-awareness preclude you accepting anything outside what you have experienced yourself?

To a degree. Growing self-aware, atleast in the human terms requires interaction through what you have experienced-take feral children for an example of this. Self-awareness comes directly from the observation of the world, and it also makes us capable to experience the world as beings that consciously observe being-we observe through phenomenology. The nature of consciousness helps us enact and will ourselves as transcendent beings from the world.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

May I suggest leaving the big words at home? While I understand the vocabulary you are using, it just doesn't do the job well when you are trying to relate to a wide variety of people...

No? This is the way i explain these philosophies, and i don't exactly remember if anyone is capable to explain these 'big words' in any other less confusing way. You can blame the structure of philosophy for these terms, not me. Plus it saves time.

Also, in the second to last sentence, do you mean to use the words existence and non-existences?
No, i mean existents and non-existents, they are words.

I would caution you that in our world of six-billion plus people there are many who have experienced things well outside what you could have possibly directly observed in your short 16 years on this earth. This is not a dig against your age -- it is a simple fact. Also, how can you accept these philosophical theories as fact and truth at your age when you yourself are only learning these things from the experiences of others and their theories? Therein lies the danger, especially for someone who is as intelligent as you appear to be (or at least try to portray yourself as). You need to keep your mind open to possibilities, and to consider the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, there are things that sentient human beings, other than yourself have experienced that prove to them the existence of God.

After i read what was after caution i decided i wouldn't take heed of it, because it is a dig in my age, not a fact. You can tell that to the kids who have killed themselves, but you obviously would say they could never of experienced depression or heartbreak in their 'short 16 years of life'-give me a break.

I am not accepting philosophical theories as fact, so stop trying to draw presumptious conclusions that you have no basis for assuming other then the fact that you have a set mind-set of how i am saying them. I'm not going to write my whole life story out here, so how can you conclude i have not experienced these things; because i'm 16? So what? Some people have lived their entire lives without truly wanting to know why they live the way they do, and if they live it authentically to their own viewing-take my parents for example.

I don't need to listen to you lecture(and it is a lecture) because again, i find your post to be entirely presumptious and amusing to the highest of a degree.

I pursue philosophy with the knowing of what philosophical inquiry is. It is the subjective creations of individuals to assist with the creations of other individuals. It is the philosophies of the individuals that created them, and no philosophical theory has ever been accepted in its entirety. Just because i have concluded myself within existential philosophies does not mean i am limited to their ideologies-but it seems it is one of the only philosophies to deal directly and entirely with the individual as a human being. I am not an existentialist however, to say i was would be contradicting the very philosophy it wishes to enhance-my association is not a steadfast one such as a religious fervency, but we are all existentialist associates at heart, no matter how much we deny it, all philosophies pertaining directly with the individuals character and being in the world is an existentialism.

And no, i can take my personal experience with my 'short 16 years of life' to be my main priority. Maybe you are the one who should have their mind opened to the possibilities because maybe, just maybe consider the fact that perhaps there are things that sentient human beings, other than yourself, have experienced that prove to them the non-existence of god.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

They claim to have found him. How can you deny them? Is it because of your atheistic pressupositions? Clearly you have no method of determining if they have or havent?
No, you misunderstood what i said. Just because there are millions upon millions who have found him, there are millions and even billions in this modern era who have never experienced him/it/her/whatever. If you realize how small of a percentage of the world that has ever found the christian god, you will see how many people have never experienced it.

I LOL at your misunderstanding of what i said.

[GreenMunchkin]

Existence, you're about as ornery a teenager as I've ever met, so am sending you a huge hug, dude :D :hug::hug:

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Existence, you're about as ornery a teenager as I've ever met, so am sending you a huge hug, dude :D :hug::hug:

Do i come off as ornery? I like to think of myself as more of a smart-aleck.

[Lisa0315]

Do i come off as ornery? I like to think of myself as more of a smart-aleck.

You have not answered the all important question. In your profile picture, are you the guy in the middle? If so, does that mean that you are Precedes and your two friends are Existence and Essence? :D

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

Do i come off as ornery? I like to think of myself as more of a smart-aleck.Oh, no, you've got the quintessential ornery teen thing down. But your version of the moody one-word grunts are highly intellectualized and interesting, so you've got a decent ornery to smart-aleck ratio going on :P Best of both, dude. Good times. Good times.

:hug::hug::hug: More hugs!

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You have not answered the all important question. In your profile picture, are you the guy in the middle? If so, does that mean that you are Precedes and your two friends are Existence and Essence? :D

Lisa
I'm the asian one, yes.

http://i23.tinypic.com/sc6fzn.jpg

Just for you Lisa.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Oh, no, you've got the quintessential ornery teen thing down. But your version of the moody one-word grunts are highly intellectualized and interesting, so you've got a decent ornery to smart-aleck ratio going on :P Best of both, dude. Good times. Good times.

:hug::hug::hug: More hugs!
Hopefully i never grow out of it.

[Miss Shelby]

you've got to be kidding me.

[GreenMunchkin]

Hopefully i never grow out of it.Oh you will you know. You're gonna go on to like own a company or country or something, and smart aleckness will cattle that up. Look at Che Guevara :P

But it's almost vital that rich recluses are ornery. When you're grown up, it may come across as more roguish, and that's always beneficial.

Was terribly worried you'd be emo :D Excellent news.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Oh you will you know. You're gonna go on to like own a company or country or something, and smart aleckness will cattle that up. Look at Che Guevara :P

But it's almost vital that rich recluses are ornery. When you're grown up, it may come across as more roguish, and that's always beneficial.

Was terribly worried you'd be emo :D Excellent news.
How would i come off as emo?

/wrists

[GreenMunchkin]

How would i come off as emo?

/wrists:D

Your photo isn't emo, but your moodiness is slightly emo :P You may, of course, be hiding uber-emoness under the hat. There could be a wilted Flock of Seagulls haircut going on under there.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

:D

Your photo isn't emo, but your moodiness is slightly emo :P You may, of course, be hiding uber-emoness under the hat. There could be a wilted Flock of Seagulls haircut going on under there.
It's all short.