[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i have to go to work now, but i’ll respond later today…[/quote]
Well apparently you at least acknowledge the existence of a thing called “time” that is objectively rendered via a thing commonly known as a “clock.”
That’s a start, anyway.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem, my good man - that cartoon has it all wrong. It’s the “grey area” that’s (superficially) comforting. [/quote]
…how exactly?
[/quote]
Because “grey” demands nothing of you & tells you (usually in cloying language…now let’s cue Sesame Street music) that you’re okay just as you are; it flatters you endlessly that you’re not controlled by rigid conventions or rules; and yet, because you have no timeless truth by which to assess and judge (re: actually think) you drift along with the zeigeist of the times, dutifully responding to what you’re told to believe, all the while imagining that you’re a “free spirit,” which is exactly what you aren’t.
To step into a world of black & white is to confront reality as it is. Actually, to complete the metaphor, it is to confront the color grey as it is. What do you think grey is composed of but black & white?
Only the truth is ultimately comforting. [/quote]
…what you described here is how you perceive moral relativism, not my perception of it. Please keep that in mind…[/quote]
I see the sickness is deep - Ephrem, do you even believe that we’re able to identify what moral relativism is? Or is that relative to each person too?
[/quote]
…let’s determin that shall we? I was talking about:
[emphasis mine]
“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”
…you on the other hand was talking about [i assume]:
“Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.”
…i agree with the first definition, not the second…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i have to go to work now, but i’ll respond later today…[/quote]Have a good day (night?) and don’t forget your lunch. We’ll look forward to more of your fine company when you return.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]
I’m wondering why you would consider that an awful thing to say. Would I be right in assuming you don’t believe in the spiritual life/death he’s referring to? If so, then why would you be offended in the first place?
Your statement was, IMO a direct personal slight. -paraphrasing your comment-“If I had the chance of living or dying, and it was you there trying to save me, I’d rather drown.”
Sorry, but I can’t put that sentiment in the same category as the one you cited.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]
I’m wondering why you would consider that an awful thing to say. Would I be right in assuming you don’t believe in the spiritual life/death he’s referring to? If so, then why would you be offended in the first place?
Your statement was, IMO a direct personal slight. -paraphrasing your comment-“If I had the chance of living or dying, and it was you there trying to save me, I’d rather drown.”
Sorry, but I can’t put that sentiment in the same category as the one you cited.[/quote]
…he wasn’t talking literally either cueball…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i have to go to work now, but i’ll respond later today…[/quote]Have a good day (night?) and don’t forget your lunch. We’ll look forward to more of your fine company when you return. [/quote]
…the 4 to 12pm shift is a quiet one (:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]WOW, the socialism’s gone way outta hand over there. That’s the shortest work day I ever heard of.
You did catch my repeated affirmations that this is not peculiar to you and that I myself spent my first 20 years as your dead comrade and take no credit whatsoever for the life that I now live through the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me? (and maybe you too). If I wasn’t offending someone like you Ephrem I would be grievously remiss in my duties as a witness of the gospel. That’s not the same as TRYING to be offensive for offense’s sake which I assure you I have not done with you even once.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]WOW, the socialism’s gone way outta hand over there. That’s the shortest work day I ever heard of.
You did catch my repeated affirmations that this is not peculiar to you and that I myself spent my first 20 years as your dead comrade and take no credit whatsoever for the life that I now live through the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me? (and maybe you too). If I wasn’t offending someone like you Ephrem I would be grievously remiss in my duties as a witness of the gospel. That’s not the same as TRYING to be offensive for offense’s sake which I assure you I have not done with you even once.[/quote]
…what are you saying here: that you realise that your remarks may be perceived as offensive but that you can’t take responsibility for them because it’s god’s love that’s behind those remarks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]
I’m wondering why you would consider that an awful thing to say. Would I be right in assuming you don’t believe in the spiritual life/death he’s referring to? If so, then why would you be offended in the first place?
Your statement was, IMO a direct personal slight. -paraphrasing your comment-“If I had the chance of living or dying, and it was you there trying to save me, I’d rather drown.”
Sorry, but I can’t put that sentiment in the same category as the one you cited.[/quote]
…he wasn’t talking literally either cueball…
[/quote]
How does being figurative instead of literal change the sentiment behind the statement?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]
I’m wondering why you would consider that an awful thing to say. Would I be right in assuming you don’t believe in the spiritual life/death he’s referring to? If so, then why would you be offended in the first place?
Your statement was, IMO a direct personal slight. -paraphrasing your comment-“If I had the chance of living or dying, and it was you there trying to save me, I’d rather drown.”
Sorry, but I can’t put that sentiment in the same category as the one you cited.[/quote]
…he wasn’t talking literally either cueball…
[/quote]
How does being figurative instead of literal change the sentiment behind the statement?[/quote]
…how can it not? Seriously, i’m not allowed to be offended by a condescending remark because his beliefs are not mine, but because he believes what he’s saying i can’t be honest because of how it may be perceived?
…forget it, he’s not asking for, and not getting, special treatment from me…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …what are you saying here: that you realize that your remarks may be perceived as offensive but that you can’t take responsibility for them because it’s god’s love that’s behind those remarks?[/quote]In short, yes. Jesus Christ is called a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8) where Peter is quoting the OT prophet Isaiah. He WILL be offensive to the prideful, self sufficient, self perceived autonomous sinner. (1 Cor. 1 again) There is however a major difference between being pridefully offensive in an attempt to get the opponents goat and letting the truth of the gospel do it’s offending.
I pray constantly while in these conversations to be preserved in His grace because God has given me a gift of wordsmanship which left to myself I can easily use to rip people to shreds in an abominable display of pride and self righteousness. Even then I still find myself slipping into it. I still have my old nature and am no better than you are in myself.
The problem with much of the modern church (at large) is she proclaims the name of Jesus, but is content to see her fellow men perish in hell rather than piss them off by telling them the truth. Or she’s become so much like they are nobody can tell the difference if there even is one at all in too many cases. I have said to you before that I am not trying to offend you, but if I am to be faithful to Him like he has been to me offenses WILL occur.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …if that life preserver is you, or similarly minded people like you, i’d ask for an anchor too you know…
[/quote]That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been though together.
And of course you know what I’m going to say by now. I said that you will know myself a dozen times. I would like to hear your take on moral relativism though, regardless of how cozy we’ve gotten with all this mutual prognostication going back and forth.
You will probably disagree with this (well maybe not), but you would be a blast to know in real life. That is no condescending insult btw.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
I have to say, that’s probably one of the most awful statements I’ve read here in a while. If you only knew…[/quote]
…and yet it’s perfectly fine to call me spiritually dead and in need of being saved?
[/quote]
I’m wondering why you would consider that an awful thing to say. Would I be right in assuming you don’t believe in the spiritual life/death he’s referring to? If so, then why would you be offended in the first place?
Your statement was, IMO a direct personal slight. -paraphrasing your comment-“If I had the chance of living or dying, and it was you there trying to save me, I’d rather drown.”
Sorry, but I can’t put that sentiment in the same category as the one you cited.[/quote]
…he wasn’t talking literally either cueball…
[/quote]
How does being figurative instead of literal change the sentiment behind the statement?[/quote]
…how can it not? Seriously, i’m not allowed to be offended by a condescending remark because his beliefs are not mine, but because he believes what he’s saying i can’t be honest because of how it may be perceived?
…forget it, he’s not asking for, and not getting, special treatment from me…
[/quote]
Why do you feel his remark was condescending? If anything, his remark is in the light of wanting to turn you in the right direction. Care to explain in which light your remark was made?
Edit: Sorry Tirib if I’m speaking to much for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …what are you saying here: that you realize that your remarks may be perceived as offensive but that you can’t take responsibility for them because it’s god’s love that’s behind those remarks?
[/quote]In short, yes. Jesus Christ is called a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8) where Peter is quoting the OT prophet Isaiah. He WILL be offensive to the prideful, self sufficient, self perceived autonomous sinner. (1 Cor. 1 again) There is however a major difference between being pridefully offensive in an attempt to get the opponents goat and letting the truth of the gospel do it’s offending.
I pray constantly while in these conversations to be preserved in His grace because God has given me a gift of wordsmanship which left to myself I can easily use to rip people to shreds in an abominable display of pride and self righteousness. Even then I still find myself slipping into it. I still have my old nature and am no better than you are in myself.
The problem with much of the modern church (at large) is she proclaims the name of Jesus, but is content to see her fellow men perish in hell rather than piss them off by telling them the truth. Or she’s become so much like they are nobody can tell the difference if there even is one at all in too many cases. I have said to you before that I am not trying to offend you, but if I am to be faithful to Him like he has been to me offenses WILL occur.[/quote]
…dude, you’re justifying abusive behaviour, and you’re still wondering why i’d reject your lifepreserver? By that same token you could justify any kind of behaviour. You do realise that, don’t you?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…how can it not? Seriously, i’m not allowed to be offended by a condescending remark because his beliefs are not mine, but because he believes what he’s saying i can’t be honest because of how it may be perceived?
…forget it, he’s not asking for, and not getting, special treatment from me…
[/quote]
Why do you feel his remark was condescending? If anything, his remark is in the light of wanting to turn you in the right direction. Care to explain in which light your remark was made?
Edit: Sorry Tirib if I’m speaking to much for you.[/quote]
…[condescending]i’m dreadfully sorry cueball, i really am, but if you lack the intelligence that i have, which can be yours if only you’d do what i believe is intelligent, you’re destined to dwell in your selfmade ignorance and blindness[/condescending]…
…i was honest when i said that i’d rather take the anchor instead of his lifepreserver, nothing more…
[quote]cueball wrote:
<<< Edit: Sorry Tirib if I’m speaking to much for you.[/quote]No problem LOL! You are very kind and loyal to come to a brother’s defense, but I have to be honest. In this case he’s right. I am neither asking for nor expecting any particular treatment, special or otherwise from him or anybody else. I don’t necessarily welcome being beat up on, but from his perspective I’ve been beating up on him for weeks so what should he be expected to do? I’ve got a special place in my heart for this guy. I don’t know exactly why and it’s not that I don’t care about anybody else, but Ephrem is on my mind a lot. I’m sure he’ll be thrilled to death to hear that =]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …dude, you’re justifying abusive behaviour, and you’re still wondering why i’d reject your lifepreserver? By that same token you could justify any kind of behaviour. You do realise that, don’t you?
[/quote]No, I don’t realize that. My “token” is the Word of God and I will never attempt to justify any behavior not called for by Him. Why are you offended? I’m a self deluded, possibly insane intellectual antique who claims to hear the voice of a God you vehemently deny exists. So… who cares what I say? No unbeliever here, including you has offended me even once. Have you noticed that?
Hohoo, ephrem. you certainly know it, but one can’t have an open discourse with a believer, because thay are never really interested in your opinions, opinions are just obstacles to be cleared away so you can see the light. Believers are dishonest 
and you are only a potential point on the scoreboard. Halleluja. When you are right you can’t be wrong.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Ephrem, my good man - that cartoon has it all wrong. It’s the “grey area” that’s (superficially) comforting. [/quote]
…how exactly?
[/quote]
Because “grey” demands nothing of you & tells you (usually in cloying language…now let’s cue Sesame Street music) that you’re okay just as you are; it flatters you endlessly that you’re not controlled by rigid conventions or rules; and yet, because you have no timeless truth by which to assess and judge (re: actually think) you drift along with the zeigeist of the times, dutifully responding to what you’re told to believe, all the while imagining that you’re a “free spirit,” which is exactly what you aren’t.
To step into a world of black & white is to confront reality as it is. Actually, to complete the metaphor, it is to confront the color grey as it is. What do you think grey is composed of but black & white?
Only the truth is ultimately comforting. [/quote]
…what you described here is how you perceive moral relativism, not my perception of it. Please keep that in mind…[/quote]
I see the sickness is deep - Ephrem, do you even believe that we’re able to identify what moral relativism is? Or is that relative to each person too?
[/quote]
…let’s determin that shall we? I was talking about:
[emphasis mine]
“Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.”
…you on the other hand was talking about [i assume]:
“Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.”
…i agree with the first definition, not the second…[/quote]
Do you really think this gets you out of the moral relativist trap? Ummmm…no, it doesn’t. It just merely complicates your position a little and makes you feel like you’ve got a well-thought out, more sophisticated “philosophy” than straight moral relativism… But moral relativism - either flavor - is incoherent.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< and you are only a potential point on the scoreboard. >>>[/quote] In this instance you are dead wrong and I think even he knows that that hasn’t been the case here.