The more Godless America becomes, the more 'uncivil' it also becomes

No, but you can be...so can ANY man who claims to know it.

or do you claim divine knowledge?

 

You should know better than that by now, theres no way I'll EVER claim divine knowledge. LOL!!
I'm humble and acknowledge my weakness, if I'm anything.

Whether we're right, or wrong, doesn't affect the truth. We may not acknowledge, realize, or admit to it, but there will always be an absolute truth.

 

"The PERCEPTION of truth is subjective, rather than truth itself is subjective!!!"

Truth, by definition, is what actually conforms and corresponds with what is real and what actually exists.

The reason Truth is elusive is that every person is born with a psyche genetically skewed such that their sense of perception about the external world will be slightly different from others.
The evidence for this can be found in the Psychological Personality Inventories, like the Myers/Briggs Type Tests (MBTT) which classify us all into categories which are different.

A little reflection and one realizes that they already know different people re confirmed in different ways of understanding and explaining the same things. That is the first hint that they r-are all wrong, and so are we.
The Truth lies somewhere in the midst of all our views:



Matt18:20

For where two (people) or (even) three (whole different denominational congregations?) are gathered together in my name, (Truth), there am I, (the son of Reality, or the Father of the real world we live in), in the midst of them, (Truth: [John 14:6])



Nevertheless, the Truth though stubbornly avoided, is recognized in the same way that we deny bad behavior but our Conscience bothers us about.
An example by Rev Martin Luther King is available, when all Americans held different arguments against and for "Separate but Equal."
But once the hands were called, and the bluffs seen for what they were, the Truth prevailed.

- - - Updated - - -

"The PERCEPTION of truth is subjective, rather than truth itself is subjective!!!"

Truth, by definition, is what actually conforms and corresponds with what is real and what actually exists.

The reason Truth is elusive is that every person is born with a psyche genetically skewed such that their sense of perception about the external world will be slightly different from others.
The evidence for this can be found in the Psychological Personality Inventories, like the Myers/Briggs Type Tests (MBTT) which classify us all into categories which are different.

A little reflection and one realizes that they already know different people re confirmed in different ways of understanding and explaining the same things. That is the first hint that they r-are all wrong, and so are we.
The Truth lies somewhere in the midst of all our views:



Matt18:20

For where two (people) or (even) three (whole different denominational congregations?) are gathered together in my name, (Truth), there am I, (the son of Reality, or the Father of the real world we live in), in the midst of them, (Truth: [John 14:6])



Nevertheless, the Truth though stubbornly avoided, is recognized in the same way that we deny bad behavior but our Conscience bothers us about.
An example by Rev Martin Luther King is available, when all Americans held different arguments against and for "Separate but Equal."
But once the hands were called, and the bluffs seen for what they were, the Truth prevailed.

 

But how do YOU know what IS "absolute truth"....unless you are flawless and perfect?

 

Well, I appeal to God, and those things laid out in scripture, and some "common sense". If the New Testament, doesn't outline some applicational principle on it, I try to go with my God given intuition. I can be wrong, because I'm a fallen creature. But whether I'm right or wrong, that doesn't affect whther the truth is absolute or not.

 

The problem is in that what is implied by your post is suggesting that someone has ascertained "truth" and it is being rejected. Someone's postulate as to the truth can be acknowledged and then it can be shown to be invalid, as often happens to you. You want to characterize it as an acknowledgement and then an illogical rejection of the truth claim.
You can disavow this if you like, but it is the obvious impression you are trying to leave, as evidenced by the use of the word "admit" in your response.

 

I have tried to tell you, time and time again to please drop your presuppositions. It would actually help with your interpretation. I have a feeling thats why you're in the shape you're in. But anyway, I thought we agreed, apparently we didn't, so sorry.

 

Throughout history the Christian segments of society have been anything but civil, what with crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, a genocide here and there, and general holy mayhem. In fact only very very short periods in history have been void of these intolerant christian attrributes.

I'd pin the decline of civility in America to;

A) Politics. The politcal parties have found that dividing the nation with uncivil and my way or the highway "debate" is a great way to win elections. So they claim anyting that will foment outrage and division. They have play books just full of wedge issues.....

B) Americas obsession with all things electronic.... we all walk around with our heads down, staring at a device, closing out the rest of the world in the process. We've become unaccustomed to civil discourse directly face to face. It's so much easier to tell someone to (*)(*)(*)(*) off via facebook or e-mail than face to face.

C) Americas obsession with and love of money. It's made us greedy, selfish, and paranoid.

Memorize these, there will be a test later.

 

Not a presupposition at all. It is data gleaned from your post. I didn't wander into your post with my response already concocted in my head. I read yours, and even pointed out the reasons I came to my conclusion, which you, as is your habit, chose not to acknowledge.
You are being disingenuous, or stupid, which I don't think you are. You know full well the twist you put on my response and that it isn't at all what my post said. It was a dishonest attempt at misrepresenting what I said, and a poor one, as it is simply a very flawed extrapolation of my post.
You never imagined we agreed, and this is below the values you aspire to.

 

?

Non sequitur...

We have accumulated great bodies of Truth by means of the Scientific Method.
That knowledge has enlarged our world view in every way.

Facts are now available from our computers and Sociological Studies and Stats have placed facts in our hands which aid our mind in recognizing the truth when we hear or see it.
But, Truth, like Conscience, has evolved over time and resides inside us all.

Things like Civil Rights become subject to the Truth when the chips are down and everyone's hand is called.
In fact, in these threads, we all present our cases with the inherent belief that what we contend to be true will in the end prevail, because discussion will make the case for what is true.

 

The fact that you think I somehow "twisted" your response is a direct admission to the fact that you always seem to have a presupposition. I am not here to "win" some argument, I'm here to ascertain other peoples beliefs and views. I don't pretend to always be right, and don't really care if people think I'm logical. If someone can show me where I've erred in thinking, then thats fine, but I'm not here to "twist" somebodys words (I honestly don't think I'm that intelligent), I'm just here to see what drives other peoples thoughts, and views.

This exchange has just reflected the disconnect that you have with people, and that may be the reason for the shape that you're in.

 

Totally disingenuous.
How can anyone show you where you've erred if you don't care about being logical?
If you don't understand how you twisted that last bit, perhaps I overestimated you. Maybe you really can't see why it is a logical abuse of my post. Maybe you really are that simple and blinded by a need for faith.
But then, you were the one who said elsewhere that you couldn't define logic, so there is that.
Why do you imagine you know me well enough to imply what shape I'm in?
All of you fellows do this. You invent this whole biography for me when you start to look absurd in your arguments. Incorporeal did it, OD did it, and now you are following suit. How is this a rebuttal?

 

Whatever appears "disingenuous" to you, is clearly a misinterpretation on your part, but we've already been through that countless times, so I don't care to continue down that path.

Do you think faith is logical?

As far as inventing a biography, I can't speak for the others, but you do appear "wounded".

 

So you claim there is absolute truth, but have no idea if you know it or not. Then how can it be absolute?
One of those circular logic or just plain ole throw out the logic?
\
BTW - your other reply to me was absolute stupidity and I won't answer.
Except I will say to 100% of the people in the world? Probably not.

 

And thus, the invention of a biography.
Simply ridiculous.

 

LOL..as the thread dissolves to uncivility......

 

This thread was created to be uncivilized.

 

So by saying 100 percent "not" you're in affect saying there is an absolute truth.

How can my knowing or not knowing affect the truth? If the speed limit on a given road is 45mph, whether I know it or not, its still 45 mph, correct?

 

If you say as I that uncertainty is 100% and want to call it truth, sure.

It may be posted as law to drive no more than 45 mph. But if you drive at that speed, how can you be absolutely sure your car or vehicle is correctly calibrated and you are actually going 45.000000 mph? And then by whose standards do you want to calibrate your speedometer?
I would be willing to bet, you could drive 46mph past cops all day in a 45mph zone and not ever get a blink.

 

Once again what I say or do has no bearing on the actual truth. It doesn't matter how fast I go, the limit is still 45mph. It doesn't matter whether I get stopped or not, its still 45 mph.

Whether or not you're uncertain or not that 100% of the world would agree that raping a 4 year old child is wrong, would it still not be absolutely wrong to rape a 4 year old, no matter who agrees or not. What circumstance is there that raping a 4 year old would be morally right?

 

In what circumstance would you be willing to smash babies on rocks? Is that absolutely wrong, 100%?

 

exactly, even a child of a rape would not call rape good, rape is bad... even if good can come from rape it is still bad

.

 

I'd add gross laziness and a complete failure to take your childrens' education seriously. that's academic education AND social education.

 

The limit is nothing but the law, a guide. You may drive 45 by your car, the limit may be 45, but the cop may have you at 46. Whose truth is right?

I have no circumstance on your 4 yr old scenario. But I'm only 1 of 7B people.

 

Is that different from a flood?