gcomeau
Member
- Thread starter
- #81
Finally. Actual answers.
Then your answer is really "I evaluate those two things to be non-subjective claims".
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are aware that "because that's the way it is" doesn't really qualify as an answer so I'm just ignoring the first part of both those statements.
We can back into what it is about a claim being "non subjective" that places them in the "to be logically analyzed" compartment later.
Gah...
No it bloody well is not "faith". You yourself provided the definition of faith at the beginning of the thread, don't make me repeat it back to you again. The communion of saints is the OBJECT of your faith, not your faith itself. It is the thing you have faith IN.
If I say "I believe in the sun" does that make the sun belief? Can I put "belief" in the dictionary as one of the definitions of "sun"? No I cannot. The sun is not "belief" because someone believes in it, and the communion of saints is not "faith" because you have faith in it.
Woohoo! We have actual criteria! Namely:
"Objectivity and subjectivity."
I don't know why it was like pulling teeth to get you to just say that.
Oh bullshit. This is the first time you've come anywhere near providing those answers. show me one single other place in this entire discussion where you told me your defining criteria for deciding whether something should be subject to logical inquiry was whether it was an objective or subjective statement. For cripes sake man, this is the first time you've even typed either word in the entire thread. I know, I just went back and did a search to verify it!
Now that we finally have those criteria however maybe we can make some headway. At last.
Here's where your answers still leave me with a problem. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the communion of saints was a subjective claim? It doesn't appear to fit the definition. Unless you are saying the communion exists ONLY as a personal perception and not as a real, actual connection? That it has no real independent existence outside your own mind or the mind of other believers? Is that your position?That the communion exists ONLY in your own mind?
Because that is what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.
Because that I what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.
Then your answer is really "I evaluate those two things to be non-subjective claims".
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are aware that "because that's the way it is" doesn't really qualify as an answer so I'm just ignoring the first part of both those statements.
We can back into what it is about a claim being "non subjective" that places them in the "to be logically analyzed" compartment later.
Well, now you are back to that nonsense, but I'll answer. I take the communion of saints on faith because it IS faith.
Gah...
No it bloody well is not "faith". You yourself provided the definition of faith at the beginning of the thread, don't make me repeat it back to you again. The communion of saints is the OBJECT of your faith, not your faith itself. It is the thing you have faith IN.
If I say "I believe in the sun" does that make the sun belief? Can I put "belief" in the dictionary as one of the definitions of "sun"? No I cannot. The sun is not "belief" because someone believes in it, and the communion of saints is not "faith" because you have faith in it.
It's just a belief; there is little objective about it.
Woohoo! We have actual criteria! Namely:
"Objectivity and subjectivity."
I don't know why it was like pulling teeth to get you to just say that.
Ah, now I see how this works. It takes me a while because I assume that posters are interested in an honest discussion by default, until shown otherwise: You ask; I answer over and over and over; then you say I haven't answered over and over an over.
Got it.
Oh bullshit. This is the first time you've come anywhere near providing those answers. show me one single other place in this entire discussion where you told me your defining criteria for deciding whether something should be subject to logical inquiry was whether it was an objective or subjective statement. For cripes sake man, this is the first time you've even typed either word in the entire thread. I know, I just went back and did a search to verify it!
Now that we finally have those criteria however maybe we can make some headway. At last.
Here's where your answers still leave me with a problem. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the communion of saints was a subjective claim? It doesn't appear to fit the definition. Unless you are saying the communion exists ONLY as a personal perception and not as a real, actual connection? That it has no real independent existence outside your own mind or the mind of other believers? Is that your position?That the communion exists ONLY in your own mind?