"Huh? I ask you to clarify what is subjective justification and
you said it is not your concern? You mean everyone knows what you
mean by that? Even if so, you should be humble to enlighten rather
than be haughty and condescending in response. "
The correct answer is number 1b. Such lack of initiative to find
out simple definition is to be despised for its a mental block for
learning and unlearning. I'm in no position to enlighten anyone for
I'm not enlightened. You opinion of me does not matter to this
discussion, try to be on topic for discussion sake.
"You analogy is rather irrelevant. How is this discussion akin
to pushing or forcing a cow to drink? No one is being forced to
believe anything against his current beliefs."
The moral of the story is: One would seek and drink when one is
thirsty (for knowledge). There's a time for everything.
"And why should it not be the way I mentioned? And since when
have I implied that God is hidden? I am saying clearly that God has
revealed Himself in Creation, and in His Word, and by the
incarnation."
Should everything be your way?
re·veal 1 (r-vl) tr.v.re·vealed, re·veal·ing, re·veals 1. a. To
make known (something concealed or secret): revealed a confidence.
b. To bring to view; show. 2. To make known by supernatural or
divine means
I feel sorry for you if you did not realize the implication by
now.
"Talking about freewill? Those who would deny that it exists,
are they denying it out of their own freewill? Or predetermined to
deny freewill? How would they know anyway?"
How do you know?
Dude, your dictionary definition listed 7 meanings and you
expected people to know you were referring to 1b? It
has nothing to do with lack of initiative on my part, but your lack
of clarity in communication and lack of courtesy. So my
opinions of you does not matter yet you feel free to rant your
opinions of me as if it mattered to the discussion? Double
standards again? In any case, you failed to show how my
earlier understanding was in anyway conflicting with your 1b
definition.
Your moral of the story is flawed simply because it confuses a
physical need which must be met for survival with a
cognitive one which would inform how one should live his life.
You can die of thirst pretty soon if you don't quench it, but you
can also wander about meaninglessly your entire existence. So why
wait until thirsty or when, as is usually the case, life crisis
happens and then one thinks about more eternal or
spiritual matters?
Did I insist that everything should be my way? Strawman
argument. In any case, it need not be either/or. The one seeking
God may well be led by God to the one talking about God.
I don't know what your pity is for, but I surely doubt the
sincerity of it. Anyway what's your point?
The person who denies free will has a problem, he needs to ask
himself if he came to that conclusion based on his own thinking
(which involves freewill) or was he predetermined to come to that
conclusion. The dilemma is yours, not mine. I believe in free will.
In fact, I am conscious of it every moment. Your denial of it
places yourself in a very awkward position, so awkward that you
cannot even be coherent to defend it. The moment you CHOOSE to
defend the view that no free will exists you have already affirmed
free will.
