Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

Well, according to the stories Zeus revealed himself in physical and dramatic ways. He raped (or seduced) Leda in the form of a swan. Further evidence of this union occurred when Helen ("was this the face that launched a thousand ships") was hatched out of an egg. Perhaps this is another voice with which "god has spoken."

You must have missed our earlier conversation...mine and FD's.

One way we know we're not talking about the same individual is when the description of them is different.

Why is the voice you hear the only worthwhile one?

I don't hear voices. I read Scripture.

...why should anyone else care?

Because they have a soul, and its disposition should be the most important matter in the world to them.

There are other scriptures,

Indeed there are. And I have read several of them. If you were to do the same, I suspect you'd see what I see: that the differences between them are absolutely profound. And I suggest you might want to take most seriously the one that is evidently the most serious candidate. Most of them, I'll think you will find you can dispatch rather quickly. But the remainder...well, that will take a serious investigation, before you can pass judgment on that one.

[FlashDangerpants]

You'd have to know how exegesis works to understand. I think it will be difficult to explain to you without that.

That involves far too much interpretation...

No, really...you'd have to understand how exegesis works.

It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which words you do and do not share with the other person.

Remember, you don't even have the same word for "good" that normal people have. If that word doesn't work as we would expect then few other words can ever be trusted. Not that trust is the same word for you as it is for other people.

[FlashDangerpants]

If mister Can thinks toast is most delicious with marmalade on crusty white bread, and Mrs Can thinks toast is most delicious with honey on sourdough, the Can household is incapable of discussing what is for breakfast tomorrow. Not that they ever had any common ground for the word "bread".

[Immanuel Can]

That involves far too much interpretation...

No, really...you'd have to understand how exegesis works.

It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which words you do and do not share with the other person.

Exegesis. You need to understand it.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, really...you'd have to understand how exegesis works.

It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which words you do and do not share with the other person.

Exegesis. You need to understand it.

Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no way of telling.

[Immanuel Can]

It can't work at all if you don't have any reliable method of finding out which words you do and do not share with the other person.

Exegesis. You need to understand it.

Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no way of telling.

Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think.

Okay, you can keep thinking it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Exegesis. You need to understand it.

Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no way of telling.

Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think.

Okay, you can keep thinking it.

It's the inescapable outcome of your description of language by which a word so fundamental as "good" is not part of a shared vocabulary available to all, but a balkanised one dependent on ostensive definitions of the utterers internalised beliefs.

You took all shared meaning away from words as a natural kind, but now you want it back for just the word "exegesis" on special pleading grounds.

[Immanuel Can]

Impossible, the words to explain it could mean anything, you have no way of telling.

Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think.

Okay, you can keep thinking it.

It's the inescapable outcome of your description of language...

So you suppose. But you need to learn about how proper exegesis is done. Big topic: too big for here. But I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong if that's what you suppose. You've been drinking the Postmodern kool-aid, I guess.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, I can see that's what you prefer to think.

Okay, you can keep thinking it.

It's the inescapable outcome of your description of language...

So you suppose. But you need to learn about how proper exegesis is done. Big topic: too big for here. But I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong if that's what you suppose. You've been drinking the Postmodern kool-aid, I guess.

It's not postmodern, it just Wittgenstein. You have a rule following paradox problem because you set the source of the meaning of words as internal beliefs. It's real basic stuff. You fucked up.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not postmodern, it just Wittgenstein. You have a rule following paradox problem because you set the source of the meaning of words as internal beliefs. It's real basic stuff. You fucked up.

You're trying to say something yourself, then make me answer for what you said. It's just not going to play out that way, FD. Sorry.

I guess we're done. We've gone around this circle three times. The answer's still the same.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not postmodern, it just Wittgenstein. You have a rule following paradox problem because you set the source of the meaning of words as internal beliefs. It's real basic stuff. You fucked up.

You're trying to say something yourself, then make me answer for what you said. It's just not going to play out that way, FD. Sorry.

I guess we're done. We've gone around this circle three times. The answer's still the same.

Well, for the third time you are gifting me the last word in this matter, well done you. So here is the truth of the thing....

Had you understood entry level philosophy of language, then among other things you would know about Russell and Frege's competing theories regarding definite descriptors. There is no reason to need an opinion on which is better by the way. The fact is that with such understanding, you wouldn't have asked the question Who has this one "sense" you mention?. So I already knew you don't understand the topic.

In your next attempt, you tried to use exegesis as an escape for all the problems you caused yourself, but that cannot help. Exegesis is impossible if you have rendered language impossible, and that is the outcome of balkanising all the basic construction blocks from which the language can be made with which the exegesis can be carried out.

Because you are too sinfully proud to learn anything from me, even when it is clear that I do know about stuff you don't sometimes, you are bullshitting Harbal an Astro out of sheer ignorance and arrogance. Not that they are falling for it, your bullshit really only works on Walker. You could still be arguing that questions about what is good can only be answered adequately in reference to the will and whatever it was of God on some basis that the concept of good requires some X that only such a model an offer.

The balkanisation of language that you propose with this absurd notion that people who don't share beliefs about the referent cannot share sense is something that every philosopher of language for the last 150 years at least (since Mill off the top of my head) has been trying to avoid in order to escape the obvious skeptical trap that you walk into with such abandon... Unless you have some next level stupid Berkeleyan argument that language only has meaning because the true concepts refer to ideas in the mind of God I suppose, in that case you would want the skeptical problem.

If you cannot accept that other people hold the same concept of good and bad as you do irrespective of what it is that they happen to consider exemplification of these concepts, you have broken language itself as a means of communication. You render langauge nothing but noises pointing at a set of incommunicable inner ideas with no means of comparison or translation.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, for the third time you are gifting me the last word in this matter, well done you.

I'm "gifting" you nothing, but the right to remain as confused as you may wish to. If you regard that as a "gift, "then you're welcome, I guess.

I'm not joining you in your lack of information, and your deliberate attempts to put words in my mouth, or to attribute to me positions I have not taken. It won't be happening.

[Alexiev]

Indeed there are. And I have read several of them. If you were to do the same, I suspect you'd see what I see: that the differences between them are absolutely profound. And I suggest you might want to take most seriously the one that is evidently the most serious candidate. Most of them, I'll think you will find you can dispatch rather quickly. But the remainder...well, that will take a serious investigation, before you can pass judgment on that one.

This is a version of subjective preference and false dichotomy. If one Scripture is preferable to another, both might be wrong. It isn't reasonable to assume thr superior one is correct.

So the supposed objectivity scriptural adherence provides to ethics is a chimera (to stick to analogies from Greek Mythology). The preference and the interpretation are both subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed there are. And I have read several of them. If you were to do the same, I suspect you'd see what I see: that the differences between them are absolutely profound. And I suggest you might want to take most seriously the one that is evidently the most serious candidate. Most of them, I'll think you will find you can dispatch rather quickly. But the remainder...well, that will take a serious investigation, before you can pass judgment on that one.

This is a version of subjective preference and false dichotomy. If one Scripture is preferable to another, both might be wrong. It isn't reasonable to assume thr superior one is correct.

Au contraire. It's is very reasonable to know that Shakespeare's Hamlet is a greater work than The Cat in the Hat. One may prefer one or the other; but one may not say that they are equal.

[FlashDangerpants]

your deliberate attempts to put words in my mouth, or to attribute to me positions I have not taken.

These are your words, written by you....

when an unbeliever uses the phrase "God is good," it has no meaning the Theist finds adequate

That position of yours which you wrote in your own words is inpet. Don't blame that on me.