Songbird - a devastating account of McCain's real-life incarceration . . .

[BT]

I'm not sure if I follow.

What does a kind heart have to do with too much diversified and often ill-informed thought?

And what do you propose as the solution?

[Cynthia]

I'm not sure if I follow.

What does a kind heart have to do with too much diversified and often ill-informed thought?

And what do you propose as the solution?

I suppose that we want for too much in this country. We could live with less, and yet the more we make $$ the more we want...the less we were given as children, the more we feel we need to GIVE to our children.

Kind heartedness and good character traits are important in this or any nation.....generation.

But, we don't see that..because we are too busy making the big buck.

I am not saying that we should not teach our children to do their best or try to make the big buck, but we must teach our children to consider the other person.....the other person is just as valuable as the high dollar made. imo.

[Michael Tee]

<<No Michael. I meant, why does someone have to be wrong? Can we get beyond the Old Testament here?>>

I'm not sure what you're getting at, BSB. 

When I told Cindy that one of us  had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense.  Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.

Were you referring to my argument with Cindy or to my own take on McCain's "heroism?"  Or both?

[Amianthus]

When I told Cindy that one of us  had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense.  Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.

Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong."

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong.">>

That was probably the point of BSB's question.  In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions.  "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God."  There must be plenty of other examples as well.

[Cynthia]

<<Actually, since you talking about opinions, no one has to be "wrong.">>

That was probably the point of BSB's question.  In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions.  "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God."  There must be plenty of other examples as well.

You're either right er yer wrong!

You're either "in"

or

You're

Out! ......Project Runway mantra.

The comments from Ami and BSB hold a hell of a lot water especially around here.....beatin' those dead horses again and again.....

wanting so very much to be right! We all want that. We all have our "truth".

AT the risk of turning this into an existential argument...

I bid you adious for a while, as I will be out of town.

Ciao.
Cindy

[Amianthus]

In the Old Testament sense, there are definitely right and wrong opinions.  "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God."  There must be plenty of other examples as well.

There are opinions that will get you in trouble with the "big guy" upstairs and there are opinions that will get you in trouble with secular law enforcement, but that does not make those opinions factually incorrect.

[Michael Tee]

<<There are opinions that will get you in trouble with the "big guy" upstairs and there are opinions that will get you in trouble with secular law enforcement, but that does not make those opinions factually incorrect.>>

Well, an opinion that will get you in trouble with the "big guy upstairs" is a "wrong" opinion in a Biblical sense and its opposite is a "right" opinion in a Biblical sense.

Factual correctness is never a factor in evaluating opinions from a Biblical perspective, since it's purely irrelevant.  Being factually correct won't get you into Heaven or keep you out of Hell.

[Amianthus]

Well, an opinion that will get you in trouble with the "big guy upstairs" is a "wrong" opinion in a Biblical sense and its opposite is a "right" opinion in a Biblical sense.

Factual correctness is never a factor in evaluating opinions from a Biblical perspective, since it's purely irrelevant.  Being factually correct won't get you into Heaven or keep you out of Hell.

When I told Cindy that one of us  had to be wrong, I meant wrong in the Aristotelian sense of the word ("false" as opposed to "true,") not the Biblical sense.  Two conflicting views on a subject can't both be right if there is an objective standard of truth.

[Michael Tee]

Where is the discrepancy between the two statements?  There is no factual issue involved in Biblical judgments, there is a moral issue only.  Love your neighbour is no more "factually" correct than hate your neighbour.  Logic could be found to justify either.  Morally one sucks and the other doesn't, but Adolf Hitler and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would never agree on which one was the one that sucked.

[Amianthus]

Where is the discrepancy between the two statements?

You are equating the difference between your opinion and Cindy's opinion a difference in "fact" and therefore one of you must be wrong:

<<We disagree on this issue, Mtee.>>

Then one of us has to be wrong.

In actuality, they are both opinions and therefore neither of them has to be wrong.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . they are both opinions and therefore neither of them has to be wrong.>>

We're just going around in circles here.  I've already given my POV - -  that opinions can be right or wrong in the Bible.  In other words, the author or authors of the Bible had one opinion on an issue (say, the existence of God) and of two possible opinions (excluding agnosticism) one opinion is clearly labeled "right" and one is clearly labeled "wrong."

So it is possible to have an opinion that, within one belief-system (the Biblical) can be labeled either "right" or "wrong," when in another belief-system (the Aristotelian,) it might be impossible to label the opinion as either "right" or "wrong."

[Plane]

An omnipotent God need not worry about  ambeguity , when he knows he is right , he can be certain every time, Human beings have hunches , gut feelings , hypothesis, theroys even axioms but we never have the certitude about the rules as the one who wrothe them.

[Amianthus]

We're just going around in circles here.

You initially said that either you or Cindy had to be wrong. Later on you said that you were speaking of "Aristotelian truth" - ie, fact. When I pointed out that your and Cindy's disagreement was opinion, and not fact, you pulled out the "Biblical truth" claim.

[Michael Tee]

<<You initially said that either you or Cindy had to be wrong. Later on you said that you were speaking of "Aristotelian truth" - ie, fact. When I pointed out that your and Cindy's disagreement was opinion, and not fact, you pulled out the "Biblical truth" claim.>>

That was my mistake.  An opinion on a theological matter does not have to be subjected to Aristotelian logic in order to be found wrong or false.  Perhaps the only possible Aristotelian judgment on any theological opinion is "insufficient data."  If subjected to the standards of the Bible, which are NOT Aristotelian, one man's opinion can in fact be found to be wrong, and another man's, right.

Looks like I was badly confused.