161–164 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as long as a stack of bibles is involved.
The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. While I'm not a fan of the phrase, it clearly means an absolute truth. No bibles necessary.
Do tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. While I'm not a fan of the phrase, it clearly means an absolute truth. No bibles necessary.
> The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. Do tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. Do tell.
Like I said, it means a supposed absolute truth. As there is no objective source, you can use a term for what would be an objective source, "god."
If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it?
Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, it means a supposed absolute truth. As there is no objective source, you can use a term for what would be an objective source, "god."
"[A] supposed absolute truth" Is that like a redundancy (absolute and truth) wrapped in a contradiction (supposed and absolute truth)? If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it? Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?