Did he at any point actually offer a definition of "sinning against the Holy Spirit"?
No, he didn't have any fingerpaint so it will have to wait.
Posts by bohm
-
-
-
bohm
-
10
Swedish Chef at February tv.jw.org Broadcasting
by Gorbatchov init seems the producers of jw broadcasting read my earlier post here at jwd.org about the swedish chef.. because they introduces the swedish chef in their program now.
.
the broadcasting is surprising me more and more every month, a must see (if you can).. compare:.
-
-
bohm
I wish all of you would stop making fun of this very serious and intellectually stimulating show aimed at adults. -
-
-
bohm
Wow. Like a really bizarre childrens show. -
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
Sbf: help me out, didnt you say what was true was what people agreed were true?
do you mean that the word true has no meaning on rorty Island?
-
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
By "Rorty island" btw. I mean a place where everyone has agreed to act according to the maxims of Rortys philosophy as you understand it. -
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
SBF: I will get to my point in a moment, first I want to understand your view on the matter.
On Rorty island, how *ought* people find out what is true? For instance in a trial?
Or is there no *ought*? i.e. is it all relative and any method is equally valid?
-
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
Will check link later -
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
Sbf: okay so that might be the psychology of why they believe something, i am interested in why they ought believe something on your view.
is that also common interest and if so how do they determine what is their common interest?
-
-
-
bohm
The basement. -
62
Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
by Island Man inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
-
-
bohm
Let me try to make the distinction very clear:
If we ask simply as a matter of definition, "what things are true on Rorty island?", and the answer is: "those things that people agrees upon are true for them", I think there might be a chance of some circularity but I don't really find that all too disagreeable as a working definition.
The central issue is how they figure out what is true on Rorty island or rather, how they ought to find out what is true.
For instance you could say: "They have decided as a matter of practice to hold courts where evidence is brought before the jury and then the jury goes to a room and decide what is true", then I think this is evidentialism in a poor disguise.
If on the other hand you answer that there can be no "how they ought to find out what is true" on Rorty island because this is too much like evidentialism, then whatever practice is held before or during a trial on Rorty island is arbitrary, so is it just as rational (or irrational) to hold proper trials, present evidence which is real (as opposed to fabricated), etc.
I don't think Rorty holds that view but I don't know..