Believing it is not proving it

The standard way that logicians prove that premises are not contradictory, is the demonstrate the existence of something that satisfies all of the questioned premises. One can deal with by demonstrating the existence of an entity that meets both criteria ("Christian" and "evolutionism").The important point here, is that the term "Christian" applies to a person, not to a set of beliefs. There is a bit of a grammatical problem with the statement, so I had to interpret it as Perhaps that isn't what Robin intended, but that's the risk of ambiguity.

I agree. I agree there, too.It seems you should have been addressing your post to robinrohan, who has a different opinion, or to Faith (Message 1) who supports Robin.

LOL.The "oxymoron" is referring to the phrase, not to what the phrase references.

There is the basis for the disagreement addressed in this thread.The assertion "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" can be directly refuted by exhibiting an example of someone who is both a Christian and an evolutionist. That's where jar listed himself as that counter example.The assertion "the two positions are logically incompatible" does not require refutation. Rather, it requires logical proof. I'll note only that Robin has failed, after several threads on the topic, to provide such proof. The assertion seems obviously wrong, since the two positions don't seem to address anything in common that could make them logically incompatible.

I'm guessing that you don't have any logical argument to prove this claim, either.If Christians must believe in an objective morality, then one presumes that the old testament sabbath law is part of that objective morality. Yet most Christians believe it does not apply to them.

quote:

---

Again, you are the only person asserting that we don't know what really is sin. I have consistently said that one of the Gifts from GOD is the ability to tell right from wrong

​

This suggests that morality is objective.

​

Right and wrong, good and bad are Human Constructs.

​

This suggests that morality is subjective.

​

Make up your mind. If we can tell right from wrong, then morality is not subjective.

---

That does not add up. Morality can be culturally relative, but you would still know right from wrong by virtue of being part of the culture.

The question makes no sense.

Where are you getting that idea?The golden rule is explicitely subjective. It sets your own subjective view of how you want other to treat you, as the standard by which you should treat others.