Meta-narrative

We all have our worldviews, which is how we view the universe and
everything in it. It could be thought of as a jigsaw puzzle; we look at
all of the different pieces we see and put them together as we think
they should be.

We put the pieces together because of our ideas of what the
complete picture looks like. When we are wrong about things, the
pieces don't always fit as we think they should, and some don't even
belong to the puzzle of reality; we just think they are real. Reality is
outside our opinions; it is the real picture, absolute truth; it isn't
opinion; it is what it is.

Because there is a real picture, we can do science; science is us
putting to the test our thoughts looking for confirmation through
experimentation and repeatability, if something were not true, but
merely assumed so, or worse if we were to leave something out or
write something in that didn't belong, we would be missing the
mark; our understanding wouldn't be based on truth but error.

All truth is reality; it is absolute reality, and it will never conflict with
itself, which is why we can do logic, as logic assumes there is an
absoluteness to it all, so two competing truths that conflict with one
another cannot be sound; something is wrong; it is how we know.

@kellyjay said
We all have our worldviews, which is how we view the universe and
everything in it. It could be thought of as a jigsaw puzzle; we look at
all of the different pieces we see and put them together as we think
they should be.

We put the pieces together because of our ideas of what the
complete picture looks like. When we are wrong about things, the
pieces don't always f ...[text shortened]... eting truths that conflict with one
another cannot be sound; something is wrong; it is how we know.

Call it your "jigsaw puzzle" or your "complete picture" or "the real picture" or "an absoluteness to it all" or anything you want, as long as you don't engage in morally unsound behaviour that negatively impacts other people, I think whatever "meta-narrative" or "worldview" you like to espouse, it is OK. You'd say the same thing to me, I am sure.

@fmf said
Call it your "jigsaw puzzle" or your "complete picture" or "the real picture" or "an absoluteness to it all" or anything you want, as long as you don't engage in morally unsound behaviour that negatively impacts other people, I think whatever "meta-narrative" or "worldview" you like to espouse, it is OK. You'd say the same thing to me, I am sure.

As we define anything it will be how we view
the whole, the soundness of our judgments
will be based on how they fit with everything
else. If we are not doing that then what we
judging will be with incomplete information.

@kellyjay said
As we define anything it will be how we view
the whole, the soundness of our judgments
will be based on how they fit with everything
else. If we are not doing that then what we
judging will be with incomplete information.

With this, you haven't really added much to what you said in your OP.

If you believe that you are NOT "judging" with "incomplete information" and if you are convinced of the "soundness of [your] judgments", then so be it.

@fmf said
Call it your "jigsaw puzzle" or your "complete picture" or "the real picture" or "an absoluteness to it all" or anything you want, as long as you don't engage in morally unsound behaviour that negatively impacts other people, I think whatever "meta-narrative" or "worldview" you like to espouse, it is OK. You'd say the same thing to me, I am sure.

I said: As long as you don't engage in morally unsound behaviour that negatively impacts other people, I think whatever "meta-narrative" or "worldview" you like to espouse, it is OK. You'd say the same thing to me, I am sure.

@kellyjay
Well, DO you say the same thing to me? Just checking.

@fmf said
I said: As long as you don't engage in morally unsound behaviour that negatively impacts other people, I think whatever "meta-narrative" or "worldview" you like to espouse, it is OK. You'd say the same thing to me, I am sure.

@kellyjay
Well, DO you say the same thing to me? Just checking.

When we make judgment calls even with incomplete data all of the things we
do see and have must lineup with all other truths we are aware of which is
the point of the OP our opinions about anything should not carry with it
contradictions. If we accept anything as truth and it contradicts something
else we should know something about what we are talking about or thinking
about is flawed this is logic and science checks and balances. It is no different
then running the numbers on some process it must add up or something is
not what we think, or there is a variable we are missing.

@kellyjay said
When we make judgment calls even with incomplete data all of the things we
do see and have must lineup with all other truths we are aware of which is
the point of the OP our opinions about anything should not carry with it
contradictions. If we accept anything as truth and it contradicts something
else we should know something about what we are talking about or thinking ...[text shortened]... me process it must add up or something is
not what we think, or there is a variable we are missing.

Was all this a yes or a no?

@kellyjay said
We all have our worldviews, which is how we view the universe and
everything in it. It could be thought of as a jigsaw puzzle; we look at
all of the different pieces we see and put them together as we think
they should be.

We put the pieces together because of our ideas of what the
complete picture looks like. When we are wrong about things, the
pieces don't always f ...[text shortened]... eting truths that conflict with one
another cannot be sound; something is wrong; it is how we know.

Your version of Jesus saved a “few” and burns the rest in hell.

Bottom line.

@divegeester said
Your version of Jesus saved a “few” and burns the rest in hell.

Bottom line.

The version of Jesus that matches what the scripture says is the only one that
matters, bottom line your expectations are not the bottom line, God's are.

@fmf said
Was all this a yes or a no?

If what you or I are saying is self-defeating because it is in contradiction with
itself or other truth we are aware of, you can take it as a yes or no depending
on the subject matter.

@kellyjay said
If what you or I are saying is self-defeating because it is in contradiction with
itself or other truth we are aware of, you can take it as a yes or no depending
on the subject matter.

I am not asking you about how I "can take it". I'm just asking you if YOUR answer is yes or no.

@kellyjay said
The version of Jesus that matches what the scripture says is the only one that
matters, bottom line your expectations are not the bottom line, God's are.

Thanks, but I was talking about your version.

@fmf said
Was all this a yes or a no?

LOL.

Good luck!

@divegeester said
Thanks, but I was talking about your version.

Yeah, my version if it doesn't line up with scripture is meaningless as is yours.

@kellyjay said
Yeah, my version if it doesn't line up with scripture is meaningless as is yours.

"Meaningless"?

If a "meta-narrative" provides someone with a finished "jigsaw puzzle" or a "complete picture" or a "real picture" or a subjective opinion about the "absoluteness to it all" ~ your expressions, one and all ~ how can it be "meaningless"?

Are you not kind of contradicting yourself?

Or does the "meta-narrative" have to be the same as the one YOU believe in if it is to avoid being "meaningless"?