Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Logic of Universal Salvation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
    But this is again false. Why are you so angry?
    Who said I was angry? I'm having a good time. You are quite the hoot, my man...

    Everyone automatically assumes their interpretation is correct.
    Ding ding ding ding!! we have a winner.

    And as for dismissing dissenting interpretations because they're not agreed with, this is hilarious! You just described everyone posting to this thread except me. What a hoot.
    You're invincible too, right? None shall pass!!


    Truth Himself does.
    And unless you have a bat-phone directly to Jesus, you are just guessing what truth actually says.

    Actually, truth is in my theology a self-consistent quality permeating all information [being]. Truth is the glue that holds creation together. It's the single most important concept in the universe, but is terribly abused by humans.
    But that avoids my question. How do you KNOW what is true. I didn't ask what truth was, or who was the source of it.

    Your stating that Scripture relegated to interpretations can't be used as truth is incoherent, unless by using parentheses around interpretations you mean only my interpretations, not yours. Is this what you mean?
    No. I meant that if you and your debate partners do not agree on the truth of a particular interpretation of scripture, then that scripture can not be used as a basis for truth by either of you. And when you call into question all interpretations of scripture, you've removed the entire Bible as a basis of truth. Without something of concrete truth value, you've eliminated all truth. Truth is only true because something makes it true. The correspondence theory of truth says that a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. Offering opinions about what is true is not fact, therefore, it can not be said to be truth without a fact to anchor it to. Hence, my example syllogism above.

    (1) Everyone over the age of 30 is a liar.
    (2) Mr. Phelps is a liar.
    (3) Therefore Mr. Phelps is over the age of 30.

    The only thing that can make this syllogism true is if Mr. Phelps is indeed over 30. Assuming it is true without the corresponding fact is a fallacy of question begging. And to make this relevant to your OP:

    1) Genesis 18 is a Bible story
    2) The Bible has many metaphors
    3) Therefore Genesis 18 is a metaphor.

    That's the syllogism of your argument. If you disagree, then correct it. Hand waving not allowed. Let's see your logic without the fancy obfuscating.

    Thanks for sharing your unsubstantiated opinion. Yet another false charge. Really, does no one here understand the distinction between opinion and reasoned debate?
    You apparently don't.


    Finally! Something we agree on. I'm not asking anyone to accept the Gen 18-19 account as truth.
    I never said you were. You are asking for us to accept your question begging that your conclusion 3) Therefore Genesis 18 is a metaphor. is true for the sake of the remainder of your argument for no other reason than 2) The Bible has many metaphors

    You may have misunderstood when I said a presentation should be able to pass truth criteria. Truth tests can only be used to determine whether a propositional presentation can be true. Every belief system has tensions, areas one or more truth standards fail. Logic and reason are truth "tools" that help us connect the dots. The more truth connections in a system the more likely it is to be true.
    Sorry, but that's not quite right. Logic and reason only show the coherence of an argument, not the truth of it. A system can be intricately coherent, and still false because it is still a belief. Without a corresponding objective fact, a belief is merely a belief, and no amount of logical consistency in advanced arguments will make it a fact. See Kaplan, David, 1989, “Demonstratives”, in Themes From Kaplan, Oxford: Oxford University Press

    The real strength of the theology presented here is not the Gen 18-19 presentation, though I feel safe in saying its logical strength is considerable. The real strength lies in the amount of Scripture in both Testaments of the Bible that are in agreement with it. Once the two are put together, I believe it is shown that many of the tensions that exist between Annihilationism, Universalism and eternal punishment positions are laid to rest.
    In your opinion. Again, nothing of truth value has been offered. We can play logical coherence games all day, but the underlying issue remains... you have nothing to fall back on that is an agreed-upon truth value.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #77
      He's all yours Bill. I have lost interest in the pointless.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        He's all yours Bill. I have lost interest in the pointless.
        Yeah, me too neither. I just wish Bill wasn't so freakin' angry.


        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #79
          unless you have a bat-phone directly to Jesus, you are just guessing what truth actually says.
          Many Christians would argue—and I’d agree—that anyone born of the Spirit of God has some line of communication with absolute Truth (Jn 16:13). The position I take is that people born of the Spirit of God possess truth in their religious and moral beliefs to the extent their soul is truth-bearing and able to unite with (abide in) Truth.

          How do you KNOW what is true.
          I accept the conventional wisdom that we have certitude about very few things. We can only have degrees of justification or warrant in this life. As noted in my last post, I think we all possess warrant for our beliefs to varying degrees of their possession of truth. How do you know what’s true?

          I meant that if you and your debate partners do not agree on the truth of a particular interpretation of scripture, then that scripture can not be used as a basis for truth by either of you.
          Why not? Scripture is the fundamental ground of Christian belief. We don’t dismiss passages of Scripture just because we don’t agree on their interpretation, we use logic and reason in attempts to find which interpretation holds up best under scrutiny.

          I suspect your statement is directed to my comments about not being in the same interpretive domain. If so, I may not have been clear. I didn’t mean our understanding is totally separated. I believe that the literal supplies God’s base moral code and is able to build foundational doctrine. There are a number of areas of discussion I use literal meaning like any other Christian. What was intended in those comments is that my personal theology, because it uses a different interpretive scheme, is not subject to the same domain of understanding the literal is typically intended to convey. Targeting a theology that doesn’t share the same interpretive structure quickly renders the discussion irrelevant. The first order of discussion is to understand the basis for the allegorical system. The presentation in the op was an attempt to get past this hurdle so we can get to a comparison of why I believe the allegorical system is superior.


          when you call into question all interpretations of scripture, you've removed the entire Bible as a basis of truth. Without something of concrete truth value, you've eliminated all truth. Truth is only true because something makes it true.
          Why do you make these outrageous claims? I don’t “call into question all interpretations of Scripture”. I base my interpretations on the Bible, as should be apparent in the op. I stated Truth Himself makes things true. I don’t think you understood the metaphysical context earlier. I accept Avicenna’s small sentence in Aquinas’ Summa that truth is a property of the essence of things (paraphrasing). I consider value (containing two denominations, truth and falsity) to be one of two ‘building blocks’ of creation: information and value. My point is I believe our knowing anything that properly fits characteristics like coherence, unity, harmony, agreement, conformity, concordance, etc. is to some degree knowing truth because truth permeates the essence of all things. Because our souls and minds are fragmentally falsified, the best we can attain is proper warrant for belief. All the same, warrant is achieved by the ability of beliefs to meet certain truth criteria. Truth criteria are tools to experience or "feel" the attraction or power of prescriptive truth. We know truth dimly, so as through a mirror, as Paul said.

          Offering opinions about what is true is not fact, therefore, it can not be said to be truth without a fact to anchor it to

          1) Genesis 18 is a Bible story
          2) The Bible has many metaphors
          3) Therefore Genesis 18 is a metaphor.

          That's the syllogism of your argument. If you disagree, then correct it. Hand waving not allowed. Let's see your logic without the fancy obfuscating.


          You are asking for us to accept your question begging that your conclusion 3) Therefore Genesis 18 is a metaphor. is true for the sake of the remainder of your argument for no other reason than 2) The Bible has many metaphors
          This is an absurd straw man fallacy you probably designed to sidetrack discussion into a realm you feel comfortable competing in. My claim that the Gen 18 account is justifiably metaphor [1] is argued by evidence that appropriate patterns of comparison can be extracted from it; it thus possesses distinctive characteristics of metaphor. The story itself provides confirmation of the propriety of the claim via the evidence at a and b. Further arguments that affirm a and b are points 2 and 3. If the patterns were not in Scripture, they could not be properly extracted and formulated. Instead of rewriting the presentation to fabricate an argument you suppose you’re able to refute, why not attempt something new and different and refute the logic of the presentation as it stands?

          Logic and reason only show the coherence of an argument, not the truth of it. A system can be intricately coherent, and still false because it is still a belief.
          Funny how some folks use logic and reason to extol the power of their own beliefs, but when the same logic standards are used to lead in other directions they’re suddenly of little consequence.

          Again, nothing of truth value has been offered. We can play logical coherence games all day, but the underlying issue remains... you have nothing to fall back on that is an agreed-upon truth value.
          Allow me to interpret more truthfully: I refuse to concede you have anything of value to offer and prove it by typing a super-gibberish argument to show my disgust for your position.

          Offering opinions about what is true is not fact…
          As you’ve demonstrated yourself to be an expert at this I guess I’ll have to take your word for it Mr. Cat.

          Without a corresponding objective fact, a belief is merely a belief, and no amount of logical consistency in advanced arguments will make it a fact.
          You must have lapsed into a discussion with your imaginary friend while typing, Bill…I’ve never believed or claimed logical consistency makes anything a fact.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            He's all yours Bill. I have lost interest in the pointless.
            I'm sorry to hear this Jedidiah. You are the only one who actually took an intelligent stab at a refutation, though B the C is slowly coming around a bit as well. But what is this, "He's all yours Bill."? You guys do tag team debate here?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
              Many Christians would argue—and I’d agree—that anyone born of the Spirit of God has some line of communication with absolute Truth (Jn 16:13). The position I take is that people born of the Spirit of God possess truth in their religious and moral beliefs to the extent their soul is truth-bearing and able to unite with (abide in) Truth.
              I agree. But discernment of truth proves difficult because we are merely flesh and blood.


              I accept the conventional wisdom that we have certitude about very few things. We can only have degrees of justification or warrant in this life. As noted in my last post, I think we all possess warrant for our beliefs to varying degrees of their possession of truth. How do you know what’s true?
              Depends. How do I know what is logically true? Observation and validation. I know that New York is North of Atlanta. That proposition is not disputed when we use the earth's north pole as our "truth anchor", and the rules of directions are consistent. Just because we can travel south around the globe and eventually get to New York does not mean that it is south of Atlanta.

              How do I know what is true spiritually? I trust the early church's views on what Jesus taught and meant. It has, at times, forced me to re-evaluate my doctrines in certain places and to dig deeper into what they meant.


              Why not? Scripture is the fundamental ground of Christian belief.
              It is also the fundamental ground for the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Branch Davidians, and others. If you do not agree that there is only one God, as the Mormons believe there are multiple, then quoting verses that say there is only one isn't going to be sufficient to change their mind on interpreting Isaiah 44.

              We don’t dismiss passages of Scripture just because we don’t agree on their interpretation, we use logic and reason in attempts to find which interpretation holds up best under scrutiny.
              Never said we dismiss them. What I said was that it is impossible to use them as truth until both of you agree it is truth. Try quoting scripture to an atheist to prove my point.

              I suspect your statement is directed to my comments about not being in the same interpretive domain. If so, I may not have been clear. I didn’t mean our understanding is totally separated. I believe that the literal supplies God’s base moral code and is able to build foundational doctrine. There are a number of areas of discussion I use literal meaning like any other Christian. What was intended in those comments is that my personal theology, because it uses a different interpretive scheme, is not subject to the same domain of understanding the literal is typically intended to convey. Targeting a theology that doesn’t share the same interpretive structure quickly renders the discussion irrelevant. The first order of discussion is to understand the basis for the allegorical system. The presentation in the op was an attempt to get past this hurdle so we can get to a comparison of why I believe the allegorical system is superior.
              And as I said, anything can be claimed as an allegory. An apparent allegory is only valid if it teaches truth. Many different allegorical interpretations can be derived from a single portion of scripture and they each may be valid as long as they teach truth in agreement with the rest of the Bible. This is the source of differing opinions and much debate, since there is no agreement on what Biblical truth is. Allegory is generated to fit personal interpretations of Biblical doctrine.


              Why do you make these outrageous claims? I don’t “call into question all interpretations of Scripture”. I base my interpretations on the Bible, as should be apparent in the op.
              No you don't. You base the Bible on your interpretations. Hence your quest to find universalism in Gen 18. Your "A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained." shows exactly that.

              I stated Truth Himself makes things true. I don’t think you understood the metaphysical context earlier. I accept Avicenna’s small sentence in Aquinas’ Summa that truth is a property of the essence of things (paraphrasing). I consider value (containing two denominations, truth and falsity) to be one of two ‘building blocks’ of creation: information and value. My point is I believe our knowing anything that properly fits characteristics like coherence, unity, harmony, agreement, conformity, concordance, etc. is to some degree knowing truth because truth permeates the essence of all things. Because our souls and minds are fragmentally falsified, the best we can attain is proper warrant for belief. All the same, warrant is achieved by the ability of beliefs to meet certain truth criteria. Truth criteria are tools to experience or "feel" the attraction or power of prescriptive truth. We know truth dimly, so as through a mirror, as Paul said.
              Which is basically what I said above in my example on New York and Atlanta. Truth criteria are the frameworks we use to relate things to. It's a mutually agreed-upon truth, such as directions. It allows us to reference the same fact from which to begin our interpretations. But we don't even agree on what God's redemptive plan is, so there is no common ground to begin to work logically through it.

              Even the phrase "The Bible is truth" is not always a truth criterion because both we and Mormons say the same thing, but mean different things.

              But that didn't stop you in post #37 from declaring your arguments in the OP as truth.

              This is an absurd straw man fallacy you probably designed to sidetrack discussion into a realm you feel comfortable competing in.
              No it isn't. It's a syllogism of your argument.

              My claim that the Gen 18 account is justifiably metaphor [1] is argued by evidence that appropriate patterns of comparison can be extracted from it; it thus possesses distinctive characteristics of metaphor.
              Oh, I have no doubt that a larger lesson is being taught other than the forensic retelling of the destruction of a city. What is being disputed is your insistence that it is teaching a lesson of universalism.

              The story itself provides confirmation of the propriety of the claim via the evidence at a and b. Further arguments that affirm a and b are points 2 and 3.
              Sorry, but no it isn't. There is no evidence to support a "multiplicity of value components", as you scrawled in 1b.

              If the patterns were not in Scripture, they could not be properly extracted and formulated. Instead of rewriting the presentation to fabricate an argument you suppose you’re able to refute, why not attempt something new and different and refute the logic of the presentation as it stands?
              Why? Scripture isn't simply a history book. You seem to be hung up on arguing against me thinking I am claiming that Gen 18 doesn't teach a broader lesson than simple destruction of a city. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said from the very beginning, this teaches about God's judgment of the wicked and mercy toward the righteous. Where the point of contention lies is your nonsense about treating it like the entire city was a metaphorical individual, and the destruction of the wicked was a metaphor for God cleaning everyone up in order to save them, or more directly quoted.. a "multiplicity of value components".


              Funny how some folks use logic and reason to extol the power of their own beliefs, but when the same logic standards are used to lead in other directions they’re suddenly of little consequence.
              Considering you have begged the question about "value components" all along...


              Allow me to interpret more truthfully: I refuse to concede you have anything of value to offer and prove it by typing a super-gibberish argument to show my disgust for your position.
              You've offered nothing that we both agree on as truth. Your very approach to scripture is one of sensus plenior. You've used the lens of universalism to interpret this set of verses, which I reject. Your higher framework is universalism, and you interpret metaphors within that framework. And when you use these disputed metaphors as future evidence of universalism, your argument is circular. When we agree on a particular truth, then and only then will your argument not be circular.


              As you’ve demonstrated yourself to be an expert at this I guess I’ll have to take your word for it Mr. Cat.
              It's a law of logic, stupid.


              You must have lapsed into a discussion with your imaginary friend while typing, Bill…I’ve never believed or claimed logical consistency makes anything a fact.
              Yes you did.

              Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
              Forgot a couple things...


              Which makes me wonder: why are you so angrily railing against the simple, direct and powerful truths presented in the op?
              Emphasis mine.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #82
                How do I know what is logically true? Observation and validation.
                Right. The validation part is called logic and reason.

                How do I know what is true spiritually? I trust the early church's views on what Jesus taught and meant.
                One reason I abandoned my Catholicism years ago was what I felt to be their unwarranted trust in authority. And there was not total doctrinal agreement among the church fathers.

                What I said was that it is impossible to use them as truth until both of you agree it is truth.
                But what if two interpretations that are both wrong are in agreement on a passage? The way you frame this means that a wrong interpretation is true just by virtue of agreement on that wrong interpretation.

                allegorical interpretations can be derived from a single portion of scripture and they each may be valid as long as they teach truth in agreement with the rest of the Bible.
                I’d bet if someone came along and posted an allegorical interpretation that led to conformity with your doctrine you’d all be up in that, nod your head in vigorous affirmation and use that guy’s logic in future discussion.

                Allegory is generated to fit personal interpretations of Biblical doctrine.
                This is a popular teaching in evangelical circles and you’ve referenced it a couple times in this thread as your opinion. Prove it. Present an argument. I don’t see how one can support the claim of belief in an actually inspired Bible by following manmade rules like this. My theology provides what I believe is strong evidence of God’s control and authority over His word. The human-imposed rules and regulations of literal hermeneutics keep God’s participation in Scripture mostly in the background. Literal hermeneutics has become the method of choice for man to control what God is allowed to say in His word.

                I argue that Scripture itself is so obviously metaphorical in nature that it would be natural and expected for God to merge metaphor into both figurative passages as well as those not usually understood to be figurative. Further, truth in the essence of things unsurprisingly produces logic as a tool of reason in intellect to detect truth [insofar as fragmentally falsified minds are able to grasp it] because truth in our own spirit and mind creates this natural disposition to seek it out. Some Christian “thinkers” today take the position that “mere” metaphor doesn’t really contain truth, that only the literal is able to do this. I wonder; do these men then make the claim that all the figurative or metaphoric language of Jesus—which is 95% of all His words—is false? If Truth Himself used metaphor by whatever designation, parables, types, similes, etc., why does traditional Christianity stand so strongly against it? Do the math.

                The point: it’s appropriate and acceptable to suppose truth—not certitude, but truth sufficient to provide warranted belief—is derived from validly constructed logic.

                I have no doubt that a larger lesson is being taught other than the forensic retelling of the destruction of a city. What is being disputed is your insistence that it is teaching a lesson of universalism.
                You seem wholly unaware that you just indicted yourself. You tacitly admit in the quote above that you’re concentrating on a concept that stands opposed to your own doctrine, and have no intention of granting a fraction of an inch of admission that the arguments for interpretation of the Gen 18 metaphor are legitimate. You nor any of the drive bys have the slightest interest in an intellectually honest examination of the evidence specifically because it leads to places you hate. Truth isn’t your highest aim. Protecting your doctrine at all costs is. You’re even willing to try to force me to accept a trumped-up strawman proposition just to maintain your dogma. The pursuit of truth is completely absent here.
                Here’s more evidence:
                You've used the lens of universalism to interpret this set of verses, which I reject. Your higher framework is universalism, and you interpret metaphors within that framework. And when you use these disputed metaphors as future evidence of universalism, your argument is circular. When we agree on a particular truth, then and only then will your argument not be circular.
                Again: these are opinions. You have no support for your claim my universalism preceded my interpretation of Gen 18. They did not. You have no line of reasoning to show the opinion my arguments are circular is valid. This is because they are not. Amusingly, your last sentence is really saying, “When you agree that my doctrine is correct then and only then will your arguments not be circular.” This, plainly, really is a circular statement: Bill’s beliefs are a… a = true… Anomaly’s beliefs are b… therefore Anomaly’s beliefs are false.
                You do Jesus proud, son.

                Considering you have begged the question about "value components" all along...
                So you take the position that righteousness and unrighteousness have no real prescriptive value?

                But that didn't stop you in post #37 from declaring your arguments in the OP as truth.
                Once again you’re trying to create something from nothing.
                You also made reference to my supposedly claiming my views to be fact. First off, facts belong to descriptive reality. Fact and truth [as certitude] can only be identical in relation to material things. We can have truth content (in belief) that certain facts lead to other, more complex facts; this is warrant, not certitude. We virtually always have truth content in the aforementioned descriptive theorizing and in prescriptive or spiritual beliefs. Actual prescriptive truth [certitude] exsists in, and as, absolute Truth Himself. All prescriptive beliefs have fragmental truth value relative to absoluteTruth.

                Second, I’ve consistently taken the position that God designed His creation with value embedded in the essence of all things corporeal and incorporeal. Tradition teaches creation was initially perfect; from a more technical view, creation was originally wholly true. The fall injected fragmental falsity into essence which theoretically passed to matter, and so the creation remains today. This seems sufficient to explain an imperfect existence. The outcome of this is that truth fragmentally exists in all manner of things; minds, propositions, beliefs, etc. Prescriptive beliefs and propositions have actual truth-value.

                This is why the proclamation that you rail against the simple, direct and powerful truths of the op can be true; like all beliefs, propositions, etc. they possess some degree of truth. I think they possess a high degree of truth, evidenced by your and others’ reaction to it and confirmed by your admission above. The Lord showed me many years ago that we all hate prescriptive truth because our falsified souls cause us to hate Truth. We have a spiritual disease; we falsify our souls with our participation with falsehood in life. Scripture bears this out (Jn 3:19). That we are diseased and not fully competent in spiritual maters is why Jesus said, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." He showed me that He was killed specifically because He told His detractors truth they weren’t yet cleansed to “hear” (Jn 8:37; 40; 43,45). The Jews who killed Christ are us and we are them.

                Hatred for the light of truth always produces the same results, only the venues are different.

                It's a law of logic, stupid.
                Poster calling others smart ass, liar and stupid—banned.
                Member of the good old boy club calling others smart ass, liar and stupid—permitted.

                Priceless.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                  I'm sorry to hear this Jedidiah. You are the only one who actually took an intelligent stab at a refutation, though B the C is slowly coming around a bit as well. But what is this, "He's all yours Bill."? You guys do tag team debate here?
                  I did not see real debate.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                    Right. The validation part is called logic and reason.

                    No it isn't. It's called comparing something observed to an objective standard. It's like how the Weights and Measures Division validates scales are accurate. They observe the scale's results using a known and accepted weight to calibrate.


                    One reason I abandoned my Catholicism years ago was what I felt to be their unwarranted trust in authority. And there was not total doctrinal agreement among the church fathers.
                    Yes there was. Minor insignificant doctrines were not challenged, but major doctrinal issues, such as those necessary for salvation, were agreed upon. Dissenters were labeled heretics.


                    But what if two interpretations that are both wrong are in agreement on a passage? The way you frame this means that a wrong interpretation is true just by virtue of agreement on that wrong interpretation.
                    It is true for the purpose of that discussion. It is a standard by which the remainder is argued. It does not make the thing true in and of itself, just a truth for the discussion.


                    I’d bet if someone came along and posted an allegorical interpretation that led to conformity with your doctrine you’d all be up in that, nod your head in vigorous affirmation and use that guy’s logic in future discussion.
                    Because the doctrine is established. Universalism has never been an established doctrine of the church. It has always been rejected. And rightly so.


                    This is a popular teaching in evangelical circles
                    Fallacy of guilt by association

                    and you’ve referenced it a couple times in this thread as your opinion. Prove it. Present an argument.
                    That's just plain stupid. Allegories are illustrations and always require interpretation. And without a clear interpretation given in the text itself, such as we have with Daniel 8, or by the author himself, the interpretation is left up to the reader. But in doing so, it can not violate the remainder of the biblical text.

                    I don’t see how one can support the claim of belief in an actually inspired Bible by following manmade rules like this.
                    This is an excuse and a smokescreen to cover private interpretation, which Peter frowns upon.

                    My theology provides what I believe is strong evidence of God’s control and authority over His word.
                    So does mine.

                    The human-imposed rules and regulations of literal hermeneutics keep God’s participation in Scripture mostly in the background.
                    No it doesn't.

                    Literal hermeneutics has become the method of choice for man to control what God is allowed to say in His word.
                    No it doesn't.

                    I argue that Scripture itself is so obviously metaphorical in nature that it would be natural and expected for God to merge metaphor into both figurative passages as well as those not usually understood to be figurative.
                    But only the interpretation of the metaphor that matches your universalism. You have rejected the metaphorical interpretation of God casting the wicked into hell after His righteous are taken to heaven.

                    Further, truth in the essence of things unsurprisingly produces logic as a tool of reason in intellect to detect truth [insofar as fragmentally falsified minds are able to grasp it] because truth in our own spirit and mind creates this natural disposition to seek it out.
                    And universalism is not truth. QED

                    Some Christian “thinkers” today take the position that “mere” metaphor doesn’t really contain truth, that only the literal is able to do this.
                    So what? I don't hold that position, so why bother bringing it up?

                    I wonder; do these men then make the claim that all the figurative or metaphoric language of Jesus—which is 95% of all His words—is false?
                    Actually, Jesus mainly used simile, not metaphor. As to why others make certain claims about it, who cares? It's not under discussion here.

                    If Truth Himself used metaphor by whatever designation, parables, types, similes, etc., why does traditional Christianity stand so strongly against it? Do the math.
                    A simile is not a metaphor. Types are not metaphors either. Your grasp of grammar sucks as bad as your eisegesis of scripture.

                    The point: it’s appropriate and acceptable to suppose truth—not certitude, but truth sufficient to provide warranted belief—is derived from validly constructed logic.
                    That's a ridiculous over-simplification. The syllogism I gave is also derived from validly constructed logic, but is missing a key piece of information to provide "truth sufficient to provide warranted belief". Just like your attempt to veil your universalism when interpreting Gen 18 as a metaphor for a "multiplicity of value components", that universalism is the key piece of missing information that will provide the truth value.

                    You seem wholly unaware that you just indicted yourself.
                    Along with the rest of church history...

                    You tacitly admit in the quote above that you’re concentrating on a concept that stands opposed to your own doctrine, and have no intention of granting a fraction of an inch of admission that the arguments for interpretation of the Gen 18 metaphor are legitimate.
                    You're wrong. It's clearly a metaphor. I've agreed on that, as will most everyone here. What I will not grant is that the metaphor teaches universalism. And that is where you should focus your attention. Quit droning on and on that I don't accept that it is a metaphor.

                    You nor any of the drive bys have the slightest interest in an intellectually honest examination of the evidence specifically because it leads to places you hate.
                    No it doesn't. It leads exactly where it leads, a lesson on the final judgment of the wicked, and no amount of shoehorning with your "millions of cells" makes it any different. You've spent quite some time making loud and boisterous claims about "multiplicity of value components" that, in the end, mean absolutely nothing, so it's time to poop or get off the pot.

                    Truth isn’t your highest aim.
                    Of course it is. That's why I defend truth so vehemently from lies like universalism.

                    Protecting your doctrine at all costs is.
                    Wrong. You've yet to show where my doctrine is wrong, so there really isn't anything of substance to protect it from.

                    You’re even willing to try to force me to accept a trumped-up strawman proposition just to maintain your dogma. The pursuit of truth is completely absent here.
                    I'm just hoping you will get on with it so I can continue to expose your circular logic. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.


                    Here’s more evidence:

                    Again: these are opinions. You have no support for your claim my universalism preceded my interpretation of Gen 18. They did not.
                    Right.... even if it didn't, it currently colors your reasoning.

                    You have no line of reasoning to show the opinion my arguments are circular is valid. This is because they are not.
                    Then by all means, get on with it. Just know that your "groundwork" is contested, and your claim of Gen 18 teaching a "multiplicity of value components" has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. Asserting a claim doesn't make it true, as you've so abundantly barfed out at my assessments of your screed.

                    Amusingly, your last sentence is really saying, “When you agree that my doctrine is correct then and only then will your arguments not be circular.”
                    You suck at logic too. What I am saying is that unless you and I agree that Gen 18 teaches a "multiplicity of value components", then your building on that argument is question begging, which leads to circular reasoning.

                    This, plainly, really is a circular statement: Bill’s beliefs are a… a = true… Anomaly’s beliefs are b… therefore Anomaly’s beliefs are false.
                    That's not circular!!!

                    You do Jesus proud, son.
                    And you make puppies sad.


                    So you take the position that righteousness and unrighteousness have no real prescriptive value?
                    Of course not. Righteousness is why we are saved, and that righteousness comes only from Christ. Unrighteousness is why the damned are not saved, and without Jesus' righteousness imparted to us, there is only unrighteousness. We are either righteous because of Him or unrighteous. The wicked have no righteousness in them at all, so they will not be saved. That has been the doctrine of the church for 2,000 years.


                    Once again you’re trying to create something from nothing.
                    You also made reference to my supposedly claiming my views to be fact. First off, facts belong to descriptive reality. Fact and truth [as certitude] can only be identical in relation to material things. We can have truth content (in belief) that certain facts lead to other, more complex facts; this is warrant, not certitude. We virtually always have truth content in the aforementioned descriptive theorizing and in prescriptive or spiritual beliefs. Actual prescriptive truth [certitude] exsists in, and as, absolute Truth Himself. All prescriptive beliefs have fragmental truth value relative to absoluteTruth.
                    Unless they are false. Like Universalism.

                    Second, I’ve consistently taken the position that God designed His creation with value embedded in the essence of all things corporeal and incorporeal. Tradition teaches creation was initially perfect; from a more technical view, creation was originally wholly true. The fall injected fragmental falsity into essence which theoretically passed to matter, and so the creation remains today.
                    False. It injected death.

                    This seems sufficient to explain an imperfect existence. The outcome of this is that truth fragmentally exists in all manner of things; minds, propositions, beliefs, etc. Prescriptive beliefs and propositions have actual truth-value.
                    No it doesn't. Truth only exists with God. HE is the truth. Anything imperfect will be destroyed at the culmination of all things. All that will be left will be those things that are of God. Those who reject Christ are not of God, therefore they will be wholly destroyed. There is no truth in anything that is not of Him. There are verses that correspond to each of these claims, but you have no respect for scripture outside of your interpretational drivel, so I won't bother citing them.


                    This is why the proclamation that you rail against the simple, direct and powerful truths of the op can be true; like all beliefs, propositions, etc. they possess some degree of truth.
                    No they don't.

                    I think they possess a high degree of truth, evidenced by your and others’ reaction to it and confirmed by your admission above.
                    Heresies are not truth.

                    The Lord showed me
                    Really? How tall was He? Did He have brown hair? Was He a baritone?

                    many years ago that we all hate prescriptive truth because our falsified souls cause us to hate Truth.
                    That's the beauty of salvation. Our souls are saved from falsehood. Only our sinful flesh retains its hatred for truth.

                    We have a spiritual disease;
                    YOU may, but the Lord heals and frees His own from spiritual disease.

                    we falsify our souls with our participation with falsehood in life.
                    No we don't. Our souls are securely His, and in Him is nothing false.

                    Scripture bears this out (Jn 3:19).
                    That's for non-believers.

                    That we are diseased and not fully competent in spiritual maters is why Jesus said, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."
                    He was referring to the ignorant Roman gentiles. Oh, but "metaphor", right? Spin, spin, spin!!!

                    He showed me that He was killed specifically because He told His detractors truth they weren’t yet cleansed to “hear” (Jn 8:37; 40; 43,45).
                    Then whatever "told" you is a liar. He was killed because mankind needed a Savior, and because the Pharisees REFUSED to hear. It had nothing to do with being "cleansed to hear". Boy, this nonsense keeps getting more and more out there...

                    The Jews who killed Christ are us and we are them.
                    Yep. We are all responsible for Christ's death because we are all completely unrighteous on our own. Not one is good except Christ.


                    Hatred for the light of truth always produces the same results, only the venues are different.
                    What the heck does that even mean?


                    Poster calling others smart ass, liar and stupid—banned.
                    No one gets banned for those things. I dare you to find ONE instance of that. I've been a member here since the site was 3 weeks old, and a mod since it was 2 months old. You are lying through your teeth here.

                    Member of the good old boy club calling others smart ass, liar and stupid—permitted.
                    Translation...

                    child-whining-dave-mosher.jpg
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Bill the Feline, you mocked the idea of Jesus showing me some fundamental truths about truth. Experiment below was one of several I did to test the veracity of what I believe I was shown. Please read and compare to the robust dancing going on here against plain, simple and obvious logical truths laid out in the op and elsewhere in the thread. See any similarities? Like I said, the foundation remains, only the venues change.

                      Some years ago as this interpretation was developing, I introduced the question "Can God destroy good?" on a couple different theology boards, explaining that I was a universalist and the notion that God could not logically destroy good was part of my universalist theology. Intellectual contortions ensued; posters found all sorts of ridiculous reasons why God could and would destroy good if He wished.

                      They had no interest in discovering whether the proposition had truth merit, they were only searching for ways to refute the universalist. I experimented to test my thesis. I found a new theology board (this was years ago when there seemed to be theology boards all over the place) and, keeping my universalism to myself, I posed the simple question "Can God destroy good?" again. This time, the answers were completely different. I was so impressed I copied and pasted them into a word doc to save. Here's what I posted and the responses...can't remember now what board this was on:

                      Can God logically destroy good?

                      This question rides the fence between theology and philosophy, I'm looking for opinions....

                      In the Bible, God's wrath is always directed against evil, the opposite of good. We know intuitively that it would be completely wrong for God to repay a legitimately moral act with punishment. This seems to support the notion that God cannot logically destroy good.

                      Assuming God is the greatest goodness from which all other things "good" derive, is it logically possible for God to destroy any good?

                      For further clarification....I believe Aristotle made the legitimate distinction that descriptive truth (that which pertains to matter, such as scientific facts) differs from prescriptive (moral) truth, what we typically call "spiritual truth". The former would not apply here. No moral value applies to matter, per se.

                      But in the realm of universals--such as principles--there's a power inherent in "good" that it seems illogical for God to abolish. For instance, it's unthinkable that He would annul or eliminate the good "mercy".

                      So, narrowed down: Is it logically possible for God to destroy prescriptive, moral or spiritual good of any kind? If so, why?


                      ================================================== ======================

                      God is good. Nothing else is good. God cannot destroy himself.
                      RabbiKnife

                      ================================================== ======================

                      This is akin to absolute possibility, or the belief that God can do anything. In fact, the bible teaches us that God can do anything within His nature. Considering reason and logic are within His nature, this would mean that He cannot perform a logical contradiction, because it is impossible for a logical contradiction to exist (it cannot be hypothesized or actualized in any possible worlds).

                      Thus, God cannot destroy goodness because He is goodness. He cannot be self-defeating, as this is a logical contradiction.


                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      God is the source of all goodness, no matter how tiny
                      God cannot perform a contradiction, like self negate himself
                      Therefore, God cannot destroy even the tiniest bit of goodness

                      That is the logical syllogism you're probably looking for. Logically, God cannot destroy goodness because He cannot negate His own nature.


                      apothanein kerdos
                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      If God is good (goodness itself), and if the characteristics you listed all come under that goodness, then it is self-evident that God cannot destroy a part of Himself (because He is posited as eternal and simple).Hroberson
                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      As "God is Love" he cannot destroy good; that is good from his view, which may not be the same in a human mind!

                      At the end of the day, the question remains: If we say we love Christ (Truth) but stand stubbornly against truth presented in the world in order to preserved a favored doctrine, how should this be interpreted?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                        Bill the Feline, you mocked the idea of Jesus showing me some fundamental truths about truth. Experiment below was one of several I did to test the veracity of what I believe I was shown. Please read and compare to the robust dancing going on here against plain, simple and obvious logical truths laid out in the op and elsewhere in the thread. See any similarities? Like I said, the foundation remains, only the venues change.

                        Some years ago as this interpretation was developing, I introduced the question "Can God destroy good?" on a couple different theology boards, explaining that I was a universalist and the notion that God could not logically destroy good was part of my universalist theology. Intellectual contortions ensued; posters found all sorts of ridiculous reasons why God could and would destroy good if He wished.

                        They had no interest in discovering whether the proposition had truth merit, they were only searching for ways to refute the universalist. I experimented to test my thesis. I found a new theology board (this was years ago when there seemed to be theology boards all over the place) and, keeping my universalism to myself, I posed the simple question "Can God destroy good?" again. This time, the answers were completely different. I was so impressed I copied and pasted them into a word doc to save. Here's what I posted and the responses...can't remember now what board this was on:

                        Can God logically destroy good?

                        This question rides the fence between theology and philosophy, I'm looking for opinions....

                        In the Bible, God's wrath is always directed against evil, the opposite of good. We know intuitively that it would be completely wrong for God to repay a legitimately moral act with punishment. This seems to support the notion that God cannot logically destroy good.

                        Assuming God is the greatest goodness from which all other things "good" derive, is it logically possible for God to destroy any good?

                        For further clarification....I believe Aristotle made the legitimate distinction that descriptive truth (that which pertains to matter, such as scientific facts) differs from prescriptive (moral) truth, what we typically call "spiritual truth". The former would not apply here. No moral value applies to matter, per se.

                        But in the realm of universals--such as principles--there's a power inherent in "good" that it seems illogical for God to abolish. For instance, it's unthinkable that He would annul or eliminate the good "mercy".

                        So, narrowed down: Is it logically possible for God to destroy prescriptive, moral or spiritual good of any kind? If so, why?


                        ================================================== ======================

                        God is good. Nothing else is good. God cannot destroy himself.
                        RabbiKnife

                        ================================================== ======================

                        This is akin to absolute possibility, or the belief that God can do anything. In fact, the bible teaches us that God can do anything within His nature. Considering reason and logic are within His nature, this would mean that He cannot perform a logical contradiction, because it is impossible for a logical contradiction to exist (it cannot be hypothesized or actualized in any possible worlds).

                        Thus, God cannot destroy goodness because He is goodness. He cannot be self-defeating, as this is a logical contradiction.


                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        God is the source of all goodness, no matter how tiny
                        God cannot perform a contradiction, like self negate himself
                        Therefore, God cannot destroy even the tiniest bit of goodness

                        That is the logical syllogism you're probably looking for. Logically, God cannot destroy goodness because He cannot negate His own nature.


                        apothanein kerdos
                        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        If God is good (goodness itself), and if the characteristics you listed all come under that goodness, then it is self-evident that God cannot destroy a part of Himself (because He is posited as eternal and simple).Hroberson
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        As "God is Love" he cannot destroy good; that is good from his view, which may not be the same in a human mind!

                        At the end of the day, the question remains: If we say we love Christ (Truth) but stand stubbornly against truth presented in the world in order to preserved a favored doctrine, how should this be interpreted?
                        So far so good. As I said, please continue. The key bit of dissent is if man can be "good" in and of himself. God being good has never been under question in this thread.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The key bit of dissent is if man can be "good" in and of himself. God being good has never been under question in this thread.
                          Correct, the attacks here have taken other approaches. You skip conveniently over the point: Railing against prescriptive propositions one doesn't want to hear regardless of their truth content should not be the position of those who claim allegiance to Truth Himself.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            I did not see real debate.
                            I suspect there's more truth to this than you know.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                              Correct, the attacks here have taken other approaches. You skip conveniently over the point: Railing against prescriptive propositions one doesn't want to hear regardless of their truth content should not be the position of those who claim allegiance to Truth Himself.
                              Like I said, get on with it.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Anything imperfect will be destroyed at the culmination of all things. All that will be left will be those things that are of God…There is no truth in anything that is not of Him.
                                You seem unaware that this is exactly the point in the op.
                                This is why the proclamation that you rail against the simple, direct and powerful truths of the op can be true; like all beliefs, propositions, etc. they possess some degree of truth.
                                No they don't.
                                Allegories are illustrations and always require interpretation. And without a clear interpretation given in the text itself, such as we have with Daniel 8, or by the author himself, the interpretation is left up to the reader.
                                Heresies are not truth.
                                The key bit of dissent is if man can be "good" in and of himself. God being good has never been under question in this thread.
                                The idea of human goodness being outside of God was never put forth. Goodness proceeds from the thoughts and acts of people relative to the value content of the soul. I take good to be the logical product of the true. Since truth endues the essence of all creation until it's fragmentally falsified by human choice, the good produced by people--though produced from an inherent possession of truth in essence--is from God. Please try to avoid any more strawman arguments.

                                Since you tacitly admit the passages contain meaning beyond their literal sense alone…
                                …I have no doubt that a larger lesson is being taught other than the forensic retelling of the destruction of a city.
                                …and profess a desire for intellectually honest discussion…
                                I'm just hoping you will get on with it so I can continue to expose your circular logic. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
                                …Let’s try this again:

                                1. [u]Gen 18 is a metaphoric account[/] teaching at least a two-part spiritual principle.
                                a. Perfect Justice demands that God destroy only evil, never good.
                                b. A principle of multiplicity of value components is revealed in the Gen 18 account as the organizing method by which the perfection of God’s justice is maintained.

                                2. Abraham’s words in vv. 23 & 25 confirms #1a

                                3. Gen 18 and Gen 19:1-19 confirms #1b

                                Conclusion: Spiritual principles a and b combine to suggest that God will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.

                                I assume that unless corrected the underlined portion of point 1 is not contested, only the remaining text in point #1.

                                1. Do you agree or disagree that God only destroys prescriptive, spiritual or moral badness, never goodness? If you disagree, please provide evidence from reason and/or Scripture.

                                Multiplicity is the property of being multiple. Lot, his family and numerous (v. 4) Sodomites are involved in the Gen 18-19 story.
                                2.. Do you agree or disagree that this mixture of people can rightly be referenced as a multiplicity? Please provide reasons if you disagree.

                                Abraham’s words in Gen 18:23 & 25:

                                "Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
                                3. Do you agree or disagree that these words confirm Point1a? If you disagree, please explain why.

                                Abraham identifies two moral or prescriptive classes of persons in v. 23: "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike…”
                                4. Do you agree or disagree that the terms righteous and unrighteous are morally or prescriptively evaluative terms? If not, please provide arguments for your denial.

                                Our souls are saved from falsehood. Only our sinful flesh retains its hatred for truth.
                                This is a popular notion in evangelical circles, but it’s incoherent. Hatred is a cognitive function. Flesh in a literal sense has no cognitive function except to materialists. The tension is resolved by moving “flesh” from material to intangible, as many Christians do. Here, “spirit and flesh” [good/bad, true/false, etc.] refer to contrary value components in spirit or soul and the tension is resolved. As far as I can see, comparisons of spirit/flesh as true and false components in essence can be appropriately read into all verses in which this contradistinction is made in the Bible without contradiction.

                                Fallacy of guilt by association
                                This is amusing, have to give you a point for zeal. The text this refers to was simply an observation, not a proposition. Fallacies refer to arguments.

                                A simile is not a metaphor. Types are not metaphors either. Your grasp of grammar sucks as bad as your eisegesis of scripture.
                                And this despite the fact I explained in an early post that I would be using the term “metaphor” in its more common usage, to indicate the broad signification of passages that are representational in nature. We do this for at least two reasons; 1) it’s cumbersome and unnecessary to have to carefully define each type of representation when discussing the highly figurative Bible, and, 2) a considerable variety of the definitions of representational language types are found among the intelligentsia probably due, in part at least, to semantic overlap between terms. You seem unaware that latitude in discussion relating to emblematic language is the norm.

                                No one gets banned for those things. I dare you to find ONE instance of that. I've been a member here since the site was 3 weeks old, and a mod since it was 2 months old. You are lying through your teeth here.
                                Again with the liar accusation? Another dare? The banning thing wasn’t supposed to be a literal allegation, it was an amusing overstatement of an underlying truth lots of folks will recognize from here and other boards. I really admire your gnawing and ripping of my posts to find any little thing you can carp on. Very Christlike.

                                My experience is that posters who find themselves lacking in valid arguments often fall into quoting every little snippet of their opponents’ posts they can find to respond to with typically one-sentence accusations, trite commentary insults and contemptuous remarks, probably to hide their own inability to mount reasonable arguments. Presumably these folks think if they “drown out” their more astute adversaries it will draw attention away from their own unfitness for rational debate. I’m sure glad there’s none of that in this thread.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X