How God could fail to convey His message?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Dear Immanuel,

first things first. Yes, I did misquote the law of the excluded middle; but my rewording it made no difference. You "came to my rescue", but if you thought it through, you would have seen that there was no need for it.

"Nothing can both be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect." I had said.

"In contrast, Law of the Excluded Middle merely holds that something cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time and in the same sense of "be" (as, for illustration, in that you cannot "be" alive and "not be alive" at the same moment, if by "alive" we mean exactly the same thing in both statements). So it wouldn't support the claim you wish to make." -- You said.

Compare the two. The only difference is, that the "sense of "be"" is given in my version, and thus it is a special case of the Law. I gave the instance of "be true". You argued that "be alive" and "not be alive" are the proper application of the Law. I applied it to "true",and "not true", or "be true" and "not be true", and as such, I did not make an error. If you see any difference between your version if you plug in "true" instead of "alive" and my version, then please let me know.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Dear Immanuel, you raised several labour-intensive, but not challenging issues.

You seem to be trying to decry my own statements' truth value, by juxtaposing them to themselves.

For instance, you said, not a verbatim quote, that "-1-, you do judge Christians." No, I don't. I don't make judgement over them whether they are Christians or not, or how well they follow the teaching of the bible. I merely separate them from each other, and that is not "judging". You don't judge a Tasmanian Devil and a Ferret by separating them, or an apple tree and a pear tree, by pointing out differences between them, or merely saying there are differences between apple trees and pear tees.

Separation by characteristics is not judging. Judging is an approval or disapproval of moral, legal, or social, conduct. It's normally an action of finding fault or righteousness, guilt or innocence, or in the case of religious conduct, adherence or non-adherence to the tenets of the faith. I am NOT judging Christians how well they adhere to the tenets of their faith. They judge EACH OTHER, but I don't partake in that process.

So this was much ado about nothing: you accused me, unjustly, of judging, and you created unnecessary busy work for me. A typically American way of arguing... ignore the facts, ignore the logic, just make the other person defend things he does not need to defend at all, if you thought out your own argument, in both cases: the "be true" and "be not true" vs. "be alive" and "be not alive", and in the case of my alleged judging. Notice that I give you the benefit of doubt that you are not doing this on purpose, but in good will, and with mistaken logic and mistaken intentions, but not belligerent intentions.

I please therefore ask you, not to give me busy work in defence of your charges. I promise to ignore any more arguments by you the response to which would be mere busy-work by me.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Dear Immanuel Can, you raised the question what and whom I consider to be a Christian.

I believe that a Christian person is a person who believes the tenets of his or her sect, and acts or tries to act according to this same belief of his sect, and which sect's tenets include the common elements of Christianity, as defined thus: this common area of belief is the acceptance that Jesus was god, and that salvation is only possible through him, or by accepting the holy ghost into your hear. This common area of belief also includes the belief that Jesus died on the cross in an attempt to save us from the original sin.

So much is common to all Christians. Note that "Jews for Jesus" and even Unitarians I don't consider Christians, as both of those religions do not accept that Jesus was god.

This has been a valid enough question by you. I don't mind disclosing the foregoing. This was teetering on the verge of busy-work, but it had some merit by your asking for it.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Dear Immanuel Can, you raised another busy-work issue. I quote you:

"I wasn't saying you were making such distinctions; I was rather pointing out that the inability to recognize such distinctions was a sure indicator of not knowing. That's all." fine. Then... so... what. I don't need to point out or even understand the differences between sects of Christianity; all I need for my argument is that the differences exist.

My argument, to re-iterate it: "Many Christian sects exist. Christianity is based on the bible, and on historical processes also based on the bible. So if the bible was written in a clear way, then there would be no different sects. But there are different sects. Therefore the bible is not written well, and god failed to communicate his intentions well."

Do I need to know what the differences are between sects of Christianity to be able to say with certainty, that there are different and differing versions of Christianity? No, I do not need to know waht the differences are, as long as I know that there are differences, and there ARE differences, as it is screamed into the world loud and clear by Christians themselves.

You repeatedly keep bringing up that, not a verbatim quote, "-1-, you are an outsider, therefore you can't possibly have an understanding." Of what? Of the differences? I don't need to know the differences. All I need to know is that differences exist. And that is enough for my argument, as reiterated two paragraphs up for your benefit.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:39 pm Dear Immanuel,
Dear -1-... I had no idea we'd grown so close. :wink:
Compare the two.
Okay.

The LONC (Law of Non-Contradiction) is about whether or not genuinely contradictory statements can be true at the same time and in the same way. As Aristotle said, "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".

You wanted to say that Catholics believe one thing, and, say, Baptists believe another.

The LOEM is not about two contradictory claims, but about the fact that if one claim is true, then its negation (i.e. the negation of the same statement, not a different statement) is necessarily false. Aristotle said, "there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories..."

That is, for example, that either God exists, or He does not. But there's no "soft middle" for existing.
The only difference is, that the "sense of "be"" is given in my version, and thus it is a special case of the Law.
Not really. You can see the difference, I'm sure. But they are related. The three laws (including the Law of Identity) are necessary to each other. One can't do (Aristotelian) logic -- or common sense, really -- without them.

In short, you wanted the LONC, not the LOEM.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 pm Dear Immanuel Can, you raised the question what and whom I consider to be a Christian.
I believe that a Christian person is a person who believes the tenets of his or her sect, and acts or tries to act according to this same belief of his sect, and which sect's tenets include the common elements of Christianity, as defined thus: this common area of belief is the acceptance that Jesus was god, and that salvation is only possible through him, or by accepting the holy ghost into your hear. This common area of belief also includes the belief that Jesus died on the cross in an attempt to save us from the original sin.
Well, for some people who call themselves "Christians," you'd have some of their beliefs. You've got a kind of vaguely-Protestant understanding there. For others, you'd have three or four, and three or four wrong, and for others they would only accept your account if they could ask further questions about what you mean by some strange phrases, like "accepting the Holy Ghost into your heart," a phrase actually not found in that articulation in any Bible.

Some would not believe any of the things you claim they ought to believe if they are "Christians", but would still call themselves "Christians."

So again, for the outsider, it's a real problem to say who's "in" and who's "out" of the pool of genuine Christians.
This has been a valid enough question by you. I don't mind disclosing the foregoing. This was teetering on the verge of busy-work, but it had some merit by your asking for it.
Thank you. I think we'd agree that the first step in making claims about a group is always to be able to identify who that group is. Ones subsequent statements' defensibility will naturally depend on an accurate reading of that.

You could regard this, in fact, as an application of the Law of Identity -- that the soundness of an argument depends on accurate and stable identification of terms. If one's understanding of the word "Christian" is wobbly, then all subsequent claims about them can simply become false.

The necessity of identifying accurately who is a "real Christian" has nothing necessarily, then, to do with partisanship, and everything with wanting to make rational claims. Absent stable identification, no argument is trustworthy.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:19 pm Dear Immanuel Can, you raised another busy-work issue. I quote you:

"I wasn't saying you were making such distinctions; I was rather pointing out that the inability to recognize such distinctions was a sure indicator of not knowing. That's all." fine. Then... so... what. I don't need to point out or even understand the differences between sects of Christianity; all I need for my argument is that the differences exist.
Not so. You need them to all be (in the relevant sense) "Christians." For to say merely that people disagree is a mere truism, and of no particular interest here.

My response is: you don't know how many, or if, "Christian sects" exist at all. It's quite possible there's a core agreement among genuine Christians, but you're just not in a position (as and outsider) to be able to sort out (to use a Biblical metaphor) "the sheep from the goats."
My argument, to re-iterate it: "Many Christian sects exist. Christianity is based on the bible, and on historical processes also based on the bible. So if the bible was written in a clear way, then there would be no different sects. But there are different sects. Therefore the bible is not written well, and god failed to communicate his intentions well."
That's what we call a "non-sequitur." It does not follow from the existence of disagreement among people that no truth exists. It does not follow from a disagreement among fans of the Green Bay Packers as to who their new quarterback should be that there is no new quarterback. And the disagreement among fans does not imply the coach hasn't selected one, or that he's failed to communicate his intentions to the press.

But I went over all this in previous messages. Failure to communicate happens, not just when somebody failed to speak clearly, but when the person-unwilling-to -ear rejects the clear message.
Do I need to know what the differences are between sects of Christianity to be able to say with certainty, that there are different and differing versions of Christianity? No, I do not need to know waht the differences are, as long as I know that there are differences, and there ARE differences, as it is screamed into the world loud and clear by Christians themselves.
You've begged the question again here. You don't know how to ascertain if the "screamers" are actually "Christians" or not. They could be mere claimants or hangers-on. You wouldn't know. You're an outsider: and but for your sketchy outline of a few things you think they believe in common, you're not even sure.

For example, do you know that your account rules out all orthodox Catholics? :shock: But I think that earlier, you were trying to suggest they were "Christians." And you ruled out Jews...but what about Messianic Jews? Are they not "Christians"? Or are you saying that they're not "Jews"?

You see, it's very complicated if you don't know what the core of being a Christian really is.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:48 pm
-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:07 pm Dear Immanuel Can, you raised the question what and whom I consider to be a Christian.
I believe that a Christian person is a person who believes the tenets of his or her sect, and acts or tries to act according to this same belief of his sect, and which sect's tenets include the common elements of Christianity, as defined thus: this common area of belief is the acceptance that Jesus was god, and that salvation is only possible through him, or by accepting the holy ghost into your hear. This common area of belief also includes the belief that Jesus died on the cross in an attempt to save us from the original sin.


Well, for some people who call themselves "Christians," you'd have some of their beliefs. You've got a kind of vaguely-Protestant understanding there. For others, you'd have three or four, and three or four wrong, and for others they would only accept your account if they could ask further questions about what you mean by some strange phrases, like "accepting the Holy Ghost into your heart," a phrase actually not found in that articulation in any Bible.

Some would not believe any of the things you claim they ought to believe if they are "Christians", but would still call themselves "Christians."

So again, for the outsider, it's a real problem to say who's "in" and who's "out" of the pool of genuine Christians.

This has been a valid enough question by you. I don't mind disclosing the foregoing. This was teetering on the verge of busy-work, but it had some merit by your asking for it.
Thank you. I think we'd agree that the first step in making claims about a group is always to be able to identify who that group is. Ones subsequent statements' defensibility will naturally depend on an accurate reading of that.

You could regard this, in fact, as an application of the Law of Identity -- that the soundness of an argument depends on accurate and stable identification of terms. If one's understanding of the word "Christian" is wobbly, then all subsequent claims about them can simply become false.

The necessity of identifying accurately who is a "real Christian" has nothing necessarily, then, to do with partisanship, and everything with wanting to make rational claims. Absent stable identification, no argument is trustworthy.
Wow. Hold on. This has been misedited. My utterance is only the innermost quote and the last paragraph of the second-inner quote. You answered my quote, and attributed it to me. You also mixed my quote with your answer in the quote area immediately after and engulfing the innermost quote. Then you answered your own answer and treated it as if it had come from my pen.

Please, don't ever, EVER do this again. Thanks.

I appreciate that you were in haste when you answered this, and this has lead to the mistake. Forgiven. But please be more careful in the future.

By-the-by, you asked me what I thought is a Christian. I gave you my answer. You disagree with my answer. Fine. But there it is: the definition of a christian. If your definition is different, then it must be also presented.

So prove that you are a christian. Please, be honest and candid. Tell me what makes a christian, and how you, yourself, fulfil that category of humans.

Failing to show you are Christian, you are not proving me wrong.

Please show me that you are a christian, and show me that your definition truly describes all christians, positively, objectively, and exclusively / inclusively (precisely).

In other words, please show me that those who do not fit your definition's requirements, are not chirstians; and prove this on an objective platform.

Thanks.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:59 pm
-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:19 pm Dear Immanuel Can, you raised another busy-work issue. I quote you:

"I wasn't saying you were making such distinctions; I was rather pointing out that the inability to recognize such distinctions was a sure indicator of not knowing. That's all." fine. Then... so... what. I don't need to point out or even understand the differences between sects of Christianity; all I need for my argument is that the differences exist.
Not so. You need them to all be (in the relevant sense) "Christians." For to say merely that people disagree is a mere truism, and of no particular interest here.

My response is: you don't know how many, or if, "Christian sects" exist at all. It's quite possible there's a core agreement among genuine Christians, but you're just not in a position (as and outsider) to be able to sort out (to use a Biblical metaphor) "the sheep from the goats."
My argument, to re-iterate it: "Many Christian sects exist. Christianity is based on the bible, and on historical processes also based on the bible. So if the bible was written in a clear way, then there would be no different sects. But there are different sects. Therefore the bible is not written well, and god failed to communicate his intentions well."
That's what we call a "non-sequitur." It does not follow from the existence of disagreement among people that no truth exists. It does not follow from a disagreement among fans of the Green Bay Packers as to who their new quarterback should be that there is no new quarterback. And the disagreement among fans does not imply the coach hasn't selected one, or that he's failed to communicate his intentions to the press.

But I went over all this in previous messages. Failure to communicate happens, not just when somebody failed to speak clearly, but when the person-unwilling-to -ear rejects the clear message.
Do I need to know what the differences are between sects of Christianity to be able to say with certainty, that there are different and differing versions of Christianity? No, I do not need to know waht the differences are, as long as I know that there are differences, and there ARE differences, as it is screamed into the world loud and clear by Christians themselves.
You've begged the question again here. You don't know how to ascertain if the "screamers" are actually "Christians" or not. They could be mere claimants or hangers-on. You wouldn't know. You're an outsider: and but for your sketchy outline of a few things you think they believe in common, you're not even sure.

For example, do you know that your account rules out all orthodox Catholics? :shock: But I think that earlier, you were trying to suggest they were "Christians." And you ruled out Jews...but what about Messianic Jews? Are they not "Christians"? Or are you saying that they're not "Jews"?

You see, it's very complicated if you don't know what the core of being a Christian really is.
This all boils down to your sticking to having only one brand of christians. And your only defense, if I ask you to define such a person as you call a christian, is that you will say "you have to be one to know one".

I reject that argument. Human language is elastic and precise enough to define such a term. Please do. If you don't, you are just one extension of God's inability to communicate.

Please at least try. I know you can do it. Go for it, and tell me what makes a christian and how you fulfil that set of requirements.

We'll put your definition to things said in the bible, and see how it stands up to scrutiny.

We need to do this, because of quotes like this by you (Verbatim):
"Not so. You need them to all be (in the relevant sense) "Christians." For to say merely that people disagree is a mere truism, and of no particular interest here." You reject some Christians, but you are reticent to say why. You talk about a relevant sense, but you hide what it is. You will, I know, shroud your incapacity to argue by saying "you need to be a christian to know what a christian is".

Well, no. I don't need to be a christian to know what a christian is. You know what an atheist is, without being one, and you shew it. You know how to define a woman, as opposed to being a man, without being both. You know how to define a dog, without being one. I can understand what a christian is, if it is described in common language well. So go for it.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

As far as I am concerned, my argument stands. You have not refuted it, Immanuel Can. My argument was... please refer back to it. You attempted to destroy it by challenging that some people who disagree on tenets of faith are not christians.

But YOU PRESENTED NO PROOF THAT THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. You presented some weak and vague stories, that you can't believe anything anybody tells you. That's not an argument, that is a cop-out.

Your only defence you have already voiced, that only a true christian can know what a true christian is. That is a weak argument, and unsubstantiated, too. "You can't possibly understand the definition" without giving the definition is a non-argument, a nothing.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:59 pmIt does not follow from the existence of disagreement among people that no truth exists. It does not follow from a disagreement among fans of the Green Bay Packers as to who their new quarterback should be that there is no new quarterback. And the disagreement among fans does not imply the coach hasn't selected one, or that he's failed to communicate his intentions to the press.
You are misplacing the topic of argument, and mixing it up with something else.

It is not that truth does not exist. It is that the bible, supposed to be god's message, is imperfect in communicating that truth.

You can't compare the ARGUMENTATIVE and LINGUISTIC EXPLANATION SKILLS of a factory worker or a lawyer who is a Green Bay Packers fan, to the EXPECTED argumentative and linguistic skills of God. Supposedly. But as it turns out, they are at par.

And this is what my argument entails, not that there is a truth or not.

Please keep your concepts lined up straight.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by -1- »

Dear Immanuel Can, You have not proved that my definition of a christian is wrong. You only keep saying that it is wrong. That's nothing. That is not an argument.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Regarding your initial comments: the citing mechanism of this board is a constant source of frustration to everyone. I can only tell you that things looked right in my window when I sent them. For their condition on arrival, I cannot speak.
By-the-by, you asked me what I thought is a Christian. I gave you my answer. You disagree with my answer. Fine. But there it is: the definition of a christian. If your definition is different, then it must be also presented.
Actually, since I'm not the one criticizing, my definition is not the issue. Yours would be.

But I think you'd do well to compare what Christ taught with what any particular group practices, and to judge the measure of their "Christian-ness" on that basis. After all, if they are professing to be "Christ -ians," then that is the standard to which they make profession themselves. So you would be judging them according to the very standard they claim.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:18 pm This all boils down to your sticking to having only one brand of christians.
Not so. Again, you are the one offering the criticism that differences among (what you suppose to be) "Christians" constitutes an evidence against God having communicated clearly. And so it is your criticism that is at stake. If you cannot even identify who you are talking about, how can you criticize?
And your only defense, if I ask you to define such a person as you call a christian, is that you will say "you have to be one to know one".
No; my criticism of your criticism is that you evidently don't really know who you're talking about, so you don't know whether or not "real Christians" disagree.
We'll put your definition to things said in the bible, and see how it stands up to scrutiny.
But it's your definition that's at stake.

However, I have told you in my last message how to get the right definition in a minimally-controversial way. Whether or not you do it is up to you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:23 pm As far as I am concerned, my argument stands. You have not refuted it, Immanuel Can. My argument was... please refer back to it. You attempted to destroy it by challenging that some people who disagree on tenets of faith are not christians.

But YOU PRESENTED NO PROOF THAT THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.
I didn't need to. You did it. You claimed that they believed contradictory things. And Aristotle told you that that means they aren't believing the same thing at all.

So just listen to yourself and to Aristotle.
Post Reply