Aren't all prayers accepted by God no matter what name we use?

Lake Okanagan

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

I am working with a parachurch, prayer ministry and reading through materials. My former pastor relates an interesting story.

He was in discussion with a person and was asked: 'When someone prays, does it really matter what they call God? Aren't all prayers accepted by God no matter what name we use?' (12).

My former pastor at a later point in time, intentionally addressed this person with the wrong name.

This person, in reply, sounded a 'bit miffed.' (13).

He asked:

'Why does it matter which name I use?' (13).

'It matters to me.' (13).

Stated the person.

Further my former pastor stated:

'God doesn't go by just ant name. God has an identity...His name reveals who he is. It matters to him what you call him - just like it matters to you.' (14).

I favour philosophy of religion as an academic discipline for philosophically reasoning out religious truths. These truths fit under the category of 'All truth is God's truth' even if not directly verified by scripture. In fact, I think it is an intellectual handicap to not combine philosophy of religion with theology and biblical studies. Therefore, my academic approach up to my PhD and following.

But apart from a reasonable exegesis of scripture, accurate theology and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3), God cannot be known, relationally. For example, Romans 1: 17 explains that the righteousness of God is revealed to those in faith. Jesus Christ's righteousness is imputed to those legally justified in Christ. This would not be deduced through reason alone. The gospel message is revealed and cannot be merely speculated upon accurately to know God, personally. This is due to the finite nature and sinfulness of humanity. Sin in particular, corrupts human understanding.

God is infinite and can technically hear all prayers, but simply praying to a generic God, does not make it prayer to the actual biblical God. These prayers are technically heard but are dealt with outside of relationship.

Prayer Current.com

Are You In Denial?

Lake Okanagan

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

It is not a fallacy in itself, to report that someone denies something.(79). This denial may or may not be true. (79-80). When cumulative evidences that someone has done something and performed an action, are established, and the person involved refuses to admit it; this is denial. (80).

Cited

'Denial goes with many things, but confession is not one of them.' (80).

'The problem is that 'in denial' implies certain knowledge of a guilt that in most cases has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt.' (80).

Insightful.

It seems to me that with this fallacy, it is at times, in certain situations, a supposed fallacy because there is actual doubt on whether a person in question is denying anything.

The author notes the example of within an argument,when one person is wrong and the other is right, in an obvious context, a tactic is for the right person to accuse the wrong person of being 'In Denial.' (81).

In a philosophical debate, a Christian could accuse the atheist of being in denial. The atheist could accuse of the Christian of being in denial. In many cases, I would suggest that accusing the opponent of this fallacy is not helpful and creates another unhelpful layer of disagreement!

My thinking is that a psychology text from my Bachelor's degree era will suffice with a secondary definition.

'Denial (suppression and eventual repression of negative feelings).' (458). The psychological state with our topic, connects to the philosophical.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

RYBASH, JOHN, ROODIN, PAUL A., SANTROCK, JOHN W. (1985)(1991) Adult Development and Aging, Wm. C Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.

Lake Okanagan, seconds apart...

Scripture: Doubts based on sanitation?

Recent Okanagan trip: Lake Okanagan

My Aunt from Calgary, kindly recently sent me a thoughtful blog post. I emailed back and stated I would comment after I returned from my short trip.

Hole News August 17 2016

Cited

'Oh Weary Me Posted on August 17, 2016 by grandpalloyd'

'I’m weary of mincing words to appear theologically correct. Claiming the Bible as we have it is inerrant, free from all flaws, is a stretch.'

The scribal copies do contain errors. There are no original biblical documents extant. I view the original biblical autographs as divinely inspired and inerrant.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

From Religious Facts

Religious Facts

The link is no longer available, but I will source the site and then link my Satire Und Theology article where I posted material from the link.

Satire Und Theology October 31 2006

Cited from Religious Facts

'No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."'

Encountering The New Testament (2013) basically agrees stating that there are copying mistakes in manuscripts (11). I would add, that it is obvious to anyone that compares different manuscript versions, in New Testament Greek, that they are not always identical. But the New Testament is the 'best-attested writing in antiquity.' (11). There are close to six thousand biblical manuscripts with at least fragments for the New Testament. (11). There is also a brief time lapse between gospel events and their documentation as originals as autographs to copies. (11).

It is true that scribal, copying errors are found, and perhaps it can be deduced some 'theologizing' and agenda is possible by scribes. Because of the vast amount of manuscripts and the closeness in time period to the originals this makes it philosophically certain that the bible is internally consistent theologically. In other words, as there are so many copies in extant and there is only a brief time lapse from originals to copies. New Testament theology has not been significantly compromised, doctrinally. It is consistent.

I am not meaning 100% certainty, but that the internal and external arguments for Scripture are better than counter arguments. I am certain that I exist, but as I do not have infinite knowledge, I am not 100% certain.

The Encountering texts states that transition was not perfect, but it was more than reliable enough for us to have little doubt in what the New Testament writers first wrote. (12). There are no grounds for any serious theological doubts. (12). The New Testament is internally consistent. It is near 100% certainty of accuracy. (12).

This would not allow for any reasonable conspiracy theory of a corruption in original theology. Revisionist theology for modern times, that contradicts biblical theology is not a reasonable approach within a biblical worldview. In the same way, although older manuscripts, the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament: '...became a cannon, authoritative collection of documents. (8). These writings were accepted as Scripture by Jesus Christ, his Apostles and disciples. (8). The Hebrew Bible as older will also not provide perfect copies of originals, but it still provides accurate historical religious history.

Cited from Hole News:

'Do you really believe two-million souls wandered the barren Sinai with their herds and flocks for 40 years? Sanitation alone defies imagining. Might an ancient editor or copyist have exaggerated a tad?'

It would be speculation to reason that a scribe or related 'exaggerated.' To make such a proposition true here in context, would require documented manuscript evidence that this is scribal exaggeration. Sanitation was primitive in ancient times and it seems to me would not indicate that this story is exaggerated, in any sense. I am not an Old Testament scholar, but this does not read as serious critique. It seems to me that primitive sanitation as opposed to modern sanitation would make sense within an ancient transient culture.

Scripture, based on divine supernatural revelation, as religious history, should be accepted in proper context. Scripture is presented as literal, non-fiction and not mythological fiction. Is as particular section of scripture written in plain literal language, such as with prose, or with figurative literal language, such as with poetry?

Cited

'The incarnation is our faith’s ultimate mystery. Is every line of Scripture historically and scientifically literal?'

The Scripture is not a scientific text, but inspiration from the infinite, perfect, God, in the original autographs would guarantee it is error free. The context of biblical literature needs to be understood. Agreed.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

Being relevant/Variable symbol

Churchleaders.com

In reviewing online ministry work, I reason Christian ministry websites need to be technologically current, content updated, with dated articles both recent and archived, in order to provide ministry credibility.

An online ministry needs to provide visitors, spiritually, with materials, on a regular basis and this can lead to committed regular pageviews and the greater use of more ministry materials.

In this regard, Christian ministry websites should work at 'Being relevant'. But to provide a message that is palatable within our present Western world system, influenced by secular philosophy, at the compromise of the gospel?

No.

trekearth

Variable symbol

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

'If we wish to express symbolically the logical form of a whole list of propositions, we may do this by using what is called a variable symbol. Such a symbol is not a name assigned to a certain one of the elements, but means A. B, C,...or J...(85).

'It is called a variable because it can mean all the elements in turn; its meaning may vary from A to J.' (85).

Langer uses lower case italics for variables to distinguish from specific names. (85).

The author explains that 'once a variable is given a meaning, it keeps it throughout the whole assertion; but it must be remembered that in another assertion it may have another meaning. (87).

Her example (for some clarity, I might add).

a fm a  (fm=fellowman)

Here a=J

Therefore J fm J.

The point here I reason, is that because 'E' and other letters of the alphabet were not mentioned within the related elementary propositions of one total assertion (87); they cannot be replaced by a variable within an assertion or equation. However, in another assertion and equation a variable can be equated with 'E'.

Retreating & Twisting

Retreating & Twisting

Edited for an entry on academia.edu on September 1, 2022

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Definitional Retreat

'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.'

Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78).

My examples:

When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God.

When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent.

The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78).

Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78).

Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings.

This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning. Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one.

But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it.

Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat.

I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December.

Definist fallacy

Blackburn defines a similar type of fallacy:

'The illicit insistence on defining a term in a way that is favourable to one's own side of an argument.' (96). I take this point, but it is also possible that with the use of objective reasoning, one's own definition is not fallacious. But, a term should be not twisted. One can insist that a definition based on a true premise (s) and conclusions is sound.

Logical Fallacies

Definist fallacy

'Description: Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend.

Logical Form: A has definition X. X is harmful to my argument. Therefore, A has definition Y.

Example #1: Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define creationism as, “The acceptance of a set of beliefs even more ridiculous than those of flat-earthers.”

Example #2: Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define evolution as, “Faith in a crackpot theory that is impossible to prove with certainty.”'

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.  

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

LOGICAL FALLACIES, References: BUNNIN, N., & Yu, J. (2008) The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Definist-Fallacy

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

Do not forget fellowship

Atlanta Times:  A summer reminder to party with common sense.

Since 2004, I have tried posting longer articles, less often, and more articles, more often. In agreement with most experts, it seems more articles, hopefully shorter, creates more pageviews. Moderate increases in readership are appreciated in today's difficult academic online market. I could have followed my Dad's half-hearted advice and attempted to become a televangelist, theatre implied, but this is rejected for various reasons, including the judgement of God (2 Corinthians 5).

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

From previous related post:

The symbol fm2 is introduced. (82). The symbol int is = (equals) by interpretation.or identified with. (82). K=int 'persons' (82). fm2='fellowship of' (82). K=int with persons A, B, and C

The Arabic number two is dropped for Langer's examples. but it has been established that fellowship and fellowman would present two persons in context from my understanding. A fm B (Person A has fellowship with person B) B fm C (Person B has fellowship with person C) Or is A the fellowman of B (82).

A person cannot be a fellowman of self. Therefore A is not the fellowman of A (82-83).

The V means that either way one of the propositions is false. Or they both could be false.

As well, ⊃ is the symbol for implies (75) and implication (80).
---

Therefore in regard to constituent relations there are certain implications. (83).

(A fm B) ⊃ (B fm A).

A is a fellowman, or is in fellowship with B, implies that B is a fellowman of A, or is in fellowship with A. (83).

As noted in a previous post: Conjunction (.) Conjunctions within the universe of discourse are what 'makes sense' between constituent relations. (80). In other words, what makes sense between the concepts and terms documented.

Langers' example assumes that each relation belongs to the formal context. In other words as a constituent relation, all the elements are in relation. (70). All these persons (elements) know each other.

Therefore:

In brackets is read first...

[(A fm B) . (B fm C)] ⊃ (A fm C). (83).

The relationship between A and C is implied as they are in the same universe of discourse.

This can be true in real life:

B=Bobby Buff
C=Chucky
R=Dr. Russ

[(B fm C) . (C fm R)] ⊃ (B fm R).

However, a person that does fit into the universe of discourse, may know zero to two of these persons (elements), because this other person (element) belongs to a different formal context, and therefore a different universe of discourse.

As 'academic' as this section seems, it has practical applications. When discussing certain bible and theology issues, one should make sure that persons that are new to a universe of discourse are communicated with in an understanding way. A couple of weeks ago Mr, Matt and a friend of his that is a newer friend of mine were discussing bible, while I was chauffeuring them around Vancouver and Burnaby. Mr. Matt stated to me (paraphrased): 'Remember this person has no formal biblical training.'

Do not forget fellowship...(In various contexts).

Damning the alternatives

This week: I slipped on a banana peel and took this photo.

This is alphabetically the next entry in the Pirie text. This is not an intentional part two to my current Satire Und Theology article 'Defined out of possibility?' No agenda. I am finished with 'C' and next is 'D'. I have at times not followed the alphabetical order, but I am doing so presently.

quote:

'In cases where there is a fixed and known set of alternatives, it is legitimate to establish the superiority of one by showing all of the others to be inferior. However, in cases where the alternatives are not fixed or known, and where absolutes are not fixed or known, and where absolutes rather than comparatives are sought, it is a fallacy to suppose that we argue for one by denigrating the alternatives.' (75).

This is damning the alternatives. (75).

Example, based on the author's:

The Chucky's theories on software testing have to be correct, therefore all the others have been proven wrong.

In Pirie's example, he states '(And he may be proved wrong, tomorrow.)' (75).

Based on author's example:

Wales is a very good team, look at England and Scotland, they are terrible.

Other teams are not being taken into account that might be much better than Wales, and therefore Wales might not be 'very good'.

The fallacy leaves out alternatives.(75). Relevant material is avoided. (75). It is a fallacy of the partisan. (75). It promotes one side by demoting another side. (75-76).

Within Christian ministry in proclaiming the exclusivity if Christ and the gospel message,
it is important to rationally and academically, when necessary, explain the superiority of the position.

Two scriptural examples on the exclusivity of Christ...

John 14:6

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

In regard to Jesus Christ as both God and man.

Acts 4: 12

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

It is not fallacious to claim an exclusive truth. It would not be fallacious to state:

All finite, living creatures die. A mere damning of the alternatives does not suffice, based on reason.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Braganza, Portugal, trekearth

The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Segments edited from archived article with new material added.

Panentheism April 01, 2012

Panentheism & Pantheism

David H. Nikkel (2003) defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God’. Nikkel (2003: 1). Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’ Nikkel (2003: 1).

Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’ Martinich (1996: 556). Pantheism reasons God is in everything and that God and the universe are one. Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’ Martinich (1996: 556). The doctrine being that all things exist in God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94), but is not identical with all things as with pantheism. Martinich (1996: 556).

As example:

God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree.

God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it.

Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism. Nikkel (2003: 1). God is prohibited from having a true and genuine relationship with matter and the universe because of traditional theistic views such as that God is immutable, impassible, and eternal and timeless. Nikkel (2003: 1). God is not eternal within this view.

Panentheism is an intellectual compromise between traditional theism and pantheism. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94). Within panentheism, God is more than just the material universe, as there is an unchanging aspect to God’s being and also a dynamic aspect to God as the divine being changes as matter and the universe do. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

In my traditional Christian theistic understanding, God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. This is my example based on Erickson’s presentation. Erickson (1994: 303-307). 

The Trinity

August 10, 2016

Within a trinitarian, biblical perspective, God as transcendent is beyond the finite, material universe. God is the first cause of all things and sustains all finite creation. God is not the vital force within his finite creation, but sustains and maintains it.

God’s nature does not equate to any human nature, for example. The infinite God causes the finite without being finite (This is not contradicted by Jesus Christ, the Word of God taking finite human nature in the incarnation without ceasing to be infinite God). God is immanent within his creation, but his infinite, eternal nature is not mixed with finite nature of any kind. Deity and humanity, two natures, are also not mixed in the incarnation of Christ.

The finite is not infinite. A finite thing is also not eternal. The finite cannot become infinite. The finite cannot become eternal. The finite, can possibly become everlasting. Finite attributes therefore cannot evolve into infinite attributes.

For balance, an academic friend once challenged me that an entity could technically have some infinite attributes and some finite attributes. For example, a being could have eternal life and yet not be omniscient. But the logic of this would be debated. Is not a limitless nature by definition, entirely limitless, lest it be limited? If God was for example, not omniscient, I would reason this would be because infinite, omniscience would be logically impossible. However, an infinite being and first cause could still virtually know all things (divine deduction) even without technical omniscience, in my opinion.

In the same way as God is infinitely good, he cannot logically be infinitely evil. But God is not evil in nature at all, but can use evil for his good purposes. Being evil is not a finite attribute of God. The orthodox view being that God cannot have finite attributes.

Although a reasonable proposition for consideration, I admit. I personally doubt my scholarly friend’s objection as a true.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MARTINICH, A.P. (1999) ‘Pantheism’ in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

Pinterest: Post-fall....

The Trinity: Relating to humanity in different ways

Amsterdam: Google+

In Touch Ministries: September 22 2016

The Truth About The Trinity by Charles F. Stanley

Cited

'The word "Trinity" cannot be found in the Bible, but the truth of it can. While there's only one God, the Godhead consists of three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and unchanging, but each one has unique functions. 

Scripture shows how each member of the Trinity fulfills His specific role, and it also reveals how those three roles interrelate. Let me express this idea in simple terms: The Father creates a plan, Jesus Christ implements the plan, and the Holy Spirit administers the plan.'

I listened to two of Dr. Stanley's sermons on the Holy Spirit today. I have heard and read similar, but he provides biblical and reasonable descriptions of the distinctions within the Trinity.

God the Father: Plan and planner
Jesus Christ: Implementer of that plan
The Holy Spirit: Administers the plan

Again from Dr. Stanley:

'The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in their divine attributes. Yet each relates to mankind in a different way because He has a specific role. It's very important to understand this distinction: We do not have three gods; we have one God in three persons functioning uniquely and perfectly.'

End citations from Dr. Stanley

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)

'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10

Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).

'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God, and became God incarnate. Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.

As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Footnotes:

Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.

Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days

Acts 5: 2-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.

In speculation, a philosophical critique might be that the infinite nature of God requires no distinctions or differently that God being infinite, should exist as infinite distinctions.

Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is Scriptually revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind.

To suggest that God as infinite must have infinite distinctions is not necessarily true, theologically, is not necessary philosophically, and is highly speculative philosophy of religion.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man.

God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Fellowship of the...

Edinburgh, 2016:trekearth.com

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

My apologies as this article has nothing to do with The Lord of the Rings. Yes I saw the very well-done films in the theatre, but I am not a fanatic. This may be a form of 'sacrilege' but it seemed like I viewed virtually the same very good film, done six times. To make matters worse, the wizards reminded me of the Harry Potter films, which I also viewed in the theatre. No, I do not read any related large fictional texts to learn the 'whole story' as certain friends suggest.
---

In the previous section within the Langer text, the propositions presented a system of elements within a universe of discourse. This presents a formal context. (82).

In other words, the logical and proper use of symbolic logic allows for reasonably understood communication between two parties, within that system and universe of discourse, (82).

The symbol fm2  is introduced. (82). The symbol int is = (equals) by interpretation.or identified with. (82).

K=int 'persons' (82).

fm2='fellowship of' (82).

K=int with persons A, B, and C

The Arabic number two is dropped for Langer's examples. but it has been established that fellowship and fellowman would present two persons in context from my understanding.

A fm B (Person A has fellowship with person B)
B fm C (Person B has fellowship with person C)

Or is A the fellowman of B (82).

A person cannot be a fellowman of self. Therefore A is not the fellowman of A (82-83).

~(A fm A)

R=Russell Norman Murray

J=Jesus Christ

R fm J (Russell Norman Murray has fellowship with Jesus Christ, incarnate God, in a spiritual, biblical context. In a biblical sense we are fellowman/fellowmen (1 John as example)).

~=false

S=Satanic beings

~(R fm S) (Russell Norman Murray does not have fellowship with Satanic beings, in a spiritual, biblical context. Russell Norman Murray is not a fellowman with Satanic beings).

When a proposition is not true 'it is customary to enclose the proposition in parentheses and prefix to this whole prepossession the sign  ~.' (72). The tilde sign or symbol.

I admit this has been a little confusing reviewing this philosophy text as some non-false propositions are at least partly in parenthesis, but I work on. Learning these symbols will assist within the academic disciplines of philosophy and mathematics.

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

Edited for an entry as reference, for academia.edu, April 22, 2022

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Contradictory premises

'The problem with contradictory premises is that they cannot both be true. If one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa. In other words, we can be certain that at least one of them must be false, and cannot generate a sound argument.' (69).

Dr. Russ is an atheist
Dr. Russ is a biblical Christian

We do not need to see the conclusion here, we already reasonably know, that at least the premises are contradictory. One premise might be true, but not both. A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument.

Premise-Conclusion

TT, FF, FT, TF

A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid.

However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). It has a true conclusion.

The classic 'the moon is made of green cheese' (69), is documented as a valid premise, but not a premise in a sound (true) argument. It is not reasonable from empirical, scientific evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, but it is not an illogical premise as such.

I have coached my friends that in arguments, when one disagrees with the conclusion, deny a premise first, if that can be reasonably, truthfully done. This pulls the carpet. It prohibits one from being dragged into accepting a questionable conclusion after hastily accepting premises and then having to philosophically backtrack...

Premise

You want to get married right?

Here many would state, yes.

My answer, if I am clued in to a likely philosophically lazy conclusion:

No. I am not interested in (just) getting married. I would like to marry with mutual spiritual, intellectual and physical attraction in Christ.

Conclusion

Therefore, you have to play the game the way society and the church states and marry within the rules.

Yes, I have had this attempted on me more than once...

Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions

Naples: trekearth: I have tentative plans for an England-Denmark trip next year, which may have a ministry angle, but one does not know how employment will change and develop. I would have liked to visit Italy, but my travel companion favours Denmark, which is also on my list of places to see.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Quote

'Every discourse, no matter how fragmentary or casual, moves in a certain context of inter-related ideas. In ordinary thinking this context is indefinite and shifting.' (79).

'The psychological context of our thoughts is largely private and personal.' (79). It is noted in the cases when two people are discussing the same event...

'They have, then, different conceptions.' (80). But even with some limited significant understanding of each other's conceptions they 'may embody the same concept.' (79).

In light of this fallen, sinful, corrupted human realm from a Biblical (Genesis, Romans, Revelation as examples) perspective and a secular perspective that human beings, are ontologically (existence and being) imperfect; historically and presently, different human conceptions between various groups and persons has led to the fueling of problems of evil and suffering.

Reasonable, clear and concise communication so that persons 'may embody the same concept' is a good and profitable. Romans 12: 18, without proof texting outside of context, is relevant here: New American Standard Bible;  'If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.'

Being at peace with others is often dependent on having clear and concise dialogue to understand concepts in the same way, or at least similar way. This objective approach, I attempt, at least, in all my academic research, reading and writing.

'Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions'. (79). Bold my add.

One of my philosophical views I live by is that although both concepts and conceptions are important, in the pursuit of reason and truth, concepts are more important.

Langer titles this, as noted previously, on this site 'the universe of discourse' which is free from 'private and accidental aspects.' (79).

'The relations which obtain among such elements are called the constituent relations of the formal context.' (79). This leads to 'elementary propositions of the discourse.' (79), which have a value of truth or falsity. (80).

'The relations which hold among elementary propositions are not, the constituent relations in the formal context, but are logical relations. (80).

By logical relations, Langer is referring the symbols within symbolic logic.

page 80

cited

Logical relation symbols

Conjunction (.) Conjunctions within the universe of discourse are what 'makes sense' between constituent relations. (80). In other words, what makes sense between the concepts and terms documented.

Disjunction (V)

'The assertion of one proposition or the other.' (75). This means one, the other or both is true, at least one of the two propositions is true. (75).

V is an accepted symbols for either way.  (75).

~=false

In other words ~ equals false. This is the tilde symbol.

 ~ (A nt B) V ~ (B nt A) (75)

It is either false that A is north of B or that B is north of A...

The V means that either way one of the propositions is false. Or they both could be false. Equally north (in latitude, my add) (75).

⊃ is the symbol for implies (75) and implication (80).

(A nt B) ⊃ ~ (B nt A)

A is north of B, implies it is false that B is north of A.

Again, A and B could both be equally north.

I am trying to simplify this is much as possible. But I am learning as I read, and frankly academic philosophy and theology texts take some intense thinking. There is just no reasonable way around it.

Therefore, I present this in small segments and I am alternating article content with different text reviews and my own more original articles.

I understood problem of evil concepts better in my PhD thesis than my MPhil thesis and the concept of academic progression should be accepted in working through symbolic logic.

I have admitted that I would write my online articles if I had zero readers, but then again I prefer not to write that online diary.