There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness: Both can impair vision

Add caption

Professor Jurgen Schonwetter, Columbia Bible College, retired, stated:

(Paraphrased): 'There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness. Both can impair vision.'

Profound on perspective.

Profound on objectivity.

I have Christian and non-Christian friends of both sides of the political spectrum. I am a moderate conservative. I am not claiming a wishy-washy neutrality. Obviously, from reading my website it can be understood that I have some definitive and definite views.

My thoughts are that as biblical Christians:

The gospel is of far greater importance than politics. Notice the early New Testament Church was not very political, but was intensely gospel focused on the new heaven and new earth. Rome was not to be overthrown by revolution, but creation ultimately restored.

Loving those in Christ (Gospel of John, I John) takes priority over political disagreements in the Church.

Christians are to love their neighbour as they love self (Matthew 22, Mark 12). That includes those of other views, even if those views are in error.

Objectivity should take priority in politics as opposed to one almost always or always, siding with the left, right or centre, because that is what one usually does.

I.E. (That is) Because one was born on the 'green team' or grew into the 'green team' should not mean by default that one almost always, or always, supports the 'green team'. In prayer, seeking the objective truth, the 'purple team' might make more sense on some points, than, quite frankly, what a hasty evaluation from 'green team' members might conclude.

In prayer we should ask the Lord to avoid spiritual and political blindness.

Blackburn:

'Objectivism (ethics) Any view upholding the objective status of ethical commitment, in opposition to error theories, scepticism, and relativism. The central problem is finding the source of the required objectivity. (267).

Cambridge explains:

'Objectivism may be naturalist or non-naturalist. The naturalist objectivist believes that values, duties, or whatever are natural phenomena detectable by introspection, perception, or scientific inference. (244). This is connected to empiricism and empirical facts. (244). 

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

SPRIGGE, T.L.S (1996) 'Ethical Objectivism', The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Binitarianism In Brief

I have watched 'Tomorrow's World' from The Living Church of God, twice recently. There are some good concepts, but I am somewhat familiar with the source.

The Living Church of God

Cited

'The Living Church of God (LCG) is one of hundreds of groups that formed after the death of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, when major doctrinal changes (causing turmoil and divisions) were occurring in the former Worldwide Church of God (WCG) especially during the 1990s. The LCG was formed in December 1998 and is an offshoot organization of the Global Church of God (GCG), which formed in December 1992.

The Living Church of God is one of multifarious Sabbatarian Churches of God church groups that have sprung up from the former WCG, known today as Grace Communion International (GCI). And even from the LCG organization itself, several other split-off groups have resulted, each one of which is headed by a former LCG minister.'

Cited

'After Armstrong died, WCG began to change many of its core doctrines, a process that brought the organization into the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity. However, many members objected, and hundreds of splinter groups arose as a result.[1]'

Doctrines include:

Cited

'Christians should observe the biblical seventh-day Sabbath.' Sabbatarianism. 'Certain laws should be adhered to by Christians today, including the "dietary laws", mentioned in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21, delineating which animals may be eaten.'

This in my view is a failure to understand that the new covenant carries over the moral and ethical views of the Hebrew Bible, but is not an identical covenant to the old covenant with the same practices. Non-exhaustive references:

Luke 22:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 

Hebrews notes the Old Covenant is obsolete 

Hebrews 8:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 [a]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [b]ready to disappear.

'British Israelism: The belief that the Anglo-American people are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel and are the possessors of the birthright promises and accompanying blessings of Abraham’s descendants, through his grandson Jacob.'

This view would require greater scientific documentation in support.

And the main doctrine that interested me in the context of this website entry:

Cited

'Binitarianism: The belief that there is a two-person Godhead, consisting of God the Father and God the Son (also called The Word). The Holy Spirit is "not a Being", and is considered "the very essence, the mind, life, and power of God".'

Binitarianism

'Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or two aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of monotheism — that is, that God is absolutely one being; and yet with binitarianism there is a "twoness" in God, which means one God family. 'While binitarianism is sometimes used self-descriptively,[1] it is also used to denote Christian error or heresy[2]...'
---

I do not see significant biblical reasons for holding to Binitarianism. As in 'The Holy Spirit is "not a Being"...'

In Acts 5 it states:

New American Standard Bible:

5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s [a]full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control? Why is it that you have [c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Lying to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying to God.

⊃ = means the same as

G (God) ⊃ H (Holy Spirit)

G ⊃ H

Matthew 28: 19-20 states that disciples are to make more disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

France writes:

'It has been argued that these words were not part of the original text of Matthew, since Eusebius regularly in his pre-Nicene works quotes Matthew 28: 19 in the shorter form 'Go and make disciples of all nations in my name', but the fact that no extant manuscript of Matthew has this reading suggests that this was Eusebius' own abbreviation than a text he found in existing manuscripts' (415).

Ellison contrasts this by stating it should be interpreted: 'More literally 'into the name', i.e. as the possession of.' (1154). If this interpretation, which would need manuscript evidence (In agreement with France), was correct, it would not negate the Holy Spirit as God. There is no good New Testament reason, in my opinion, to reject trinitarian doctrine.

On what basis is the 'Helper' (NASB) from the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, anything other than God? Biblically, there appears no other spiritual (can apprehend God) ontological entities other than God, angelic beings, Satan, demonic beings and human beings. If the Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of the Father and/or Son, why is this not made clear in the New Testament? Why is it (he) is differentiated as God, yet distinct from God the Father and God the Son?

ELLISON, H. L (1986) 'Matthew' in The New International Bible Commentary, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985)(2001) Matthew, IVP/Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Logical v Reasonable

Instagram Vancouver

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

Blackburn defines

Logic:

Cited

'The general science of inference. Deductive logic, in which a conclusion follows from a set of premises, is distinguished from inductive logic, which studies the way in which premises may support a conclusion without entailing it. In deductive logic the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.' (221).

A former academic adviser of mine at Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, stated once (paraphrased) that many people use the terms 'logic' and 'logical' incorrectly.

Blackburn explains that 'The aim of logic is to make explicit the rules by which inference may be drawn, rather than to study the actual reasoning processes that people use, which may or may not conform to those rules. (221).

If I stated: 'I am a theist, I am an atheist', that is logically impossible and contradictory.

If I stated: 'I am a theist, I am a Hulk', that is logical, but not reasonable. It is not logically contradictory as I could hypothetically and theoretically be a Hulk, by an act of science or supernaturally, but the statement is not supported by premises as reasonable and sound (true). It is physically impossible (at present) that I am a Hulk, but it is not logically impossible.

Blackburn writes concerning 'reason' under the 'rationality' entry. (319-320).

Rationality:

'Pieces of behaviour, beliefs, arguments, policies and other exercises of the human mind may all be described as rational. To accept something as rational is to accept it as making sense, as appropriate.' (319).  It is aiming for the truth and the good. (319).

At times people state that something is 'logical' when in reality they should state that something is 'reasonable'. The reasonable will be logical, but the logical, not always reasonable.

If one is stating that something is true, the term 'reasonable' is usually the more accurate philosophical term than logical.

Biblical friendship

evbuc.com

Part of my work is processing social media for Prayer Current. Prayer Current will be at Missionsfest in Vancouver, January 27-29.

Missionsfest Vancouver

Prayer Current is a Christian, bible-based, prayer ministry.

A key working textbook of the ministry is 

SMED, JOHN with HWANG, JUSTINE (2016) Engage: The Conversation with God, with believers, with seekers, Vancouver, Prayer Current.

I was asked to review the text. This is non-exhaustive being consistent with this media format. As per the citation style I was taught within British academia, citations will primarily be in my own words.

Prayer Friendship with Jesus

Praying to God as a friend would be a two-way, conversion. (8). From the New Testament, Jesus Christ, as God the Son, brings in people to a two-way conversation with God, through prayer. (8). As Jesus Christ is both infinite God and perfect man, in obedience to God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, he completed the atoning work and resurrection for the salvation of humanity. Apart from Christ, human beings 'experience a kind of solitary confinement.' (8). Indeed, based on the New Testament, from Acts 4: 12, it is explained human salvation can be obtained from no one or nowhere else, other than through Jesus Christ. This is controversial in some circles, but biblical, none the less.

English Standard Version

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

New American Standard Bible

"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."

Jesus Christ and his atonement and resurrection applied to believers is God's gift to humanity in friendship. (9). The text quotes John 15: 13-16 and from v 16  'You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you...' (9).

Readers may recognize that the Prayer Current text states the concept in modern philosophical terms, of compatibilism, which I have discussed thoroughly within my British academic work and on this website. In basics terms it states that God's sovereignty is compatible with human free will; what I define as limited free will. Human beings have a limited free will only, as secondary causes, not primary causes, choosing within their nature. Human nature is corrupted due to the fall (Genesis 3, Romans 1-6), while God's nature is infinitely good. Through the 'search' feature, top right on this website, more related entries on this website can be found.

However, Jesus Christ choosing his disciples and eventually apostles in John 15 as friends, is theologically consistent with Pauline concepts of compatibilism in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, where persons are chosen in Jesus Christ. True effective, biblical prayer essentially relies on this divine-human connection that within the Reformed tradition, is initiated by God.

Praying For Appointments

I appreciate how theological the 'Engage' text is, as is 'God In The Conversation', which I also reviewed on this website. This is useful:

Quote:

'When you confess your sins you are completely washed clean of them. An old saying captures this truth:

That Jesus died on the cross is history.
That Jesus died for sin in theology.
That Jesus died for my sin is Christianity.' (83).

This application of the atonement and sacrifice for a person involves on the part of a person an embracing of the gospel message, given by God. This leads to the biblical prayer model of Jesus Christ as the mediator between God the Father and humanity (The book of Hebrews).

Politicians & Prayer

Neither Prayer Current or I, is particularly politically focused. But I find the citation below, enlightening.

'Politicians focus on outside issues for good reasons. The heart is harder to change than the environment.' (91).

To whatever extent our global environment is corrupted, and I reason it is, this problem of evil, like all problems of evil, humanly speaking, comes from a corrupted human heart. Environmental problems are symptoms of a corrupted human heart, a corrupted human nature.

I very much agree with the text that 'the inner pollution never gets cleaned up' by simply cleaning the outside (91). Even if humanity cleans up the earth's environment, without the regeneration (Titus 3: 5) work of Jesus Christ applied to persons, problems of sin and evil will continue.

Engage

Brief on real suffering (PhD Edit)

I just received some difficult news in regards to a good friend. In discussion we were reminded that as I recently stated on Twitter:

Sometimes one has to dig deeper than typical evangelical answers...

PhD Edit

Theodicy and Practical Theology, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2010).

Real suffering should not be denied for the sake of any theological system, as the logical and reasonable nature of a good theodicy does not take away the seriousness of suffering. Real suffering provides opportunity for pastoral counseling and theology.

Only God alone can ultimately free his creation from suffering. Although human beings can somewhat minimize the suffering of others in many cases. But a theodicy may explain to some degree, how God works within his creation that contains evil and suffering.

Romans 8:28-30

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

28 And we know that [a]God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984) Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

False Conversion (In philosophy)

Vancouver Instagram

False Conversion (In philosophy)

Wednesday, January 11, 2017, edited for an entry on academia.edu on Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Preface

From a review of the Pirie text:

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

'False conversion takes place when we deduce from the fact that all cats are animals the additional information that all animals are cats. The converse of a statement made by exchanging the subject and predicate, is true in some cases, false in others. (106).

All rats are four-legged animals, means all four-legged animals are rats is obviously false. (106).

True conversion according to Pirie:

No innovative people are bureaucrats. Therefore, no bureaucrats are innovative people. (107).

False conversion according to Pirie:

Some journalists are not drunks, therefore, some drunks are not journalists. (107). Pirie states this may or may not be true, but cannot be deduced from this false conversion. (107).

----

S = Spaniards

P = Portuguese 

(My add)

Fallacy Files

A All S is P, therefore All P is S No conversion

E No S is P, therefore No P is S Yes conversion

I Some S is P, therefore Some P is S: Yes conversion

O Some S is not P, therefore Some P is not S: No conversion

Some Spaniards are not Portuguese does not necessarily mean that some Portuguese are not Spaniards.

Cited

Paul Edwards (Editor in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37.

'As can be seen from the table, the E- and I-type propositions are equivalent to their converses, which means that conversion is a validating form of immediate inference for E- and I-type categorical propositions. In contrast, conversion is non-validating for the A- and O-type propositions. Hence, to commit the traditional fallacy of Illicit Conversion is to convert an A- or O-type proposition.'

----

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.

EDWARDS, PAUL (1972) (Editor in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37.

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

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

Fallacy Files: Notes 

(Selected relevant notes, my add)

Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (2006), pp. 74-6. 

Charles Ives, Essays Before a Sonata, The Majority, and Other Writings, edited by Howard Boatwright (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1962), p. 77. Via: Howard Pospesel, Introduction to Logic: Predicate Logic (1976), p. 176. 

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37. 

All men are mortal

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

Symbolic Logic and Classes

A specific proposition is concerned with a certain subject, which could be pointed out and given a proper name.  (112).

It is about 'this boy James' or this house called 'A'. (112).

A general proposition never mentions individuals.

To state 'all men are mortal' is a general proposition.

To state 'all men are mortal' is applied to Socrates, is a specific proposition.

Therefore: Socrates is mortal' is a specific proposition. (112).

Langer provides the example:

'some animal has killed a lamb.'  This is a general proposition. (112).

Chucky has killed a lamb. This would be a specific proposition.

A general proposition mentions a member (s) of a certain class. (113). Any man is mortal, means any in the class of man is mortal. (113).

ε is epsilon from the Greek alphabet meaning is, a. This ε symbol, according to Langer is specifically meant as a symbol for is, a, in contrast with any symbol for is. Admittedly, my research has shown that ε is at times, interpreted in a variety of ways within mathematics, science and philosophy. But, of course this is a review of philosopher, Langer's text.

ε means member in a class. (114).

(m=mortal)

s ε m (Socrates is a mortal).

From Langer (114).

2 ε number (Two is a number).

A  ε house ('A' is a house).

(∃a): a ε  house (There exists 'a': 'a' is a house).

For a theological angle, one can certainly see that indeed all men are mortal. Could future advanced science provide any more than prolonged lifespan, but not immortality? Could a mortal human being, for example, ever survive being cast into a sun? (Are we getting into the intellectual realm of medically stored duplicate brains and bodies, memories included, in order to counter this type of possibility?)

In the Hebrew Bible there is the concept of the fall that leads to death (Genesis 2-3). Within the New Testament, death and judgement are certain for all mortal human beings (Hebrews 9). Immortality is provided in a future state for those within the atonement and resurrection work of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

As a general proposition: All human beings will die.

As a specific proposition: x shall die.

Pinterest

Stating one thing, meaning another

Bizarro!

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

'We are guilty of extensional pruning if we use words in their commonly accepted meaning, but retreat when challenged into a strictly literal definition. The fallacy becomes possible because there are two ways of understanding what words mean.' (104).

Basically, words can be taken strictly literally or somewhat figuratively. I have used the academic definitions of 'plain literal' and 'figurative literal' in my work. This was taken from Theology I-II at Trinity Western University and the late Dr. Earl Radmacher.

A friend states to you:

'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If that is literal, you need to cancel this friendship.)

'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If figurative, a friend means they will be at least somewhat annoyed with you.) (My examples).

'We can describe by the properties of what we refer to, or we can give examples. The first is called the 'intension' and the second is the 'extension' of the word.' (104).

Pirie explains this fallacy as 'extensional pruning'. A person under critique retreats to literal definition, from a less literal one, if confronted.  (105).

'All we said is that we'd install a switchboard. We didn't say that it would work.'

'(Nor did they.)' (105).

One goes from the intended to extended meaning.

The dealership had promised us a new vehicle. They then later stated that a vehicle that would run was never promised.

My example retreats to an extension of meaning, as an automobile dealerships fails to defend the unethical dealings of providing a promised vehicle, that does not run.

The foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon promised my friend a new heart with a transplant. But my friend died when he was given a baboon's heart.

Some animal rights advocates may be pleased, but the foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon failed to deliver the expected human heart and then unethically retreated to the use of a baboon heart, attempting a defence with the use of 'extensional pruning.' (My examples).