More about cowardice or cash?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues... 

Chapter Four: Taking A Stand

In a Culture of Cowards, Mr. Wallace opines that if (paraphrased) someone criticizes Islam that he/she will be labelled in a negative way as in offensive. (31).

I can grant this proposition. At this point in Western society it is often considered non-politically correct and conservative, to critique Islam negatively.  As I wrote in the last review (January 15 2018), there are financial considerations to why many politicians will not critique Islam negatively.

Cited

'I would opine that Western governments are very concerned with economy and investment. If persons from Islamic countries can bring investment money into their Western nations, especially, 'money talks'. Religion is a significant concern, in a political context when it is considered radical, in other words, a threat to the Western secular 'status quo'.
---

In regard to many of these cases is this more about cowardice or cash?

I would add that Western business people, besides politicians, would also have more interest in Muslims for their investment funds, as opposed to being very concerned with Islamic theology. For the most part, there is only concern from the powers that be, in Western society, when in particular, the financial system is challenged by opposing views such as radical Islam that uses violence and terrorism.

Radical Islam does not have enough military force to overtake the West and take away freedom, but radical Islam can disrupt the economy.

Mr. Wallace opines that there is cowardice from the pulpits of America (31).

By all means, when appropriate, I reason that Christian, Biblical pastors should explains the differences between New Testament theology and the theology of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. As I respectfully mentioned June 7 2017:

Cited

As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.

Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection. The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.

For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.

The Truth of the Proposition

Macintosh

The Truth of the Proposition

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

Preface

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Previously

Langer explains that a proposition can only be known via another proposition. (183). Implication is a relation that only holds among propositions. (183). Propositions are regarded as postulates. (185). A postulate needs to belong to the system, in the language of that system. A postulate should imply further propositions of that system. A postulate should not contradict any other accepted postulate, or any other proposition implied by another postulate. (185).

In other words, symbolic logic requires non-contradiction within its system in a universe of discourse.

Requirements

Coherence: Every proposition in the system must cohere to the established conceptual structure. (185). It must be in coherence with the rest.

Contributiveness : A postulate should contribute and have implication. (185-186).

Consistency: Most important states Langer (186). Two contradictory propositions (or premises) cannot contradict each other in a system. (186). The inconsistent is logically impossible. It is a fatal condition. (186). It is not logic at all. (186).

Independence: Postulates should be independent from each other. (186). If a proposition is deductible from a postulate already provided, then it is a theorem, a necessary fact, not another assumption. (186). Something provable in a theorem would be error to include as a postulate. (186). I would reason that within philosophy there would be plenty of debate on what is a proposition/premise within systems and what would be a theorem. Langer explains that when a theorem needs elucidation, any proposition implied by another proposition as granted and proved within a system is a theorem. (186-187).
---

The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188).

There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity.

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These include a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).

If

Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ (Brutus did not kill Caesar) Caesar is dead  (my equation using not the same)

This would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.

Brutus fatally stabbed Caesar ∴ (therefore) Caesar is dead

Brutus murdered Caesar ⊨ (entails) Caesar is dead

---

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.

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

Not that concerned with religious dogma and theology

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Four: Taking A Stand

Mr. Wallace opines that the mainstream media and the government (US) are not providing a legitimate description of orthodox Islam. (29).

Reasonable.

This should be no surprise in this Western secular age. Western media and governments, for the most part, are not that concerned with religious dogma and theology.

Romans 3, for example, documents that within the world system there are none that seeks for God  (verse 11: New American Standard Version). This is true biblical religion in context, but Western society in the majority is not interested in religious dogma and theology, period.

In some non-Western contexts there would exist a religious society that would reject the biblical God. Note that a human being needs regeneration via the Holy Spirit (Titus 3: 5) within the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, legal justification and sanctification to begin to seek the true God.

I would opine that Western governments are very concerned with economy and investment. If persons from Islamic countries can bring investment money into their Western nations, especially, 'money talks'. Religion is a significant concern, in a political context when it is considered radical, in other words, a threat to the Western secular 'status quo'.

Western media is often interested in discussing those in society that will not follow the status quo, and so as long as Islamic immigrants appear to do so, they are not concern on the part of media.

Biblical Christians, the ones with interest in religious dogma and theology, will often be more concerned with Islamic immigration when there is a fear that a growing Islamic population will embrace the Qur'an and Sunnah and wish to enforce Sharia Law on the Islamic population, and perhaps if their numbers have grown large enough, the entire population.

This would be of course a threat to Christian religious liberty.

Mr. Wallace on his radio show Fortress of Faith provided (paraphrased) an estimation that eight out of ten (80%) of Muslims that immigrate to America would like to be free from Islamic political dictatorship and tyranny, even if still holding to the religion. This does not read as a group more likely to embrace Sharia Law and radical forms of Islam; in contrast this reads as liberalized, secularized immigrants to the United States of America and Western societies.

The radicals would be the minority of immigrants.

As I have noted: A premise that most within Islam that immigrate to the West, favour and will favour, secularism over radical Islam, is a cumulative premise in support of an argument that the main worldview embraced in the Western world will continue to be secularism. At least in this present era and for the foreseeable future.

False prophecy and theological isolation

I saw one of these false prophecy signs  in this area in 2011.

False prophecy and theological isolation

Matthew 24: 34-41

New American Standard Bible

(NASB)

34"Truly I say to you, (AS) this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 

35"(AT)Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

36"But (AU) of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

37"For the (AV) coming of the Son of Man will be (AW) just like the days of Noah.

38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, (AX) marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that (AY)Noah entered the ark,

39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the (AZ) coming of the Son of Man be.

40"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.

41"(BA) Two women will be grinding at the (BB) mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Also in Matthew 24: 24, Jesus warned against false Christs and false prophets that would show great signs and wonders, and if possible even mislead the elect.

Camping: Michael Phillips May 22, 2011, Grace Baptist Church, Fremont, California

Proverbs 18:1

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

18 He who separates himself seeks his own desire, He [a]quarrels against all sound wisdom.

Mr. Phillips lectures that Harold Camping's (now the late Harold Camping) theological isolation was a central problem with his public doctrines.

At Columbia Bible College (1991-1995, my Bachelor of Arts) one of the key practical, theological tenets was that the bible and theology should be studied and developed in Christian community.

Mr. Phillips states that Camping was very good with chapter and verse knowledge of the bible. May I opine, that chapter and verse Scriptural knowledge without a reasonable, open-minded review of biblical context, with the use of biblical, theological and academic tools can lead to false, heretical and cultic doctrines and theology.

(Yes, there are scholarly persons with false theology and philosophy as well)

A reasonable interpretation is more important than chapter and verse knowledge.

May I further opine that a reasonable use of bible reading, commentaries and biblical, theological, and academic tools is more important than biblical memorization. Although, remembering Scripture is also vital.

I agree with Phillips (paraphrased), there is a difference for interpretation between:

1. Bible only

&

2. Bible as the final authority

The second and correct premise allows for bible interpretation and the use of biblical tools, theological tools, even philosophy of religion tools, and other academic tools.

The first premise allows for an interpretation of the bible, without any outside corrective.