B
brakelite
Guest
Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.What did you go out into the wilderness to see, bl?
bam choose in the moment imo, ok?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.What did you go out into the wilderness to see, bl?
bam choose in the moment imo, ok?
Srsly bl? ok, tyDon't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.
It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason from the Eastern dialectic, as the Jewish writers were:
"
...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.
Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.
Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.
1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...
These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.
"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5
This has already been gone over, twice i think. The last time should be within 20 posts of here. The logical or "satan's" dialectic is opposed to the Naive dialectic in that the first forces an either/or solution, as outlined in the copypaste in the OP?Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
~google.com (Emphasis added)
Your thesis is not supported by research, and truth does not admit such gymnastics. All you are saying is you want to twist the word of God while seeming to follow it. That is the same thing Eve did. Let's not do it again.
This has already been gone over, twice i think. The last time should be within 20 posts of here. The logical or "satan's" dialectic is opposed to the Naive dialectic in that the first forces an either/or solution, as outlined in the copypaste in the OP?
And Eve's resolution even illustrates the difference, did Eve die? Yes and no, right? Unfortunately a Literalist is once again um left on the outside there, and becomes a hypocrite in their interpretation i guess
That is the inevitable result of a "logical" dialectic, yes. However that does not result in the Naive dialectic, which is the whole point.Very good my friend! Your conclusion made me laugh!
Oh wadr it is not my thesis, and there is no debate to be had here i don't think, at least such as the one you suggest.The bible makes sense. Your thesis does not make sense. That is a problem. It's not a problem for me because I don't try to follow your thesis.
My problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?That is the inevitable result of a "logical" dialectic, yes. However that does not result in the Naive dialectic, which is the whole point.
Ha well imo "di" is the functional part, meaning 2? So really a tech term for "dialogue" i thinkMy problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?
Provide for your familyOh wadr it is not my thesis, and there is no debate to be had here i don't think, at least such as the one you suggest.
"The Bible makes sense" lol, yes, ty, and have a nice day ok. Bam go with that if you like.
Logic is certainly also employed in Scripture, the Decalogue is not debatable, etc, but to deem it a "dialectic" is really even pushing it i guess. Note how you are not allowing for any other alternative? Either/or? Go team? Hallmarks of satan's or Logical "dialectic"
I guess the reason we have to stick with "dialectic" is that it is not quite "conversation" or even "dialogue," in that a single statement proceeds from one or the other dialectic, for exampleMy problem my friend is the meaning of the word dialectic will never stick in my mind. I have to look it up every time someone uses it before I can seriously consider any question raised on the subject... Is this mental block normal or a sign of old age?
Hey, with that I may actually retain it after this for I do know what a lector [a reader] is. Two readers come together supposedly for discussion and at times as we see on this forum strongly disagree with each other. Hmmm?Ha well imo "di" is the functional part, meaning 2? So really a tech term for "dialogue" i think
Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
~google.com (Emphasis added)
Your thesis is not supported by research, and truth does not admit such gymnastics. All you are saying is you want to twist the word of God while seeming to follow it. That is the same thing Eve did. Let's not do it again.
Sure, we know Eve died, at some stage, as do we all. And while the warning was given that the day she eats, she will die, the reason she didn't die that day, can be assumed from scripture (as it interprets itself) that the Son stepped into the breach, and His promise provided time for remorse and healing. In other words, grace. Slain from the foundation of the world. The postponement of her demise wasn't a dialectic trick being played on westerner's thought processes surely...doesn't God want even us westerners to understand His word? Some things are to be taken literally surely, for without literal promises, what real hope do we really have? As Paul said to someone, if Christ be not literally raised, anyone following and believing the gospel message is more miserable than all, because they would be basing their entire lives on a false hope. Which leads into this...And Eve's resolution even illustrates the difference, did Eve die? Yes and no, right? Unfortunately a Literalist is once again um left on the outside there, and becomes a hypocrite in their interpretation i guess
Don't need to go into the wilderness to witness lightening from the east to the west.
perhaps may have been a little flippant, and I apologise for that...it wasn't from any sense of disrespect, but rather a self defense mechanism of not understanding maybe the depth of your question. I do that on occasion, avoiding too much transparency. So, my understanding of Jesus warning, don't go out into the desert to see me coming on someone else's recommendation, doesn't mean we cease from expectation of His actual coming. His own description of His coming being described in a variety of places as being literal… highly audible... bright... unexpected by the flippant (ooops)...but a coming reality nevertheless, and every eye shall see and experience it, for while His kingdom which is in us, doesn't come with observation, Jesus Himself certainly shall, as the many parables and promises depict the husband coming for His bride.What did you go out into the wilderness to see, bl?
bam choose in the moment imo, ok?
Wafer,
What is your thesis of putting this verse into practice: 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (the defence) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15 NIV).
Do you engage in conversation with a person, answering his/her responses or questions? Or do you say: This is what Scripture says and there is no reason for further discussion; God is right and we shouldn't question what he says?
Oz
Only one person has ever asked and he interrupted the answer to tell me he didn't want to hear it.
Only one person has ever asked and he interrupted the answer to tell me he didn't want to hear it.
The bible makes sense. Your thesis does not make sense. That is a problem. It's not a problem for me because I don't try to follow your thesis.
What is your thesis of putting this verse into practice: 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (the defence) for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15 NIV).
That's not an answer to the question I asked about 1 Peter 3:15, so it's a red herring fallacy.
Was he the only person you have ever witnessed to who had objections to some aspect of Christianity?
nice, ya, be great if we could illuminate the "supossedly" part a little better. Not too many actual conversations going on here i guess, mostly ego-wars with words?Hey, with that I may actually retain it after this for I do know what a lector [a reader] is. Two readers come together supposedly for discussion and at times as we see on this forum strongly disagree with each other. Hmmm?