- This topic has 6,304 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
GB,
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
The same Spirit of God spoke through them all.But God also elevates the role of His Son as the source for us of that Spirit.
We should also give honour to the faithful servant of God
It is Jesus who baptises in the Spirit.Nick……….I have (NO) disagreement to that I believe the same thing brother. Except i believe God the Father is the Source of HIS SPIRIT in us and Jesus.
Love and peace to you and yours…………………………….gene
Quite so GB,
But the vessel should not be abhorred while the contents are upheld.
Without the vessel of Jesus we can do nothing.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 16 2008,18:45) Hi not3,
If scripture says spirit is intellect I withdraw my case.
1 Corinthians 2:10 – 16, in partThe Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
For who has known the mind of the Lord (God)……
But we have the mind of Christ.Hi not3,
So the spirit of a man knows his own thoughts.
So it is not the mind that harbours those personal thoughts.
By the Spirit of God we can have access to the thoughts of God by the mind of Christ.
The mind of Christ is not the Spirit of God.Nick…………..the mind contains the Spirit from which thoughts come.
So the Spirit does harbor those personal thought, and the Spirit or mind of GOD being in us we can access the thoughts of GOD by the mind of the ANOINTING 0f THE SPIRIT of GOD, The mind of the Anointing is the mind that Jesus had in Him. IF that mind of the ANOINTING Be in you as it WAS IN Jesus, (IT) the mind of the Anointing or Christos, will also quicken your mortal body as (IT) did Jesus.Jesus said if a seed does not fall to the earth and die, it abides alone, but if it dies it is no longer alone. think of what that means.
Jesus was telling us if our wills (of our minds) doesn't die we abide alone, why because our will are separate from GOD'S , but if it is put to death and we are joined to the WILL of GOD we become a collective Body of many all living together, within one WILL and That Will is GOD'S Will. That why Jesus could say I in you and you in me and GOD in Us ALL, we all become ONE in ONE SPIRIT the SPIRIT of GOD.peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 17 2008,19:27) Hi not3,
So the spirit of a man knows his own thoughts.
So it is not the mind that harbours those personal thoughts.
By the Spirit of God we can have access to the thoughts of God by the mind of Christ.
The mind of Christ is not the Spirit of God.
Don't shoot the messenger! Read the scripture again.Your questions seem to be directly answered in the passage.
Nick…..before i start you do know thoughts come from the mind right? Lets slow down and get some small things straight first.
Yes or No will be sufficient answer.love and peace ……………..gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 18 2008,17:42) GB,
Should we start with logic
or what is written?
Nick….we already have scripture now we need to apply Logic to it, can you do that? God did give you a mind to think with right. And if you have the mind of Christ you should be able to use it right?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 18 2008,17:42) GB,
Should we start with logic
or what is written?
here is a beautiful example of starting with logic, though of course it happens in the context of attempting to show disdain for logic, a response that has no scripture in it whatsoever, which makes the example all the more ironic and humorous…on the one hand, it is an implicit appeal to the law of non – contradiction, an attempt to appeal to an either/or answer to a rhetorical question. for N, is the one is true, the other MUST be false, and this is simply an appeal to the law of non-contradiction which says that a thing cannot both be and not be in the same way, at the same time and in the same relationships…
however, on the other hand, while N uses logic in his very attempt to show disdain for logic, his disdain makes him constantly guilty of irrational and illogical argumentation, for just as the entire section of this part of the forum commits the logical fallacy of a false dilemma (see below), so does this rhetorical question…. it commits this fallacy by attempting to insinuate that one must start with EITHER logic OR scripture… but this is nonsense….. there is no reason whatsoever that N should think that God's word is not logical, and he insults God and his word when he attempts to do so…. you see, God's word S logical, therefore to ask should we start with logic or scripture is illogical because scripture IS logical. In this case, this “false dilemma” is sol;ved by pointing out the very simple 3rd option, that we can start with both scripture AND logic, and that not aonly can we, we in fact should. After all, who wants to be irresponsible with God's word and handle it illogically? Well, who other than N wants to do this….? lol….
“FALSE DILEMMA
Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the “or” operator.
Putting issues or opinions into “black or white” terms is a common instance of this fallacy.
Examples:
1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.” (Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies)
Quote (epistemaniac @ Dec. 22 2008,17:34) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 18 2008,17:42) GB,
Should we start with logic
or what is written?
here is a beautiful example of starting with logic, though of course it happens in the context of attempting to show disdain for logic, a response that has no scripture in it whatsoever, which makes the example all the more ironic and humorous…on the one hand, it is an implicit appeal to the law of non – contradiction, an attempt to appeal to an either/or answer to a rhetorical question. for N, is the one is true, the other MUST be false, and this is simply an appeal to the law of non-contradiction which says that a thing cannot both be and not be in the same way, at the same time and in the same relationships…
however, on the other hand, while N uses logic in his very attempt to show disdain for logic, his disdain makes him constantly guilty of irrational and illogical argumentation, for just as the entire section of this part of the forum commits the logical fallacy of a false dilemma (see below), so does this rhetorical question…. it commits this fallacy by attempting to insinuate that one must start with EITHER logic OR scripture… but this is nonsense….. there is no reason whatsoever that N should think that God's word is not logical, and he insults God and his word when he attempts to do so…. you see, God's word S logical, therefore to ask should we start with logic or scripture is illogical because scripture IS logical. In this case, this “false dilemma” is sol;ved by pointing out the very simple 3rd option, that we can start with both scripture AND logic, and that not aonly can we, we in fact should. After all, who wants to be irresponsible with God's word and handle it illogically? Well, who other than N wants to do this….? lol….
“FALSE DILEMMA
Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the “or” operator.
Putting issues or opinions into “black or white” terms is a common instance of this fallacy.
Examples:
1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.” (Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies)
Well done ……Quote (epistemaniac @ Dec. 22 2008,15:34) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 18 2008,17:42) GB,
Should we start with logic
or what is written?
here is a beautiful example of starting with logic, though of course it happens in the context of attempting to show disdain for logic, a response that has no scripture in it whatsoever, which makes the example all the more ironic and humorous…on the one hand, it is an implicit appeal to the law of non – contradiction, an attempt to appeal to an either/or answer to a rhetorical question. for N, is the one is true, the other MUST be false, and this is simply an appeal to the law of non-contradiction which says that a thing cannot both be and not be in the same way, at the same time and in the same relationships…
however, on the other hand, while N uses logic in his very attempt to show disdain for logic, his disdain makes him constantly guilty of irrational and illogical argumentation, for just as the entire section of this part of the forum commits the logical fallacy of a false dilemma (see below), so does this rhetorical question…. it commits this fallacy by attempting to insinuate that one must start with EITHER logic OR scripture… but this is nonsense….. there is no reason whatsoever that N should think that God's word is not logical, and he insults God and his word when he attempts to do so…. you see, God's word S logical, therefore to ask should we start with logic or scripture is illogical because scripture IS logical. In this case, this “false dilemma” is sol;ved by pointing out the very simple 3rd option, that we can start with both scripture AND logic, and that not aonly can we, we in fact should. After all, who wants to be irresponsible with God's word and handle it illogically? Well, who other than N wants to do this….? lol….
“FALSE DILEMMA
Definition:
A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the “or” operator.
Putting issues or opinions into “black or white” terms is a common instance of this fallacy.
Examples:
1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.” (Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies)
EP……You hit the nail on the head or as Jodi would say you nailed it brother.love and peace to you and yours………………gene
Hi,
1Cor2
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The Spirit teaches by comparing spiritual with spiritual.
There is no place for greek logic or human speculation.
equivocation Nick, and the hits just keep on coming!! lol,…. this yet another example of ungodly irrational use of your mind…. you see, “Greek philosophy” is not “logic”….the Greeks did not invent logic, God did… the reeks had no corner on logic, it has been in use as long as God ha been in existence, and humans have been using it to try and think clearly as long as they have been in existence…. well… at least some people have…. ie those who want to at least try and think clearly… obviously some people have no desire to think clearly and are too stubborn to admit when they are wrong… even when it is painfully obvious they are wrong… its almost sad to watch someone like N try and change the subject (see more on this below) rather than admit his errors… and so he will continue down his path of error, getting ever farther from the truth of God.
These excerpts apply so well to Nick's tactics in discussion, I just had to take the time to share them with you.. its almost as if the authors have seen Nick in action personally!! lol…
“Objections to Logic in Theology
Just as some object to studying logic, there are also those who decry the use of logic in theology. In fact, using logic in theology is not very popular in some circles. Some theologians revel in “paradox” and “antimony,” as if it were somehow more spiritual to believe in the absurd. However, the objections to using logic seem to be based on misunderstandings. Answering these questions should clarify things.
(objection) Using logic puts logic before God.
No. We use logic in the process of knowing God, but that does not mean that God came after logic in reality. Without God, nothing could have existence. God is the basis of all logic in reality and he is in no way inferior to logic. Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought, and it must come before any thought about anything, including God. For example, I need a map before I can get to Washington, D.C. But Washington must exist before the map can help me get there. Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him.
(objection) Using logic makes God subject to our logic.
First, it isn’t our logic. Man didn’t invent logic, he only discovered it. God is the author of all logic. So, technically speaking, God does not flow from logic; logic flows from God. Second, it isn’t God that we examine using logic; it is our statements about God. No one is trying to judge God. It is the statements that we make about him that we analyze with logic. Logic simply provides a way to see if those statements are true—if they fit with the reality of who God really is.
Finally, in applying logic to those statements, God is not being tested by some standard outside himself. Logic flows from God. It is part of his rational nature, which has been given to us in his image. Using logic in theology is simply applying God’s test to our statements about God. It is God’s way for us to come to the truth.
Using logic is a form of rationalism. Being reasonable and being a rationalist are quite different. A rationalist tries to determine all truth by reason. Reasonable Christians only try to discover it. A rationalist won’t let any empirical data change his conclusion; he doesn’t want to be confused by the facts. A reasonable person takes account of the facts, incorporates them into his views, and sometimes changes his conclusions when new facts become known. Further, some rationalists won’t even let the Bible change the conclusions they have reached by reason.A reasonable person, by contrast, will take contradiction as a sign that his statement about God is wrong. Rationalists set the limits of what can be true about God. Reasonable people only use logic to test the truth of their statements about God.
Fallacies of Relevance: Errors that Don’t Address the Issues
There are many ways to bring irrelevant matters into a discussion…. These fallacies show that people will go to any length to win an argument, even if they can’t prove their point. When backed into a corner, debaters can be more dangerous than a wild animal. We will look at how they might respond in several categories. They might attack not your argument, but you! They might try any ploy to appeal to some inappropriate authority, like emotions, ignorance, or even how old your argument is. Or they might stack the deck. It is easier to refute a view when you arrange to have all the answers come out your way. Others prefer just to change the subject.… These are all just games to avoid the real issues. They are irrelevant, and that’s why they are wrong….
Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say, “This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture of it is wrong.” The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that is exactly the way this fallacy works: set ‘em up and knock ‘em down. It is argument by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the opposition’s views.
“Creationists believe that the earth was created in 4004 b.c.”
“If men are saved by grace, then they may as well continue to sin so that they can use more grace.” [cf. Rom. 6:1ff.]
In both instances, a distorted image of the opposing view is given. Some creationists hold to an old earth, and some who believe in a young earth don’t hold to 4004 b.c. The real issue is that the earth was created, not exactly when. The other objection is dealt with quite well by Paul. These are straw men ready to be hung.Fallacies of Diversion
The next two fallacies attempt to win the argument by changing the subject. Like a con man running a shell game, they hope that you will be distracted enough not to notice that they have diverted attention away from anything resembling the issues and have focused in on something else. If your opponent is really good at this, he will probably bring up an issue that is highly emotional and unsolvable. The strict logician may be stuck looking for the pea that used to be the subject of discussion only to find that his counterpart has conveniently palmed it and thrown it away.
Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). This is the more subtle of the two tactics, but the effect is the same. An irrelevant conclusion gets the focus off of the point to be proved by substituting a related, but logically irrelevant, point for it. “Accept this because a loosely associated (but irrelevant) premise is true.” The two subjects are similar, but proving one does not say anything about the other. This type of argument is a kind of positive guilt by association. It changes the subject by proving a different conclusion (an irrelevant one) from the one that needs to be proven.
“Reincarnation is true because past-life regression answers a lot of questions and helps people make sense out of their lives.”
The two questions here are loosely related, but proving one does not guarantee that the other is true. The results of regression therapy may be totally unrelated to the truth of reincarnation. It might work for any number of reasons (maybe it helps people to have an explanation even if it is not true), and there is no way to tell how well it will work in the long run. It is possible that past-life regression is nothing more than creative imagining or the power of suggestion. What happens in a psychiatrist’s office tells us nothing about what happens in the afterlife. This is a ploy to change the subject.
We might mention that this same error is used in numerous contexts. It has reached such epidemic proportions that we could give it a fallacy classification of its own: Operat ergo veritat: “It works, therefore
it is true.” Really, this is simply an ignoratio elenchi. Results are never a guarantee of truth. Whether something works and whether it is true are two very different issues. Our pragmatism has fooled us into thinking they are identical.
Anytime someone says, “Whatever works for you,” or “Try Jesus ‘cause it works,” he has committed a fallacy. Christianity is true, regardless of what works, and the propositions that support its truth are not based on personal testimonies. (What does it mean for Christianity to “work” anyway? Does it means being persecuted for your faith, dying to self, and losing all possessions, family and home for Christ’s sake? That is what he promised.) Virtually all fraudulent products will start off by showing you personal testimonies with at least one person saying, “It works.” Results don’t mean a thing; it’s truth that counts.
Red Herring (diverting the issue). The second device for changing the subject is less sneaky; it just does it! Pulling a red herring across the platform will divert attention. So will telling an irrelevant joke. A red herring argument says, “Accept this because this other subject is interesting (funny, witty, etc.).” Rather than proving the point, this fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears a superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. Don’t let that fool you! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the argument.(here is another Nick specialty)
Complex Question.
“When did you stop beating your wife?” That is a perfect example of asking a complex question. It isn’t really one question; it is two. If only one response is given, no matter which question it answers, the other question has an implied answer that may not be true. The debater here is saying, “Accept this (false) implication because of this other (true) implication.” It assumes a simple yes-or-no answer to a complex yes-and-no question. In this respect it is the opposite of a reductive fallacy because it unnecessarily complicates the question. Besides that, at least one of the questions is based on a false assumption. It is the false assumption that usually sticks in the listeners’ minds and wins them over to the false proposition.”
Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking (108). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.!!)
blessings,
ken
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
