January 10, 2009

Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom

CwC asked: Dan, what stops you from obeying the Mosaic Code?

If it is Old Covenant it has been nailed to the Cross by Jesus and the New Covenant has replaced it. The only time you would follow the Old Covenant (which doesn't apply to us, the saved, anymore) is if it is repeated in the New Covenant, or you're not Saved in Christ. Make sense? You won't find anything repeated about keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant, for example, because Jesus is our Sabbath rest. So the 4th Old Commandment had been replaced. I hope that clears things up for you.

I am sure you are fully aware of this but it's worth repeating for the discussion. We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament.

The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way we are to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because Jesus has come, the perfect sacrifice. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law.

The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.

The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.

On a side note, the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11 are still "in effect" because it's repeated and continued in the NT. Plus, the fact that 'clean' and 'unclean' foods hasn't changed. But again, you're made clean through Christ, not from anything we're doing, or ingesting. It's just good to not ingest unclean animals that were created to ingest death and the refuge of the world. God's wisdom gave us very good nutritional, and preparatory, guidelines. Following them just makes sense stll. It just will not get you to heaven by doing so. These days we have more options to continue to follow the practices even. We even have beef bacon!

Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Jesus, at the time before the cross, wasn't cursed for us, he was an Old Covenant prophet (Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David) after the cross he became the High Priest (Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom)

In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it. When He was alive we were still under the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David.

Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Romans 7:5-7 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

bit.ly/Cncck

52 comments:

  1. Uh, Dan, you are aware, are you not, that none of the explanations you gave about the "New Covenant" are Biblical? Or perhaps I should say that they are hinted at, but by no means unambiguously stated. For instance: in Matthew 5:17-18, we have Jesus saying: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

    Now, of course, many Christians take the standpoint that the Crucifixion was the "fulfillment" Jesus spoke of. But if that were so, why does it say "till heaven and earth pass"? In any case, it is by no means clear what (if anything) was intended to be the exact meaning here and elsewhere.

    Actually, if you regard the Bible as a hodge-podge of historical traditions, and not inspired by God, then it makes sense that there are such unclear passages. The numerous sects of Christianity (some 30,000 at last count), who all have different interpretations of what they think the "true" meaning of the Bible is, are another illustration of its ambiguity.

    cheers from icy Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bravo Zilch,

    But if that were so, why does it say "till heaven and earth pass"?

    I like when people question to make sure they understand. Let me try to make is clearer for you. Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that:

    Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

    Our trusting Calvin said: "The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world.

    The passing away of the heaven and earth, which will take place on the last day, the day of judgment, were to put an end to the law and the prophets. And certainly, as

    1 Corinthians 13:8-11 "whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

    Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the law shall give way.

    Clear?
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like when people question to make sure they understand. Let me try to make is clearer for you.

    I like it when people question, also. I don't like, however, when people presume to answer such questions despite the fact that there is no explicit statement to reference. Your "clearer" answer is mere question-begging, and condescending to boot.

    What, because you are a professing Christian you have some magical understanding of the meaning that others don't have? Because you are a True Christian™ and other professing Christians may not be, is your interpretation necessarily correct and theirs incorrect?

    The bible makes a lot of statements that are ambiguous, yet Christians assert answers nonetheless. The bible records a lot of immoral decrees on god's part, yet Christians assert explanations nonetheless. The bible does not reflect well against reality with respect to science, yet Christians assert that divine inspiration trumps empirical observation nonetheless.

    It seems to me that your "explanations" are purely assertive, even in the cases where these assertions have centuries of tradition "supporting" them. An assertion is an assertion is an assertion, and it is a demonstrable fact that my characterization of the bible and of its adherents is accurate.

    I appreciate your candor, your attitude, and occasionally your honesty, but I cannot sit idly while such bare assertions are touted as universally accepted in Christian theology.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stan,

    I did back that claim with evidence and logic relating to the subject, so I disagree that it was merely an assertion. It was a supported statement.

    It seems to me that your "explanations" are purely assertive,

    Um, isn't that itself, merely an assertion?

    Of course, I was being condescending towards Zilch. After all I was only responding to the mere assertion of:

    Uh, Dan, you are aware, are you not, that none of the explanations you gave about the "New Covenant" are Biblical? from Zilch.

    Your peekaboo honesty is appreciated also.

    but I cannot sit idly while such bare assertions are touted as universally accepted in Christian theology.

    Realistically, rationally, and logically, couldn't Christians make the same claim about secular evilution scientists?

    Um, hey pot! I am tan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did back that claim with evidence and logic relating to the subject

    You strove to apply logic, I'll grant you, but the "evidence" was the heaping of assertion onto assertion. You take the position that "if this passage is interpreted to support my claim, then it supports my claim." Then you queue Ace Ventura and offer a premature, "Slam debunked!"

    Rather, as I noted, your statement "presume[d] to answer such questions despite the fact that there is no explicit statement to reference."

    If you are prepared to show an explicit statement, I'll reconsider my claim.

    Um, isn't that itself, merely an assertion?

    Not when it is flanked by a reference to your own statement(s), and those of Christians down the centuries. You'll also note the context of that statement:

    It seems to me that your "explanations" are purely assertive, even in the cases where these assertions have centuries of tradition "supporting" them.

    (Note "your" is plural, and refers to Christians [apologists] in general, in keeping with the preceding paragraph)

    When the "explanations," no matter how old and revered, have either no explicit biblical support, or only question-begging implicit support based on specific interpretations, then yeah, those are assertions.

    It reminds me of a joke my Spanish teacher told us in high school; it was a real event, but was so laughable that it became a joke.

    Apparently, when he was an exchange student in Mexico, one of his native friends had asked, "Donde está Juan?" ("Where is Juan?")

    The response?

    "Safeway." (Evidently, Juan had some groceries to buy)

    To which the questioner asked, quite perturbed, "A donde?" (Where?)

    And a couple repeats occur.

    Why is this a joke, and what is the confusion?

    "Safeway" is phonetically identical to "Se fue," which means, "He went away."

    The Christian will consider the many possible meanings of the heard statement, and situationally apply one to suit his needs, while the skeptic will recognize the many possible meanings, and simply note that the speaker did not take care to stipulate which meaning was intended. Granted, a particular meaning was intended, or even a nuanced layered meaning, but to assert that one or another is the intended meaning is blatant question-begging.

    I suppose the joke is an object lesson in why foreign language students are required to answer questions fully -- no one-word answers. It's too bad god didn't divinely inspire the authors of his bible to be more explicit...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stan said,
    "The bible makes a lot of statements that are ambiguous, yet Christians assert answers nonetheless."

    Rat own Stan. That's why there are over ten thousand different Christan sects.

    Dan says,
    "Realistically, rationally, and logically, couldn't Christians make the same claim about secular evilution scientists?"

    No. Scientists are always working for unity of ideas and they have strict rules on how science is done. Christians can say virtually anything and back it up with some vague bible verse.

    Where science becomes increasingly unified, Christianity becomes increasingly fragmented and dis-unified.

    Busted again, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The bible makes a lot of statements that are ambiguous, yet Christians assert answers nonetheless."

    In those extremely rare cases :) I find hermeneutics very useful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As I've said before, Dan, "hermeneutics" is simply ex post facto eisegesis: you take an ambiguous text and read into it what you want to see in it. That's why there are so many different sects: the Bible does have central themes (which change somewhat during the course of the narrative), but it's basically a hodgepodge of somewhat differing and conflicting traditions and personal interpretations. The same ambiguity is found in all religious and even secular systems of morality, for the simple reason that there is no way to codify moral behavior in words that is unambiguous. If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly what "thou shalt not kill" means.

    Here's a specific question about the "New Covenant": where in the Bible do you find lines drawn between what you call the "three kinds of laws": ceremonial, civil, and moral? I've read the Bible, and I don't recall any such distinctions being made. It seems to me, again, that this is simply ex post facto reading into the text, and it's also (obviously) an issue on which there is a great deal of disagreement among Christians. How can you assert (as Stan asks) that your version is the "correct" one, that all other versions are false, and that the Bible is the literal word of God, given such ambiguity?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Z says,
    "As I've said before, Dan, "hermeneutics" is simply ex post facto eisegesis: you take an ambiguous text and read into it what you want to see in it. That's why there are so many different sects:


    "Modern evangelical scholars accuse liberal protestants of practicing biblical eisegesis, while Mainline scholars accuse fundamentalists of practicing eisegesis. Catholics say that all Protestants engage in eisegesis, because the Bible can be correctly understood only through the lens of Holy Tradition as handed down by the institutional Church. Jews counter that all Christians practice eisegesis when they read the Hebrew Bible as a book about Jesus."----Wiki

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zilch,

    As I've said before, Dan, "hermeneutics" is simply ex post facto eisegesis

    I cannot believe you are saying this since we try to understand the Bible in a logical way using inductive methods. As a fan of science you seem inconsistent with this statement that you are now making. Is science right or wrong? The logical process called hermeneutics can be tested and verified. I am held back as to why you discredit so quickly. Have you used this method yourself, only to find faults in it? If you have please explain.

    Please, provide evidence that a Historical-grammatical method of interpretation is wrong.

    I am simply flabbergasted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan: science is not "right" or "wrong", it is a method of explaining the world. If hermeneutics can be tested and verified, why is there so much disagreement about its findings? Just read the last bit you quoted: I'm sure the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Jews all think they're engaging in "hermeneutics", or whatever they call their own "historical-grammatical" interpretation of the Bible. And they don't agree.

    Just within Christianity, I think you'll find both Calvinists and Arminians claiming to be applying hermeneutics, and coming up with completely different meanings.

    And no wonder: how can you claim to have a "scientific" method that shows you the "true" meaning of phrases such as the passage from Matthew I quoted above? It is simply unclear, and theologians have debated about it for centuries and still disagree. Are you wiser than all these theologians, or can you tell me some method for finding out who is right? As far as I can see, there simply is no "right" interpretation for many passages in the Bible: they are either figurative, or refer to ill-defined concepts, or contradict parallel passages.

    Another example of this is the story of Noah's nakedness in Genesis 9. A bizarre story indeed, by any account: you accidentally see your drunk father naked, so he punishes your son, thus giving the Israelis an excuse to kick Canaanite butt much later down the line. What is "really" going on here? Two scholars think it means that Ham had sex with his mother. Why? Read it for yourself: by applying an historical-grammatical interpretation, aka hermeneutics.

    Now, I don't know if they are "right" or not about the author's intentions. The point is, hermeneutics is not going to squeeze anything out of some passages that is anything other than the squeezer's eisegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zilch,

    Hermeneutics is not "right" or "wrong", it is a method of explaining the Word.

    Get it?

    I do agree with you that not one person on this earth has all the answers for the Bible. But you must agree that hermeneutics is a logical and systematic process to understanding the Bible. Like I said hermeneutics is an inductive method to find truth. Fair?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan: I agree that hermeneutics is intended to be a logical and systematic means of studying the Bible. But as I said, it doesn't seem to work very well at homing in on anything; not surprisingly, given the ambiguity of many parts of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zilch,

    I agree that hermeneutics is intended to be a logical and systematic means of studying the Bible. But as I said, it doesn't seem to work very well at homing in on anything;

    OK then you must, being consistent with your logic, say that science is intended to be a logical and systematic means of studying the world. That, it doesn't seem to work very well at honing in on anything;...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Uh, Dan, are you getting this message to me by way of smoke signals, or are you using a computer designed by scientists? Etc. That's "homing in" with a vengeance, if you ask me. There are one or two more examples of how science has "homed in" on things I could also mention, but perhaps you can think of them yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zilch,

    I'm sure the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Jews all think they're engaging in "hermeneutics", or whatever they call their own "historical-grammatical" interpretation of the Bible. And they don't agree.

    So then you agree there was no such a thing as scientific or inductive method of interpreting the world or word at the time when these religions were introduced?

    So science has aided in understanding our world and hermeneutics has aided us in understanding His Word. We agree then. Logically sound?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan: I know next to nothing about the history of hermeneutics, and I honestly don't really care to know. I suspect it probably was one of the many offspring of the German exegetical traditions of the nineteenth century, but that's just my wild guess.

    And as I said: science and hermeneutics both aim at explanations. Science has been wildly successful. Hermeneutics- not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So then you agree there was no such a [sic] thing as scientific or inductive method of interpreting the world or word at the time when these religions were introduced?

    So then you agree that there was "no such a thing" as gravity or electricity at the time when these religions were introduced?


    The term "hermeneutics" may not have been invented, but the process of interpreting something by attempting to make it personally meaningful was ancient. Just like the modern scientific approach, or the Scientific Method, if you will, had not yet been articulated, but the process of postulate, hypothesis, and theory were likewise ancient.

    Granted, primitive hermeneutics is far older than primitive science, but then, that's kind of what religion is -- early attempts at science.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stan,

    I cannot argue with that logic. nice

    ReplyDelete
  20. Zilch,

    Hermeneutics- not so much.

    Is that your opinion? Or will denominations be your argument?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan- that's my opinion. Denominations are evidence that hermeneutics does not work well. And as I said, it cannot work well, because some passages in the Bible are simply fuzzy. Christians put themselves in a compromising position when they declare that the Bible is literally true, but they can't agree on what exactly that literal truth is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan,
    The main difference between hermeneutics on arriving at high level of certainty is that hermeneutics cannot be falsified.

    A scientific idea that can be tested and falsified is called a theory.
    Hermeneutics is merely conjecture. You can refine it all you want but it will never be testable nor falsifiable.

    True bible scholars use many means to date and critique the bible but your brand of hermeneutics is not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan,
    You said to Zilch, "So science has aided in understanding our world and hermeneutics has aided us in understanding His Word. We agree then. Logically sound?"

    That is a most sophomoric statement. Zilch has staunchly disagreed with you, yet you try to make him say he does agree with you. hermeneutics is no way related to how science understands and explains the world.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That is a most sophomoric statement. Zilch has staunchly disagreed with you, yet you try to make him say he does agree with you. hermeneutics is no way related to how science understands and explains the world.

    I daresay that Dan has merely applied hermeneutics to Zilch's statement(s)...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  25. Stan,
    Yup. People with control issues will say stuff like, "you say that you disagree with me but since you can't possibly totally disagree then you do in effect agree somewhat, thus it is logical that you agree with me."
    Classic control mechanism; same as Dan's need for conformity on what he deems civil.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan,
    Before you get all riled up, remember, ""Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

    ReplyDelete
  27. Zilch,

    Denominations are evidence that hermeneutics does not work well.

    Actually proper hermeneutics shows Denominations are indeed false. Denominations were created before any hermeneutic process. Agree?

    Look at the Doctors/scientists who used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life all along.

    My point is the scientific process is new and we have great strides with it in recent times and hermeneutics process is new and we have great strides with it also in these recent times. I wouldn't just discount it. Test it, try it out. Personally I don't know how to get closer to an Exegesis method then hermeneutics.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan,

    I will try and show you what you did (eisegesis, rather than any logical thing, I rather call it "horoscope reading"):

    Look at the Doctors/scientists who used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life all along.

    This is a clear example of horoscope reading of the Bible. You said that hermeneutics was about historical-grammatical whateveritwas. Yet,

    1. Blood letting was inspired by this Biblical statement. "Doctors" thought that, since blood is life, maybe sicknesses reside in the blood, so, if we bleed a sick person, just not so much to kill them, we might get rid of this thing that is attacking this person's life

    2. There is nothing particularly insightful about "blood is life." Anybody can have known that when you bleed from a harsh cut (say after a battle), you die.

    3. Forcing things into modern interpretations is exactly what people do when reading their horoscopes. They have a particular person in mind (most of the time themselves), and easily accommodate what they read into that person.

    So much for "logical historical-grammatical." I would call it wishful thinking.

    Now, for the gold:

    This is what Sye means when he says he finds more stuff in the Bible when you learn presupping. He means now you can "horoscope read" the Bible to give support to his line of bullshit. This is the only way I could understand how you can go from "from everlasting to everlasting you art God" to "You shall not make contradictory propositions."

    Now, been as nicely honest as I am, I am giving you the opportunity to mock me and all scientists (unless you can be honest yourself):

    Scientists do engage into horoscope reading of data. Yep, we have done so. I have done so. BUT! This is one reason we are very observant and try and demystify what other scientists do, in hopes that other sicnetists will return the favor and tell us "hey, you are horoscope-reading those data!" We feel bad when we notice, but that is one nice thing about science, it tries to correct for our reasoning problems (such as that human tendency for horoscope-reading). "Hermeneutics" on the contrary, seems to be more about self-convincing that the Bible is inerrant infallible, and the source of all knowledge. I bet it is easy to re-interpret some passage into predicting the Big-Bang, and even describing evolution. The latter would be a lot of fun.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  29. GE,

    As to your point 1. you gave me pause. Nice Job. Point 2. well said I cannot refute that and point 3. I would have to agree also. Ouch.

    What can I say but you may be right. My fallibility is shining bright now Great I feel so naked.

    After these body blows allow me try to correct for my reasoning problems.

    More research is needed on my part. Back to the lab.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan,

    I bow to you my friend. That answer was amazing.

    I also go back to the lab trying hard not to fall into my own horoscope-reading.

    G.E.

    (I am extra busy, so do not take it personal if I do not post in a while.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. What can I say but you may be right. My fallibility is shining bright now Great I feel so naked.

    After these body blows allow me try to correct for my reasoning problems.

    More research is needed on my part. Back to the lab.


    Dan, I salute you.

    The above statements are precisely why so many of us (I can only speak for certainty of myself here, but I'm quite sure I speak for a few others, if not the many I claim) return here to banter with you. Glimmers of honesty -- "peek-a-boo honesty," as you so eloquently put it.

    I give you my very sincere thanks.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  32. I will second and third what GE and Stan said. Dan: thanks for your honesty.

    cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan, I also greatly admire the honesty in your last post. I still disagree with a lot of what you say but you have just gone waaaay up in my estimation (as opposed to Sye who can NEVER be wrong about anything).

    Please please please don't immediately assume there is a flaw in the logic you have just experienced, but explore it and hopefully you will embrace it. This might well be a significant moment! :-)

    Optimistically,

    Rhiggs

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah, you beat the heck out of Ray Comfort...ok, that doesn't sound like much but you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just to mention, I posted in the "scientific consensus" post about vaccines. I figure the links I gave there give information that you could use...

    I ordinarily wouldn't "post-whore" like this, but that's too important a topic to let slide.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan, keep up the fight. Ours is a struggle against powers and principalities.

    I wrestled an angel once

    Yours in Christ
    Ezeki'El

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ezeki'El,

    Thank you and blessings. Hey, you spell your name like our friend Dani'El and you appear to be like minded, and to top it off you both are in San Fran (Sodom) Go over and say Hi to our fellow Jew.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dan:

         "God, is the necessary precondition for all reasoning. Without presupposing God, one cannot make sense of reasoning itself."
         Incorrect. Reason is, itself, the precondition. The simple fact is that if it is true that you once presupposed no god (as you claim) that you made sense of reasoning (probably just by observing that it exists) without presupposing a god. I shall go even further. Anyone who claims that a god is a necessary precondition to reasoning doesn't really believe in any god. So, what's your real angle? Sye seems to take some sort of perverse pleasure in exasperating people trying to have honest discussion. Once, you seemed sincere. Now, you just keep repeating Sye's lie. Did you have a "gee, lying at honest debaters is fun" moment?

         I copied this from the other thread. You seem to be ignoring it; but it may just be lost in the shuffle. I would really like an answer. Why do you keep repeating Sye's lie?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pvblivs,

    I would really like an answer. Why do you keep repeating Sye's lie?

    Is it a lie just because you say so? Just answer the questions if you hate it being repeated.

    How do you account for your logic?

    You claim that it just is?

    Would that suffice If I gave that as an answer for God?

    Come on who is being intellectually dishonest here? You get the Gist of the matter by now? You are one smart cookie dude and I I know full well that you understand the meanings behind the questions. He is actually getting you to think about where your logic comes from.

    I get it. Does that mean I am much much smarter then you? Or does it mean you are clouded by your goggles? I applaud you decisiveness when arguing about the assumptions about evilution yet you cannot grasp the simple concept of God is Logic and that know lying is wrong because God doesn't lie.

    So once and for all:

    How do you account for the laws of logic you use to come to this conclusion?

    How do you know that your ability to reason is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I notice people have been getting descriptive and prescriptive mixed up.
    The "Laws of Logic" are descriptive not prescriptive.
    I've only just left school recently so I remember the science teacher making us chant "Laws are a description not a prescription". This was at a Christian High School so it's not some evil conspiracy thing.

    And "Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan:

         I can accept that you take the existence of your god as a premise. That will not convince me that your god is real. However, the existence of logic is not in dispute. You and I both use logic. It is therefore common to our worldviews. And calling for an accounting of same is dishonest. You see, I do not call for an accounting of your god "according to your worldview" as I know that it is simply a premise of your worldview. I have responded that logic is a premise of my worldview only to have Sye ask the question all over again. So, your questions have already been asked and answered.
         You have, of course, been applying a double-standard. When you make assertions like "god is logic," you are simply denying that you need to give any evidence for your god. Now, if you want to convince me that you believe in a god, you needn't give any evidence. I am already convinced of that. If you want to convince me that there is a god (something in dispute) then you need to give me some evidence. You aren't asking me to account for logic because you doubt that logic is real. You aren't even posing the position that logic isn't real. Seriously, it is impossible to persaude someone who doesn't believe in logic that logic is real. One has to use logic when attempting to justify anything. So, the validity of my ability to reason (and yours as well) is simply something that we both agree on -- as it must be in order to debate anything. It is a mutually agreed premise. Asking for an accounting of any mutually agreed premise is inherently dishonest. As you do this in representation of your god (which I still think exists only in your head) your god does lie.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "How do you account for your logic?

    You claim that it just is?"

    Accounting for logic is trivial with a solid foundational understanding of Western philosophy.

    The problem lies in that whether you can or cannot account for logic has anything to do with whether or not God exists.

    If you cannot account for logic, then God can be one of the infinite number of fundamental ways you could try to account for logic. Therefore, this has no bearing whether God actually exists.

    If you can account for logic through natural means, that has no bearing on whether or not God exists separate from that.

    Since logic itself is not in question, it's unnecessary to debate the accountability of logic. Both parties accept logic as a reliable tool regardless of why this is so.

    ReplyDelete
  43. OK GE,

    At least your point was made about the blood.

    Can you answer though. Less then 100 years ago doctors used to wash their hands in basins of (still)water that never did get rid of germs well.

    Leviticus 15:13 clearly says to "bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

    Now this was over 3500 years ago. Even the most skeptical person should give that some pause.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Doctors 200 years ago also used to think that leprosy was hereditary and not contagious.

    Way before modern medicine in Leviticus 13-15 it explains the quarantine methods for many days of such a contagious disease also washing along with the burning of the clothing.

    Again all over 3500 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan:

         It follows it right up with some nonsense about bringing up two turrledoves or two pigeons as an offering. (That is actually more likely to spread germs.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan:

         I also note that you still haven't answered my question. Why do you keep repeating Sye's lie? As you said, "Just answer the questions if you hate it being repeated." You have not attempted any answer.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pvblivs,

    Seriously, it is impossible to persuade someone who doesn't believe in logic that logic is real.

    Funny that you just made that claim. God is logic.

    So, the validity of my ability to reason (and yours as well) is simply something that we both agree on -- as it must be in order to debate anything.

    You cannot account for reasoning without God.

    It is a mutually agreed premise.

    So we agree that God is the reason why reason exists?

    Asking for an accounting of any mutually agreed premise is inherently dishonest.

    OK, to avoid being dishonest then, our 'mutually agreed premise' is that God is logic? Logic is preexisting? It just is?

    Otherwise the debate will continue that you believe that 'logic just is' but do you believe that is a justifiable explanation for our reasoning? Honestly? Do you think things need, or should have, an explanation? Even logic itself needs an explanation of it's own dynamics, agree? Logic as a reliable tool needs to be explained and is the backbone of Sye's discussion.

    Side note. I have always wondered, if you don't believe in evilution then what do you believe in? This by no means is some red herring, I am actually curious. I believe there are only two explanations, you may have answered it or wrote it off a while ago but, if there are only two theories then which to you hold closer too?

    ReplyDelete
  48.      "God is logic."
         That is a lie. Why do you keep repeating it? Logic is an intillectual mechanism by which we draw conclusions from prior beliefs and observations. Your god (if he exists) is a being that influences the world. They are not even remotely similar concepts.
         "You cannot account for reasoning without God."
         You cannot account for reasoning with or without any god. It is a necessary premise. Without a mechanism to draw conclusions from prior beliefs and observations one cannot account for anything.
         "Otherwise the debate will continue that you believe that 'logic just is' but do you believe that is a justifiable explanation for our reasoning?"
         The foundations of a worldview cannot be explained (at least within the worldview.) They are the basis for all other explanations. Essentially all worldviews presuppose something. For that matter, they all presuppose some sort of logic and reasoning as they must in order to be a worldview. At some point in our reasoning about the world, we make an intellectual observation that we are reasoning about the world. This is what we call logic. It requires no further explanation to utilize the fact that it exists. Similarly, if I see a dog when I walk down the street, I do not need to account for the dog's existence to recognize that it exists.
         Furthermore, you do not account for your god. You say he "just is." If you wish to pursue the nonsense where you claim that your god is logic, then you are presupposing logic (saying logic just is) while denying me the same luxury.
         "Even logic itself needs an explanation of it's own dynamics, agree?"
         No, I do not agree. If were to require an explanation of the dynamics of everything we use, it would also apply to each explanation in turn. The infinite regress makes it an impossible condition. Also, you demonstrate that you do not agree with your own statement. It would also apply to the god that you invoke. You have never explained the dynamics of your god. Most christians say that he is unknowable in that sense.
         "Logic as a reliable tool needs to be explained and is the backbone of Sye's [lie.]"
         I corrected it for you. Logic is a necessary basis for all explanations. Attempting to explain logic, then, would necessarily be circular. Claiming that logic needs to be explained before it can be used is a lie.
         "Side note. I have always wondered, if you don't believe in [evolution] then what do you believe in?"
         I corrected that for you as well. And for the diversity of life, I don't belive in anything. I accept the diversity of life as an empirical observation and do not require an accounting for it. There have, of course, been direct observations of small-scale evolution; and modern medicine is based on those. But as to what happened millions of years ago, people can only guess at best. And it is not that important to me.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pvblivs,

    D-"God is logic"

    P-"That is a lie."

    Fine, saying God is logic is a lazy way of saying that you cannot account for logic without God.

    "Essentially all worldviews presuppose something.

    Fine, can a worldview be incorrect? If so then great! Can your worldview be incorrect? If so great! Now we are at the point where the attempt is being made to prove to you that your worldview is incorrect since you cannot account for anything? All bets are off. You may not even exist with your worldview? How do you "know" that dog exists?

    Admittedly, I am trying my best to understand things on this subject. Maybe it's merely a pissing contest. Your worldview cannot account for origins of life and mine can, so you lose. My presus are larger then your presups.

    But as to what happened millions of years ago, people can only guess at best. And it is not that important to me.

    Really? Origins of life isn't important to you at all?

    From a purely logical perspective, there are two possibilities as to the origin of life: It was either created by an outside source or it happened on its own.

    Is that the thrust as to why it isn't important to you? You would have to face the realization that a Creator exists if you reject evolution?

    John MacArthur, Ph.D discussed worldviews in his book "Think Biblically:"

    What Will Be Some Benefits of Embracing the Christian Worldview?

    Let the following serve as a small sample representing the kinds of crucial life-questions that can be answered with ultimate truth and can be embraced with confident faith.

    1. How did the world and all that is in it come into being?

    2. What is reality in terms of knowledge and truth?

    3. How does/should the world function?

    4. What is the nature of a human being?

    5. What is one's personal purpose of existence?

    6. How should one live?

    7. Is there any personal hope for the future?

    8. What happens to a person at and after death?

    9. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

    10. How does one know what is right and what is wrong?

    11. What is the meaning of human history?

    12. What does the future hold?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan, you said (I hope you don't mind my fielding this, pvblivs):

    Your worldview cannot account for origins of life and mine can, so you lose.

    Depends on what you mean by "account for", Dan. Sure, we cannot explain abiogenesis yet, and it may not ever be fully understood. But a great deal is known about what makes life tick- and we have an increasingly better understanding, through biochemistry, genetics, and fossils, of how life evolved after it started. So we do have an account that is admittedly incomplete- a story with gaps and speculation, but a story that is gradually filling out.

    So what is your account for the beginning of life? "Goddidit". Can you explain exactly how God created life, in such a way that it makes predictions that are observable and not predictable from science? No. What is your account for the existence of God? None.

    So you haven't really "accounted for" anything here, but merely made up a being who is merely a rug you can sweep the questions under.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan:

         Yes, my worldview could be incorrect. So could yours. If you were honest, you would admit that. Attempting to prove my worldview incorrect is another matter; and insisting on the presuppositions of your worldview fails automatically.
         "Your worldview cannot account for origins of life and mine can, so you lose. My presus are larger then your presups."
         An interesting thing on that. My worldview is incomplete. There are propositions on which it makes no judgement. But any system sufficiently large must be able to comprehend a proposition that it is incapable of judging or be internally inconsistent. I believe your worldview is actually inconsistent.
         The latter portion of your post reminded me of a poster.

    Answers: 10¢

    Answers (requiring thought): 25¢

    Answers (correct): 50¢

    DUMB LOOKS ARE STILL FREE

         Well, it looks like you've got the 10 cent answers.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>