02 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightIt's one proposition and one question - what's "active" about that? You are speculating. And you may say I'm I also. The question is then, which is more consistent then with what Christ says elsewhere.
Are you saying God deceives?
EDIT: The passge seems to have Jesus denying he is God, not "withholding"
It's far more active than saying nothing, for example.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiOh, I get it: every time Christ's words don't fit into your dogma you declare them too unclear to understand and then have to turn to other (usually non-Jesus) passages that do agree with your dogma to interpret the ones that don't! NOW I understand!
It's one proposition and one question - what's "active" about that? You are speculating. And you may say I'm I also. The question is then, which is more consistent then with what Christ says elsewhere.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo, you still don't have it.
It's one proposition and one question - what's "active" about that? You are speculating. And you may say I'm I also. The question is then, which is more consistent then with what Christ says elsewhere.
From the POV of someone who believes the Trinity, why did Jesus say that?
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiTo anybody who doesn't use the crackpot "logic" you do, you sure can. I'll repeat my prior post:
He asked a question. He did not say he is not God and you can not logically infer why he asked it based on the question alone.
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
If none are good, but God, and Jesus is saying he is not be called good, then that means He is not God. "but one" makes that meaning even clearer. It may not be an internal contradiction, but it seems to contradict the idea that Jesus was God, don't it?
For example, if someone comes up to me at a party and says "World Chess Champion, what about the Benoni defense?" And I say "Why callest thou me the World Chess Champion? There is none the World Chess Champion but one, that is Bobby Fischer." (I obviously haven't went to a party lately). My answer is an implicit denial that I am Bobby Fischer, ain't it?
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLOGIC 101:
To anybody who doesn't use the crackpot "logic" you do, you sure can. I'll repeat my prior post:
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
If none are good, but God, and Jesus is saying he is not be called good, then that means He is not God. "but one" makes that meanin ...[text shortened]... 't went to a party lately). My answer is an implicit denial that I am Bobby Fischer, ain't it?
A declarative sentence is a declarative sentence.
A question is a question.
A declarative sentence is not a question.
Any questions?
OK.
Is the question rhetorical? If yes, it requires interpretation.
Interpretation requires additional support to have any weight. What additional data do you have to support you interpretation?
Jesus is either God or he is not God. You can not interpret this verse by itself unless you are a true sophist.
"My answer is an implicit denial that I am Bobby Fischer, ain't it?"
Not if you are Bobby Fischer. If you are Bobby Fisher then the answer questions if the person asking knows who your true identity.
So you see, there are two reasonable interpretations of the verse. And there is no way to answer it based on the this text alone.
02 Jun 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1Maurauder: "For example, if someone comes up to me at a party and says "World Chess Champion, what about the Benoni defense?" And I say "Why callest thou me the World Chess Champion? There is none the World Chess Champion but one, that is Bobby Fischer." (I obviously haven't went to a party lately). My answer is an implicit denial that I am Bobby Fischer, ain't it?"
To anybody who doesn't use the crackpot "logic" you do, you sure can. I'll repeat my prior post:
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
If none are g ...[text shortened]... y answer is an implicit denial that I am Bobby Fischer, ain't it?
.... and this ladies and gentlemen is what is widely known in formal logic as a strawmanreasoning and I would add a ridiculous one as well, because it is not a very clever distortion of the original story.
HINT: "God" is not "good". However that doesn't mean that God is not good. Another conundrum for the religious and secular literalists.
EDIT: You probably know that Ben-Oni means "Son of Sorrow", right ?
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightTo be analogous to the verse, his reply would have have been:
If someone went up to Bobby Fischer at a party and said "Wow you're the best, you really hammered Spassky!"
Fischer says "Why call me the best, there can only be one best, Bobby Fischer"
He's denying being Bobby Fisher.
"Why do you say I hammered Spassky?
Only Bobby Fischer could do that."
In other words - do you really know who you are talking too, or are you just flattering me.
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiNo, the question requires no real interpretation; you have to read both parts of the passage - the rhetorical question and the statement - together. Your incessant nitpicking would make no sense at all of the passage which is what you are shooting for since it's plain meaning clashes with your dogma. Jesus gave the answer to the rhetorical question; don't call me good as only God is good. There is no other reasonable interpretation possible. Kneverknight's analogy is even better than mine; thanks KK.
LOGIC 101:
A declarative sentence is a declarative sentence.
A question is a question.
A declarative sentence is not a question.
Any questions?
OK.
Is the question rhetorical? If yes, it requires interpretation.
Int ...[text shortened]... And there is no way to answer it based on the this text alone.
Ivanhoe, you really need a lesson in what the "strawman" fallacy is as you use that term constantly in an erroneous fashion. Mine was an argument by analogy; it can be a useful or a non-useful analogy but it's not a "strawman". A "strawman" is an erroneous restatement of your opponents position designed to be easily destroyed. I did not restate Coletti's argument in my analogy as he is yet to present one preferring to try to play semantic games as is his wont.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThat is absurd and I think you know it.
To be analogous to the verse, his reply would have have been:
"Why do you say I hammered Spassky?
Only Bobby Fischer could do that."
In other words - do you really know who you are talking too, or are you just flattering me.