24 Apr 05
Originally posted by Darfiusdarfius,
Is anyone here interested in finding out if Christianity is true? Please, this isn't another attack thread, I'm truly curious if anyone is just interested in the truth, no matter the ramifications.
i am interested. please proceed.
24 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionDon't you mean 11 using a base 3 system. It could not equal 1.
True. 2+2 need not equal four. It could for instance equal 1.
0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20 ...
And all the same, if you are using different base systems, then you could not say both 2+2=4 and 2+2= 11 at the same time without equivocating.
25 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiSee my earlier post on this page.
Don't you mean 11 using a base 3 system. It could not equal 1.
0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20 ...
And all the same, if you are using different base systems, then you could not say both 2+2=4 and 2+2= 11 at the same time without equivocating.
It's not base 3. 2+2 would not equal 1 in base 3.
you could not say both 2+2=4 and 2+2= 11 at the same time without equivocating.
Of course not, because that would imply that base 10 and base 3 are the same. That's entirely beside the point however. I was just pointing out as did lu's ham that one makes an assumption when declaring 2+2=4 and should be careful to employ it as an argument.
25 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by telerion(P.S. never mind this post - it was getting off topic.)
See my earlier post on this page.
It's not base 3. 2+2 would not equal 1 in base 3.
[b]you could not say both 2+2=4 and 2+2= 11 at the same time without equivocating.
Of course not, because that would imply that base 10 ...[text shortened]... aring 2+2=4 and should be careful to employ it as an argument.
[/b]
25 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI agree it is off-topic. My original post was not however. It seems to me that if ones wants to convert people to xtianity, it is imperative that that person offer a consistent philososphy.
(P.S. never mind this post - it was getting off topic.)
Darfius chose not to answer my objections (I will not let Darfius just make up stories as it suits is evangelical purposes!). Instead, he chose to brush them aside as "stupid." I took this as a cop-out, but it seems that you disagree. If so, would you mind offering the argument that reconciles Darfius' previous statements about heaven with those he makes in this thread?
25 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionI think we both believe in "sola fide" (faith alone). Only by faith in Christ can one be saved and go to heaven.
I agree it is off-topic. My original post was not however. It seems to me that if ones wants to convert people to xtianity, it is imperative that that person offer a consistent philososphy.
Darfius chose not to answer my objections (I will not let Darfius just make up stories as it suits is evangelical purposes!). Instead, he chose to brush them as ...[text shortened]... that reconciles Darfius' previous statements about heaven with those he makes in this thread?
Where we disagree would probably be on is the idea of "free will" or the meaning of predestination. I believe God has determined before the the creation, who will be saved and who will not. There are many objections to this belief - by when I work out all the logical implications - it is the only position that seems to me to be logically consistent.
However, I don't think logical consistency saves a person, only faith in Christ.
Is that what you are referring too about Darfius's view on heaven? I may be chasing the wrong theological concept.
25 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionOK, the evil/good concept. I don't believe there is some yin/yang requirement that says we can not have good without evil or the opposite.
...Kreeft basically argues that evil is necessary for free will, and free will is necessary for true love. ...
"If He had made us unable to choose evil, we would be slaves, would we not? Would you rather be a slave then enjoy such things as love, goodness and happiness? ..."
I also think it is a mistake to think determinism implies we are robots without any will at all. Only that the will we have is already determined - and does not have the ability to choose between true good works and evil works.
That we are slaves is indeed the case. We are natural slaves to our sinful nature - or slaves to Christ. If we love Christ, it is only because he loved us first. If we have faith, it is only because we are given faith.
I may be a unclear (I need to sleep). Ask questions. I'll try to answer tomorrow.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiFor the most part, I second this (see, I do agree with you sometimes).
Always. Any intentional act, first begins with the intention and decision to act. A sin always starts with a thought.
If you tell someone something that is false, but you firmly believe it
is true, it is not a lie. A lie is not about the veracity of the content
being told, it is about whether you are purporting something as true
that you know to be false (or vice versa).
However, one must always consider the 'sin of omission,' that is,
the sin of not acting. This does not require thought a lot of the
time, because sometimes it is 'thoughtlessness' that causes such sins
to happen.
E.g., You just got a huge Christmas bonus from your job (say, 10k).
To reward yourself, you go out and buy a 62" flat-screen, plasma
television with stereophonic surroundsound with subwoofer. Now, when
you watch the Matrix, the windows flex because of the sound.
However, you never considered donating some of that money to those
who are going hungry this Christmas, to giving some to the local soup
kitchen. If you had gotten the 57" television, you could have donated
$750 dollars to the food bank, or bought 'Toys for Tots' or whatever.
Your thoughtlessness led to a sin of omission. You didn't intend
any harm, but your inaction to an explicitly Christian cause led to your
transgression.
A Christian is called to constant prayer, constant thoughtfulness --
where you are considering the needs of your brothers and sisters as
well as your own -- and, as such, a sin of omission is different than
'sins of commission' (thoughts, words and deeds).
Just my 2 cents on this topic.
Nemesio