15 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThe intellectual prostituting that you do on behalf of these people is embarassing. You should at least get payed for your services. Arby Hill clearly states that every person has lied in their life. Then he jumps straight to the claim "all liars go to hell," implying that if you've told a lie, then you are a liar. Obviously, it was a silly post on Arby's part. He didn't think about what a strong adjective "all" is. Frogstomp pointed this out. Then Johnny Cochrane Coletti had to come in and cook up some lame story.
RB did not say that everyone who lies is a liar. He said that everyone has told a lie, AND liars will go to hell. You made the assumption that everyone who has ever told a lie IS a liar.
The point of making a logical statement is to first understand and THEN state the authors intent in logical form. So you should at least ask RB if he thinks everyone ...[text shortened]... dict himself by mistake, but in-so-far as his beliefs are Christian, they are not contradictory.
We all know from experience that Arby Hill believes that some people will go to heaven. The problem is he makes stupid statements without considering the implications. If he wanted to say what you mean then he should have written the following:
Every person has lied in their life.
Every liar who is not forgiven through Christ will go to Hell
Now you can squirm all you want in an attempt to make "some one who tells a lie" a "potential liar," but that is entirely Colettispeak. Arby Hill posts in English, not Colettispeak, so there is no reason to interpret his post in such an exotic manner.
My question to you is why can't you just except that Arby Hill made a silly statement and then move on. I suppose you xtians are in the habit of resurrecting dead things.
15 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThat's the point where you are making an assumption. This is not logically implied by his words - and you were the one who formulated his statements into a logical implication.
... implying that if you've told a lie, then you are a liar. .
If the words don't fit, you must acquit. 😉
Just applying the standard you raised. Not twisting - just keeping to the text.
(Correction - froggy made RB's words into a logical syllogism.)
15 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompRB wrote:
everyone lied
all lLiars go to hell
therefore Empty Heaven
everyone has liad in their life. The book of Rev. says that all liars will be found in hell.
That is why you need Jesus to save you.
And froggy turned this into a syllogism:
everyone lied
all lLiars go to hell
therefore Empty Heaven
The fallacy is assuming RB meant the anyone who lies is a liar. But that's not RB's point, and it takes illogical liberties with RB's intention.
RB understands that one sin is enough to convict anyone. If you hate your brother, the consequences are just as bad as if you had murdered. Lust after a woman, and you are guilty of committing adultery.
Jesus uses hyperbole to show us the consequence of even small sins so that that we will see our need to be redeemed by His blood. Even the smallest sins will damn you. "That is why you need Jesus to save you".
RB's was not "implying that if you've told a lie, then you are a liar." RB was merely pointing out that someone who tells a single lie is as guilty as a liar as far as salvation is concerned.
15 Jun 05
Originally posted by Coletti
RB wrote:[b]everyone has liad in their life. The book of Rev. says that all liars will be found in hell.
That is why you need Jesus to save you.
And froggy turned this into a syllogism:
everyone lied
all lLiars go to hell
therefore Empty Heaven
The fallacy is assuming RB meant the anyone who lies is ...[text shortened]... t someone who tells a single lie is as guilty as a liar as far as salvation is concerned.[/b]EVERYONE
can't you read?
15 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI do. Some people are not even capable of lying. However, I guess "everyone" understands that RBHILL is using everyday language here, where "everyone" often means "the vast majority". But if you don't understand it as everyday language, it's wrong.
Everyone has lied. Do you disagree with that?
If you read it as everyday language, "everyone has liad in their life. The book of Rev. says that all liars will be found in hell" implies that everybody who has lied is a liar. If you don't understand it as everyday language, this is not implied. But if RBHILL started with everyday language, why should he suddenly switch to language which doesn't imply anything and is entirely logical?
15 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompThe unstated premise is the everyone does not include God or Jesus or anyone who has not lived long enough to formulate a coherent sentence. Give me a break foglegs. Who hasn't lied besides the ones who couldn't by definition. You, me, anyone you know over the age of four? (What a literalist you are!)
actually "Everyone has lied" is a lie
15 Jun 05
Originally posted by NordlysAsk froggy. I used the understanding of common Christian doctrine to explain what I thought RB meant. I didn't put RB's post into a fallacious syllogism. That was froglegs logical error.
I do. Some people are not even capable of lying. However, I guess "everyone" understands that RBHILL is using everyday language here, where "everyone" often means "the vast majority". But if you don't understand it as everyday language, it's wrong.
If you read it as everyday language, "everyone has liad in their life. The book of Rev. says that a ...[text shortened]... why should he suddenly switch to language which doesn't imply anything and is entirely logical?
15 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiI understood it the same way frogstomp did (in fact, we posted the same idea, although put into different words, at exactly the same time 🙂 ), and I still don't see how anyone could understand it in a different way without being a literalist. And if you are a literalist, the first part of RBHILLs statement doesn't work.
Ask froggy. I used the understanding of common Christian doctrine to explain what I thought RB meant. I didn't put RB's post into a fallacious syllogism. That was froglegs logical error.