Posted on 03/03/2017 5:29:52 AM PST by Petrosius
‘Is causing someone to take offense illegal in Britain now?’
Yes, depending on who is doing the offending. The ‘Human Rights’ claims courts are likely full with complaints. Just another day in a country with no freedom of speech.
Don't get me wrong; you seem to have your logic stuff together. But in the proposition you posited, isn't it still possible for ALL the claims to be false? I think so. Where, if at all, did I go wrong on this?
Our Future if Globalism wins the day.
good luck there
The truth of Scripture can have that effect on people.
“The Crown prosecutor argued that Biblical claims about the unique, salvational role and divine nature of Jesus Christ were bound to offend and threaten non-Christians.” The prosecutor is a foll and too stupid to comprehend that these moose slime will cut his head off without remorse, while screaming their Moon god is great. If the fool is too stupid to see his own contradiction, then the English legal system is done, finished, surrendered to PC tolerance of their own assassins.
Truth offends the dead...why cannot christians put jp billboards saying onlyJeses can save you, not mohammed the liar..freedom of speech..
I once was a street preacher, got arrested on a street corner in ft myers because the conversation, is this worlds reality dead to God, stirred up folks so much that hundreds gathered blicking the street, policeman dud not know what to do, so he put me in the car and tried to disperse the crowd, as he was doing so folks opened the car door and said get out..I stayed, spent the weekend in jail, with no charges.. saw the judge monday, he beat up on the poor poleman, and told me to calm it down, I told him I will not, and it is not in his power to dictate what I say, he shook his head and said get ouf my courtroom..try putting up a bill board, saying, mohammad is a liar and thief stealing souls from heaven...see how that washes down in the USA..
Yes, but you won. In other countries you would have been tried and punished.
Sorry for the spelling, glasses in computer bag..
No, it is not possible that there isn’t “truth”.
But notice that I used the term “finite”.
Any “finite collection of things that are said to be “truth”” is by definition lacking adequate diversity to account for all possibilities. A finite list may all be false, but we can no more say that based on logic alone than we can say this one must be true.
To see truth, as a matter of belief, at least requires one to bet the farm, as it were, to look at what is claimed and the evidences given and then go all in. To stay on the sideline, as politically correct universalists must, is to risk being cut off from ever knowing any truth, even a bad approximation of it (as indeed many false religions have morals and wisdom simply because they were usually invented when and where men still possessed some memory, or even just an inherited cultural bias, against things that are flagrantly wrong).
Now, I will say what I wrote earlier had this flaw: is isn’t merely the number of options but their scope. It is actually possible to, by ignoring all aspects of there being “truth” and focus merely that there is truth at all, to construct a list of options so absent of content, mere philosophical / ontological statements without burden of details, that you can say, logically, one must be true.
These are useless.
The one I know of is this, to be presented with two options:
There is a supernature beyond the realm of dimensions and time, on which creation depends but which is distinct from creation.
There is no such supernature at all.
We may recognize the second as atheism, if the more manly philosophical type onwards to the wishy washy Golden Compass sort it hardly matters. With either (and what may be construed in between) the whole system is all and there is nothing besides it upon which it is predicated.
The former may be loosely recognized as some form of theism with an actual creator.
Between these two there are no other options, one must be true and one must be false; however, I say they are useless because in lacking detail at all, in being so barren, they serve little more purpose with respect to truth than a sign warning to observe warning signs does.
A finite list may all be false, but we can no more say that based on logic alone than we can say this one must be true.
The operative word, for me, in the second phrase you wrote, is "may". I was not asserting that in a finite list of propositions that all "must" be false (remembering that, in your post I was reacting to, you had said that in a finite list of assertions of truth, one must be true); I was merely positing that all "might" be false. Yes, truth is certainly out there, in the infinite set of possible assertions. I am glad that you clarified the part where you had said, that in a finite set, one must be true.
That is the only statement I was reacting to in my first response. And you clarified it.
As to your two options, I agree with you. That's all there are. In a non-cavalier, non-flippant sense (please believe me), I have been teaching lately that, once you have resolved that it's option #1, I am persuaded that "even nature isn't natural". That helps me, and those I teach, to observe creation with even more fascination and awe than before.
What about that? I hope no one ever thinks I'm just trying to be cute with that. Enigmatic, maybe a little, and maybe acute; but not cute.
No harm in being cute. I, myself, have a broad and deep silly streak.
As for natural not being natural I think the issue is that, because of “naturalism” under the thumb of secularism what we think of as nature is in some ways simply deficient. Science and the scientific method really were helped along by a view inherently grounded in classical Christian and Jewish thought that God was Himself rational and that as a consequence His creation should be rational as well. “Naturalism” then gots it’s start in the West because nature was actually something men could study and expect to get real results from said study.
As far as I can tell it was only when skepticism and humanism sought to retain a nature that was reasonable, but rejected God in various measures, that “naturalism” started to become what it is today. But without the core of it the philosophies (here I’m speaking of philosophy proper) have become progressively stranger and stranger. Not yet as bizarre and reason impairing as rejecting cause and effect (something some Muslims dallied disastrously with), to be sure, but still a bit out there, if not over the top.
Now, about my clarification: I did not say that within any finite set of mutually incompatible things, where of course we’re dealing with actual belief systems rather than overly vague statements, that one must be, as a matter of logic alone, true.
I said all but one must be false.
That is not the same as saying one must be true.
The reason for this, at least as far as it arises from logic alone rather than examining the claims and proofs available, is that logic here is not a substitute for those claims and proofs.
By examination of the claims and proofs offered, when addressing which may be true, one can not only eliminate some because they bear fundamental internal conflicts (Islam does this), one can also go a long ways to demonstrate which is true ... again something in harmony with Scripture where we are told that these things have been written that we may believe.
Christianity, BTW, is not blind faith as if there were nothing to see at all, for there is a lot to see in the Scriptures, but Christianity is coming to the point of absolute trust in God who is faithful and has given a specific Testimony concerning Himself ... so to those who speak of the faith being actually lost, such as Islam does, I will assert then that they are VERY wrong: God can keep His revelation of Himself because His ability is greater than our inability, His faithfulness greater than our mendacity (this is but one of the inherent flaws of Islam).
So exclusivity is not just utterly logical, it is so to the exclusion of universalism.
Simply: Christ cannot be Christ and Muhammad be any sort of prophet. Likewise that Christ pointed to Moses as having spoken of Him (and Moses only spoke of one such individual) means that what the Rabbis codified centuries later (which is not the Aaronic priesthood or the Law and the Prophets but has been added to them) cannot be fully valid if He is Christ (because they are not heeding Him, therefore, per Moses, The Lord will require it of them). Given what Moses said about those who would not listen to the prophet he spoke of, not fully valid is therefore not valid at all.
Also important is if our list of religions included those which were not actually mutually exclusive, say if this or that made added claims to a common core actually kept intact shared with others, then more than one could be “true” because what separated them was elective rather than foundational.
In particular, when dealing with Christianity, you cannot add in many roads to God without taking away the exclusivity of Christ being the only way. So the doctrine of any universalist congregation is automatically at enmity with Scripture both in adding and taking away (recall what Revelation says about either adding or taking away and then contemplate a bunch doing both in a genuinely significant manner).
Which is to say that if any, seeming to have the indispensable core, actually depart from it by either grevious addition or removal making itself something genuinely otherwise (what we would call proclaiming a different a gospel) then they of course cannot be true even if the core they have abandoned is true, for they have abandoned it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.