To which I replied: Plenty of times He does NOT use "if/then" formulae. The sensitive reader ought to know which is which...and what is called for in response.
I should have given a "for instance." Here's one: I do not recall that the "if/then" form was ever used in any of the parables spoken by Jesus. I could be wrong; if you find any of Jesus' direct sayings that fit that model, please let me know.
A point of clarification: We were discussing complementarities, which take the form of "either/or," "yes/no," "black/white," "0/1." "If/then" does not have that form. "If/then" sets up a causal relationship. Complementarities generally don't do that.
Just a point of order.
Thanks so much for writing, kosta!
There are lots of if/then’s in Scripture. Most of God’s promises have contingencies associated with them. But not all. Some of His promises to Abraham do not.
Sure I can. When Christ tells the rich man to sell everything and follow Him. In Beatitudes, when he says "blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy...blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God...blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the Sons of God...or when he says to the disciples that we can come to the Father only through Him...all of those are conditional statements.
In 1 Pet 2:20 the author says "if you do the right thing...and suffer for it [then] you will find favor or grace (charis) with God."
All these are strictly conditional statements. If you believe, [then] you will be saved. God makes a free offer of a conditional relationship.
A point of clarification: We were discussing complementarities, which take the form of "either/or," "yes/no," "black/white," "0/1." "If/then" does not have that form. "If/then" sets up a causal relationship. Complementarities generally don't do that.
But I don't see any complementariness in these statements, betty boop. They are mutually exclusive. They are either-or statements. as such they are "switches" leading to conditional (if-then) events.
Something that is complementary is something that embellishes. These statements eliminate. Complementary statements build on; mutually exclusive ones don't.
Going back to your wave/particle example — the "particle" doesn't exist. And the "wave" itself is an artefact as well. We have two models that are useful: one treats radiant energy as a wave (if diffraction effects are important) or as particle (if the position is needed).
The two models provide different data and are mutually exclusive, not complimentary! A particle model will tell me where in the field of view can I expect an image to form. A wave model will tell me what that image will look like.
The so-called "spot-diagrams" used in optics are particle model graphic data that can approximate the size and shape of an image but not the diffraction effects, resolution, etc. In fact, they give completely different (and even misleading) information.
If you attach a dot to a spinning wheel and track the dot's position, you get a periodic sinus (i.e. sine of an angle) "wave" graph. It's all a product of our mathematical models, and not how things really are. Energy waves are not "wheels" but bursts. We use their periodicity to represent these bursts over time as sinus graphs.
We can never know how things really are – and that is (paradoxically) the only certainty we do know.
Thanks so much for writing, kosta!
Same to you, dear betty boop.