>>>>>>>>Josh:
Ad hominems are the sign that you lack an argument/evidence. <<<<<<<
Herewith, the argument.
Consider textbook examples of contrary statements, first in qualitative form and then in modal form.
A: All S is P. (All lions are animals.)
E: No S is P. (No lions are animals.)
A: S must be P. (A lion must be an animal.)
E: S cannot be P. (A lion cannot be an animal.)
A pair of contrary statements may both be false (or only one may be false) but both cannot be true. Think: *some* ground lies between contrary claims. If only *some* lions are animals, then *both* claims above are false, but under no circumstance can both be true.
Now consider the “contrary” statements of Krampus
A: God is all-good.
Joseph Ratzinger is pope.
The second claim is *not* contrary to the first. The claims are logically unrelated, as they share no term. If you were to diagram the claims of K, here is how they would look.
S is P.
Y is Z.
Those claims are *obviously* unrelated as they share no term. Being wholly unrelated, they *cannot* be contrary to one another.
The contrary of “God is all-good” is “God is no-good.” (The *contradiction* of “God is all-good” would be “God is not all good,” or, “God is to *some* extent other than good.”)
If God were only somewhat good, then the contrary claims that he is all-good and that he is no-good would both be false.
But the claim that “Joseph Ratzinger is pope” is not *contrary* to the claim that “God is all-good.” Again, these claims exhibit no logical relation, period.
Some people may never have taken a course in logic. They may be unaware of the formal definitions of contrary claims (-such as, the only statement that can be contrary to a universal affirmative is a universal negative). However, this is not required in order to see that *wholly unrelated claims* cannot be contrary to one other. The claims that ‘God is all-good’ and ‘Joseph Ratzinger is pope’ are not contrary. They don’t even *appear* to be contrary, as they bear no obvious relation to one another.
The claims are wholly unrelated---they share no term—and *cannot* be contrary to one another.
Krampus knows this. Yet he insists that they are and likely cows some non-philosophers who assume he must know what he is talking about because he teaches philosophy in college.
But the statements he offered as contraries are *not* contrary.
Does he *know* this but falsely claim they are rather than admit his mistake?
Or does he *not* realize this, in which case he misunderstands something from Logic 101? (God help his students if that's the case.)
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a bad man.
You're wrong because what you claimed is demonstrably false.
You are a bad *philosopher* because you misunderstand something so basic, something you are paid to *teach,* for god sake.
Ad hominems are the sign that you lack an argument/evidence. <<<<<<<
Herewith, the argument.
Consider textbook examples of contrary statements, first in qualitative form and then in modal form.
A: All S is P. (All lions are animals.)
E: No S is P. (No lions are animals.)
A: S must be P. (A lion must be an animal.)
E: S cannot be P. (A lion cannot be an animal.)
A pair of contrary statements may both be false (or only one may be false) but both cannot be true. Think: *some* ground lies between contrary claims. If only *some* lions are animals, then *both* claims above are false, but under no circumstance can both be true.
Now consider the “contrary” statements of Krampus
A: God is all-good.
Joseph Ratzinger is pope.
The second claim is *not* contrary to the first. The claims are logically unrelated, as they share no term. If you were to diagram the claims of K, here is how they would look.
S is P.
Y is Z.
Those claims are *obviously* unrelated as they share no term. Being wholly unrelated, they *cannot* be contrary to one another.
The contrary of “God is all-good” is “God is no-good.” (The *contradiction* of “God is all-good” would be “God is not all good,” or, “God is to *some* extent other than good.”)
If God were only somewhat good, then the contrary claims that he is all-good and that he is no-good would both be false.
But the claim that “Joseph Ratzinger is pope” is not *contrary* to the claim that “God is all-good.” Again, these claims exhibit no logical relation, period.
Some people may never have taken a course in logic. They may be unaware of the formal definitions of contrary claims (-such as, the only statement that can be contrary to a universal affirmative is a universal negative). However, this is not required in order to see that *wholly unrelated claims* cannot be contrary to one other. The claims that ‘God is all-good’ and ‘Joseph Ratzinger is pope’ are not contrary. They don’t even *appear* to be contrary, as they bear no obvious relation to one another.
The claims are wholly unrelated---they share no term—and *cannot* be contrary to one another.
Krampus knows this. Yet he insists that they are and likely cows some non-philosophers who assume he must know what he is talking about because he teaches philosophy in college.
But the statements he offered as contraries are *not* contrary.
Does he *know* this but falsely claim they are rather than admit his mistake?
Or does he *not* realize this, in which case he misunderstands something from Logic 101? (God help his students if that's the case.)
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a bad man.
You're wrong because what you claimed is demonstrably false.
You are a bad *philosopher* because you misunderstand something so basic, something you are paid to *teach,* for god sake.
posted by:
|
Boca Raton
|
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 8:19 AMNow consider the “contrary” statements of Krampus
A: God is all-good.
Joseph Ratzinger is pope.
Yet another straw man from you as that is an oversimplification of what I cliamed. I clarified it for you twice. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 8:46 AM>>>>>>>Yet another straw man from you as that is an oversimplification of what I cliamed. I clarified it for you twice. <<<<<<
Bullshit. My original statement was "that doesn't follow." It doesn't. (You're not still arguing that your argument is sound, are you?) It doesn't.
I said there was no contradiction between the two statements.
Then you said they were *contrary* statements. Well, they aren't *contrary* statements either, as I have clearly shown.
This isn't a straw man. This is the argument *you* presented. My original claim--again--was that it didn't follow. (And it didn't.) You should've acknowledged that rather than digging yourself into a deeper hole by saying the statements were "contrary" rather than "contradictory," when they aren't contrary and *you know that.* -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 2:32 PMNoting that YOU committed a straw man is not an ad hominem on my part.
Arguments, points of view, sets of propositions, belief systems (Theism vs Naturalism) can stand in varying relations on the Square of Opposition. Those ways of relating are not limited to individual propositions.
Not all singular propositions can be transformed in Aristotelian sentence types. Some conjunctive hypotheticals, such as mine, cannot be transformed into Aristotelian sentence types for the reasons explained below.
The propositions that comprise my argument must formalized utilizing modal logic that includes rules governing "necessity" and "possibility" statements. Those modal operators change the validity tests.
Ergo, you have created a straw man by:
1. Reducing an argument to singular propositions.
2. Fallaciously reducing complex statements to Aristotelian sentence forms.
3. Using a logic that does not apply to the argument.
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:27 AM>>>>>>>The propositions that comprise my argument must [be] formalized utilizing modal logic that includes rules governing "necessity" and "possibility" statements. Those modal operators change the validity tests. <<<<<<<
You are so full of it. Are you seriously suggesting that you *assumed* people here *knew* your propositions (-which do not join to compose an argument *at all,* much less a valid one) would have to be formalized using modal logic in order for you to pretend they actually make sense? Why is that you assumed they would know that?
While we're at it, how about *presenting* your faulty reasoning with all due formality alongside an explanation of the appropriate validity tests. Then we'll see it fails those too. Give it up, the argument is not valid anyway you slice it. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:48 AM>You are so full of it. Are you seriously suggesting that you *assumed* people here *knew* your propositions (-which do not join to compose an argument *at all,* much less a valid one) would have to be formalized using modal logic in order for you to pretend they actually make sense? Why is that you assumed they would know that?<
Just because you're not familiar with modal logic doesn't mean that no one else here is. Please cut us some slack and stop underestimating us. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 8:54 AM>>>>>>>>>>Just because you're not familiar with modal logic doesn't mean that no one else here is. Please cut us some slack and stop underestimating us. <<<<<<<
I am familiar with modal logic. (I used modal examples in my OP.) I am also familiar with Krampus. He has posted here and in other tribes many times and has *never* claimed that an argument of his was sound only if formalized in modal logic. (For the record, he has *not* shown that his failed attempt at an argument is valid in modal logic, either. I've challenged him to do that. Prediction: he won't because he can't and that because the argument isn't valid in modal logic either.)
Also, I'm not the only person to point out a flaw in his argument.
But since you evidently think his argument was a sound example of modal logic, perhaps you would explain just how to the rest of the class. I'm all ears. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:44 AMWhere shall I begin~? Do you want me to start by explaining all the notations, then translating Krampus' post into it~? A life though I may lack, no one has time to do that for you. Instead, I'll share with you a site that can better explain modal logic:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
Furthermore, you used a more Aristotelian form of deductive reasoning in your post which had nothing to do with what Krampus posted. Gee, didn't someone else say that already~? Oh, yes, Krampus. -
-
Why You Should Pay Attention in Algebra Class
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 10:47 AMYou know, because I'm feeling like such a jerk today, I think I WILL totally humiliate you and explain the logic to you. Two people already have, so why not three~?
Step 1: Let God, by necessity, be all-good.
Step 2: Let the Pope, by necessity, be God's emissary.
Step 3: Let the Pope, by necessity, be an evil bastard.
If steps 1 holds true, then either step 2 or 3 can not hold true. If 3 is true, then either 2 or 1 must be negated. Step 3 has been proven true, therefore, either step 2 or step 1 must not be true. So, which is it~? Is God a bastard, or is the Pope not his emissary~? Sucks for you and your Papist doctrine either way. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Why You Should Pay Attention in Algebra Class
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:57 AM>>>>>>>>>>You know, because I'm feeling like such a jerk today, I think I WILL totally humiliate you and explain the logic to you. Two people already have, so why not three~?
Step 1: Let God, by necessity, be all-good.
Step 2: Let the Pope, by necessity, be God's emissary.
Step 3: Let the Pope, by necessity, be an evil bastard. <<<<<<<<<
Even Krampus would see what's wrong with this.
In the first place, Krampus never argued that the pope was God's emissary *by necessity*. Adastra's initial complaint went precisely to this point. No Protestant or Orthodox Christian holds that the pope is God's emisary "by necessity." What's more, not even *Catholics* argue that the Pope is God's emissary *by necessity*.
In the second place, Krampus never asserted that the pope is an evil bastard *by necessity*. (It's unclear what 'evil by necessity' means. Are you suggesting the pope is not morally responsible for his evil actions because God *forced* him to commit them? How can he be both evil *and* unable to act otherwise?)
Your problem is that you want to say bad acts by the pope prove God is not all good, but you can only do this by saying that the pope's bad acts aren't really the *his* bad actions but rather God's. Otherwise your argument amounts to "X did something evil, therefore Y (-a separate person) is not all good." And as I said in the beginning, this does not follow. -
-
Re: Why You Should Pay Attention in Algebra Class
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 9:05 AM>In the first place, Krampus never argued that the pope was God's emissary *by necessity*. Adastra's initial complaint went precisely to this point. No Protestant or Orthodox Christian holds that the pope is God's emisary "by necessity." What's more, not even *Catholics* argue that the Pope is God's emissary *by necessity*.<
You're deliberately perverting my point. If there's anything I can't stand, it's intellectual dishonesty. "By necessity", in that instance, meant that it could not be different for the purpose of argument. By "by necessity", I was trying to point out that the law of the excluded middle -- a basic axiom -- was to be observed in that instance; and that the other extreme was out of the question. If you're still not following, I meant "by necessity TO THE PREMISE".
-
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:33 AM>>>>>>>>Furthermore, you used a more Aristotelian form of deductive reasoning in your post which had nothing to do with what Krampus posted. <<<<<<<
In the first place, modal logic does not invalidate deductive logic. Duh. (You can't make a bad argument good by calling it modal.)
In the second place, it was Krampus who said the statements were logical contraries, which they ain't, as I showed. (Unless he's working with some hitherto unknown sense of the word "contrary," in which case it would have been reasonable to mention it.) -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:41 AMRead the post I made below the one to which you responded. If you still don't get it, even God can't help you.
-
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 11:27 AM<But since you evidently think his argument was a sound example of modal logic, perhaps you would explain just how to the rest of the class. I'm all ears.>
Please remember that you asked for it, and you have nobody to blame but yourself.
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 10:15 AM>>>I am familiar with modal logic. (I used modal examples in my OP.) <<<
And then critiqued them using syllogistic asumptions which are valid only in deductive logic. This is very much like trying to derive the etymologies of Sanskrit words by studying the meanings of similar words in Algonquin. Or so it seems to me. If I am going astray here, I ask anyone more familiar with logic (which excludes Josh, of course) to correct my errors.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 8:47 PM>>>Please cut us some slack and stop underestimating us.<<<
I suspect Josh's major problem is simply that he tries to measure everyone by the standard of his own ignorance. A common problem with Fundamentalists of every stripe.
With love under will,
Bob, Adastra, WOJ
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 11:20 AM<You are so full of it. Are you seriously suggesting that you *assumed* people here *knew* your propositions (-which do not join to compose an argument *at all,* much less a valid one) would have to be formalized using modal logic in order for you to pretend they actually make sense? Why is that you assumed they would know that?>
First of all, Josh, nobody is attacking you. We are criticizing Joey the Ratt. Even though our tongues are firmly in our cheeks and we are playing logic games; we have genuine concerns here. You can criticize Krampus's logic all you want, but that still does not make his protection of pedophiles and his a priori assumption that the Catholic Church still has the same privileges in 21st Century America that it had in 11th Century Europe. Sorry, the Holy Roman Empire is no more. The Crimen Sollicitatonis is a direct violation of American Law. There are bishops in the US who have gone to jail for obeying that document, and they deserve it.
The Vatican remains a major force in the world. I do not understand why this is so. As far as I'm concerned its antics belong in the tabloids when a sane person is pope. With Joey the Ratt at the head of the church, The Catholic Church is now a run away train. Angering the Islamic World and defending Pedophiles is only the beginning. Joey's next disaster is something I would prefer not to contemplate. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 9:11 AM>>>>>>>........With Joey the Ratt at the head of the church, The Catholic Church is now a run away train.<<<<<<<<
This has nothing to do with the argument K made. I said his argument did not follow and I stand by that. I'm not defending the pope when I say that K's argument won't wash.
For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that "Joey the Ratt" is the baddest of bad popes, the worst of all men ever born. (By the way, did you sign the VOTF's petition?)
However, even granting that would not make K's argument sound because it is built on the mistake of identifying the sins of the pope with the acts of God. The only way K's argument can work is to *count* all the acts of a pope (and presumably only the acts of a pope) with acts of God. But no one---not even Catholics---think the pope *is* God or that all (or any) of a pope's deeds, for good or ill, are *compelled* by god.
Popes are free men who may choose evil just as other men may. If all of the pope's actions are forced by God, the pope is not a moral agent at all, and if he's not a moral agent at all, he can't be evil at all, much less especially evil.
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 11:59 AM<However, even granting that would not make K's argument sound because it is built on the mistake of identifying the sins of the pope with the acts of God. The only way K's argument can work is to *count* all the acts of a pope (and presumably only the acts of a pope) with acts of God. But no one---not even Catholics---think the pope *is* God or that all (or any) of a pope's deeds, for good or ill, are *compelled* by god.>
Krampus's argument has nothing to do with the goodness of God. It has everything to do with God's interaction on Earth. To put another way, if I am the CEO of Bill Co, and I hire Karl Rove to represent me in Canada, and Karl does what he does best and rips off the Canadian Customers, what sort of CEO does that make me. Maybe I am also a crook and wanted Rove to rip off the Canadians. Maybe I am a totally incompetent CEO and hired the worse man for the job. Or maybe there is no Bill Co and Rove was making it all up.
So K's argument is sound. If God is all Good and perfect, and the Pope is God's representative on Earth, the Pope should competently represent God's interest on Earth. Since the Ratt is not competently representing God's interests on Earth, there is something wrong with God. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 2:16 PMPrimarily to demonstrate that I am more godlike--that is gracious--than Josh I will restate my original argument and then formalize it.
Here is exactly what I said:
"I think Pope Benedict XVI is proof positive that if there is a Abrahamic deity then that deity is no longer active (in a positive manner) in our world. (Notice I did not say "does not exist".) If there be such a deity with properties assigned by the Xtianoids (all-loving, morally perfect, etc.) and who is active in this world, then Joey the Ratt would not have been "elected" to the papacy."
Here is the conclusion:
if there is a Abrahamic deity then that deity is no longer active (in a positive manner) in our world.
Here is a premise:
If there be such a deity with properties assigned by the Xtianoids (all-loving, morally perfect, etc.) and who is active in this world, then Joey the Ratt would not have been "elected" to the papacy."
Formalized:
ExEy((Ox & Ax) --> ~Py))
Ey(Py) (which technically should be ~~Py)
Therefore...
Ex(~(Ox & Ax))
Therefore...
Ex(~Ox & ~Ax)
Therefore...
Ex(~Ax)
All "Ex" and "Ey" mean is "There exists some x" and likewise for y. Y stands for "Pope" and x stands for "Xtianoid deity".
"Ox" means omni-predicates, etc.
"Ax" means active in this world.
"~Py" means not elected to the papacy.
The first argument (as this is a string of arguments when formalized) is a modus ponens. Every logic student is taught that arguments as they appear in everyday discourse rarely appear in standardized forms. So the fact that I did not present my argument originally in standardized form is not a criticism to it.
"~Ox & ~Ax" is distribution of the negative.
The final conclusion is a step called simplification.
However, "~(Ox & Ax)" may also be distributed as ~Ox v ~Ax. ("v" means "or".) I can still derive the same conclusion via simplification if the Law of Excluded Middle applies. In other words, is it possible for there to be a deity who is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, all-loving who is not active in this world? The official stance is (Ox & Ax) is true.
Bear in mind, to truly test the validity of this argument we need to consider the modal operatives "possibility' and "necessity".
Please note the "E" in "Ex" and "Ey" should be reversed but my keyboard does not have such a key.
Also, "-->" represents "if...then". -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 8:52 AM>>>>>>>>>Here is the conclusion:
if there is a Abrahamic deity then that deity is no longer active (in a positive manner) in our world. <<<<<<<<<
Right. And again, this does not *follow* from the existence or actions of the present pope.
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 3:55 PMI realized something after posting the formalized version. Josh has subtly switched from talking about validity to talking about soundness. Again this is intellectually dishonest on his part as I never claimed my argument was SOUND. A sound argument is a valid deductive argument whereby all premises are true and therefore the conclusion is necessarily true. To repeat, I HAVE NEVER NOR DO I NOW CLAIM MY ARGUMENT IS SOUND.
With that said, the orthodox position is that Ex(Ox & Ax) is true, as previously noted. Ey(Py) is also true. Now, is it possible for both to be true simultaneously? Ey(Py) is a fact (determined a posteriori). How can we assess Ex(Ox & Ax), a priori (most likely on theological grounds) or a posteriori, by looking at the world?
Oops. I have asked questions. And they are not rhetorical. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 7:10 PMI'm a bit confused here. I think Josh has been pretty effective in presenting the Roman Catholic understanding that Popes are not bound to serve or represent God/Christ, and their actions are no reflection on God/Christ.
Josh explained: <Popes are free men who may choose evil just as other men may.>
It seems Popes are free to choose evil, as the men who “elect” him are free to choose evil leaders. There is no dispute that these free men have elected evil men to lead their organization. So, what’s the big deal?
Is the question why does God allow evil men to "elect" a Pope for themselves? If not, I don’t see where the argument is.
Also, the Bible is clear that God is not “all-loving” as some claim. It is written, Jacob I loved and Esau I hated (Romans 9:13). There are many things that the God of the Bible hates. For example:
"There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 12:27 PM<I'm a bit confused here. I think Josh has been pretty effective in presenting the Roman Catholic understanding that Popes are not bound to serve or represent God/Christ, and their actions are no reflection on God/Christ.
Josh explained: <Popes are free men who may choose evil just as other men may.> >
So what are we saying here, Peter? Are you implying that a pedophile priesthood happened because God is angry at us? Did God say, "You have broken my commandments so I shall have your local priest rape your kid? I shall have caused a pope to be elected who will protect the plague of pedophile priests I have sent amongst you?"
I find that to be very hard to believe. As a matter of fact, I find that harder to believe than a God that actually takes an interest in human affairs.
Furthermore, even a majority of people who do believe in a God that takes an interest in human affairs have grown out of the idea that God will send punishments like floods and pedophile priests. There also is a major contradiction in Catholic doctrine between a pope that can choose to do evil and a pope who can dictate ethics and morality to others, and in the case of Gay rights and abortion, attempt to impose his will on the actions of others who do not belong to his religion through deliberately influencing political debate and process.
As far as I am concerned, Krampus's argument stands. -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 2:04 PMBill,
<So what are we saying here, Peter? Are you implying that a pedophile priesthood happened because God is angry at us?>
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:18-32).
This was written to the Roman church . I believe it still applies to today.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 9:25 PM<This was written to the Roman church . I believe it still applies to today. >
So are you saying that God did create a plague of pedophile priests, are are you agreeing with Fred Phelps about God hating fags? -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 8:16 AMBill,
The context of my response was Krampus’ argument, and your question regarding God being “angry.”
<I think Pope Benedict XVI is proof positive that if there is a Abrahamic deity then that deity is no longer active (in a positive manner) in our world.>
The Scripture lays out blessings and cursing. God does not bless only. Pope Benedict is not proof that God no longer blesses. Roman Papists do not represent Jesus Christ. Constantine had a vision to conquer under the sign, which resembled a cross. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. How can one who knows Roman Papist history, doctrine, and their treatment of Jews believe that they continued the ministry of the Apostle Peter? Jesus Christ taught his disciples to love their enemies. How can one who knows Roman Papist history believe that they continued the ministry of Jesus Christ?
To quote Adastra,
<The Papal Heresiarchs have never suppressed the True Church as they cannot see it, cannot lean of it and are incapable of finding it, understanding it or opposing it, since the True Church has the power of God to support and protect it.>
<(Notice I did not say "does not exist".) If there be such a deity with properties assigned by the Xtianoids (all-loving, morally perfect, etc.) and who is active in this world, then Joey the Ratt would not have been "elected" to the papacy.>
This premise is faulty (or whatever the proper terminology). Assigning the property of “all loving” to the God of the Bible is not correct. I have already presented Scripture to support that.
<So are you saying that God did create a plague of pedophile priests, are are you agreeing with Fred Phelps about God hating fags?>
You asked if God is angry. Romans speaks to the wrath of God against those who suppress the truth. “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions” “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind”
Jesus said “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God" (John 8:43-47).
Whether or not you believe in a “literal” devil, how can any of you (including Josh) know the history of the Roman Papacy and believe that an organization of known liars, adulterers, murderers, and pedophiles represent the Biblical person of Jesus Christ?
It has been said that the current Pope is reinstituting exorcists. Jesus Christ and the Apostles were not exorcists. They spoke with spiritual authority, by the Spirit of God, and devils submitted. Exorcists do not speak with authority, by the Spirit of God. They practice ritual magic.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 8:18 AM
Yes, there are more Roman Papists than others who claim the name of Jesus. And Jesus taught:
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (Matthew 7:13-23).
Peace,
Peter
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 1:17 PMPeter, for the sake of Peace and Amity between us I am not going to comment on your negative remarks regarding Ritual Magick. Instead I will focus on the inexplicable post from Romans. The more I read it the more upset I get, and the more convinced I become that the Bible is a hate crime.
<The Scripture lays out blessings and cursing. God does not bless only. Pope Benedict is not proof that God no longer blesses. Roman Papists do not represent Jesus Christ. Constantine had a vision to conquer under the sign, which resembled a cross. Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. How can one who knows Roman Papist history, doctrine, and their treatment of Jews believe that they continued the ministry of the Apostle Peter? Jesus Christ taught his disciples to love their enemies. How can one who knows Roman Papist history believe that they continued the ministry of Jesus Christ? >
Looking at this statement from a Qabalistic/Ritual Magick POV, it is absolutely ridiculous. As Eliphas Levi pointed out in his commentaries on the Zohar, the idea of an angry god who sends down curses is absolutely barbaric and comes out of barbaric times which we have hopefully outgrown. Levi gives a pretty good explanation of the analogy of the two heads. There is the white head which is the true God and the black head which is the God Judea/Christian scripture. The black head is but a shadow cast by the white head and it is much too bright for humans to behold. So where the white head or True God is beyond such things as anger and hatred and impartially loves all creation without judgment, the black head is angry, sends curses, and plays favorites. As Levi pointed out, the ancient Hebrews being a primitive and violent people needed to focus on the black head in order to impose law amongst themselves.
Quite frankly, the scripture you quoted scared me more than Christian Scripture usually scares me in that it seems to reinforce the ancient prejudices and bigotry that has made the world the mess it is today. Secondly it implies that the priests are not responsible for their own actions and that God caused them to rape the kids. With Gods like that, why do you guys have a devil? It seems superfluous to me.
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 3:34 PMBill,
<Peter, for the sake of Peace and Amity between us I am not going to comment on your negative remarks regarding Ritual Magick.>
My comment regarding "ritual magic" was meant to distinguish exorcism rituals from what the Apostles practiced. Is that term incoreect for an exorcism? Is "ceremonial magic" or some other term more correct?
<Instead I will focus on the inexplicable post from Romans... As Eliphas Levi pointed out in his commentaries on the Zohar, the idea of an angry god who sends down curses is absolutely barbaric and comes out of barbaric times which we have hopefully outgrown.>
The Romans text does mention the wrath of God, it does not mention curses.
<Secondly it implies that the priests are not responsible for their own actions and that God caused them to rape the kids.>
The Romans text does not suggest either. At least, not to me.
<So where the white head or True God is beyond such things as anger and hatred and impartially loves all creation without judgment, the black head is angry, sends curses, and plays favorites.>
If Levi’s white head God has no anger toward, or judgment against pedophiles, I can agree that is not the God of the Bible. I don’t understand why that scares you. In fact, if that's what you believe, I don't understand your complaint against God, or pedophiles.
Peace,
Peter
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 4:09 PMSo, Peter, would you care for some salt or ketchup for those words you are about to eat?
<The Romans text does mention the wrath of God, it does not mention curses. >
Peter said:
<The Scripture lays out blessings and cursing. God does not bless only. Pope Benedict is not proof that God no longer blesses>
You yourself said that the scriptures lays out cursing.
From the scripture Peter posted:
<For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:18-32). >
That sure sounds like a curse to me. It also looks like another bullshit excuse for Christianoids to spread their hatred and fear against Gays and Lesbians. It also sounds suspiciously as if you are equating pedophilia with homosexuality. That is a real no-no, Peter. You should know that by now.
<For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.>
This really sounds as if you are saying that God created Gays and Pedophiles as a Punishment.
<If Levi’s white head God has no anger toward, or judgment against pedophiles, I can agree that is not the God of the Bible. I don’t understand why that scares you. In fact, if that's what you believe, I don't understand your complaint against God, or pedophiles. >
My complaint against pedophiles should be obvious. Pedophiles do an endless amount of psychological and medical damage to children. I think I did give you the URL to Dozo's site. Didn't you read any of it. Contrast that to homosexuality which creates no psychological or medical damage to others, except when Christians create prejudice against them, and then they cause the same sort of damage caused to other discriminated minorities. What scares me is that this sort of prejudice is written into the scriptures and that anybody would actually believe it on any level. (Of course Bob might have a different perspective on this passage, and I would love to hear it. My only complaint against the God of the Bible is that he does not exist. Building on what Levi said, with the benefit of over a century of scientific and cultural advances, I would go so far as to say that God, if such a being exists, is not even conscious.
-
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 4:53 PMBill,
I understand why you misunderstood what I wrote. The subject is the Abrahamic God. I wrote:
<The Romans text does mention the wrath of God, it does not mention curses.>
And it does not.
When I wrote:
<The Scripture lays out blessings and cursing.> I was refering to Torah.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:15-19).
In Romans the "wrath of God" manifests as God "giving them over"
<It also sounds suspiciously as if you are equating pedophilia with homosexuality.>
The Roman religion forbids priests/men and nuns/women to marry. When priests molest little boys, I see a relationship to homesexuality. When priests molest little girls, I see a relationship to heterosexuality. When priests rape women, I see a relationsihp to fornication. When priests rape married women, I see a relationsip to adultery.
<Building on what Levi said, with the benefit of over a century of scientific and cultural advances, I would go so far as to say that God, if such a being exists, is not even conscious.>
Then such a being would not be capable of love, or judgment, and such a being is not the God of the Bible.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: A Lesson in Contraries.
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 11:37 PM<And it does not. >
Sorry, I grew up Jewish where the wrath of God is also known as the curse of God. I had no idea there was a difference amongst the goyim. My bad and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
<In Romans the "wrath of God" manifests as God "giving them over">
I'm damned if I can see the difference, but I will gladly take your word for it.
<The Roman religion forbids priests/men and nuns/women to marry. When priests molest little boys, I see a relationship to homesexuality. When priests molest little girls, I see a relationship to heterosexuality. When priests rape women, I see a relationsihp to fornication. When priests rape married women, I see a relationsip to adultery. >
At this stage of the game, Peter, you are speaking out of the purest ignorance. Ignorance is the basis of prejudice. I had a friend who was a convicted pedophile. I say he was a friend because he was a decent fellow at heart and was working to institute Megan's Law in NJ. He would get up before a crowd and he would explain that he
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
