Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The "Love Argument" in a syllogism(s)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by nothead View Post

    I die a little every time I read your posts. Smarty pants.


    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​​​​​​
    John 5:24
    Luke 24:49;Galatians 4:26;Jn 6:63
    And I shall send upon you The Promise of my Father; but stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed in power from on high. Jerusalem above, which is free, is the mother of us all. The Spirit gives life.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Photine View Post



      Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​​​​​​
      John 5:24
      YOUR Word? Capital W?

      Whuh Whuh. Wheeze.
      Shema will change the Christian World.

      Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

      Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by nothead View Post

        YOUR Word? Capital W?

        Whuh Whuh. Wheeze.
        No love for truth
        Luke 24:49;Galatians 4:26;Jn 6:63
        And I shall send upon you The Promise of my Father; but stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed in power from on high. Jerusalem above, which is free, is the mother of us all. The Spirit gives life.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drewd4d View Post


          Perhaps the term syllogism wasn't appropriate. Perhaps it was. Lets take a look.

          1) Law (L1) = God (G) (Objectively true premise)
          2) Love of others (L2) = Law (L1) (Objectively true premise)
          3) [Therefore] L2 = G (valid conclusion)
          4) G = L2 (restated, valid conclusion)

          Valid argument, as the conclusion follows from true premises.

          4 is a restatement of the conclusion of 3 using the term "therefore". The rephrasing was to show that God (the Father) is dependent upon others for "God is Love" to be true. You can either accept that God is interdependent as a singular, yet, multi-personal being to be who He is, or dependent upon creation to be who He is. It's up to the person who claims "God is Love" to be true.
          Hello Drewd4d,

          I wouldn't use the word "dependent" for "God (the Father) is dependent upon others". Because God is love and not depending on an outside source for love. God's aseity carries the Scriptural idea of "independence" that God independently existing in and of Himself or self-existence is from Himself and independent of anything outside of himself. There is nothing ontologically existing before Him and nothing to influence Him independently from Himself. He always has been existing as being God is love eternally "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Psalms 90:2).

          We don't need number 4 since its just your way of making a restatement. And its also causing you to have an invalid argument. What is your subject and what is your predicate?

          Your argument:
          1) The law is a reflection of the eternal character of God.
          2) The law can be summed up by loving others.
          3) Loving others is of the eternal character of God.
          But you want a syllogism and your argument its still not written in a categorical order. Do you agree with this rewrite of your argument? Maybe you want to change the universal affirmative "all" or the particular affirmative "some"?
          1) All the law is a reflection of the eternal character of God.
          2) All the law is summed up by loving others.
          3) Therefore, some Loving others is of the eternal character of God.


          If so, then this will give you your schema, mood, and figure.

          Your schema:
          All M is P
          All M is S
          Some S is P
          Your mood:
          A
          A
          I
          Your figure:
          Darapti AAI-3
          By doing this you will have a logical structure for a syllogism.

          Lets take a look at Socrates.
          1) All men are mortal (Objectively false premise)
          2) Socrates is a man (Objectively true premise)
          3) Socrates is mortal (Iffy at best conclusion)

          Invalid argument, as the conclusion is based on a false premise despite the fact that the conclusion is true.

          Therefore, my argument is more valid than the classic syllogism.
          Except all men die; they are not immortal, even Enoch and Elijah.
          Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
          Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Binyawmene View Post





            Except all men die; they are not immortal, even Enoch and Elijah.

            debatable. And...not known concretely as to the facks, JACK.

            You seem to think you know things. I detest the notion.
            Shema will change the Christian World.

            Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

            Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Binyawmene View Post

              Hello Drewd4d,

              I wouldn't use the word "dependent" for "God (the Father) is dependent upon others". Because God is love and not depending on an outside source for love. God's aseity carries the Scriptural idea of "independence" that God independently existing in and of Himself or self-existence is from Himself and independent of anything outside of himself. There is nothing ontologically existing before Him and nothing to influence Him independently from Himself. He always has been existing as being God is love eternally "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Psalms 90:2).


              Except all men die; they are not immortal, even Enoch and Elijah.
              Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
              It seems we just disagree on the technical use of the term "syllogism", but agree on the actual argument, so I won't engage the former any further.

              When I say that the Father is dependent upon others, I mean that if the Father is going to be a father, then He is dependent upon having a son. To me, that is just logical. Interdependence does not threaten God's aseity. God is dependent upon His goodness to be the good God that He is. The Son is dependent upon the Father to be the son that He is and vice versa. If God is not wise, He is not good and if He is not omniscient, He is not omnipotent. There is an interdependence that exists within the attributes of God as well as the personal subsistences.

              The point about Socrates is that currently, Jesus is a man and is not mortal. The statement, "All men are mortal" is rendered untrue. An untrue premise makes it an invalid argument. That's all. If Aristotle had come up with it, I guess it would have been true when he originally said it, however, it's not really relevant to the thread.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drewd4d View Post


                It seems we just disagree on the technical use of the term "syllogism", but agree on the actual argument, so I won't engage the former any further.
                Hello Drewd4d,

                I am not sure why you call the Biblical standpoint as an argument. The Bible teaches that God is love and we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19-21). Its not teaching us an argument for love since love itself is already established fact.

                Why would you argue the case for the mood, when the moon is already established fact?
                Why would you argue the case that God is love, when God's love is already established fact?

                When I say that the Father is dependent upon others, I mean that if the Father is going to be a father, then He is dependent upon having a son. To me, that is just logical. Interdependence does not threaten God's aseity. God is dependent upon His goodness to be the good God that He is. The Son is dependent upon the Father to be the son that He is and vice versa. If God is not wise, He is not good and if He is not omniscient, He is not omnipotent. There is an interdependence that exists within the attributes of God as well as the personal subsistences.
                I disagree.

                There is no interdependence between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Perichoresis teaches the Persons are co-inherence. The Biblical concept teaches God always had independent existence and never began to be. He is, was, and always will be ONE TRIUNE GOD. There is nothing outside of God that is greater than Himself. The aseity of God doesn't have its basis in the sense of "...origin of Himself and the cause of His own Being...". God always existed as a non-contingent Being and His existence is not dependent upon an outside regression of causes. He exist by the necessity of His own Being, who is the uncaused cause. The Father doesn't depend on having a Son. The second Person of the in the Trinity has eternally existed as the Son. There was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Trinity.

                The point about Socrates is that currently, Jesus is a man and is not mortal. The statement, "All men are mortal" is rendered untrue. An untrue premise makes it an invalid argument. That's all. If Aristotle had come up with it, I guess it would have been true when he originally said it, however, it's not really relevant to the thread.
                Using Christ to argue against Aristotle's classic syllogism argument is epic failure. The Hypostatic Union teaches Christ is fully man, and as a man he is mortal. Unless, you reject that he died on the cross for your sins. In the incarnation, the second Person in the Trinity isn't divine only who embodying a human nature, therefore, ruling out him being human, rather, he is Theanthropic Person, both DIVINE and HUMAN.

                Because the attributes of either nature belong to Christ, Christ is theanthropic in person, but it is not accurate to refer to His natures as being theanthropic as there is no mixture of the divine and human to form a new third substance. The human nature always remains human, and the divine nature always remains divine.


                Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Binyawmene View Post

                  Hello Drewd4d,

                  I am not sure why you call the Biblical standpoint as an argument. The Bible teaches that God is love and we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19-21). Its not teaching us an argument for love since love itself is already established fact.

                  Why would you argue the case for the mood, when the moon is already established fact?
                  Why would you argue the case that God is love, when God's love is already established fact?
                  I'm not arguing for the truth of "God is Love". No unitarian would disagree with that. I am arguing that in order for "God is Love" to be true, God must be multi-personal.

                  I disagree.
                  The Father doesn't depend on having a Son.
                  He does in order to be "father". No Son equals no Father.

                  Using Christ to argue against Aristotle's classic syllogism argument is epic failure. The Hypostatic Union teaches Christ is fully man, and as a man he is mortal.
                  Christ is currently a man (the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus), and is not mortal. The statement, "All men are mortal", is untrue.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drewd4d View Post
                    I'm not arguing for the truth of "God is Love". No unitarian would disagree with that. I am arguing that in order for "God is Love" to be true, God must be multi-personal.

                    He does in order to be "father". No Son equals no Father.

                    Christ is currently a man (the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus), and is not mortal. The statement, "All men are mortal", is untrue.
                    If mortal men die, as Jesus did, why is he not mortal now?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                      If mortal men die, as Jesus did, why is he not mortal now?
                      When you are discussing Jesus it is God in the role of the Father and the Son as a unified one. The Son who came from heaven died as a mortal but rose as a life giving Spirit because he is God in the role of the Father as well as the Son.

                      God bless you,

                      SeventhDay

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post

                        When you are discussing Jesus it is God in the role of the Father and the Son as a unified one. The Son who came from heaven died as a mortal but rose as a life giving Spirit because he is God in the role of the Father as well as the Son.

                        God bless you,

                        SeventhDay
                        You should look at the contradictions in your words.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drewd4d View Post

                          I'm not arguing for the truth of "God is Love". No unitarian would disagree with that. I am arguing that in order for "God is Love" to be true, God must be multi-personal.
                          Hello Drewd4d,

                          Ontologically, God is love as an essential property of what God is intrinsically, and not an interdependence between the Father and the Son. There are many misconceptions about the Eternally Begotten Son. And there is no anthropomorphic physical birth conceptions tied to the term. He is not physically born twice, eternally past and then a point in time from Mary. That is probably the most well misunderstood by Non-trinitarians. He is not created, but rather, communicated. The 'eternally begotten' in the Christological sense is defined as "the Divine relationship is a communicated unique properties-(or attributes) to One Person in relation to the another Person in the Godhead," such as communication of love.
                          John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
                          The Divine Nature is underived (there is no such thing as two or three Divine Natures - polytheism or tritheism) since all three Persons shares the same Divine Nature; the properties are communicated from One Person to another Person. John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you." As the Father is uncaused originator that cannot be begotten or proceeded who communicates, the Son is begotten and sent from the Father who communicates, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Since God is eternal, the relationship between the Father and the Son is eternal.

                          He does in order to be "father". No Son equals no Father.
                          No. Do you deny the Eternal Sonship? Logically, if God the Father, as a Father, is eternal, then God the Son would likewise be eternal. The eternity of God the Son is an 'Eternal Now' for there is no succession in his Eternal Person. He always existed as the Son which he maintain an eternal infinite duration without past, present, and future. An continuous duration without beginning and will have no end. Which is not an momentary existence but continuous perpetual existence. And he is not limited by a period of time itself in any way as if he became the Son at his incarnation. For he superceeds and transcends time. For he is existing beyond the bounds of time and dimensions of his creation. Because essentially he cannot be measured by eternal future which is infinitely without end and the eternal past which is infinitely without beginning.

                          Christ is currently a man (the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus), and is not mortal. The statement, "All men are mortal", is untrue.
                          Currently, yes, as a glorified man he is immortal after death. But before DEATH, Christ is mortal because he is subject to death. The statement "All men are mortal" has its standpoint that 'men' are subject to death, and not in the standpoint of after death. Therefore, the statement is still logically sound.
                          Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                            You should look at the contradictions in your words.
                            God is one person! Right?

                            God bless you,

                            SeventhDay

                            Comment



                            • Originally posted by drewd4d View Post
                              He does in order to be "father". No Son equals no Father.
                              Hello Drewd4d,

                              Do you believe that All the true God is the incarnate Jesus Christ. "All" is a universal affirmative. From a monotheistic position the subject "the true God" (singular, not 'gods' as plural) is not talking about tritheism or polytheism. Logically, "God" is characterized as the only member in his category, since God is one and no other members of gods/goddests in anykind exist.

                              All S is P
                              "the true God" is the subject
                              "the incarnate Jesus Christ" is the predicate.
                              John 17:3, 8 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

                              For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.
                              Exerchomai, the first person singular "I," (Jesus Christ) "come out of" from the second person singular pronoun "you" (Father). The aorist indicative expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time. At what specific time? At no time, rather, the occurrance happen in the eternal sense and is not restricted to a specific time-frame. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father". (Nicene Creed). So the exerchomao occurred before time and preceding the fullness of time of being "sent" (Galatians 4:4). Which is why the Christological term "eternally begotten" indicates. And if you notice that he is known as the "Son" before the sending or pre-existing the incarnation --
                              Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

                              Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

                              John 8:23-24 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins."
                              Believing that the Son is the true eternally begotten God incarnate.



                              Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SeventhDay View Post

                                God is one person! Right?

                                God bless you,

                                SeventhDay
                                Your God dies.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X