ECT Christianity, and the law of non-contradiction

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Christianity and the law of non-contradiction


My brother is a doctor, so perhaps a medical analogy will clarify my argument that we need to be clear on the remedy for man's separation from a holy(the 3 attribute of the LORD God in the book, not "love")LORD God. If one of our loved ones were physically ill, we would not want to be deceived. We would not want to make life and death decisions based on superstition or mysticism. We would want precise answers to specific questions. We would not want general notions, opinions(one of the reasons the Lord Jesus Christ sharply rebuked the Pharisees-relying on their traditions/opinions instead of scripture), or empty words. We would actively engage all our faculties to judge the truth. We should desire to know the right standard by which to judge these crucial matters, because physical life is at stake. How much more should we value the truth and the right standards, when questions concerning eternal life is at stake? Someone may claim to be physically fit and well, while they may have cancer inside beginning to eat away at their physical life. When you visit a doctor, you want the truth, the right prescription, even if does not "make you feel good."

The argument that "All roads lead to the same destination", that all "religions" the term "religion" being generically employed here, as Christianity is the opposite of religion)are equally true(pluralism) is a self-refuting argument-it self-destructs, and here is why. The notion of "religious pluralism"=all religions are true, and the law of non-contradiction= opposite truth claims cannot both be true; no 2 propositions which contain contrary claims can both be true at the same time; if 2 statements about 1 particular issue contradict one another, then they are both false, or only one of them is true, but they cannot both be true.

If all "religions" are true, then Christianity is true. But the foundation of Christianity is its EXCLUSIVENESS, i.e., all other "religions" are false-Isaiah 43:11 KJV, Hosea 13:4 KJV,John 14:6 KJV, Acts 4:12 KJV.... Either Christianity is correct/true, and other "religions" are false/lies, or some other "religion" is true, and Christianity is false. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that if Christianity is true, all other "religions" are false. Either way, all other "religions" and Christianity cannot both be true at the same time. Thus, the holy scripture's claim to be the only revelation FROM God and OF God to mankind, requires that all other religion's "scripture" be false.

The true LORD God, as revealed in the holy scriptures, can only be accessed through His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "...the power of God, and the wisdom of God"(1 Cor. 1:24 KJV), by His authority, through the power of the Holy Spirit:

"But now in Christ Jesus(emphasis mine)....For through him(emphasis mine) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father(emphasis mine)." Ephesians 2:13 KJV, Ephesians 2:18 KJV

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ(emphasis mine): By whom also we have access(emphasis mine) by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Romans 5:1-2 KJV

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus(emphasis mine), giving thanks to God and the Father by him(emphasis mine)." Colossians 3:17 KJV(see also Ephesians 5:20 KJV, Romans 1:8 KJV)

This Christ-rejecting world, "religion", shuns mentioning the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, God the Father does not, and will not, honour any "access" requests, except through the Lord Jesus Christ, and any worship of any "god" that is not revealed by/accessed through the Lord Jesus Christ, and revealed exclusively through the scriptures,Bible, is not honored, as it is written:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.(emphasis mine)." John 5:23 KJV

But one day soon, every one, both saved and lost, will honor the Lord Jesus Christ, as the LORD God, all to the glory of God the Father, as it is written:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11 KJV
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Christianity is a pretty broad group - vague or nebulous, I would say.

It encompasses many different communities with a variety of different hierarchies, and a diversity of doctrines that - I think you will have to agree - frequently contradict each other.

I say that to say this: if you are going to hold exclusivity, then you're going to have to go all the way down that road. You cannot merely hold "Christianity" at large to the exclusion of other religions. You will have to hold one particular flavor of Christianity, to the exclusion of all the others.

The modern trend is to define doctrines in terms of "essentials" and "non-essentials." But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of "essentials" are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)

Where would you like to draw those lines, sir?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Where would you like to draw those lines, sir?
Before one can even draw where the line is, one must be willing to draw a line first.
I have seen a trend growing where it is deemed intolerant to pick a side and defend it, for fear of offending someone.
A trend that promotes seeking similarities only, and ignore the differences.
All for the sake of reaching the goal of appearing 'nice'.

Finding similarities and/or common ground is easy stuff.
Dealing with the differences is where the rubber hits the road.

As John W. implied in his OP, being nice is not the same as being holy.
Folks are reaching for the wrong goal.

So pick a side and don't compromise for the sake of appearing 'nice'.
 

Interplanner

New member
Christianity and the law of non-contradiction


My brother is a doctor, so perhaps a medical analogy will clarify my argument that we need to be clear on the remedy for man's separation from a holy(the 3 attribute of the LORD God in the book, not "love")LORD God. If one of our loved ones were physically ill, we would not want to be deceived. We would not want to make life and death decisions based on superstition or mysticism. We would want precise answers to specific questions. We would not want general notions, opinions(one of the reasons the Lord Jesus Christ sharply rebuked the Pharisees-relying on their traditions/opinions instead of scripture), or empty words. We would actively engage all our faculties to judge the truth. We should desire to know the right standard by which to judge these crucial matters, because physical life is at stake. How much more should we value the truth and the right standards, when questions concerning eternal life is at stake? Someone may claim to be physically fit and well, while they may have cancer inside beginning to eat away at their physical life. When you visit a doctor, you want the truth, the right prescription, even if does not "make you feel good."

The argument that "All roads lead to the same destination", that all "religions" the term "religion" being generically employed here, as Christianity is the opposite of religion)are equally true(pluralism) is a self-refuting argument-it self-destructs, and here is why. The notion of "religious pluralism"=all religions are true, and the law of non-contradiction= opposite truth claims cannot both be true; no 2 propositions which contain contrary claims can both be true at the same time; if 2 statements about 1 particular issue contradict one another, then they are both false, or only one of them is true, but they cannot both be true.

If all "religions" are true, then Christianity is true. But the foundation of Christianity is its EXCLUSIVENESS, i.e., all other "religions" are false-Isaiah 43:11 KJV, Hosea 13:4 KJV,John 14:6 KJV, Acts 4:12 KJV.... Either Christianity is correct/true, and other "religions" are false/lies, or some other "religion" is true, and Christianity is false. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that if Christianity is true, all other "religions" are false. Either way, all other "religions" and Christianity cannot both be true at the same time. Thus, the holy scripture's claim to be the only revelation FROM God and OF God to mankind, requires that all other religion's "scripture" be false.

The true LORD God, as revealed in the holy scriptures, can only be accessed through His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "...the power of God, and the wisdom of God"(1 Cor. 1:24 KJV), by His authority, through the power of the Holy Spirit:

"But now in Christ Jesus(emphasis mine)....For through him(emphasis mine) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father(emphasis mine)." Ephesians 2:13 KJV, Ephesians 2:18 KJV

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ(emphasis mine): By whom also we have access(emphasis mine) by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Romans 5:1-2 KJV

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus(emphasis mine), giving thanks to God and the Father by him(emphasis mine)." Colossians 3:17 KJV(see also Ephesians 5:20 KJV, Romans 1:8 KJV)

This Christ-rejecting world, "religion", shuns mentioning the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, God the Father does not, and will not, honour any "access" requests, except through the Lord Jesus Christ, and any worship of any "god" that is not revealed by/accessed through the Lord Jesus Christ, and revealed exclusively through the scriptures,Bible, is not honored, as it is written:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.(emphasis mine)." John 5:23 KJV

But one day soon, every one, both saved and lost, will honor the Lord Jesus Christ, as the LORD God, all to the glory of God the Father, as it is written:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11 KJV





this was great, other than the fact that is sounds plagiarized and not like you at all.

Why don't you apply non-contradiction to the crap that D'ism serves up every day. Every blessed passage of the NT is attacked with NOTS and knots of nonsense.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Christianity is a pretty broad group - vague or nebulous, I would say.

It encompasses many different communities with a variety of different hierarchies, and a diversity of doctrines that - I think you will have to agree - frequently contradict each other.

I say that to say this: if you are going to hold exclusivity, then you're going to have to go all the way down that road. You cannot merely hold "Christianity" at large to the exclusion of other religions. You will have to hold one particular flavor of Christianity, to the exclusion of all the others.

The modern trend is to define doctrines in terms of "essentials" and "non-essentials." But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of "essentials" are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)

Where would you like to draw those lines, sir?

John W quoted Jesus - the One after whom Christianity is named - as saying He is the only way (John 14:6). Logic dictates that the lines are drawn by Him. As to where the boundaries are, He made many references to having His Word in you (John 5:38) and knowing the truth (and the truth setting you free -- John 8:32). If this is true, then there is no ambiguity in who is and who isn't a Christian. The truth is manifest to those who are of the Truth. Those that know Him know those who are His because there is fellowship through the Spirit of God that indwells every believer. Those that try to expand the boundaries of who is and who isn't in Christ simply don't have the Spirit of God (and, therefore, are none of His -- Romans 8:9). You see, it is God who gives all this - it is God who makes it abundantly clear to His own what the Truth is. Otherwise, Christianity is just another man-made effort at control. Those that are Christ's know Him and are known of Him and it is God's work that does it. It is the fact that this is not man's work that sets Christianity apart from other religions.

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

I John 1:3-7

There is certainty in God's Word (and the faith He gives) that eclipses rational "certainty". Those that beg the question of who is and who isn't in Christ as a question to be rationally answered (or not answerable at all) don't have that certainty. Don't have that light. Not that every believer knows who every other believer is, but that the boundaries are generally known (even if they can't always define them for themselves). One man's faith should not rest in what another man calls an essential or a non-essential. There is either fellowship or there is not.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Christianity is a pretty broad group - vague or nebulous, I would say.

It encompasses many different communities with a variety of different hierarchies, and a diversity of doctrines that - I think you will have to agree - frequently contradict each other.

I say that to say this: if you are going to hold exclusivity, then you're going to have to go all the way down that road. You cannot merely hold "Christianity" at large to the exclusion of other religions. You will have to hold one particular flavor of Christianity, to the exclusion of all the others.

The modern trend is to define doctrines in terms of "essentials" and "non-essentials." But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of "essentials" are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)

Where would you like to draw those lines, sir?
Translation:You've not read my brilliant posts, re. "the essentials." And you missed it. No discussion of your "the essentials/non-essentials.... But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of 'essentials' are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)" argument can ensue, unless the veracity of my argument is accepted. It would akin to arguing if the grass is green, if one either does not believe that grass exists, or that all grass is the same color.

Good day to you, "sir." Can you dig it.

saint John Forest Gump W
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Translation:You've not read my brilliant posts, re. "the essentials." And you missed it. No discussion of your "the essentials/non-essentials.... But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of 'essentials' are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)" argument can ensue, unless the veracity of my argument is accepted. It would akin to arguing if the grass is green, if one either does not believe that grass exists, or that all grass is the same color.

Good day to you, "sir." Can you dig it.

saint John Forest Gump W
My post posed two thought experiments.

The first questioned your logic, on the basis of carrying it to its logical end. The second assumed that we allowed your point to stand, and explored where that would take us.

You have ignored the first altogether. You have pointed out a feature of the second, without otherwise commenting or engaging in any sort of actual debate.

I know you can do better than this.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Also, I haven't made any posts in recent memory on essentials/non-essentials. Or were you saying that you have? Try not to dangle so many pronouns before first defining to whom/what they refer.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
My post posed two thought experiments.

The first questioned your logic, on the basis of carrying it to its logical end. The second assumed that we allowed your point to stand, and explored where that would take us.

You have ignored the first altogether. You have pointed out a feature of the second, without otherwise commenting or engaging in any sort of actual debate.

I know you can do better than this.
I've ignored NADA. You're just a stooge, Curly.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
:chuckle:

Maybe you're just not the "thought experiment" type.

Perhaps...!He does not "get," that the "baseline," presupposition, is the law of Ncon, and that no discussion of your "the essentials/non-essentials.... But if that path is taken, then you'd better take it all the way as well. Because you're likely to find some number of 'essentials' are held by groups that you do not consider to be Christians (oh the horror!)" argument can ensue, unless the veracity of my argument is accepted. It would akin to arguing if the grass is green, if one either does not believe that grass exists, or that all grass is the same color.
 

Interplanner

New member
John W quoted Jesus - the One after whom Christianity is named - as saying He is the only way (John 14:6). Logic dictates that the lines are drawn by Him. As to where the boundaries are, He made many references to having His Word in you (John 5:38) and knowing the truth (and the truth setting you free -- John 8:32). If this is true, then there is no ambiguity in who is and who isn't a Christian. The truth is manifest to those who are of the Truth. Those that know Him know those who are His because there is fellowship through the Spirit of God that indwells every believer. Those that try to expand the boundaries of who is and who isn't in Christ simply don't have the Spirit of God (and, therefore, are none of His -- Romans 8:9). You see, it is God who gives all this - it is God who makes it abundantly clear to His own what the Truth is. Otherwise, Christianity is just another man-made effort at control. Those that are Christ's know Him and are known of Him and it is God's work that does it. It is the fact that this is not man's work that sets Christianity apart from other religions.

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

I John 1:3-7

There is certainty in God's Word (and the faith He gives) that eclipses rational "certainty". Those that beg the question of who is and who isn't in Christ as a question to be rationally answered (or not answerable at all) don't have that certainty. Don't have that light. Not that every believer knows who every other believer is, but that the boundaries are generally known (even if they can't always define them for themselves). One man's faith should not rest in what another man calls an essential or a non-essential. There is either fellowship or there is not.





It sounds like the knowledge of God/Christ is a bit subjective here. What the apostles would speak of is the 'mighty acts of God in Christ'--the events of Christ. That is what was done for us. That is what we 'know.' "None of this was done in a corner" --Acts 26.

It's kind of hard to change anything about the nature of it. It's like the defeat of the Spanish Armada that way.

Some Christians, because of extensive efforts by post-Enlightenment teachers from about 1800 on, have coddled it with various kinds of unnatural additions. But our (Western) roots of definition of Christian faith do not come from those periods--from Mormonism, SDA'ism, D'ism. They come from the Reformation period of teachers.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
I've ignored NADA. You're just a stooge, Curly.
You're an enigma to me. You make intelligent and poignant posts when you want to, but most of the time you seem to spend on juvenile insults. It's especially strange when you're the one who brings up the topic, and then afterwards you decline to actually discourse.

Ah well... at least we have Moronica. You copy that, Mr. Ixnay?
 

Interplanner

New member
You're an enigma to me. You make intelligent and poignant posts when you want to, but most of the time you seem to spend on juvenile insults. It's especially strange when you're the one who brings up the topic, and then afterwards you decline to actually discourse.

Ah well... at least we have Moronica. You copy that, Mr. Ixnay?





I can't figure that out either.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
I can't figure that out either.

Well, satan, in sheep's clothing, challenged the Saviour, in the wilderness, in the same manner, with "nice" comments, as did the Pharisees, attempting to trap "the lowly Galilean fisherman," and he picked apart, their sophistry, and, deceit, as I do yours, and others, giving them, chapter, verse, from the book, in which to soak their "it all says the same thing....all scripture is written, specifically, to everyone, applies to them" "brains," deceit, and insult them, as the lead insulter, the Lord Jesus Christ did, and, as did his chief spokesman, minister, steward, in this dispensation, the apostle Paul did, as I rightly dividing the word of truth, in brilliance, and humility.
 

Interplanner

New member
Well, satan, in sheep's clothing, challenged the Saviour, in the wilderness, in the same manner, with "nice" comments, as did the Pharisees, attempting to trap "the lowly Galilean fisherman," and he picked apart, their sophistry, and, deceit, as I do yours, and others, giving them, chapter, verse, from the book, in which to soak their "it all says the same thing....all scripture is written, specifically, to everyone, applies to them" "brains," deceit, and insult them, as the lead insulter, the Lord Jesus Christ did, and, as did his chief spokesman, minister, steward, in this dispensation, the apostle Paul did, as I rightly dividing the word of truth, in brilliance, and humility.





What humility? You are a self-proclaimed know it all who tells people to get off the site.

re contradiction: you are the only person I know who doesn't think Is 42:9 and 49:6 exist.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
What humility? You are a self-proclaimed know it all who tells people to get off the site.

re contradiction: you are the only person I know who doesn't think Is 42:9 and 49:6 exist.

You learned well from your father, the devil satan, the accuser of the brethren, wolfie, as I never asserted that "Is 42:9 and 49:6" do not exist. I assert that you satanically interpret those passages, demon, who proclaims, on record, that Judas preached the gospel of Christ, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, even though he, and the 12, prior to its fulfillment, had no idea of the impending dbr.

Why are you lying, butch boy?
 

Interplanner

New member
You learned well from your father, the devil satan, the accuser of the brethren, wolfie, as I never asserted that "Is 42:9 and 49:6" do not exist. I assert that you satanically interpret those passages, demon, who proclaims, on record, that Judas preached the gospel of Christ, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, even though he, and the 12, prior to its fulfillment, had no idea of the impending dbr.

Why are you lying, butch boy?






But you won't comment on them, will you? (by the way, your Marxist communication techniques are getting thin; you might want to take a break and work up some new material, images, figures of speech).

Actually, there might be a nuance on which we can agree. What we need is a diagram of the Hebrew grammar. Here is why. It might be a case of Direct Object vs Indirect Object as follows:

'I will make you to be a covenant for the nations' vs
'I will make a covenant for you for the nations.'

In the first case, the Servant is the covenant. In the second, the covenant is an entity in itself, although both are for the nations, and are the new covenant.

One of the powerful reasons for regarding Christ as the covenant himself is the commentary of Heb 10:9. The sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ is the 'second' which sets aside the 'first.' 10:16 says this body is the covenant that was to be made to take away sins.

I'm sure now you will send me e.NOTs to insert here and there so that the text does not mean this! That's your habit and psych-op.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
But you won't comment on them, will you? (by the way, your Marxist communication techniques are getting thin; you might want to take a break and work up some new material, images, figures of speech).

Actually, there might be a nuance on which we can agree. What we need is a diagram of the Hebrew grammar. Here is why. It might be a case of Direct Object vs Indirect Object as follows:

'I will make you to be a covenant for the nations' vs
'I will make a covenant for you for the nations.'

In the first case, the Servant is the covenant. In the second, the covenant is an entity in itself, although both are for the nations, and are the new covenant.

One of the powerful reasons for regarding Christ as the covenant himself is the commentary of Heb 10:9. The sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ is the 'second' which sets aside the 'first.' 10:16 says this body is the covenant that was to be made to take away sins.

I'm sure now you will send me e.NOTs to insert here and there so that the text does not mean this! That's your habit and psych-op.

And you've not only not "commented" on 95%+ of what "/others have shown you in the book, you've deleted the scriptures we've shown them, satanically dismissing them, like your dad.You learned well from your father, the devil satan, the accuser of the brethren, wolfie, as I never asserted that "Is 42:9 and 49:6" do not exist. I assert that you satanically interpret those passages, demon, who proclaims, on record, that Judas preached the gospel of Christ, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, even though he, and the 12, prior to its fulfillment, had no idea of the impending dbr.

Why are you lying, butch boy?
 
Top