The "I" problem

[Luke2427]

Mathematics yes, must be logical, otherwise it is not reliable. But some mathematics (logic) applies to some things and not others.

Which is consistent with the laws of logic.

The law of noncontradiction for example says something cannot be that something and not be that something at the same time AND IN THE SAME SENSE.

New mathematics (logic) has been and is continually created to apply to "problems" we humans wish to solve. Consider that "Newtonian (Classical) Physics" works extremely well for solving problems on our planet, above the nuclear level. Its (logic) breaks down on the level of the very small (nuclear) and the very large level.
Do I agree that God is logical....yes for the most part. But he has also done much counter to our ideas of logic (Virgin Birth, raising from the dead etc) God supercedes anyway we can define or identify logic.

None of those miracles violate the laws of logic.

They violate the law of nature which is a created law and subject to change AT ANY MOMENT.

If that asteroid had struck the earth today it could have changed the gravitational pull on the surface and ALL OF US BE ABLE TO WALK ON WATER.

But that would not in the LEAST change the fact that A is A and A cannot be A and NOT A at the same time.

Eternal logic is not to be confused with the temporary laws of nature.

 

[quantumfaith]

Which is consistent with the laws of logic.

The law of noncontradiction for example says something cannot be that something and not be that something at the same time AND IN THE SAME SENSE.




None of those miracles violate the laws of logic.

They violate the law of nature which is a created law and subject to change AT ANY MOMENT.

If that asteroid had struck the earth today it could have changed the gravitational pull on the surface and ALL OF US BE ABLE TO WALK ON WATER.

But that would not in the LEAST change the fact that A is A and A cannot be A and NOT A at the same time.

Eternal logic is not to be confused with the temporary laws of nature.

Let A be some property
Let B be some other property

Where the two properties are mutually exclusive. (Particle or wave)

Light can be shown to have both properties, thus seemingly violating non-contradiction

 

[Luke2427]

Let A be some property
Let B be some other property

Where the two properties are mutually exclusive. (Particle or wave)

Light can be shown to have both properties, thus seemingly violating non-contradiction

But A can be B so long as B doesn't contradict it's being A.

I am a man. (A)

I am a father. (B)


There is nothing that violates the law of noncontradiction.

Light cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME SENSE.

 

[quantumfaith]

But A can be B so long as B doesn't contradict it's being A.

I am a man. (A)

I am a father. (B)


There is nothing that violates the law of noncontradiction.

Light cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME SENSE.

Man and Father are not mutually exclusive.

 

[quantumfaith]

Here is a great explanation that would support your conjecture:

Quantum superposition is the mathematical addition of probability densities of all of the possible states of a quantum system. The result of the superposition of the densities is used to calculate the probability of observing the system in one of the states. In a binary probability space there is a chance that a quantum event can be observed as A or as not A.
In the two slit experiment, it is the probability of a photon going through slit A or slit B. Slit B would be not A. When you don’t observe the slits to know which slit the particle went through, you find that it goes through both. So, this guy is saying that both A and not A exist simultaneously and the law of non-contradiction is violated. But that is not exactly the case!
When the quantum system is observed, it is observed in the context of a particle with specific location and it can only be A or not A, it can’t be both. But when the system is not being observed, it is not in the form of a point like particle, it is in a wave form where the quanta of energy is spread across the possible states as a wave. It is in the wave form until it is observed. The observation collapses the wave to a point like particle where the law of non-contradiction is also observed (like popping a whole balloon by a pin at only one point on the surface of the balloon).
One could say the law of non-contradiction is only valid in the world of observables (the world in which we interact). But it can also be said that since the energy is in a wave form when it is not being observed, that it is not true that it is A and not A at the same time, but that it is something else, a wave, that only has the potential to be either A or not A once it is observed. In other words, it is a whole other form that makes no sense in terms of A and non-A.
It is like saying a potato is mashed potatoes, French fries, and a baked potato all at the same time, when it is not any of them when it is a potato in the garden. The potato has the potential to be any of those forms of potato, but isn’t any of them until one takes the potato and does something with it. The same thing applies in the quantum world. A wave has the potential to be observed at slit A or slit B (since a quanta of energy must be observed at one point), but while it is still a wave, it cannot be observed at both slits at the same time because an observation would cause it to no longer be a wave, but a particle.

This idea is still a hotly debated topic within the realm of physics and often reduces to a philosophical debate. It is of great interest to me, even though much of it stretches my ability to comprehend it.

 

[Salty]

But A can be B so long as B doesn't contradict it's being A.

I am a man. (A)

I am a father. (B)


There is nothing that violates the law of noncontradiction.

Light cannot be one thing and NOT be that thing AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME SENSE.

But in this day and age - a woman may be a "father"

 

[Luke2427]

We've all got it. "I" know "I" do.

But some people DON'T know they have an "I" problem.

Some people don't realize that they are constantly trying to paint themselves as super-spiritual people.

"I"M the kind of person that would give the shirt off his back..."

"I just hate to see Christians fussing and fighting..." (Implying that he does not condescend to this vile behavior. He has risen above it, and wishes that we poor immature people could rise to his level of spirituality)

But usually these are people who are as flawed in these very areas as the ones they lecture are.

But what makes these lecturers worse off than the people they criticize is that they really don't see themselves as flawed in that particular area.

I cannot recount the many times someone has attacked me for attacking someone. HELLO??? Do you not see a bit of inconsistency there??

I am amazed at the many times I have been called names while being lectured for calling people names!!!

It is HILARIOUS!

One guy goes around TROLLING for TROLLERS!

It is amazing how oblivious some people are to their own self-righteousness!

But it is also amazing how shallow some people are in swallowing their self-righteous lectures hook, line and sinker. With all kinds of smiley-face-thumbs-up icons.

This is because, in my opinion, they are as guilty of this self-aggrandizing, self-exalting mindset themselves.

I am guilty of this very thing. Perhaps even in this very POST I am doing the very thing that I criticize. But it is true nonetheless.

Paul said, "OH WRETCHED MAN THAT I AM!"

That spirit will take a lot of the wind from self-exalting sails.

We strayed from the op.

Any support for or detraction from the above?

 

[Skandelon]

No, no.

You are mistaking frankness with self-righteousness and and the former simply does not follow the latter.

Notice that I used words like perception, appear, seems... What you perceive as being frank others very well perceive as rudeness and even self-righteousness. Some do not seem to be aware of how they come across to others in this type of format.

Even self-righteous people are often frank in their approach and what they say about another may actually be true, but if it is not said with a attitude of kindness or charity it will almost certainly be perceived as self-righteousness.

 

[Luke2427]

Notice that I used words like perception, appear, seems... What you perceive as being frank others very well perceive as rudeness and even self-righteousness. Some do not seem to be aware of how they come across to others in this type of format.

Even self-righteous people are often frank in their approach and what they say about another may actually be true, but if it is not said with a attitude of kindness or charity it will almost certainly be perceived as self-righteousness.

I appreciate what you are saying but it seems to me that "rude" is a better description than "self-righteous" for what you are decrying.

Throwing caution to the wind concerning what people think of you, being willing to have them think of you in negative ways- this is what one does when he is blunt- even appropriately blunt. This is simply not what self-righteous people do.

Self-righteous people are concerned about being thought of by others and especially themselves as morally superior. So they snootily lecture others about their inferiority as pertains to spiritual maturity and behavior.

Now, being frank and blunt about why someone's thinking on a matter is wrong is very different than trying to appear above them by lecturing them on why they ought to work on this moral issue or that ethical issue.

Self-righteous people are primarily concerned with occupying the moral high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

The very fact that appearing this way and projecting that image is so manifestly important to them is unequivocal proof that they are actually the OPPOSITE of the very thing they try to project.

 

[Skandelon]

I appreciate what you are saying but it seems to me that "rude" is a better description than "self-righteous" for what you are decrying.

Throwing caution to the wind concerning what people think of you, being willing to have them think of you in negative ways- this is what one does when he is blunt- even appropriately blunt. This is simply not what self-righteous people do.

Self-righteous people are concerned about being thought of by others and especially themselves as morally superior. So they snootily lecture others about their inferiority as pertains to spiritual maturity and behavior.

Now, being frank and blunt about why someone's thinking on a matter is wrong is very different than trying to appear above them by lecturing them on why they ought to work on this moral issue or that ethical issue.

Self-righteous people are primarily concerned with occupying the moral high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

The very fact that appearing this way and projecting that image is so manifestly important to them is unequivocal proof that they are actually the OPPOSITE of the very thing they try to project.

I agree. The content of one's 'bluntness' certainly is relevant, which was my point. When you are 'frank/blunt/rude' while scolding people for their lack of education (as just one example) you APPEAR to be self-righteous (think you are better) because you are scolding them for speaking with assurance of what they believe when they don't have the level of education that you may have. That is placing yourself as higher or better than they are because of your level of education as in comparison to what you think their level is... (at least it is perceived as that).

So, instead of 'study or shut up' one might say, 'I have much to learn as I'm still in the midst of studying myself, but it wouldn't be wise for any of us to speak boldly about matters that we haven't ever actually studied.'

One both get the point across but one can certainly be perceived as 'self-righteousness' in my opinion. We can't control all perceptions but we can speak with charity toward our brethren.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree. The content of one's 'bluntness' certainly is relevant, which was my point. When you are 'frank/blunt/rude' while scolding people for their lack of education (as just one example) you APPEAR to be self-righteous (think you are better)

better but not more righteous, right?

Righteousness has to do with morality and ethics.

It is the CONSTANT lecturing by people who purport this air of ethical and moral superiority that needs to go. It needs to go because, for one thing, the ones who do this pious lecturing get just as nasty and more WHENEVER IT SUITS THEM.

Take webdog, for example, who entered the other thread to point out how wrong I am for being so harsh.

Within a couple of pages he called me a liar, a coward, a fake, unfit for pastoral ministry, etc...

This is my point. SURELY some others get sick of the bull crud!

People who attack people for attacking people.

People who call people names for calling other people names.

There is so much BULL on this site that you could dive in, swim and never touch bottom.

I am calling for us ALL to stop the self-righteous bull.

because you are scolding them for speaking with assurance of what they believe when they don't have the level of education that you may have. That is placing yourself as higher or better than they are because of your level of education as in comparison to what you think their level is... (at least it is perceived as that).

That doesn't quite hit the bulls eye in my opinion.

I don't care if you have as much education as I do. You have more education than I do. Some sharper than me on here have LESS education than I do (I refer to FORMAL education).

I don't care if you have NO FORMAL EDUCATION.

That's not the problem. The problem is people who don't know hermeneutics from Herman Munster and speak with the authority of the world's greatest Bible Scholar.

So, instead of 'study or shut up' one might say, 'I have much to learn as I'm still in the midst of studying myself, but it wouldn't be wise for any of us to speak boldly about matters that we haven't ever actually studied.'

I like that- a lot. But with one caveat- when you try that and it doesn't work, then you have to turn up the heat.

 

[Skandelon]

I like that- a lot. But with one caveat- when you try that and it doesn't work, then you have to turn up the heat.

I disagree. If you wrestle with pigs you just get yourself all muddy, but the pig likes it. Speak truth in love and if they still don't accept the truth, there is no reason to lose the love.

I wish I could always remember that myself, but alas my pride and arrogance too often forsake me.

 

[Luke2427]

I disagree. If you wrestle with pigs you just get yourself all muddy, but the pig likes it. Speak truth in love and if they still don't accept the truth, there is no reason to lose the love.

I wish I could always remember that myself, but alas my pride and arrogance too often forsake me.

It depends on what you think "love" means and requires

If you think it means you are NEVER to be blunt and harsh, I think you have overlooked numerous examples in Scripture to the contrary.

I think the error people make here is that they take a passage about "speaking the truth in love" or "let your speech always be seasoned with grace" or passages about "gentleness" and they do one of two things with such passages.

#1- They assumed they mean something that the context of the whole of Scripture simply dictates that they cannot mean

or...

#2- They try to make some of those passages universal when they actually are intended to apply to a certain context (like how you approach weaker brethren or how you behave yourself in the church, etc...)

It is wrong to take a passage that is specific in nature and try to apply it universally.


This is one of the things that some people try to do to me often on baptistboard. They say, "Do you speak to the people of your church you pastor this way?" The answer is "Very rarely." The local church congregation is a totally different context from baptistboard. It would be silly to think that because you approach one group of people in a specific context one way that you should approach all groups of people in all contexts that same way.

That is what is done to these "gentleness" texts. Some of them are NOT universal. Others ARE universal but they do not mean what some try to make them say.

A passage must be interpreted in its immediate context AND ALSO THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't see as much cause for rudeness/harshness in a forum where brethren are publicly discussing the grace and salvation of our Lord, as you apparently do.

Your post, to me, sounds like an attempt to justify bad behavior. Just my opinion, and maybe that sounds rude.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't see as much cause for rudeness/harshness in a forum where brethren are publicly discussing the grace and salvation of our Lord, as you apparently do.

\

This is purple prose. It is empty. It is designed to manipulate people with less criticial minds. This whole "...discussing the grace and salvation or our Lord..." stuff is language you intend to make you look like a defender of some just and loving cause.

More thoughtful people will pick up on this manipulative language immediately.

Less thoughtful people will certainly swallow it hook line and sinker.

We do not JUST discuss grace and salvation.

And the MOST VEHEMENT CHRISTIAN DEBATE OF ALL TIME has been around those issues ANYWAY- AS THEY WELL SHOULD BE.

NOTHING ON EARTH should be fought for as FIERCELY as those two issues.

So are you saying that you are against harshly condemning people who assault the doctrines of salvation?

Should we COURT sweetly the likes of Fred Phelps???

Should we pet warmly the likes of Joel Osteen, Rob Bell and Gene Robinson?

Your post, to me, sounds like an attempt to justify bad behavior. Just my opinion, and maybe that sounds rude.

How so?