Flip Side of the Coin

[_Themis]

Any long term possible benefits for humans will have to be done by humans.

Then step up and take God's place. The work of God must go forth; who better to carry it forth than you yourself? Themis, are you ready to take the place of God?

If God doesn't exists there is no work of God. Humans have to work together on what they think is best for humans short or long term. I think many are doing just that, even if we may have different ideas of what it is or how to achieve it.

[_Themis]

I'm not talking about God lying and telling "people the opposite of what is true." I'm saying that sometimes the best way to describe something that is true is to make a statement that, mathematically analyzed, is inconsistent.

The example you gave didn't fit. You talked about a debt, and you wanting the person who owed you money to consistently pay you back what s/he had agreed to pay you. That's apples and oranges. Of course you want someone who owes you to meet the terms of the contract. That does not mean someone who is trying to make a point is not going to make a statement that is technically inconsistent in an attempt to get you to stretch your thinking.

Then give your own example on what you mean.

[_Themis]

Themis, are the assertions I made true about the God believed in by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists?

What assertion did you make. I said there is more evidence against the LDS god's existence then these others ones, and I and others have brought up many of those evidence to tobin. Tobin like you has already said no evidence will change your conclusions about what you want to believe. Some of us have.

[_KevinSim]

Themis, are the assertions I made true about the God believed in by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists?

What assertion did you make.

Themis, I listed the three assertions I made in the article you just quoted! Furthermore I also listed them in the article I posted on 1 August, last Wednesday. This is really getting old. I'll list them again, for the third time; please pay attention to them this time so I don't have to post them any more.

Yes

Let me just be sure what you're saying here. The God of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists has the power to cause souls to cease to exist, right? That God also chooses not to use that power to put the unsaved out of their misery, right? According to Biblical Christianity the souls of the unsaved will suffer unbearable agony from the point of their death for the rest of eternity, right?

In short I asserted (1) that God as understood by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists "has the power to cause souls to cease to exist", (2) that that God "also chooses not to use that power to put the unsaved out of their misery", and (3) that "the souls of the unsaved will suffer unbearable agony from the point of their death for the rest of eternity".

Now, are these three assertions true about the deity Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists believe in?

I said there is more evidence against the LDS god's existence then these others ones, and I and others have brought up many of those evidence to tobin.

No, you said:

Themis, are you saying that other ideas about deities make those other deities more likely to exist than the LDS deity is likely to exist? If so, what are those other ideas about deities?

No I am saying the LDS God has much more evidence against it then the God's of other religions.

Granted I mentioned existence of the LDS deity; I asked whether "other deities are more likely to exist than the LDS deity is likely to exist"? Your answer was, "No I am saying the LDS God has much more evidence against it" than the Gods of other religions. You didn't say anything about the chances of existence of the different deities; all you said was "the LDS God has much more evidence against it."

[_KevinSim]

Kevin, I'm not saying anything.
I'm posting what the Church says, which is significantly different to what you are saying. If you are right then the Church isn't true, by it's own teachings.

I don't see that at all. Perhaps you can explain to me what you think the teacher's manual means when it says "God is an ... Unchangeable Being." The first word recorded spoken by God in the Hebrew Tanakh is, "Let." In order to be the "Unchangeable Being" the teacher's manual describes, would the second word God spoke also have to be "Let"? After all, God is an unchangeable being, so how could He speak one word the first time and a different word the second time? It seems like to be unchangeable the words of God would have to be an endless string of "Let"s. "Let let let let let ...."

I know this sounds ridiculous, but I certainly don't see how it's all that far removed from what you are saying about God. My guess is that you won't limit (even an unchangeable) God to only speaking one word; God clearly can make use of a hugely varying vocabulary to make the points He wants to make. The fact that His vocabulary might vary does not mean that God Himself varies; there's no difference between God at the beginning of Genesis 1 and the end, even though a significant amount of variety occurs in His speech that chapter.

Why can't this also be true among the things that God asserts? Why can't God assert one thing at one point and then assert a contradictory thing at another point, all done to teach us something about the terms He's using? We sometimes contradict ourselves to make points; why can't God? Contradicting Himself doesn't introduce variability into God; He's still the exact same being at the end of making the two contradictory statements as He was before He made the first one; He knew the two statements He wanted to make at the beginning, and planned to make both statements all along.

[_Chap]

.... Why can't God assert one thing at one point and then assert a contradictory thing at another point, all done to teach us something about the terms He's using? We sometimes contradict ourselves to make points; why can't God? Contradicting Himself doesn't introduce variability into God; He's still the exact same being at the end of making the two contradictory statements as He was before He made the first one; He knew the two statements He wanted to make at the beginning, and planned to make both statements all along.

In dealing with my children, I don't think I have ever made deliberately contradictory statements "in order to teach them something".

Had I done so, it seems to me that I would, in effect, have been teaching them nothing else other than that it was a waste of time asking me about important things, because I was not worried about making any sense.

Now I have sometimes realized that I have inadvertently made two statements to my kids that, taken together, might seem inconsistent or contradictory. In such cases I have handled the situation in various ways, which may include:

1. Going back to the kids and giving them a more carefully thought out pair of statements that don't contradict each other. That might involve withdrawing a part of what I said.

2. Going back to the kids and saying something like "I was doing my best to answer your questions on X and Y, but I realize on reflection that my answers were contradictory when taken together. Frankly, I now see that I am a bit confused on such matters. I'll try to sort out my ideas and get back to you, but meanwhile what do you think?"

I can't ever imagine deliberately making two contradictory statements to them, and if I did I can't see what possible good it would do. I would hope that if your deity does exist he would be at least as scrupulous as I am. So I can't see what he should want to contradict himself either. But hey, he is your deity, so maybe you give him a free pass to do things that don't make much sense.

[_KevinSim]

That statement was premature. You have no idea whether or not I "mind the lying for the lord doctrine," and as a matter of fact I mind it very much.

Yet in the same post you say you are ok with Joseph and God doing it. You see why I think you are being inconsistent.

What I see, Themis, is that you are caught up in thinking in black and white, and have trouble with shades of grey. I'm either okay with Smith lying or I oppose it. There doesn't appear to be any middle ground with you.

For one thing, I never said I was okay with it. What I said was, "so although it bugs me that Smith lied to Emma about it, I can see the necessity of lying for the Lord at the time," and later I said, "if there actually was a time for lying for the Lord." Am I really okay with it if "it bugs me that Smith lied to Emma"? Do I sound like I'm one hundred percent sold on the concept when I say "if there actually was a time for lying for the Lord"? One can see "the necessity of" something without being one hundred percent okay with it.

In short, I wasn't inconsistent at all. I wasn't one hundred percent for lying for the Lord; nor was I one hundred percent against lying for the Lord; rather I was somewhere in the grey area in between. Which is one hundred percent consistent with my statement that I "mind it very much." One seeing the necessity of something does not imply that one doesn't mind that something.

And actually this is kind of the whole point I've been trying to make in this whole series of posts. Just as you have seen inconsistency in my statements when there was none, so also do people see lies in the things a deity has said when that deity has spoken the exact truth. We can make mistakes in what we judge is true and is not true. English (nor Greek nor Hebrew) is simply not a rigorously defined enough language that when we hear something that sounds inconsistent we can conclude with certainty that it is not true. It makes much more sense, after hearing the alleged inconsistency, to try to figure out what a deity might actually mean, taking both conflicting statements into account.

In past posts I've made a solid distinction between lying and inconsistency. Inconsistency I defined mathematically as asserting X and then asserting not X.

Asserting x and not asserting x have no meaning and unless you give more specifics it has nothing to do with inconsistency.

Themis, after reading this sentence I have come to wonder whether you're the best person to discuss consistency with. For one thing, I never said anything about asserting "x and not asserting x." There is a huge difference between not asserting X and asserting not X, and if you don't understand that then that throws serious doubt on your ability to make reasonable statements about consistency. Furthermore, all asserting X and then asserting not X is is making one statement and then stating the logical negation of that statement. If you don't think that is the definition of inconsistency, then I'm curious what you think inconsistency means.

The dictionary definition at "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inconsistent?s=t" says, "lacking in agreement, as one thing with another or two or more things in relation to each other; at variance". The two things that don't agree are X and not X. Another definition is "incompatible"; once again the two things that are logically incompatible are X and not X.

The subject though is really about behavior, and lying is a part of that. You were the one to propose God would give a no answer in relation to the Book of Mormon or church bring true.

It's certainly possible that I may have been "the one to propose God would give a no answer in relation to the Book of Mormon or church" being true, but I very definitely don't remember ever proposing that. Can you point me to where I did propose that?

[_Themis]

Themis, I listed the three assertions I made in the article you just quoted! Furthermore I also listed them in the article I posted on 1 August, last Wednesday. This is really getting old. I'll list them again, for the third time; please pay attention to them this time so I don't have to post them any more.

In short I asserted (1) that God as understood by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists "has the power to cause souls to cease to exist", (2) that that God "also chooses not to use that power to put the unsaved out of their misery", and (3) that "the souls of the unsaved will suffer unbearable agony from the point of their death for the rest of eternity".

Now, are these three assertions true about the deity Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists believe in?

I don't believe their assertions are true, but I thought I was clear from the beginning.

Granted I mentioned existence of the LDS deity; I asked whether "other deities are more likely to exist than the LDS deity is likely to exist"? Your answer was, "No I am saying the LDS God has much more evidence against it" than the Gods of other religions. You didn't say anything about the chances of existence of the different deities; all you said was "the LDS God has much more evidence against it."

Yes the LDS God has much more evidence against it then these others. You are making the mistake of thinking their assertions of the attributes are evidence against their God's existence. This is due to your world view and not actual evidence. The same would stand for LDS assertions of God's attributes. It's not something that can be tested in any meaningful way. What we can test in a few cases is the claims of the person who made these assertions. This is why these religions are better off since we don't have much to go on that we can test. We can however with Joseph and his claims fail in many areas.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

So, to summarize this, you have found a way to be happy being stuck in Mormonism.

Good for you.

[_Themis]

What I see, Themis, is that you are caught up in thinking in black and white, and have trouble with shades of grey. I'm either okay with Smith lying or I oppose it. There doesn't appear to be any middle ground with you.

I'm ok with shades of grey. I can think of many reason's lying would be ok. Not in many of Joseph's situations. What I see is you not being consistent with Joseph as you would say for Warren jeffs. This is not surprising since many TBM will do the same. I did. I like runtu's Epiphany about how he was not treating Joseph the same as he would any other religious leader doing the same thing in another religion.

Themis, after reading this sentence I have come to wonder whether you're the best person to discuss consistency with. For one thing, I never said anything about asserting "x and not asserting x." There is a huge difference between not asserting X and asserting not X, and if you don't understand that then that throws serious doubt on your ability to make reasonable statements about consistency. Furthermore, all asserting X and then asserting not X is is making one statement and then stating the logical negation of that statement. If you don't think that is the definition of inconsistency, then I'm curious what you think inconsistency means.

The dictionary definition at "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inconsistent?s=t" says, "lacking in agreement, as one thing with another or two or more things in relation to each other; at variance". The two things that don't agree are X and not X. Another definition is "incompatible"; once again the two things that are logically incompatible are X and not X.

I agree with the dictionary definition. My point is that you have not been consistent, and I give an example above.

It's certainly possible that I may have been "the one to propose God would give a no answer in relation to the Book of Mormon or church" being true, but I very definitely don't remember ever proposing that. Can you point me to where I did propose that?

There may have been more but this one made me think you were suggesting God would under certain circumstances give a no answer for the Book of Mormon or church being true.

That's my point! They're ready for a yes answer; they're not ready for a no answer; and until they are they can't count on God giving them the answer God wants them to have.