1 Step at a Time {Till}
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:54:37 -0500 (CDT) (00875937277, 199710032154.QAA17707@cdale3.midwest.net)
>TILL
>On the basis of what Matthew 12:30 says, the indifferent are against Jesus,
>but aside from that being a logical absurdity, you have the problem of Mark
>9:40, which says that he who is not "against us" is "for us." That too is
>a
>logical absurdity. When you put the two together, you have X but not X
>assertions in the Bible. Why would that not be a contradiction? You are
>familiar with the logical law of contradiction, which says that the same
>object cannot simultaneously be X but not X, aren't you?
>
>MATT
>Ok Farrell, let me break down your answer a little, so I keep following
>your line of reasoning.
>
>1. You agree that according to Matt.12:30 the indifferent are against
>Jesus.
>2. Could you explain why you say that is a 'logical absurdity'?
TILL
It is a logical absurdity, because in order for a person to be against
someone, he/she must have some emotions or opinions about that person to
produce an attitude and/or activities that could be called being "against."
If one is indifferent to a person, he/she has no such emotions or attitudes.
If male X is indifferent to female Y, could it correctly be said that male X
loves female Y? I don't think so. In the same way, if person X is
indifferent to person Y, he could not be said to be either in opposition to
(against) or supportive of (for) person Y. Thus, it is a logical
absurdity to say that someone who is not for me is against me or that
someone who is not against me is for me.
MATT
>3. Are the indifferent in Mark 'with' Jesus? If not, why does that not mean
>they are against?
TILL
See my comments above. As I said in an earlier posting, I am indifferent to
your Prime Minister. He is too new for me to have formed an opinion of him.
Thus, it would be improper to say that I am against him, just as it would be
improper to say that I am for him.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net