+ = - Contradiction (RJV) (fwd) (for Matt Bell)

Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:00:13 -0500 (00875163613, 19970924180013.45393@inetnebr.com) 

On Wed, Sep 24, 1997 at 11:18:28PM +0100, Matt Bell wrote:

> You are attempting to show a Scriptural contradiction, yet one of your

> statements (3) has no Scriptural foundation, therefore there is no basis

> for a contradiction.


YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Excuse me.

But it seems to be true.

Obviously, if there are any members of set (3), then the bible contains
at least one contradiction.  You seem to recognize that, keen mind that
you have.  If (3), those indifferent to Jesus, is an empty set then the
contradiction is avoided.

However, there are all sorts of reasons to accept that (3) is true.
Infant human beings, pieces of wood, natives of far-off islands who
have never heard any Christian claims, etc, are all indifferent to
those claims.  Two out of three of them may at some time learn
something of Christian claims and _then_ become either for or against,
but saying that (3) is an empty set for this reason is as ridiculous as
claiming that everyone is in fact dead---If you think you know someone
who isn't, just wait 120 years (that's the biblical maximum, recall)
and check again.

If the bible said
	the ball is green
	the ball is blue
would you also maintain that there is no contradiction, merely because
the bible does not say
	green is not blue
?  Will you discard the evidence of your senses (and of reason derived
from those senses), since you know the bible is right and your senses
may be in error?  Never mind that your knowledge of what the bible says
is also ultimately through your senses.

You're making yourself look pretty stupid by ignoring my case that
there must be some individuals in group (3), and/or by pretending
you've addressed it by merely claiming that the bible doesn't say there
are any individuals in (3).

Of course, if all you _really_ maintain is that the bible contains no
internal contradictions (and that one may in fact derive all sorts of
contradictions when real-world facts are mixed together with biblical
statements), then just _go away_.  Any person can craft a convoluted
but self-consistent set of axioms, but that doesn't mean that they
_mean_ anything with reference to this universe we inhabit.  These
systems have no force to show what we ought to do, or to tell us
anything about physics, chemistry, biology, etc.  They are meaningless
abstractions, except that for some reason people pay mathematicians to
write about them.  If you claim that the bible is just as esoteric and
USELESS as these abstract systems, then I am wholeheartedly in agreement
with you.

You have three last chances though, Matt.  Come forward and show why my
case that (3) is a non-empty set is flawed.  Confess that it is a foolish
requirement that support for (3) be from the bible.  Be forgiven for an
overhasty and underthought post by the audience of Errancy.

Jeff
-- 
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://grail.cnri.reston.va.us/grail/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+

"Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly."