VIOLATING the 3 Classic Laws of thought in order to become SPIRITUAL

by Terry 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    Do you know what a whim means? It is a violation of cause and effect. A whim is not connected to an actual logical reason. It is something felt and acted upon spontaneously. _______________

    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” ( Romans 9:15 ).

    Is this the best we can get from the Bible? Jehovah is the boss and He does what He wants. Like it or lump it. How does this differ from NO EXPLANATION at all? _______________________________________________________________________________

    Here is the problem as I see it from my own analysis. A writer cannot write a character who is more intelligent than himself. A writer cannot transcend his own limitations. . The writer cheats by resorting to a fake explanation. Writer's cheat by violating cause and effect!

    This is the essence of fiction. _______________________________________________________________________________________

    Why does the character of Jehovah behave the way He behaves? The writers aren't geniuses so they cheat;

    "I shall prove to be what I prove to be."

    This is saying nothing while seeming to say something. It is a non-explanation and a deflection.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, we live in a cause and effect universe. Bible writers, however, are writing about a different Universe of fiction.

    How do we know? The intrinsic principle of cause and effect do not apply.

    For one thing, GOD does not have a cause.

    How is a cause and effect universe caused by an uncaused cause?

    FICTION! The very definition of this character of God relies on an uncaused cause!

    The writers simply declare it to be true and move on!

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    When cause and effect are removed from a fictional universe, characters do not operate by fundamental reasons of logic.

    Jehovah himself declares:

    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” ( Romans 9:15 ). ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    In the real world it is reality which determines what is true because truth is nothing more than a description of reality.

    A contradiction in description is a signal of non-truth.

    A policeman interrogating a suspected perpetrator asks questions and looks for contradictions.

    Contradiction is the key to discovering both truth and lies.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    If God is a fictional character operating in a realm without cause and effect we should rightly EXPECT that character to operate out of WHIM.

    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” ( Romans 9:15 ).

    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    If we are rational we do things out of reasons and not whims.

    If we are whimsical we do things out of impulse and later justify our actions by saying: "I just felt like it."

    Does whimsy mean we are fictional? No, it signals we are irrational and any claim of reason is fictional.

    ___________________________________________________________

    Our feelings, our emotions are what, then?

    Emotions are a kind of spotlight signaling the significance of our values.

    What we value comes solely from what we understand to be worth valuing. That is, IF we are reasonable.

    If we cannot connect a strong impulsive feeling to a value--we have no reasonable value, therefore we cannot locate the source of our emotions.

    _____________________________________________________________

    JEHOVAH, the character written in the Bible, is not reasonable because His emotions, whims, impulses are not connected to VALUE.

    ____________________________________________________________

    This makes JEHOVAH an unpredictable being without any anchor whatsoever!

    It is impossible to predicate of a thing a quality which is its contradictory.

    We might find such a character requiring LAW in the Old Testament and suddenly operating out of MERCY in the New Testament.

    Israel might be a tribe in the Middle East one era and suddenly become nothing tangible and physical at all in another era, simply a connotation of spirituality.

    This whimsical character might LOVE mankind one minute and repenting of having created them the next. He might destroy men, women, children, unborn babies, animals, plants in a worldwide flood and then promise not to do it ever again under a rainbow.

    _______________________________________________________________

    As Aristotle says in his Metaphysics: Thus "it is not possible to say truly at the same time that the same thing is and is not a man"

    And yet. . .

    In the New Testament we seem to find another character, Jesus, disconnected from such logic.

    How can this be? The answer is simple, really. The writers vacillate between the real world and the world of fiction.

    After all, what is a "miracle" but a violation of cause and effect in the physical universe? Recontexting reality with fiction

    is what writers can do with ease. The contradiction with a cause and effect universe comes only when this is described as TRUE!

    ____________________________________________________________

    The Bible mixes the real world with the make-believe world and there is no effort made to distinguish between the two.

    This is where humans who are rational get to use their brains.

    If we truly wish to remain homo sapiens we cannot abandon our only advantage over the lower animals: our rational minds.

    ____________________________________________________________-

    Here is where you make your choice. The decision to be included among the human race of intelligent, reasoning creatures depends

    on your decision to embrace the THREE CLASSICAL LAWS OF THOUGHT--or, to be a person of WHIMSY.

    You cannot be rational and be a person of whim. The contradiction is violent and irremediable.

    Do you choose to live in a world where pigs fly and deuces are wild? Or is this a world of cause and effect where contradiction signals LIES?

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    3 Classic Laws of Thought

    1.Law of Identity

    2.Law of non-contradiction

    3.Law of the excluded Middle

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Look the above up and study them. Choose them and be sane. Reject them and be Spiritual.

    If you think you can be rational and spiritual you are violating the 3rd law already.

    Once again, a cause and effect universe operates no matter if we recognize the causes or not within ourselves.

  • Ucantnome
    Ucantnome

    i thought laws were meant to be broken

  • Terry
    Terry

    i thought laws were meant to be broken

    In Science, LAWs are descriptions of how things actually operate.

    If we break the Law of Gravity by leaping from a high place without wings--that is our choice. The wisdom of our violation will

    be demonstrated rather quickly!

    Rational thinking requires we understand what we are dealing with before we deal with it.

  • Ucantnome
    Ucantnome

    The customer is always right and i might buy one of your books soon

  • Seraphim23
    Seraphim23

    The problem Terry for philosophical thinking may be that contradictions are real and not always indicative of wrong thinking. In most cases they are indicative of wrong thinking of course, so such thinking is useful but there may be cases where this is not the case. Thinking by its very nature is limited otherwise one would not need to do it for one would know all things without having to navigate through the thought maze, with its dead ends and paths of promise. Philosophy also in the same way relies on what is known in order to bolster a foundation for it to be more than fantasy. However what is known is going to be limited in the same way thinking itself is. There will always be more to learn or discover even if that knowledge is forever out of reach, but none of this addresses the question of what knowledge or thought actually is because one cannot get outside of its system in order to question it because it’s a path without end.

  • Terry
    Terry

    The customer is always right and i might buy one of your books soon

    Why, what a delightful decision! I heartily approve! My Author Spotlight

  • Terry
    Terry

    The problem Terry for philosophical thinking may be that contradictions are real and not always indicative of wrong thinking. In most cases they are indicative of wrong thinking of course, so such thinking is useful but there may be cases where this is not the case. Thinking by its very nature is limited otherwise one would not need to do it for one would know all things without having to navigate through the thought maze, with its dead ends and paths of promise. Philosophy also in the same way relies on what is known in order to bolster a foundation for it to be more than fantasy. However what is known is going to be limited in the same way thinking itself is. There will always be more to learn or discover even if that knowledge is forever out of reach, but none of this addresses the question of what knowledge or thought actually is because one cannot get outside of its system in order to question it because it’s a path without end.

    Let us go slowly. . .

    We shall break the above up into snippets and chew each bite carefully so as not to choke.

    1.The problem for philosophical thinking may be that contradictions are real and not always indicative of wrong thinking.

    Reply: Something has to be real first, for a contradiction to be possible when describing it accurately. Wrong thinking, in this instance would only mean

    the inability to accurately describe something real.

    2.In most cases they are indicative of wrong thinking of course, so such thinking is useful but there may be cases where this is not the case.

    Reply: Examples would be necessary on a case by case examination for us to test this assertion.

    3. Thinking, by its very nature, is limited -otherwise one would not need to do it, for one would know all things without having to navigate through the thought maze, with its dead ends and paths of promise.

    Reply: Aren't you confusing "thinking" (which is a process of analysis, comparison and identification) and "knowing"(grasping the description of a particular through integration of known elements)? We think in order to know. We don't know in order to think.

    4.Philosophy also in the same way relies on what is known in order to bolster a foundation for it to be more than fantasy.

    Reply: Philosophy is a means by which we obtain the answer to the questions, "What do we know and how do we know it?" The tools used in Philosophy are Perception,measurement, integration by means of Logic.

    5.However what is known is going to be limited in the same way thinking itself is.

    Reply: There is a fallacy called the appeal to ignorance, a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

    6. none of this addresses the question of what knowledge or thought actually is because one cannot get outside of its system in order to question it because it’s a path without end.

    Reply: When you say "actually"wouldn't you have to already know to assert we don't know?

  • tec
    tec

    Also... just because someone does not understand the reason behind a statement or deed... does not mean that the statement or deed was based upon a whim.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    Okay, I read what those three laws are... I do not know how you conclude that being spiritual is being in contradiction to the three laws. Can you give me an example?

    Peace,

    tammy

  • Terry
    Terry

    just because someone does not understand the reason behind a statement or deed... does not mean that the statement or deed was based upon a whim.

    My context was not "statement or deed" but--EMOTION.

    If we cannot identify the source of our EMOTION we cannot reasonably conclude the value triggering it is reasonable.

    That is when it is whimsical--when it is without reasonable cause.

    I'm not trying to stretch that, as you did, to include "statement or dee. . ."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit