Annihilationism

[DRS81]

Hi DRS81,

Aion is defined as an age, I believe this is correct. I would define both owlam and aion as an unspecified period of time.

Plato's western philosophy vs the words of Jesus.

Col 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ

 

[Stan1953]

2Th 1:8-9 YLT in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ; (9) who shall suffer justice--destruction age-during--from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,

You've lost me agua? This is not the verse in question and the YLT is a one man literal translation so it doesn't have the same form of equivalence that modern English versions do.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Gentlemen. I'm not a moderator of this thread but I have an interest in it for certain Staff reasons. I can not believe the personal digs you guys present to each other. It seems to me that you can't refrain from these little digs at the way the other person interprets Scripture. I'm of the opinion that unless you all can discuss the OP without words like "logical fallacy" "common sense" "straw man" "faulty exegeting" and other words that reflect on the other person's ability to understand either a context, a verse etc, etc. than the thread can continue if the Staff so desires, otherwise it should be shut down! Come on guy's really?? I'm disappointed to see men who are intellectuals, and very good interpreters of Scripture carry on in this fashion. Please stop.

Hi Chopper,

Perhaps I can elaborate on the terms used here and why when I used them I did not think they breached the ToS.

The term logical fallacy is simply an argument that incorrectly uses logic and rhetoric which results in an invalid argument. It is in keeping with the terms of service where we are asked to address arguments, not personalities. In fact, it is a logical fallacy to attack the person and not their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem.

In debates it is important to call out logical arguments and demonstrate why they are such, this demonstrates that the foundation of the persons' argument is not valid. NOTE: This is not saying that the person is valid or stupid, but rather that the particular form of argument on it's own does not constitute evidence for it's truthfulness.

A Straw Man is a logical fallacy one commits when they present a weaker version of their opponents argument and then proceed to deconstruct it.

I was told that I alluded to "common sense" by Stan, which I never did, and I asked him to present the instance where I alluded to it. Which he never did.

I believe the reference of "faulty exegesis" was my charge to that of a commentator, not a person here on this board. And it was a comment not about the person's character, but about the argument, which I provided my own exegesis to demonstrate how it was faulty.

Is it wrong or rude to reveal critical opinions about the arguments others here present?

 

[Chopper]

Hi Chopper,

Perhaps I can elaborate on the terms used here and why when I used them I did not think they breached the ToS.

The term logical fallacy is simply an argument that incorrectly uses logic and rhetoric which results in an invalid argument. It is in keeping with the terms of service where we are asked to address arguments, not personalities. In fact, it is a logical fallacy to attack the person and not their argument, which is called an Ad Hominem.

In debates it is important to call out logical arguments and demonstrate why they are such, this demonstrates that the foundation of the persons' argument is not valid. NOTE: This is not saying that the person is valid or stupid, but rather that the particular form of argument on it's own does not constitute evidence for it's truthfulness.

A Straw Man is a logical fallacy one commits when they present a weaker version of their opponents argument and then proceed to deconstruct it.

I was told that I alluded to "common sense" by Stan, which I never did, and I asked him to present the instance where I alluded to it. Which he never did.

I believe the reference of "faulty exegesis" was my charge to that of a commentator, not a person here on this board. And it was a comment not about the person's character, but about the argument, which I provided my own exegesis to demonstrate how it was faulty.

Is it wrong or rude to reveal critical opinions about the arguments others here present?

I fully understand your explanation. The only problem that I have with those words is, it does have a reference to the person who you are presenting the correction, or better understanding of the subject being discussed. Words, as you know, can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, depending on the receiving person in the discussion. If he see's the correction as a combination of correction of belief, or expression of his theory, plus the idea that the person doing the correcting feels he is more knowledgeable, then he will be offended at the word.

In other words, every term that you just presented can be construed two ways, one is to correct, the other is to insult. I'm sure that an intellectual person that you are, can come up with words or terms that don't carry the danger of insult.

This explanation is not specifically addressed to you, it's that you posted those words, but this message is for all members who are posting in this thread. I have noticed that Kathi has presented her case without words that carry a different view, with these type of words.

PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS VERY CAREFULLY. The person who you are addressing is crucified with Christ. It is no longer them who are living, but Christ who lives in him/her. Please remember who is really living in the person you are addressing. Jesus Christ is in that person in the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture tells us not to grieve the Spirit of God. Oh my friends, let us love each other, and therefore demonstrate that our lives have been re-generated by the power of our mighty God and Savior Jesus the Christ.

 

[Stan1953]

:amen

 

[agua.]

You've lost me agua? This is not the verse in question and the YLT is a one man literal translation so it doesn't have the same form of equivalence that modern English versions do.

Which verse/s are you talking about ?

 

[agua.]

I fully understand your explanation. The only problem that I have with those words is, it does have a reference to the person who you are presenting the correction, or better understanding of the subject being discussed. Words, as you know, can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, depending on the receiving person in the discussion. If he see's the correction as a combination of correction of belief, or expression of his theory, plus the idea that the person doing the correcting feels he is more knowledgeable, then he will be offended at the word.

In other words, every term that you just presented can be construed two ways, one is to correct, the other is to insult. I'm sure that an intellectual person that you are, can come up with words or terms that don't carry the danger of insult.

This explanation is not specifically addressed to you, it's that you posted those words, but this message is for all members who are posting in this thread. I have noticed that Kathi has presented her case without words that carry a different view, with these type of words.

PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS VERY CAREFULLY. The person who you are addressing is crucified with Christ. It is no longer them who are living, but Christ who lives in him/her. Please remember who is really living in the person you are addressing. Jesus Christ is in that person in the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture tells us not to grieve the Spirit of God. Oh my friends, let us love each other, and therefore demonstrate that our lives have been re-generated by the power of our mighty God and Savior Jesus the Christ.

Do you consider is't ok for me to associate something you say with false teaching/teachers. ?

2Pe 2:1 KJV But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I fully understand your explanation. The only problem that I have with those words is, it does have a reference to the person who you are presenting the correction, or better understanding of the subject being discussed.

Well, yes indeed, we are having a discussion and therefore must address the arguments of other posters. It is far different to say "your argument is invalid," versus, "you are invalid," I think there are of course better ways to go about saying "your argument is invalid," and I think logically explaining it and revealing it to be a fallacy can be helpful, so long as people respect the rules of logic.

Words, as you know, can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, depending on the receiving person in the discussion. If he see's the correction as a combination of correction of belief, or expression of his theory, plus the idea that the person doing the correcting feels he is more knowledgeable, then he will be offended at the word.

We can't necessarily control the way people receive what we say, especially when it concerns non-verbal communication and they can't hear the tone of our voice. We should purposefully goad them into becoming angry, but if a person is offended I think it is best that they raise this to the other person, rather than always running to the moderators. The latter method brings about no restoration or repentance, just censorship.

I hope you understand what I mean on this, and I am not criticizing the actions of the moderators, but rather presenting an alternative to us posters on how to handle these instances where a person may have been offended over a misunderstood statement.

In other words, every term that you just presented can be construed two ways, one is to correct, the other is to insult.

If they are offended, and stated such, I would explain to them that they misunderstood my point and I in no way inferred what they were thinking.

I'm sure that an intellectual person that you are, can come up with words or terms that don't carry the danger of insult.

I honestly don't see how telling a person that their argument is a straw man, could be insulting. It could be annoying if they improperly employ the charge, but I understand that they're addressing my argument, not myself.

Perhaps there is someone here who is actually insulted when presented the term "logical fallacy," that I could explain to them how it is in no way an insulting phrase.

This is a debating forum and we are contending for different propositions, and in doing so we have to attempt to invalidate other alternatives. People who take everything so personally perhaps shouldn't be debating, as they misconstrue the words of others and therefore create conflict where there is none.

This explanation is not specifically addressed to you, it's that you posted those words, but this message is for all members who are posting in this thread. I have noticed that Kathi has presented her case without words that carry a different view, with these type of words.

PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS VERY CAREFULLY. The person who you are addressing is crucified with Christ. It is no longer them who are living, but Christ who lives in him/her. Please remember who is really living in the person you are addressing. Jesus Christ is in that person in the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture tells us not to grieve the Spirit of God. Oh my friends, let us love each other, and therefore demonstrate that our lives have been re-generated by the power of our mighty God and Savior Jesus the Christ.

I absolutely support this, and I will strive to choose my words carefully.

I just also want to voice my concern that I and others here not be moderated simply for disagreeing with a person's argument.

Thanks for your kind correction,
DI

 

[jeff77]

Maybe if we used phrases like "when I read blank scripture, I see it differently than the way you have presented" instead of "The Bible doesn't teach that". I do agree with Doulos that since this is a debate forum we should not take everything to personally.

 

[Obadiah]

2.14: Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.) If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public. (see 1.3)

Thread closed.

 

[Chopper]

Do you consider is't ok for me to associate something you say with false teaching/teachers. ?

2Pe 2:1 KJV But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

It would have to be done so that your reply does not in any way reflect on the person that they are a false teacher.