Observation

[Craig]

HI Craig be that as it may, there is NOTHING wrong with an emotional plea based on scripture which is what I showed.

A shepherd who leaves the safe 100 to find the lost 1, did not do so out of emotion for the 1, but because he is the shepherd and that is what shepherds do. This is not an emotional plea, this is common sense. He is assigned to keep them safe, whether the shepherd has emotion for the sheep or not, does not take away the fact it is his duty to keep all the sheep safe, including the 1 that got away from him and now is lost. Emotion is derived from this, and it does become personal when there is one lost but that is not the 'reason' he is saving it.

It is not wrong to have emotion, but it is wrong to use an emotional plea for a reason for anything. Nothing true is based on emotion rather all good emotion is derived from what is true. What the truth is has not been, nor ever been based or derived from emotion but there is a lot of emotion with what is true.

Matt would have the reader believe it is wrong to ask these type of questions because they use our emotions, but our emotions are given to us by God and Jesus Himself used them to get us to understand the Father better.

No, Matt is trying to trick you in saying there is nothing wrong with an emotional plea as a REASON and then win the argument because of it. He wasn't saying we have no emotions, nor was he saying that someone will not be emotional for the truth, what is he is trying to do is to trap you into saying that you have used emotion as your reason for believing what you believe and once he has done that, you have lost your position.

If you are trying to say, God saved us because He is an emotion, God is Love, not an emotion. Therefore love will do what love does, this is not an emotional plea, this is again a fact of what is true it just seems like it was 'based' on emotion but in fact all emotion is derived from this Truth, the Truth is God, who is Love.

[pneuma]

No, Matt is trying to trick you in saying there is nothing wrong with an emotional plea as a REASON and then win the argument because of it. He wasn't saying we have no emotions, nor was he saying that someone will not be emotional for the truth, what is he is trying to do is to trap you into saying that you have used emotion as your reason for believing what you believe and once he has done that, you have lost your position.

If you are trying to say, God saved us because He is an emotion, God is Love, not an emotion. Therefore love will do what love does, this is not an emotional plea, this is again a fact of what is true it just seems like it was 'based' on emotion but in fact all emotion is derived from this Truth, the Truth is God, who is Love.

Craig you simply missed the point, if you cannot see Jesus used an emotional plea in WHAT MAN AMONG YOU then you don't see it and nothing I say will change your mind. It simply not worth debating it.

If you feel that this is something that you need to debate please start a new thread on it so this one does not get side tracked.

Thanks

[Craig]

Since the two questions Matt gave had nothing to do with emotionalism or an emotional appeal as he says, to respond with emotionalism is correct or demonstrate that Jesus used an emotional appeal is a mistake. He is leading you and you were answering exactly the way he wanted you to. You even now continue to justify now your position to me that emotionalism and emotional appeals are valid reasons to do or believe something when it isn't even relevant. If you are truly trying to answer Matt Slick's article, these are the kind of things you need pay attention to. It is advice in how to reply to people like Matt, take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me.

[pneuma]

didn't ask for advise and don't need it.

Thanks

[martincisneros]

I'll briefly add that you're both 100% right, and although that's often a cop out thing to say, let me clarify:  so much of our lives -- more than we'd care to admit -- are lived by our emotions that Jesus did appeal to our emotions in proving a point a time or two.

Yet...

Duty transcends emotions, and the Good Shepherd is going after that one lost sheep, even if He had a headache, were mad about something else, were mad at the sheep involved, etc., because He's the Good Shepherd.  In His immortality He's got more control over His thoughts and emotions than that, and has less that tries to intrude on that, but first and foremost His duty as the Saviour of all is a matter and issue of HONOR:  He's saving absolutely all of us because He said He would in what Dr. Harold Lovelace has documented as being over 353 passages in the Old and New Testaments in his book.  In compiling such a big compilation, he still missed a few, so that those that he missed could stand in the place of those that he cites simply in establishing the usage of the Scriptural vocabulary, so that we'd still have EASILY 200 to 250 direct statements regarding the recovery of all.

Emotions ARE built into every single number of the equation.  Yet, our destinies aren't determined by emotions as would be the case if either Arminianism or Calvinism were strictly true on all points.  Yet Father's absolutely tickled by the recovery of all :HeartThrob: :cloud9:

[pneuma]

I'll briefly add that you're both 100% right, and although that's often a cop out thing to say, let me clarify:  so much of our lives -- more than we'd care to admit -- are lived by our emotions that Jesus did appeal to our emotions in proving a point a time or two.

Yet...

Duty transcends emotions, and the Good Shepherd is going after that one lost sheep, even if He had a headache, were mad about something else, were mad at the sheep involved, etc., because He's the Good Shepherd.  In His immortality He's got more control over His thoughts and emotions than that, and has less that tries to intrude on that, but first and foremost His duty as the Saviour of all is a matter and issue of HONOR:  He's saving absolutely all of us because He said He would in what Dr. Harold Lovelace has documented as being over 353 passages in the Old and New Testaments in his book.  In compiling such a big compilation, he still missed a few, so that those that he missed could stand in the place of those that he cites simply in establishing the usage of the Scriptural vocabulary, so that we'd still have EASILY 200 to 250 direct statements regarding the recovery of all.

Emotions ARE built into every single number of the equation.  Yet, our destinies aren't determined by emotions as would be the case if either Arminianism or Calvinism were strictly true on all points.  Yet Father's absolutely tickled by the recovery of all :HeartThrob: :cloud9:

Hi Martin, I agree the salvation of all is not based on emotion it's based on a victorious Christ, but as you stated Jesus does indeed appeal to our emotions once in awhile to make His point. And all I was showing is there is nothing wrong with us using an emotional plea when we speak with others to make a point either.

[Craig]

didn't ask for advise and don't need it.

Thanks

This is a discussion board Pneuma, so you don't get to ask. You are refuting Matt Slick, and you do not know everything about the person you are refuting and whether you think you need it or not, it much more for the lurker then you that I give it as this is a public board.

Emotional appeals are valid only if they what is true has already been established, that is what Jesus did, which is the correct way to use emotion.

Matt would have the reader believe it is wrong to ask these type of questions because they use our emotions, but our emotions are given to us by God and Jesus Himself used them to get us to understand the Father better.

Matt did not say we cannot use emotions or that God doesn't use our emotions, and so for you to say that is what Matt said and believes is actually untrue. I was being kind about it before now I am going to make the point clear. If you are going to refute someone, make sure you are refuting them and not making a straw man argument committing fallacies yourself.

Here is what Matt said:

Of course, these kinds of questions are the wrong ones to ask. What they are doing is using emotionalism to sway someone's beliefs.

When someone makes a point with establishing the fact or reason of truth and uses emotion for their reasons to believe, it is called emotionalism. Matt was not wrong when he said it is wrong to use emotion as a reason to sway someone's belief, which is called emotionalism; however, Matt is setting up his argument and immediately wants people believe those two questions are emotionalism and wrong ones to ask, even though they are not. This should have been the point that should be refuted.

He is not saying that using emotional appeals to gain understanding after a fact has been established is wrong, he is saying we cannot use emotions as reasons to sway someone's belief, which is correct.

So to defend emotionalism as a valid reason for believing something, is a mistake on your part because you lose the argument since it is not because emotions are never reasons in themselves.

To say Matt is saying something he is not, is a mistake on your part because you lose the argument, committing you own fallacy which does not refute Matt's fallacy and only makes a problem worse.

The point is, what Matt did in attributing those two questions as emotionalism, is Matt's mistake. It is that mistake that should be addressed. In other words, there is nothing wrong with those two questions which use emotion to gain understanding when preceded by a valid fact, therefore they are not emotionalism.

As I said, this advice is not just for you but to the lurker who reads this refute and does not realize this. Here is the definition of the Appeal to Emotion or 'emotionalism' as Matt states it.

Appeal to Emotion-
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies. In order to ensure an appeal to emotion is valid, we should ask this question to ourself, "What sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?" If it is based on valid logic, the appeal to emotion is used to prompt to acceptance and action; if it is not valid logic, the appeal to emotion is a fallacy. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.

Notice it is not wrong to use emotion to prompt acceptance or action ever so as long as it is not the justification for a claim.

[pneuma]

This is a discussion board Pneuma, so you don't get to ask. You are refuting Matt Slick, and you do not know everything about the person you are refuting and whether you think you need it or not, it much more for the lurker then you that I give it as this is a public board.

You are correct this is a discussion board Craig, but this is MY REBUTTAL to Matt Slick in this thread and NOT YOURS.
If you feel the need to rebuttal Matt then you should start your own rebuttal and stop trying to bring division in mine.

I have taken the time and effort to make MY rebuttal and the last thing I need is for you comming over here to cause division, its as if you want to have the thread locked down because I have a different view then you do.

You just can't leave well enough alone, in my first reply to you I said we all see things a little differently, but you just can't leave it at that, you try to force your views or advice upon me and I don't want them.

You are trying to pick a fight Craig and we both know what happens when that takes place, the thread is locked down and then I am unable to finish my rebuttal to Matt.

I asked you nicely to start a new thread if you wanted to debate these things and you have simply ignored my request.

Why would you do that unless you are trying to disrupt all the work I have put into this thread.

So now it is more then likely this thread is going to be lock unless the mods can just delete your last few post as well as mine in reply to you.

I guess you found another way to shut me up then just trying to have me banned from the board.

[Taffy]

Pneuma.

This thread may in turn close but not your rebuttal..other threads can be made  concerning  comments  ,which some may have  to what you proposed....

Blessings
T

[Craig]

You are correct this is a discussion board Craig, but this is MY REBUTTAL to Matt Slick in this thread and NOT YOURS

Which is why your rebuttal was being addressed. What does it look like when someone thinks they are free to refute a person but do not accept a refute themselves? What is your motivation, are you refuting the opinions of Matt Slick, or are you refuting the character Matt Slick?

You are trying to pick a fight Craig and we both know what happens when that takes place, the thread is locked down and then I am unable to finish my rebuttal to Matt.

Actually, what I present is an honest valid observation, there was no intention of a fight. If it is a disagreement, then that is all it is, but you cannot see that. It was not personal, it was addressing your response to Matt. If there is a fight, it is because you initiated it, when unable to accept disagreement to see the correction. My opinion is constructive, by refuting Matt on the basis of nothing he said or did, you only destroy your own refute.

I guess you found another way to shut me up then just trying to have me banned from the board.

Your constant assumption of motivation continues to snare you. It is responses like these, which discredit your rebuttal. This is just one of the constant examples where continue promote error without realizing it and it needs to change.

You just can't leave well enough alone, in my first reply to you I said we all see things a little differently, but you just can't leave it at that, you try to force your views or advice upon me and I don't want them.

I applauded your rebuttal to Matt Slick and bringing it back on track, but you are too wound up in your offense to see it.

There is no motivation to have you banned from the board, or do I want you to 'shut up' as you say. The moment you said, "I didn't ask for advise and don't need it." is when you couldn't leave it well enough alone. So I clarified, the advise is not for you alone, but those who lurk reading your rebuttal to Matt Slick.

Continue to refute Matt Slick, you are doing a good job but you are not above reproach.

[pneuma]

Which is why your rebuttal was being addressed. What does it look like when someone thinks they are free to refute a person but do not accept a refute themselves? What is your motivation, are you refuting the opinions of Matt Slick, or are you refuting the character Matt Slick?

Craig I do not care if one address my rebuttal, that is not the point.
I asked you nicely to start another thread if it was something you thought was worth debating.
You refused to do that but kept up with your advice on how I should or should not address a point made by Matt.

You disagreed with the way I addressed Matt and I said we all see thing differently.
Others read my point and could agree with it, Martin obviously being one of them.
I don't care if others agree with me Craig, but I do care when a request is made and one goes ahead and gives forth advice ignoring the request.

Actually, what I present is an honest valid observation, there was no intention of a fight. If it is a disagreement, then that is all it is, but you cannot see that. It was not personal, it was addressing your response to Matt. If there is a fight, it is because you initiated it, when unable to accept disagreement to see the correction. My opinion is constructive, by refuting Matt on the basis of nothing he said or did, you only destroy your own refute.

I did see the disagreement Craig and I did address it when I said we all see thing a little differently in my first reply to you. But that was not good enough for you, you could not agree to disagree and leave it at that, you had to push your advice which caused me to say I don't need it and don't want it. 

Your constant assumption of motivation continues to snare you. It is responses like these, which discredit your rebuttal. This is just one of the constant examples where continue promote error without realizing it and it needs to change.

It may very well have been an assumption on my part Craig, but once bitten, twice shy.

I applauded your rebuttal to Matt Slick and bringing it back on track, but you are too wound up in your offense to see it.

There is no motivation to have you banned from the board, or do I want you to 'shut up' as you say.

Maybe this time Craig, but you did try once before to have me banned and it is for that reason I have asked you more then once not to address me as I want nothing to do with you at this time.
And I asked this not just for my benefit but for yours also and the rest of the board who have to wade through all this crap.

There are bridges to mend between us Craig and until I see a change in you and in myself it is really better not to speak with one another else we make and irreparable gap.

For my part I have stayed away from your posts in order not to cause you offence, maybe you should do the same.

The moment you said, "I didn't ask for advise and don't need it." is when you couldn't leave it well enough alone. So I clarified, the advise is not for you alone, but those who lurk reading your rebuttal to Matt Slick.

Which clarification could have been brought out on a new thread which I asked you to start correct?

Continue to refute Matt Slick, you are doing a good job but you are not above reproach.

Thank you and I mean that, and I know I am not above reproach, but I have learned something Craig and have been endeavouring to put it into practice, that something is to post what I see and leave it at that and if there is truth in what I write the Lord will not let my words fall to the ground unheard. Someone somewhere will get life from them.

And this is why I am trying to stay out of debates. Hope you can understand that.

[Taffy]

Thank you and I mean that, and I know I am not above reproach, but I have learned something Craig and have been endeavouring to put it into practice, that something is to post what I see and leave it at that and if there is truth in what I write the Lord will not let my words fall to the ground unheard. Someone somewhere will get life from them.

And this is why I am trying to stay out of debates. Hope you can understand that.

For mine Scott..indeed I do...

Blessings T

[Craig]

You are doing a good job in your rebuttal, and it is being heard and felt and agreed with.

Whether you know it or not, the problems have been rooted in your presumption of what I was doing and a presumption of my motivation, and now you even do this in your rebuttal to Matt. Not that I agree with Matt's position, but to assume what Matt is thinking, motivation and belief where it is not stated, is a problem. I would have much more to say, but it will most likely will fall on deaf ears.

There are bridges to mend between us Craig and until I see a change in you and in myself it is really better not to speak with one another else we make and irreparable gap.

I have already gave it to God, and because I have forgiven you, I did forget that there still seems to be problems between us. Though this is where you and I differ, I know forgiveness does not come by seeing, or a feeling, it comes by a choice because we are forgiven by God. If you cannot forgive until you see a change, then the onus remains on you to live beyond what you see and live by faith and if you have done this, and somehow it is still difficult, I apologize for rubbing old wounds accidentally.

Thank you and I mean that, and I know I am not above reproach, but I have learned something Craig and have been endeavouring to put it into practice, that something is to post what I see and leave it at that and if there is truth in what I write the Lord will not let my words fall to the ground unheard. Someone somewhere will get life from them.

Yes, I have read through everything and I find there is much truth in your reply. This is when I spoke up. I too have learned something, and have been endeavoring to put it into practice. To post what I see and leave it at that and if there is truth in what I write the Lord will not let my words fall to the ground unheard, I also believe someone somewhere will get life from them. There is only one time I disagreed with your approach, and it is when you presumed Matt's position concerning using emotions. This is something I am very familiar with, and why I am able to point it out.

I know my weakness, it is I cannot let a personal slight go unchallenged.

Craig

[pneuma]

I have already gave it to God, and because I have forgiven you, I did forget that there still seems to be problems between us. Though this is where you and I differ, I know forgiveness does not come by seeing, or a feeling, it comes by a choice because we are forgiven by God. If you cannot forgive until you see a change, then the onus remains on you to live beyond what you see and live by faith and if you have done this, and somehow it is still difficult, I apologize for rubbing old wounds accidentally.

Craig it is not that I have not forgiven you, for me it has come down to I don't know whether to trust you. If our disagreement becomes such as it did before I do not know what you will do with it. For me love and forgiveness is freely given, but trust has to be earned. This is the change I have to see in you and God has to change me to see it.

That said Craig some good has come from what has transpired here, I do see a change in you toward me that I have never seen before. So some good has come out of this mess.

I know my weakness, it is I cannot let a personal slight go unchallenged.

That's not just your weakness brother, we all fall into that category more then we should.

After all Peter never punch Paul in the nose. :laughing7:

God bless

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have to agree with SOtW about whether Jesus was appealing to emotion.   Jesus did not emotionalize the point about going after the lost sheep.  He showed the logical course of action a shepherd takes.


Having grown up on a farm,  cattle would often  get through a fence and get loose.   It would piss my Dad off, but that had no bearing on what needed to be done.  He could of smiled and danced a jig and the necessity of finding the lost cow had to be done.  His emotion had nothing to do with it,  his emotion may have changed how he went about it, possibly.

Lots of things can happen when a farmers cow gets loose that could draw emotion, but my Dad could be held liable for any damage the cow did whether or not it was due to negligence on my Dads part or not.  And what his emotion was concerning that had no bearing on its truth.

I do not think there is a farmer alive that has had a fair number of cattle that hasn't dealt with a few getting loose.  If my Dad was talking amongst a group of cattle owners and said,  "Yeah,  when those cows get loose the clock is ticking to get them rounded up and back in the pasture"

Few farmers wouldn't feel emotion based upon their experiences, but the point would be set in truth and emotion will not be a factor in what needs to be done when a cow gets out.


So I think the whole point is that Jesus spoke truth and emotion is secondary to what scripture is supposed to tell us.    The thought of hell is horrible, but that is not reason enough to say that Eternal Torture is not just. 

Appealing to that emotion will not change what scripture says about it.

[Craig]

Good point Paul. Indeed, and if I were to be a rancher and my cattle got loose, I would say to others, "Do you not just hate it when the cattle get loose?" Of course, since it is a nuisance to both the people and the farmer, most everyone would say, "Yes". However, saying, "I need to round up the cattle because people hate it when cattle get loose," is not a valid reason for rounding up the cattle. A rancher owns his cattle, and he is not a rancher if he has no cattle to bring to market.

[reFORMer]

High schools in the USA until after Dewey required a course in Rhetoric in order to graduate.  It is a great loss that this has been discontinued.  It was part of what keeps people free by giving them the tools to understand when they're being manipulated by other's words.  What I would like to know SoTW is whether there's a specific text you'd care to recommend, perhaps that has taught you about logical fallacies and such.  I appreciate your comments that at times have been very penetrating along these lines.  For us that get embroiled in anti-UR debate round-about the web it would seem something worth spending time with to sharpen our wits.

I want to go beyond the particular event that prompted this discussion.  Yeah, there's a factuality to Truth; but, Truth is also reality and there's reality to emotions.  Don't misunderstand.  If wisdom won't get it, stupid won't for sure!  But we are to be whole men, primarily spiritual, not intellectual.  C.S. Lewis in (I think it was) The Abolition of Man said something to the effect that there has come into our system of education a great loss from a pervasive attitude based on the lie that our subjective experience as a human being, such as awe at the sight of a waterfall, is of no value.  It is only scientifically verifiable facts that have any consequence.

I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!

Psalm 78:38-39:
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

God's in control of His passions; but, sometimes He stirs Himself up and lets Himself get crazy.  Remember David drooling in his beard?  It saved his life.  Remember Jesus cleansing the temple, overturning the money changers tables, releasing the animals and driving them out with a whip?  ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE HAS EATEN ME UP!!!

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CRAZY!  If I want to I can stay a good man and let my passions drive me to extremes.  LOVE!  LAUGH!  LIVE!  A balanced sword rests over the mantel.  It wins no wars.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?  I think people in general have been too pacified.  What I'm saying should never contradict our having our feet shod with the gospel of peace.  But, that's not the same as our deeply ingrained training to not get passionately carried away.  O, I know the movies allow it for supposed uncontrollable sex urges; but, I think of extreme and athletic worship.  DAVID DANCED WITH ALL HIS MIGHT BEFORE THE LORD.  Some will despise us for it, like Michal whose womb was shut for the rest of her days as a consequence.  Anger at the mistreatment of the helpless...  One day we'll look back at this period and understand the (what is it?) million babies slaughtered every year in America, their body parts sold, is to be compared to the deeds of Stalin or Hitler.  Such people deserve to lead nothing!  Cold, dispassionate acceptance has been drilled into us.  Submission to other mediators, men over other men in the heavenlies releases the same carnally in the earth.  We were made to be directly intimate with God, inseminated with His Spirit-Word.  The world has followed the Church: we've given our rights and our gifts away to a few professionals.  The way we do Church has the men assuming a passive woman's role in the audience while the professional pumps his seed into them.  I heard Gene Edwards once say something like, "Real men should stand up and roar like lions."  But we've not been allowed to be an influence in the meetings.  It would run the same without us.  We're sterile.  Does anybody else see a pattern?


---James Rohde

[pneuma]

Having grown up on a farm,  cattle would often  get through a fence and get loose.   It would piss my Dad off, but that had no bearing on what needed to be done.  He could of smiled and danced a jig and the necessity of finding the lost cow had to be done.  His emotion had nothing to do with it,  his emotion may have changed how he went about it, possibly.

Hi Paul, not to debate, but if it was one of your brothers or sisters that was lost and in danger of wolves would that change your father perspective.

Would he just say oh crap now I have to go find them, or would he be compelled to find them because he loved and cared for them?

[Paul Hazelwood]

I see what your saying pneuma,  but you have to see the how I am relating the analogy.

Jesus did not ask who he was talking to what they would do if it was their sons or daughters. 

He was relating to a process that happens regaurdless of the emotion. 


However, be careful how you emotionalize something, because I know fathers that indeed would say that, yet, they would still go look, even if it was to beat me (umm I mean them....) when they found them.

We know to look for what is lost if it is something that we know should be found.

[Molly]

Hey Reformer--

Genesis 49:9
You are a lion's cub, O Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?

:icon_king:

It is the Lion of the tribe of Judah who triumphs.

[pneuma]

Jesus did not ask who he was talking to what they would do if it was their sons or daughters. 

Better read it again brother, Jesus spicifically said WHAT MAN AMONG YOU

[Craig]

High schools in the USA until after Dewey required a course in Rhetoric in order to graduate.  It is a great loss that this has been discontinued.  It was part of what keeps people free by giving them the tools to understand when they're being manipulated by other's words.

Yes, the art of rhetoric has been removed from our schools. I think you may know why, it is because we are all being conditioned to be manipulated by the words of our politicians, advertisers, news casters, movies, etc. they want us to live on our emotions and call it 'heart', and not use our minds to recognize we are being herded around. Our ability to reason is being degraded, and most are not even conscious that it is happening, and so we don't stand up when our rights are being violated and taken away, but we will stand up when our emotions have been hurt in order that so as long as you keep the masses happy subjectively, you can objectively destroy everything that is truly important.

What I would like to know SoTW is whether there's a specific text you'd care to recommend, perhaps that has taught you about logical fallacies and such.  I appreciate your comments that at times have been very penetrating along these lines.  For us that get embroiled in anti-UR debate round-about the web it would seem something worth spending time with to sharpen our wits.

All my life as a child, I had one wish and that was to be wise like King Solomon and so throughout my life, I so I have developed and learned, retained and understood concepts beyond myself because I pursued wisdom and knowledge. God didn't tell me that King Solomon said wisdom brings sorrow and knowledge brings grief, but I have  learned to deal with it, for me sorrow and grief are a way of life.

Therefore, though I was never taught what was an error in reasoning, I can actually recognized them and have to find out what they call it, and so I type in 'fallacy' in a search engine and look for the particular error in reasoning I am faced and can find the definition. I also recommend books on Christian Apologetics, particularly anything with Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/ (though take what he says with grain of salt, I have been able to refute Peter's use of Augustine's logic such as the comparative adjective problem with aionios and the answer to his dilemma of evil is Universal Salvation.)

I want to go beyond the particular event that prompted this discussion.  Yeah, there's a factuality to Truth; but, Truth is also reality and there's reality to emotions.  Don't misunderstand.  If wisdom won't get it, stupid won't for sure!

Absolutely, it is a mistake to think because emotions are not reasons in and of themselves, that emotion is removed from the equation. Emotion based on reason, is a driving motivator to action and acceptance. Emotional appeals based on what is already true, is not a fallacy, since it is now engaging more than the intellect but the emotion in order to get action and acceptance of what is already known to be true.

But we are to be whole men, primarily spiritual, not intellectual.  C.S. Lewis in (I think it was) The Abolition of Man said something to the effect that there has come into our system of education a great loss from a pervasive attitude based on the lie that our subjective experience as a human being, such as awe at the sight of a waterfall, is of no value.  It is only scientifically verifiable facts that have any consequence.

The problem with this is the definition of spiritual continues wrongly to be emotion, it is not. The things of the spirit are morally and ethically good, and therefore anything of the spirit is to do or think what is morally and ethically good, despite our emotions and intellect telling us differently. That is why as Christians, we are told to live by faith. It is also wrong not to be taught how emotion plays a part in our being, but is also wrong to believe our emotions are reasons for what is true and factual.

Let us look at your analogy of the waterfall.

Whether or not a person finds the waterfall awe inspiring, does not change the fact it is a waterfall, nor is it the reason the waterfall exists. There will be those who believe God created waterfalls for being awe inspiring to those who see it; and that would only be true if a waterfall causes awe for everyone who sees it. Still, whether we are at awe of the waterfall, does not dictate whether what a waterfall is, and how it exists. It is a wonderful and unique facet of nature, but is objective in it's being not subjective.

So guess what, When you said,

"That there has come into our system of education a great loss from a pervasive attitude based on the lie that our subjective experience as a human being, such as awe at the sight of a waterfall, is of no value.  It is only scientifically verifiable facts that have any consequence."

This is actually a presumptive fallacy. You will need to find me one person on this planet who thinks, believes and feels that only scientifically verifiable facts are the things that have any consequence in order for your point to be valid. Philosophy came into being because not everything in life is scientifically verifiable fact, logic came into being to follow the chain of reasoning.

Let us look at the phrase: "we reap what we sow"

You think you know it to be true verifiable fact. You go out and plant an apple seed, and you get an apple tree. Sometimes, you don't get an apple tree, you get nothing at all. Sometimes you get an apple tree with fruit, and sometimes it is a tree without fruit. Though the basic premise concerning agriculture is we reap what we sow.

Now apply that to everything in life. How do we know if we sow hard work and make investments, that we will receive lots of money? There are people in this life who work hard all there life and just as they are retiring, the company they work for goes bankrupt and the pensions the person had been investing in disappears. So much for the reaping what we sow.

Though despite all this scientific unverifiable fact, the general principle philosophically remains true, we do reap what we sow.

I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!

Psalm 78:38-39:
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

God's in control of His passions; but, sometimes He stirs Himself up and lets Himself get crazy.

Indeed.Crazy is the wrong word since it primarily means loss of control, mentally deranged; demented; insane. senseless; impractical; totally unsound. However, extremely passionate, yes and one can still be in control whether he is extremely passionate about something or not, but it is still a choice. Oh how humbled we are to know God choose us, because He wanted to, not because some emotion caused him to.

Remember David drooling in his beard?  It saved his life.

Heh.

Remember Jesus cleansing the temple, overturning the money changers tables, releasing the animals and driving them out with a whip?  ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE HAS EATEN ME UP!!!

Jesus did not do that because He was angry, He did was did it because they had turned the House of God into a den of thieves and money changers. He was angry with them, but his actions were not done out of anger. This is hard to see, because there are many of us who have done things in our lives out of anger and so we think we relate to Jesus doing the same, but what He did was out of the authority the Father has given Him over all mankind and to cast out demons. What He did, was the right thing to do, it was spiritual. What is the purpose of the House of God, is it to money exchange, profit monger, steal, and sell merchandise?

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CRAZY!  If I want to I can stay a good man and let my passions drive me to extremes.  LOVE!  LAUGH!  LIVE!  A balanced sword rests over the mantel.  It wins no wars.

We all reap what we sow, a man who loses control and acts out of his passion cannot control the cause of the action or it's effect, but he chose to lose control and is still responsible and accountable for the action and it's effect whether or not he had control. This is another area where many are confused, they believe because they were not conscience of the consequence, that they should be off the hook.

Let me use a more concrete example. A man drinks alcohol, he gets drunk, he drives home, he kills a pedestrian. Is the man responsible and accountable for killing the pedestrian? He argues truthfully, he was drunk, he did not know what he was doing and could not control his actions. Yet, it was his choice to get drunk in the first place, his choice to lose control which resulted in him not able to control his actions or know what he was doing, which led to the death of a pedestrian.

It is the same thing with emotion. Yes, emotion can truthfully be the cause many things, though the chain of logic moves up the chain of control and authority, and that is the mind, and the power of the will. We have been taught this way of thinking, because they want us to lose control in order that we may be controlled by those who do not lose control, and see beyond what their emotions are telling them.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?  I think people in general have been too pacified.

Now you are seeing what the world is doing and it has seeped into our beliefs concerning God and everything. The enemy is tricky.

What I'm saying should never contradict our having our feet shod with the gospel of peace.  But, that's not the same as our deeply ingrained training to not get passionately carried away.

That is called living by faith.

One day we'll look back at this period and understand the (what is it?) million babies slaughtered every year in America, their body parts sold, is to be compared to the deeds of Stalin or Hitler.  Such people deserve to lead nothing!  Cold, dispassionate acceptance has been drilled into us.

Absolutely, and I point this out innocently, it has nothing to do with being cold or dispassionate, it has to be with being nonspiritual. The fruit of the nonspiritual can sometimes result in being unemotional, and apathetic, but it also can be passionate anger, resentment, insecurity, and a variety of other passionate and emotional responses.

Do you notice the trend? Even you inadvertently fell for the either/or fallacy, in which you think and agree with many that spiritual means to be emotional and passionate, nonspiritual means unemotional and apathetic (which means indirectly intellectual). This is completely wrong!

Submission to other mediators, men over other men in the heavenlies releases the same carnally in the earth.  We were made to be directly intimate with God, inseminated with His Spirit-Word.  The world has followed the Church: we've given our rights and our gifts away to a few professionals.  The way we do Church has the men assuming a passive woman's role in the audience while the professional pumps his seed into them.  I heard Gene Edwards once say something like, "Real men should stand up and roar like lions."  But we've not been allowed to be an influence in the meetings.  It would run the same without us.  We're sterile.  Does anybody else see a pattern?

Yes. That pattern exists, and because it is a pattern it means it has a logical and reasonable explanation. Whether anyone recognizes it or not, does not make it any less true.

Let me repeat, this is the trend, and remember it is a fallacy:

Proposition #1:
To be spiritual means to be emotional and passionate.
Propositional Conclusion#1:
Therefore whatever is not emotional and passionate is not spiritual.

Proposition #1:
To be spiritual means to be emotional and passionate.
Proposition #2:
The intellect is unemotional and apethetic.
Propositional Conclusion #2:
Therefore the intellect is not spiritual.

Proposition #1:
To be spiritual means to be emotional and passionate.
Proposition #2:
The intellect is unemotional and apethetic.
Proposition #3:
Knowledge is of the intellect
Proposition Conclusion #3:
Therefore knowledge is not spiritual.

This is what spiritual means to the world because that is the wisdom of the world and it is so wrong on so many levels, even deceiving the elect, if it were possible. The reason they cannot recognize this, is because they are trained to believe something that does not exist.

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That which of the Spirit of God can be both spiritually discerned emotionally and intellectually. The things of the Spirit are always in line with what is morally good and from that comes both intellect to know the spirit and emotion to feel the spirit.

[Craig]

Here are the parables:

Luke 15:3-7
Then Jesus told them this parable: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Matthew 18:12-14
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.

There is no emotionalism or emotional appeal found as the reason for anything in these parables.

Let us break it down.

Fact: If you (or a man) owns a hundred sheep, and one wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills (open country) and go to look for the one that wandered of?

Definition of shepherd: a person who tends sheep.

What is the motivation? Did he go out and find the sheep because he was sad? No, not at all. It is his duty, as a shepherd to who tends sheep. It is also not out of fear he went out and found the sheep, since He owns the sheep and has nobody to report to but himself. It is his duty, as a shepherd who tends the sheep.

Fact: When he does find the sheep, he rejoices and his happy. How he feels when he finds the sheep, has no bearing on the reason why he went to find the sheep in the first place.

Note:If the reason the shepherd finds lost sheep, is because it makes him happy then there is room for wickedness in that shepherd's heart, and he will purposely allow a sheep to get lost in order to find it and be happy.

Emotion is involved, but is not the reason for the action which was taken. Jesus was addressing the crowd, he was not making an emotional appeal when he said, "What man among you..." It becomes clear in Matthew 18, he was not addressing their emotions but their minds, "What do you think?" because what he said is logical and reasonable and based on what is true and factual.

Now, let us even get further, the shepherd and the sheep is not even the point of the parable. Jesus was relaying how the Father feels to the crowds who could not relate to the emotion of the Father. So Jesus chose his parable wisely so that they would recognize that God does not live by His emotions, but by His will and at the same time, demonstrate how God feels when the lost are saved.

This is not an emotional appeal, nor is it emotionalism and to use this parable to refute someone who says emotional appeals and emotionalism is wrong. It was a mistake, and still remains a because there is no emotional appeal or emotionalism found in the parable of Jesus, concerning how the Father feels.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Jesus did not ask who he was talking to what they would do if it was their sons or daughters. 

Better read it again brother, Jesus spicifically said WHAT MAN AMONG YOU

Please use my entire sentence in context with what I was saying pneuma.

You asked me if my father was looking for my brothers and sisters (his sons and daughters) if that would change his perspective.  You asked me that after I gave an analogy of my Dad looking for cows.   


I said to you that Jesus did not ask anyone what they would do if their sons and daughters were lost (and I do not need to read it again to know this), he asked them about sheep.


I think your question to me is why Jesus DID  talk sheep and not family members, you asked me the question about my brothers and sisters to emotionalize the issue.


 

[Craig]

You asked me the question about my brothers and sisters to emotionalize the issue.

:BangHead:  :skittles: