A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RAF

  So what do you tell us exactly ? That you'd rather like probalitity than potentiality or what ... it makes you feel more confortable ... So what ? That's your way to deal with the unknown ... your choice .. Does that eliminate any potential ??? NO ... You can twiste your understanding and explanations the way you want (potentially thats not about luck that's a potential and it doesn't have to be a good thing) but you won't replace the definition of potential or any potential

  There dictionnary links : just for you to realise that potential is not about luck (something inerent for instance is not related to luck since you like to relate them)

  For potential :

  http://www.answers.com/potential

  so then you'll see the difference with probabilty :

  http://www.answers.com/probability?cat=technology

  Anyway you seems to like the potential of using sophisms : http://www.answers.com/sophism
• 

  Terry

  So what do you tell us exactly ? That you'd rather like probalitity than potentiality or what ... it makes you feel more confortable ... So what ? That's your way to deal with the unknown ... your choice .. Does that eliminate any potential ??? NO ... You can twiste your understanding and explanations the way you want (potentially thats not about luck that's a potential and it doesn't have to be a good thing) but you won't replace the definition of potential or any potential

  Did you read the information in your own link??

  Dictionary:

  potential

  (p?-ten'sh?l) adj.

  1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
  2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
  3. Grammar. Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow.

  n.

  1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
  2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
  3. Grammar. A potential verb form.

  Maybe we are having a language barrier?

  Are you saying:

  1.There is no such thing as "potential"?

  2.Potential is not opposite to "actually existing"?

  3.I shouldn't talk about the difference?

  I'm puzzled as to what you are objecting to exactly.

  Go back and look at the previous posts for clarification.

  So we can say that an entire race of humans, the children that Jesus could have sired, were sacrificed to ransom us, the imperfect children of Adam.

  Look at the sentence above.

  Look at the part of the sentence which says ..."Jesus could have sired..."

  Is that actual children? Or, is it talking potentially?

  Jesus did not ACTUALLY sire any children.

  What children he had the ability to bring into existence can only be POTENTIAL.

  So, what is your problem??

  Here is my statement which you jumped on:

  What has never lived does not exist. What does not exist cannot die.

  You are confusing a "potentiality" with an actuality.

  In logic, this is called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

  You take a statement to its logical conclusion and demonstrate that it is absurd.

  That is what I attempted to do.

  That's where you paratrooped out of the heavens like a commando unit and started firing your rounds off willy-nilly.

  Now, either explain yourself or put your weapons away.
• 

  hillary_step

  Blimey Terry,

  I have never seen a thread attract this much attention unless it has 'oral sex', or 'pizza toppings' in the thread title.

  Congratulations. ;)

  HS
• 

  Terry

  Blimey Terry,

  I have never seen a thread attract this much attention unless it has 'oral sex', or 'pizza toppings' in the thread title.

  Congratulations. ;)

  HS

  I think we are veering off toward that very direction soon!

  I prefer thin crust, myself

  TW
• 

  RAF

  Right ... (about the fact that I've took "this" from a statement ... not regarding to what you were talking about) note that I didn't said I was talking about the subject ... And it doesn't matter ... Why ? because your statement is a sophismregarding to what is a "potential" ... so simply put (regarding to any topic) : whenever you feel like to play a REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM game why doing it with an ABSURD statements (wish doesn't look like, but is absurd/false regarding to the statement itself) ?

  And if I jumped on it (that's a way to put it) ... it is just because most of the time when I'm reading you that's what I read : lots of sophisms ... So once in while I guess I feel like to put the finger on it (not everytime when I read those stuffs, it would be tiring) so don't worry I won't spoil your playground very often.
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  God knows the end from the beginning...

  He IS aware of innumerable people dwelling in His heavenly kingdom...such ones were born of woman and born again into the kingdom of God...they actually exist to Him before they are a twinkle in their parents eye...

  plus according to the law...(an eye for an eye)....it is perfect justice for one to die for one...and so Jesus could have died to redeem just one human and it would have been just in God's eyes. BUT because Jesus IS perfect righteousness...He can be redeemer for whosoever.

  love michelle
• 

  Terry

  And if I jumped on it (that's a way to put it) ... it is just because most of the time when I'm reading you that's what I read : lots of sophisms ... So once in while I guess I feel like to put the finger on it (not everytime when I read those stuffs, it would be tiring) so don't worry I won't spoil your playground very often.

  Well, it doesn't quite work that way, I'm afraid.

  If you go on a discussion forum and don't discuss the topic you are, in effect, hijacking the thread for personal animus.

  You can call anything sophistry if you disagree with it. But, that isn't how discussion works either.

  You have to include reasons why you disagree, reasons why you feel something is sophistry. Otherwise, you are making wild assertions.

  You don't need me to tell you that, of course. You know what you are doing.

  I invite you to join this discussion by addressing the Topic Question. Otherwise, your "contributions" are just background noise.

  You can start your own topic and demonstrate the right way to conduct a discussion. I'll be happy to learn from you as an example.

  Thanks,

  T.
• 

  RAF

  Oy (Sorry but I feel free, since it doesn't hurt - does it hurt ?),

  Just wanted to read today but Ok just one thing because I feel that you don't feel concernedbyyour own WILD assertions (double standard syndrom I guess).

  Isn't that a wild assertion ? (Not to mention all the others you generaly do)

  Once you destroy theintegrity of your own vocabulary through rhetorical distortions, you cease to be able to think rationally!

  That's exactly what you did ... (did you realised that ?) and I won't get into all your rhetorical distortions in wild assertions you do use as answers or examples (so misplaced most of the time to be really accurate that they become sophism) to accomodate them to your own postulates (you've probably learned that from JWland). Also it would have been more right to be very clear on the matter (as a wild right assertion) to say this: When you destroy the integrity of vocabularary through rhetorical distortions, if inconsciouly ; you cease to be able to think rationally ; if consciously : you are trying to fool people(for some reason : any) .
  
  A wild assertion can be right or wrong, if wrong (regarding any matter) I guess there's a reason to put the finger on it "just to make things clear" about the value of "any" argument using IT because then, it have its place in any specific context.
• 

  Terry

  Once you destroy the integrity of your own vocabulary through rhetorical distortions , you cease to be able to think rationally !

  That's exactly what you did ... (did you realised that ?)

  Not only do I not realize it--I deny it.

  You haven't explained two things:

  1.Why you take exception to my statement about potential vs actual

  2.Why you keep insisting I'm trying to fool people.

  If I had to guess, and I do have to guess since I can't really understand you---I'd say you don't like any demand for specificity which calls for people explaining why they believe something is true.

  I do demand it.

  Nobody is compelled to reply if it offends them. They can ignore me.

  You, on the other hand, find it impossible to ignore me!

  Why are you so fascinated by my topics and language when you are troubled by the details and language in them?

  Puzzling!

  I'll ask you yet again, what do you have to reply ABOUT THE TOPIC HEADING itself? Is it possible for you to stay on the subject?
• 

  RAF

  I've' already replied Terry (why i'm only talking about what I'm talking about) but you do not aknowlegde (deny) ... You want me to elaborate on a subject wich is discussed over and over on this board since years ? And dealing from A to Z on this subject with distorted arguments like yours ... Oh no please ... (what I did, takes me already too much time but it's still ok til now so there I am answering again) ...

  About "fooling" you forgot the other possibility,but I guess you don't feel concerned again. Note that I've talked about conscious or inconcious ways ... Since your ways doesn't change - for instance :

  after your : I can't be wrong (without proving it but with sophism or pure denials - do you ever call into question your arguments ?), now its about why are you so fascinated by me and why are you picking on me especially ... (Terry this have nothing to do with fascination, think about it ...), its not "all" about you (but you are concerned since you've wrote what I'm talking about). I'm just sharing my opinion on whatever I want to (you can ignore it, just as you'd like me to ignore yours) - but I won't, if I want to voice my opinion. And why often on your thread, because you like to tell people to think from your arguments, so I give you and others the output of my thinkings.

  But if you want to know, about you to me, it is not about what is distorted in your ways and arguments (and about arguments I just need to read and think objectivily to get the point on that) the only question is aboutwhy your ways and arguments are distorted but that's about you exactly and I don't know you for real (I may have an idea but nothing will tell me if its right or wrong without knowing you for real and even then not sure I could have the answer either) but I won't make it something I need to know.Still I feel that the reason(s) is/are deep, I just hope for you that it is not painfull.