Originally posted by RJHindsThat is correct. Unfortunately very few Christians actually believe that, despite the fact that Christ said that over and over and in different ways and with many examples.
The commandment to love God is the same as the first commandment given to Moses for the children of Israel for them to have no other gods. For Christ said, "If you love Me (God) you will keep my commandments."
The contra-positive of
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
is
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
And that is a serious situation for the Christian to be in.
Originally posted by Rajk999However,
That is correct. Unfortunately very few Christians actually believe that, despite the fact that Christ said that over and over and in different ways and with many examples.
The contra-positive of
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
is
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
And that is a serious situation for the Christian to be in.
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
does not imply, under propositional logic,
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
You need "If and only if..." to make that work.
To the degree it is a serious situation, it would be worth looking at the translation and also other Biblical texts for confirmation of whether "If and only if..." is the proper wording. If it is, the text should be edited.
Originally posted by JS357Why should it be edited? It seems clear enought to me.
However,
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
does not imply, under propositional logic,
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
You need "If and only if..." to make that work.
To the degree it is a serious situation, it would be worth looking at the translation and also other Biblical texts for co ...[text shortened]... whether "If and only if..." is the proper wording. If it is, the text should be edited.
10 edits
Originally posted by JS357Hmm.
However,
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
does not imply, under propositional logic,
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
You need "If and only if..." to make that work.
To the degree it is a serious situation, it would be worth looking at the translation and also other Biblical texts for co ...[text shortened]... whether "If and only if..." is the proper wording. If it is, the text should be edited.
L -> C has the same truth table as not-C -> not-L.
OK, I read up a little more. According to http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/ -
The English usage (which is NOT the same as logical -> ) if L, then C may have the truth table:
L C result
F F F
F T T
T F F
T T T
The English if not-C, then not-L may have the truth table:
L C result
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T F
It seems like we must modify both statements to 'if and only if', yes? Then they would have the same truth tables.
Sorry about all the edits - let's just say my position is 'evolving' like Obama's was on gay marriage. 😛
One more edit - truth tables assume the Dole/Gore example given in the link.
Last (I swear) edit: Refer to LJ's post below for a much clearer explanation. 😞
Originally posted by JS357I think Rajk probably meant instead to appeal to modus tollens.
However,
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
does not imply, under propositional logic,
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
You need "If and only if..." to make that work.
To the degree it is a serious situation, it would be worth looking at the translation and also other Biblical texts for co ...[text shortened]... whether "If and only if..." is the proper wording. If it is, the text should be edited.
Something like:
(1) If S loves God, then S will keep God's commands.
(2) It is not the case that S will keep God's commands.
(3) Therefore, it is not the case that S loves God.
This should be valid. Presumably, (3) represents the serious situation.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think I see your point I don't think it covers all the cases.
I think Rajk probably meant instead to appeal to modus tollens.
Something like:
(1) If S loves God, then S will keep God's commands.
(2) It is not the case that S will keep God's commands.
(3) Therefore, it is not the case that S loves God.
This should be valid. Presumably, (3) represents the serious situation.
Suppose all P's love beer.
Suppose some P's bowl and some P's don't bowl.
Now, if a P bowls, that P loves beer.
And if a P doesn't bowl, that P loves beer.
So, saying you (who are an P) bowl, it can't mean you don't love beer.
So, "if and only if" -- commonly -- "IFF" is needed.
Substitute God for beer and sin for bowl and that is my point.
This is not pointless, as it may not be as serious a situation for a Christian if he feels his love for God is real, but knows he disobeys. But as I acknowledge, it is pointless if other, accurate, translations or Bible passages confirm the "IFF."
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357While I understand your IFF requirement to make the conclusion valid in all situations, I think Lemon Jello's interpretation is more suited to that Biblical comment.
However,
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
does not imply, under propositional logic,
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
You need "If and only if..." to make that work.
To the degree it is a serious situation, it would be worth looking at the translation and also other Biblical texts for co ...[text shortened]... whether "If and only if..." is the proper wording. If it is, the text should be edited.
The Bible does not ever state if and only if. However there are other passages which say the same thing really but in different ways. Not sure if these passages would help strengthen the IFF requirement .. or if it just confuses the issue more :
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: ...
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:..
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
1 edit
The point I had in this thread is the benefit of coming to the Bible MIXING your reading with your praying. This has great benefit. It has benefit because there is not just the letter of the Bible there is the living God behind the letter o the Bible.
This part He seeks to get through to you today. That part He seeks to impress you with tomorrow. He wants to speak EXPRESSLY to people as Ezekiel the prophet said -
"The word of Jehovah came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans ..." (Ezek. 1:3 RcV)
Did you see that? The word of God came EXPRESSLY to a man. We need the word that seems to jump off the page and speak EXPRESSLY to our situation, our heart, our circumstances. Prayreading the word of God helps very much in this.
Prayreading the Bible is like searching for uranium with a Geiger Counter. You know that device will begin to click rapidly and loudly as you approach radioactivity. It can tell you when you are getting near to the uranium. It can clue you when you are right on top of the radioactivity. Suppose you are searching for uranium. A Geiger Counter can really help you to find it.
If you are searching for God's speaking to you personally, Prayreading the word of God is very useful. You read, you pray over the phrase. You move on. You read the next phrase. You linger there with prayer and thanksgiving. If your heart is toward the seeking of God Himself the "Geiger Counter" of your spirit will begin to stir at some point.
When you pray and feel to just LINGER there, you abide there turning over the biblical phrase with prayer. You can confess by means of the passage. You can petition by means of the passage. You use the passage to fuel your conversation with God.
Not only the meaning of the Bible become more opened to you but you are infused with God's heart. And you too can cast all of your anxieties onto God.
Psalam 55:22 says - "Cast your burden upon Jehovah, And He will sustain you; He will never allow the righteous to be moved."
And First Peter 5:7 says - " Casting all your anxiety on HIm because it matters to Him concerning you."
MIXING Bible Reading with Praying is Prayreading. We need not accept any accusation from skeptics.
We intend to meet the Lord in the Word and therefore are willing to have our thoughts broken by God. All the seeking Christians sincerely want to contact the Lord more and more. If we have found a way that is fruitful, why are we accused and condemned for it?
All the seeking Christians realize that in order to grow spiritually they must eat spiritual food. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah ate the Word (Jer. 15:16), Ezekiel ate the Word (Ezek. 3:1-3), and David ate the Word (Psa. 119:103). The Lord Jesus spoke of the Word as spiritual food (Matt. 4:4), and Peter said that we should “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2).
The vital question to us all is how can we eat the Word of God? For years we were taught and assured that we could eat the Word by study and searching the Scripture. The trouble with that was that although we learned a great deal about the Scripture, we never contacted the life of Christ. The Lord said, “Ye search the scriptures…and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life” (John 5:39-40). What did the Lord mean by this? Andrew Murray put it this way:
The Word is a seed. In every seed there is a fleshly part in which life is hidden. One may have a most precious and perfect seed in its bodily substance, and yet unless it is exposed in suitable soil to the influence of the sun and moisture, the life may never grow up. And so we may hold the words and doctrines of scripture most intelligently and earnestly, and yet know little of their life and power (The Spirit of Christ, p. 47).
copied from Defense and Confirmation Project http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/bible-answer-man/practices.html
Much dry discussion of Bible doctrines takes place on a forum like this. This thread is to help some people go deeper into their handling of the Scripture for the building up and feeding of thier innermost being.
"In God, whose word I praise, In Jehovah, whose word I praise." (Psalm 56:10)
Originally posted by Rajk999It is only the "if and only if" understanding of "if", that supports the interpretation that allows implying from:
While I understand your IFF requirement to make the conclusion valid in all situations, I think Lemon Jello's interpretation is more suited to that Biblical comment.
The Bible does not ever state if and only if. However there are other passages which say the same thing really but in different ways. Not sure if these passages would help strengthen ...[text shortened]... not my sayings:..
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. [/quote]
"If you love Me, you will keep my commandments."
to:
"If you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me."
I don't know if there are other uses of "if" or whatever word it was translated from, in the Bible; uses that do not imply IFF. It is easy enough to show examples of the various uses of "if" in everyday life, where IFF is certainly not meant. The problem is that things said in the Bible are taken by some to be of tremendous importance, so they need to be clear and not altered or added to by others.
I think in the passage noted, as written, Jesus is silent on the feelings that those who do not keep God's commandments, have for him. That's simply how I read it. I agree with you that other Bible passages or other translations of this passage may be different.
Originally posted by JS357I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are arguing.
I think I see your point I don't think it covers all the cases.
Suppose all P's love beer.
Suppose some P's bowl and some P's don't bowl.
Now, if a P bowls, that P loves beer.
And if a P doesn't bowl, that P loves beer.
So, saying you (who are an P) bowl, it can't mean you don't love beer.
So, "if and only if" -- commonly -- "IFF" is needed. ...[text shortened]... is pointless if other, accurate, translations or Bible passages confirm the "IFF."
But, at any rate, this disussion reminds me of some dangers involved in interpreting if-then type statements or indicative conditionals in terms of the truth functionality attached to the material conditional. One funny danger is that it provides for some ersatz "proofs" of God's existence. I'll start a new thread that shows one such "proof".