Inderjitji
Finally you come down to earth & start using understandable language. Your excuse about paradigm shifts is a lame excuse to avoid logical argumentation & the normal rules of debate. It is what is termed an ARGUMENT STOPPERS [ways of avoiding reasoning] which is a verbal response to argumentation that is intended to have the effect of ENDING RATIONAL debate in its tracks. In effect you are saying “I’m not going to even consider what you have to say. It is hypocritical bias and prejudice to the nth degree.
Because you deny logic & reason yet use it, you do not have a credible position. You seem to think that the use of reason & logic is somehow a paradigm shift from the teachings of Sikhism. Yet you are blind to the fact that in trying to prove your worldview is correct & mine is wrong you are unwittingly & unconsciously using the very basic principle of logic – the law of non-contradiction. (The Law of non-contradiction is the law that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.) It is either your view or my view, not both. You are saying that a view (e.g A) and its contradictory (not-A) cannot be simultaneously true. You cannot deny that this is in fact what you are doing. In contradicting your worldview that does not allow you to use logic you cut off the branch on which you are sitting & commit intellectual suicide. Why are you even trying to prove anything if you truly do not believe the law of non contradiction?
Harry Gensler, in Formal Ethics, p.36 offers an amusing dialogue between two Hegelians:
A: Are you still a follower of Hegel?
B: Of course! I believe everything he wrote. Since he denied the law of noncontradiction, I deny this too. On my view, P is entirely compatible with not-P.
A: I'm a fan of Hegel myself. But he didn't deny the law of noncontradiction! You read the wrong commentators!
B: You're wrong, he did deny this! Let me get my copy of The Science of Logic.
A: Don't get so upset! You said that he did deny the law, and I said that he didn't. Aren't these compatible on your view? After all, you think that P is compatible with not-P.
B: Yes, I guess they're compatible.
A: No they aren't!
B: Yes they are!
A: Don't get so upset! You said that they are compatible, and I said that they aren't. Aren't these two compatible on your view? Recall that you think that P is compatible with not-P.
B: Yes, I guess they're compatible. I'm getting confused.
A: And you're also not getting confused, right?
Similarly in your contradictory world where the laws of logic do not apply and P is compatible with not-P it does not matter whether Jesus claimed deity or not. After all Jesus is God is compatible with Jesus is not God & you are wasting your time even discussing it. From now on I shall assume that since you are on this discussion forum, then the use of the laws of logic will not be questioned by you. If you can confirm this in the affirmative, I will reply to your objections about the deity of Christ. If you are unwilling to confirm your acceptance of the laws of logic you really have NOTHING to say.
And if you are serious about your questions & objections about the reliability of the Bible & the historicity of the New Testament why have you not started a new thread so that I can reply? On this particular thread, I refuse to be side tracked from the topic of discussion by your red herrings.
Jass Singh
