Philosophical Extroversion


This is just a snippet of the thoughts that go through my head.

In discussing Universal Salvation, I have found myself many times preoccupied with following the logical path of an erroneous premise in order to find where it leads, using this conclusion as strength for an argument and apology concerning Universal Salvation. In doing so, I sometimes wonder if I forgot what I believe, but find myself in situations where I am able to repeat what I believed years ago, because I am finding the details of what I believe more cemented to the point of unconscious competence and forgetting why I was so competent in that belief before.

I have found myself lately pondering what is true based on premise and proposition, that I may have inadvertently developed a type of rational thinking in which I am able to discuss that which is logically true based on particular premise and proposition should the premise or proposition exist, rather than discussing what I believe concerning a particular premise and proposition. Though I am passionate in what I believe, I find myself alienating a discussion on what I believe and I find myself discussing the progression of a foreign thought and idea, rather than my thoughts and ideas on a though or idea.

I was just wondering if anyone else has come to the point where it feels almost useless to discuss things since you are completely aware that the thing discussed is not even relevant in the first place. What I believe King Solomon refers to as the futility of futility and vanity of vanity.


As Luther said, ‘Logic is whore.’ The Gospel preempts that great beautiful goddess. What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?


The truth is based on truth, therefore it is always logical and reasonable. Anything that is not in line with truth can cannot be demonstrated, and anything which is a fallacy is therefore a lie. All lies come from the devil and all liars come from their father the devil.


A guy is born by virgin, takes away the sins of the world, dies and comes back to life. What’s logical and reasonable about that to the LOGICAL?


Simple. You must be demon-possessed. :smiling_imp: :smiley:


No, Since it is foreign and I recognize it as so, I cannot be possessed by it. My exposition was rather to expose those who are foolish to believe something they cannot prove and of which their propositions are logically defeated to being false but yet still insist in believing it.

So let me simplify what I said in the first post: I find myself having always to disprove a person of their belief rather than proclaiming what I believe. Does anyone else find themselves doing this too often?


How often have you actually succeeded in doing this?


It is very successful actually because once a person is conscious that their belief is flawed, it forces them into a crisis. In order to believe what is true, most people rely on their belief and use their belief as support for the belief. The only way to prevent them from doing this, is to destroy their foundation by disproving their belief.

Crisis then brings change, and though in the immediate few accept they are wrong, many are resentful and even in denial; yet, later I find them accepting of this fact their belief is flawed and embracing what is provable and true even proclaiming the gospel which I share and believe. Some remain in denial and become forcefully stubborn in their belief, but that serves a purpose too.

Understanding human behavior and why people insist on believing what they do, it is easy to change their minds having them believe they did it all by themselves.

Isaiah 28:9-13
"Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is (to themselves) “Do and do, do and do,rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there.” Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people,to whom he said, “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen.
So then, the word of the LORD to them will become: “Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there— so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.”

Those who change from choice will be spared the pain of falling and injured.


It is completely reasonable and logical. Every propositional conclusion begins with a presupposition; from that presupposition comes proposition and premise and from those propositions and premise comes a conclusion. If at any time your proposition and premise diverts from the presupposition, it is illogical and unreasonable.

Everything in life, whether philosophical or scientific, comes from a presupposition and from those presuppositions comes proposition and premise and from these propositions and premises comes conclusions. Whether it is a true propositional conclusion is based on whether the propositions remains true to the presupposition. Logic is what proves or disproves the propositional conclusion being true based on the initial presuppositions.

So the presuppositions:
-A guy is born a virgin
-Humanity has sinned, is possible.
-A guy took upon himself the sins of humanity through his death
-A guy raises from the dead three days later proving his authority over death.

If you believe any of those presuppositions, then every proposition and premise that comes from them must remain constant and logical based on these presuppositions, otherwise they are flawed and faulty.

So, I would rethink your belief concerning logic since a guy who is born from a virgin to save humanity from his sins reconciling them through his death and giving them life through his resurrection is completely logical and reasonable based on the presupposition that these things occurred and that these are indeed true facts which are known even if they have yet to be demonstrated through scientific means.

It becomes a possibility, RanRan, you may not understand philosophy nor do you understand logic concluding you may not know what you think you know and that is the logical conclusion concerning your beliefs on logic (you most certainly may have an idea of other things you believe).

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

A particular word used, Logos, the appeal based on logic or reason and is the controlling principle of the universe and that Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.

John 1:14 Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Colossians 1:16-20
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

As a result of this understanding, everything I believe is on a sure foundation, which is reasonable logical and sound.

1 Corinthians 3:11 “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is [the Word (Logos)] Jesus Christ. But each one should be careful how he builds upon it.”


That’s my point - if one doesn’t believe the propositions (or the Word that they are based on) is that person being illogical? They are not. Non-believers can be highly logical. Logic is a whore - she can go either way. It’s true that we cannot argue meaningfully without logic or even think well, and that logic and faith do well together - but logic on it’s own, lifted up like a goddess? No. She’s a whore. I wouldn’t brag about her too much.


It is neither logical or illogical that person believes your presuppositions, that is called is non-rational or rational argument. From this you can logically deduce whether it is worth your time conversing with them.

You may think you understand logic, but more and more you demonstrate you are not talking about logic but logic as the Greek idol. Yet, the very thing which you call a whore, is the word which was used to describe God who was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, so by this reason you may find yourself disowning the very God you thought you were defending, His Son, Jesus Christ.

So, now get it out of your mind that I come from any other view point other than Christ, whether we agree or disagree is not the point, what matters is what we believe is either true or not true and the only way we can confirm this is to test our premise and propositions against the presuppositions which were supplied and that, is called logic.

P.S. Though I say it matters what we believe is either true or not true, I do not mean it is the only thing that matters. We live out of what we believe and if we believe something that is untrue, we end up causing problems for others we interact with. Out of faith, hope and love, the most important of these is love and whether true or untrue, pure or impure motives, another thing that matters is that Christ is preached!


You do realize I was making a joke, right?

"…who are foolish to believe something they cannot prove…

Ah, there is the crux of the matter. How do you know that what you, SotW, believe can be proved?

So is that what your mission here is, to disprove people that don’t agree with your POV? The scriptures can be quite dicey at times, sometimes due to ambiguities of the passage. How are you certain your interpretation is correct?

Inasfar as disproving others, you, in effect, proclaim your belief anyway. So what’s the difference?


Hello Dondi,

I am sure you are a cool person and have some really interesting perspectives. I appreciate your reply although I may find the content rather confusing. Here is my initial thoughts of your reply, and please understand it is a constructive criticism.

Jokes, you see, are humour that is shared among like-minded individuals. Before attempting a joke, perhaps know the person you are telling it to, they may find it rather distasteful. Wisdom goes a long way.

I find nothing funny of accusing another person of being demon possesed, sarcasm weakly conveyed on discussion boards and though it may have sounded funny when you said it, I do not know you to understand whether you were serious or joking.

Understanding this, I am not offended either but rather confused of your intention.

I can prove and disprove every argument I desire, the crux is whether or not you are willing to have a civil discussion about it. I feel you misunderstand my attempt to communicate a honest and straight forward dilemma that most people have. I am quite conscious of my thoughts and I continually test them, but I find most are not so conscious and as a result like to disprove something before they even have proved their own belief. If someone asked me of what I believed, I would tell them, but I find most people are only appreciative of their own belief, something that is not akin to philosophical extroversion.

I am here to have a discussion and meet other Biblical Trinitarian Universalists, otherwise known as Evangelical Universalism. As for the ambiguities of Scripture, if you are unwilling to discuss what you believe, they will remain ambiguous. If you are willing to discuss them, and define and defend what you believe, then they will nolonger be ambiguous but obvious.

What your mission and the purpose of your reply? Is it to joke about demon possession and mistrust every person who has a different perspective than you?

Of course this was my attempt at humour with you,

The question really is are we sincerely seeking and willing to have a civil discussion where our point of view will be challenged and we will be held responsible for the things we have accepted and concluded as our belief?

That is the essence of Philosophical Extroversion. The ability to look outside what we believe and understand it before we can constructively criticize it.



Well, sorry if my joke came off in poor taste. It was intented as a come off from the other thread about fallen angels, particularly on the idea that some foreign entity could actually implant ideas in one’s head (which actually would make an interesting tangent conversation), and not to be taken seriously (and I was hoping that the use of the smileys ( :smiling_imp: :smiley: ) conveyed that). I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were actually demon possessed. I should have waited until we were more aquainted before making such a wry attempt at humor.

As far as my inquiry as to your purpose, I just wanted to ensure that your intentions are pure. Too many times I’ve seen trolls rumble into forums with their own fixed agenda, which makes it hard to have a decent conversation when the discussion is onesided. So when your second post, in reply to my apparent humorless interjection, seemed to imply a tactic of constantly disproving another’s belief, I became concerned that you might be one of these persons. It’s hard to have a discussion with someone who always think they are right.

But your subsequent replies indicate that you are willing to be civil and listen. I hope that is the case. So far, you have given some fascinating inputs on this and the other threads you have participated, and I am eager to learn from you and others on this board.

I wouldn’t be here in this particular forum if I didn’t allow my beliefs to be challenged. I’ve come a long way out of the typical evangelical circles that rigidly adhere to one level of doctrine. And I am constantly willing to learn and evaluate and respect what others have to say, even at the expense of considering that I might be wrong on certain issues.

Having said that, what I mean by ambiguities is that some biblical passages have more than one valid viewpoint, simply because there isn’t enough information within the text, or even with extraneous background information and references, to make a firm determination one way or another. And for those kinds of issues, it is amblicable just to say we can agree to disagree. However, if you feel you have answers, then please feel free to enlighten us.


Thanks Dondi and feel free to enlighten me any time!!! :smiley:


That’s silly. You can’t PROVE that Christ was born of virgin. The ultimate proof is Mary’s. Belief is not proof. Uber-logic won’t disprove an aborigine who just got a message from a tree. You over-estimate your powers. Shoot, you haven’t disproved my arguments, unless calling me a butt-head counts. Get with the program.



You just demonstrated you have no understanding of philosophy with that reply. You appear out of your element when discussing philosophy and I would recommend reading an encyclopedia or dictionary before responding again. You don’t know what you think you know.

n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

  1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
  2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
  3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
  4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
  5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
  6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
  7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

Again, I recommend strongly you cease what you are doing and take some time to learn about what you are discussing before going out and telling someone to get with the program. Trust me, the road you are currently on, will lead to your destruction and I am telling you to be wise in who you choice of battles.


That’s an uncalled over reaction. Do you not understand why Luther called logic a whore? Why do you think he said that?

An opinion is an opinion unless proven WITHIN a certain paradigm. That’s a big ‘within’. And even within a certain paradigm, it can appear foolish - passion has little to do with it. People believe all sorts of things within a ‘faith’ paradigm and they are corrected (in our paradigm) by faith in the Bible being the very Word of God. Now, what is that Word telling us? As another poster intimated, there’s plenty of wiggle room, i.e. on this side of veil, proof is elusive. Work out YOUR own salvation - but do THAT with gusto and passion. It’s all any of us have got.


That’s an uncalled over reaction. Do you not understand why Luther called logic a whore? Why do you think he said that?

There is no over-reaction. Whether or not Luther calls logic a whore, nor my understanding of what Luther meant, bears no reference to your ability or understanding in philosophy. You are resorting to irrelevant conclusion and a straw man argument.

Also, since you continually demonstrate a lack of understanding concerning what Philosophy is, there is a possibility you did not take Luther in context to understand what Luther was talking about and your the fact that he could be wrong concerning whatever it is you think he meant by it.

Care to continue?


You really don’t really read do you? You just like to skim and pick up things you think you are able to somehow criticize. I never said passion had anything to with it, you really need to take things in their context.

Care to continue?