How can a person possibly think that a mind is not immaterial? (maybe we have different understandings of the definition of "immaterial").

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/immaterial?s=t
3. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.

So all along you actually agree that the mind is immaterial?!!

Did you not notice that I was arguing for precisely that thesis? So why are you telling me I'm wrong, — Bartricks

.. no, all this time I thought you were discussing the difference between mind and soul.

You've just said that the brain can be divided and that the brain can't be divided in the same sentence. — Bartricks

Can you show me that? I think you probably have misread me, and I would like to clarify my wording.

I don't know what you mean by a 'metaphysical thing'. Do you mean that it is immaterial? — Bartricks

Yes, immaterial will do. I will use that in future.

Your next claim - that the mind relies upon the brain - is false — Bartricks

That's an interesting idea. What makes you so sure of that?

For that purpose, I would argue that taking part of the brain away and disposing of it, is in fact not dividing the brain for the purpose of the expression.

When you are using the word "divided" in Premise two, to say that one mind becomes two minds, you also need to apply the same meaning to the word "divided" in premise one, to say that one brain becomes two brains.

Else, you might use the word "divided" as you do in premise one, to say that you are cutting pieces off the brain (and the question implies that to only the primary piece of the brain the mind belongs), then you also need to apply the same meaning to Premise two, to say that you can't cut away pieces of the mind.

If you opt for the second, then we have an additional difficulty - such as, we only see evidence of a mind by it's manifestation through a brain, so when you cut away some of a mind, then it doesn't belong to a brain, so how can it be demonstrated to exist?

Both 1 and 2, I think. I said that before.

Mind is a metaphysical thing, while brain is a physical thing. But the relationship between brain and mind is such that the mind relies upon the brain (I think.. but isn't that what we are discussing to establish?)

Well, it does matter. Because if it is not put into an environment where it can be sustained as a living thing then it decays. It is no longer a brain.

Plus, when dealing with such hypotheticals, it is naturally difficult.

So give a real example. Which part of the brain can be removed while the brain that is left continues to function so that the person can have a mind? .. and more to the point, so that the mind can function as it did before so that nobody can say they have lost a part of their mind?

What question? I am finding you extremely difficult to understand. — Bartricks

This one:

You say that a brain can be divided by mere fact that if you cut a piece off it, then it has been divided. The physical brain that was once one piece, now exists as two pieces. But, only one of those pieces is still functioning as a living brain .. what has happened to the other piece? — Serving Zion

.. if you just answer that question, it will lead to the next, and so on. I will lead you to see the problem.

If you will not answer my questions, you are forcing me to attempt to show you in absence of facts. Is that what you want to do?

I actually know there's an error. The challenge is to bring it to you (as a detective) when you are acting as the judge who is also the defendant, and to convince you of it (because that is what you say you want, by bringing it forward for discussion). So if you follow where I am leading you by answering the questions, I will bring you there.

I am challenging both premise 1 and 2 at this stage.

Ok, I can show you where the error is.

You say that a brain can be divided by mere fact that if you cut a piece off it, then it has been divided. The physical brain that was once one piece, now exists as two pieces. But, only one of those pieces is still functioning as a living brain .. what has happened to the other piece?

Well, if you want my help, you will need to work with me on it, because as I said earlier, you are drawing views from a philosophical ground that I don't have. But, we are discussing the same reality, so there is no right reason why we cannot find agreement.

Yes, you said I am testing your Premise 1.

How is it that you say a brain can be divided, in such a way that you also think it should create a dividing of the mind?

Actually, you are wrong about that (so far as the field of spirituality goes, which is fundamental to psychology and philosophy). The more I learn about the Hebrew language, the more I admire what they knew. But of course, you do need to read it in light of the right spirit.

Alright, here we go:

all extended objects - such as my brain - can be divided — Bartricks

How do you envisage that it might be possible to divide your brain but not your mind?

Take for an example, that you can divide a tree and you will have two living trees. But we do not assume that trees have a mind (though, consciousness is pretty safe to assume).

So a central nervous system (ie: brain) is a basic requirement for a mind in the field of consciousness.

Yet, if your brain can be divided and you would have two functioning brains, how can it be that you will have only one mind? What if those two parts of the brain were located in different bodies and those bodies taken to other places? Would they be thinking the same?

(I also suspect maybe you have meant that your mind can exist in your brain even if some of your brain is taken away from it, in which case I don't think it really can be said that the brain has been divided).

Could you explain that a bit more?

All I can suggest, is if at some point you read again what I have written, it should make more sense. I also have not said that the mind is the brain, but that it resides in the brain because it is the centre of operations for the body, and a powerful computer. But whether every brain has a mind (which I think is a safe assumption), and whether a mind can exist without a brain (which might be difficult to prove), I think are the best questions to ask.

It could also just be that what I call mind, you call consciousness and what I call consciousness you call mind. I've said that consciousness includes mind, heart and gut, so if you could say that mind includes mind, heart and gut but that consciousness is seated in the brain - then that's what is happening.

I was reading and I noticed Psalm 49:16 because it spoke a new insight to me while I am reflecting upon our conversation.

It says "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, for he receives me". So I'd like to explain what I see in this, because it shows that the soul is more than just a mind:

The Psalmist is not saying that God will redeem his soul from Sheol, but from the power of Sheol. So in understanding that key difference, we can see that he does not say he has descended to Sheol before God redeems his soul, but rather that his soul is in danger of being taken by the power of Sheol. So Sheol has some power that threatens his soul, and it is from that power that he says God will redeem his soul.

Without getting too much into the speculative topic of Sheol, because it is speculative and off-topic, I'm just looking at what makes a soul vulnerable to it's power. It is essentially remorse or regret, or bitterness over one's own failings. It is the inability to stand strong against attacks on our character in light of God's judgement. It is when we have fallen into such a state, that we begin fighting against the very law of God itself, in order to justify ourselves and by necessity, to condemn God. It happens because there is no justification in ourselves on account of the knowledge we have, that we have failed to do righteousness.

So the soul is vulnerable to the power of Sheol, not as a command from God to throw it into Sheol, but on account of what it thinks of itself - or rather, I should say that we are vulnerable to being consumed by the power of Sheol on account of what we think of ourselves, and because of that, we are unable to come to God with good conscience. It is that very insecurity that is the power of Sheol, because as I mentioned, we are forced to turn to devious ways to justify ourselves (to escape from being condemned by ourselves when we also feel powerless against it), and in that process, we become corrupted in thinking and when it grows, hypocrisy and denial of truth.

So the soul certainly is the self, but it is more than a mind alone - because in this case, we can see that our very name (reputation) contributes to the soul's strength and character. The soul is comprised of the name (reputation) of a person as well as his mind, because it is according to the person's own awareness of his name in the world, that Sheol takes liberties to accuse him.

The Psalmist writes that God will redeem his soul from the power of such destruction "because God receives him" - and in so saying, recognises that his having faith in God is the strength of character he needs in order to stay hopeful for the day in which his deliverance from the power of Sheol is brought to completion. He also says that it is God's work to do that.

So his soul has come under attack from Sheol on grounds that he believes are ultimately untrue, and he trusts that God will deliver his soul from that power by bringing about justice - clearing his name so that Sheol will be unable to bring any further claims against him. In that strength is salvation (and that is why baptism is at the core of Christian faith). In contrast, he says in the preceding verse that the "image" of the self-confident is destined to "decay in Sheol" when the light of day comes.

It's interesting to consider that view against the backdrop of my view of these things!

I also thought, while waiting for your answer, that a state of consciousness is a medical description of a brain's awareness of the environment and it's ability to motorise the body to interact with it. (Moreso the former).

Now you've mentioned states of desire as being a mind, that I hear as describing (as an example) a cigarette smoker who is craving and cannot shake the desire until his addictive appetite has been quenched. But a state of thinking appears to be a mood. A state of sensing is not an expression that I recognise. But it shows you have a basis of philosophy upon which you draw your comprehensions and the words rely upon that philosophical basis to some extent, and therein I do not have the same philosophical basis upon which to interpret the same meanings.

Nevertheless we are observing and discussing the same reality, and to that extent we can agree that words like "brain" are not merely philosophical concepts.

But in describing those words that represent real but not so tangible things, like mind, soul, consciousness, spirit, mood, etc, we can work toward if it is constructive.

So I see that the brain sleeps, and sometimes is made unconscious by trauma etc, wherein it does not recall having interpreted the data that the senses detected during that time, and in the case of sleep, it is only to an extent because the brain can be aroused to consciousness by sound, light or touch.

Therefore, I think what you are describing is a different thing than that.

You have named the mind as the seat of consciousness, wherein it's way of thinking then manifests through the body to impact the world. I would agree with that, while also saying that consciousness extends beyond the mind (as I described that the heart and gut have consciousness that is separate from the mind, while contributing toward our state of mind).

That is to say that our soul is the whole sense of self, that includes the mind, whereas the mind is what we think and it resides in the brain because that is the centre of operations for the body, and a powerful computer.

I do not see any evidence though, that our mind or soul extends beyond the body, therefore it is baseless to say that the mind or soul can experience the world or impact the world if it were not for the body. In my vocabulary, I would use the word "spirit" to describe the impact we may have on the world beyond the body, and therefore how the world succeeds in impacting our mind through it's actions.

But I would use the word 'mind' to denote the object, whatever it may be, that has conscious states — Bartricks

Could you explain what a "conscious state" means?

I almost replied to say I would name the body as an object that has conscousness, but I then saw that I was misreading you.

This soul concept.. what is it?

My answer to that question is from the ancient Hebrew word: naphesh, which is translated as "soul" in English.

The naphesh is the "will expressed" or the expression of the will. "Voice" is another way to say it, but the English word for voice is a bit misleading for that purpose. An artist speaks through paint, and a musician through music, that is their voice.

So the consciousness is intrinsically a principal in the soul (though not everything, because there is much that we say that does not come from our conscious reasoning). The brain, therefore is the central calculator whereupon the consciousness sits when it does it's work of "reasoning".

But is the consciousness limited to only the brain?

I remember my first experience with a herbal medic who used a technique of "strength testing" to diagnose the cause and treatment for my condition, (which essentially was adrenal fatigue and related unsettlement). She got me to clasp my ring finger and thumb together with all my strength and she pulled them apart with her two hands, to see how strong my hand muscles were. By doing that while instructing me to press pressure points on various parts of my body, she found that some pressure points produced a weakness in my grip that she could open easily - while in comparison, some pressure points gave me such strength like Samson, that she was literally too weak to pry my fingers apart. (It was amazing, I would never believe it if somebody had told me).

But the real interesting thing I have for you, is that when she began to analyse and identify the treatment for the pressure points that were revealing weakness, she put a shoulder bag over my shoulder so that the bag rested next to my gut, and into that bag she placed packets of herbs. One, two, three, four etc while she adjusted the measure to find the optimum dose for my treatment. As she placed them and repeated the test, my grip was strengthened. So that is the art of her medical practice - to analyse appropriate prescriptions based upon the body's response to herbal remedies.

The thing I found most interesting, is that the herbs were not ingested in order to have an impact. The mere proximity of the herbs to my gut was sufficient for the body to be impacted by them. This indicates to me that the mind, or consciousness, extends beyond the brain.

There are other indications too, like having butterflies in your stomach, or tightness of chest, or general feeling of uneasiness, or heavy heart - all of which can be stimulated by an environment, and even before the eyes or ears have detected a change to the environment (as for example someone walking into a room behind us, or that feeling you get when someone is looking at you).

Therefore, the soul (the I AM who comes into the world through our actions), is distinct from the mind (the I KNOW that resides within the body).

.. that's just how I think of the language we use though, which really is all it comes down to when we are discussing these things.

There is also spirit to consider, as another word describing an aspect of the nature of the living.

Hi , that's quite a name you have chosen! .. thanks for reaching out, I'm sure you've argued these points well and truly to your heart's content with others over the years so I'll just give you some feedback and see what you think.

What I can see in your view, is something very strong within you that has been turned sour against what you think the bible teaches. It comes as a result of having seen the bible as teaching a view that is objectionable. It is in fact a spirit that you are opposing. A spirit is what puts it's ideas to us, whether through words or music or pictures etc. So it is a spirit that you are seeing come through the scriptures, that you are opposing. Yet, what you are seeing through the scriptures is of a different spirit than what I am seeing through the scriptures, and it is drawing a different picture in your mind than what the scriptures do for me. I know there are people believing themselves to be Christian who are of a different spirit than the one whom I follow (John 10:14,4-5, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 4:4b-c).

I will try to share with you the way I see the scriptures, but of course, if you would rather see the other spirit it is your choice and I can't force you to break free from it.

A second class and immoral solution to a self-created problem.

A human man would do the opposite and step up himself instead of sending a son to die.

Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You still need to understand the nature of God from the Christian perspective. God is spirit. (John 4:24)

How do you suppose your question fits with the doctrine in John 14:10?

"Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own; but the Father dwelling in Me does His works."

What is bad about following an immoral command to stay stupid and too dumb to even know they were naked. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This shows that you have gone to quite an extent to oppose me. I understand morality as "do unto others as you would have them do to you". So, for example, if you are a parent and you know that the child doesn't understand how dangerous the road is, would you say it is immoral to warn them to not go there?

You have ejected the founding facts from the story in order to express that view. The world was paradise in absence of sin (Genesis 1:31), and it becomes the opposite through it (Genesis 6:5-7).

Until you bring your views to align with the facts, you will keep making errors of the same vein, and the further we push it, the more severe they will become.

Love is not a genocidal god and to say that Yahweh knows how to love is not demonstrated. The opposite is in fact shown. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How does it happen that you don't see it? 1 Corinthians 13 is a popular definition of love, including:

Love is patient,
love is kind,
it does not envy,
it does not brag,
it is not puffed up,
it does not behave inappropriately,
it does not seek its own way,
it is not provoked,
it keeps no account of wrong,
it does not rejoice over injustice
but rejoices in the truth;
it bears all things,
it believes all things,
it hopes all things,
it endures all things.

Every point of that list is found to vindicate Jesus, and that is the Christian view of what the bible teaches: that Messiah is the perfect man, the very image of God (Colossians 2:9, John 15:22).

It certainly does if you can see that little bit of evil as compared to the real evil that would be if man stopped his evolution. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's a strawman fallacy. There is no indication that mankind's evolution would have stopped if they had have not brought forth sin. In fact, believers have faith because of the hope in the truth to the contrary (Genesis 3:22, Revelation 2:7, Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 2:9).

We must compete to survive and thrive and that competition is the cause of all human against human evil. It creates a victim or loser to the competition. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't live that way though, and the world wasn't like that to begin with (Genesis 2:16, Genesis 13:8-9, Matthew 5:38-48). That way is the way of the world that we become when we choose to do and defend sin (Genesis 3:19, John 8:44, James 1:14-15, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Matthew 12:43-45).

.

It's what it all boils down to. — Amity

Well, it is simply my vocabulary :) :up:

The tone changed when he viewed me as a potential 'new friend' — Amity

Tone changed, that's for sure! (Much as yours did to me after my response to your first post).

Still, beware because I see an indication that you might have bought an idea that is a false-cause fallacy.

My tone changed to you, why? Something certainly happened that allowed me to see you as more friendly, that's for sure. When I challenged you to look back over what I had said, it challenged me to do the same. Then I saw where we had gone wrong.

But nevermind that, people are constantly changing. Beware of thinking of me as a devious type described in that article. Surely he is teaching devices for capturing converts. As for me, I merely have an axe to grind, and I thought you might share some common feelings. I certainly was speaking of a genuine affection at that time, because of who I had seen you to be.

Stay vigilant! (The destroyer would equally be pleased to devour you or I through one another) - so, "let each one speak truth with his neighbour, for we are members of one another").

Which group of people do have in mind when you talk of 'book-idolising' ? — Amity

By nature they tend to believe what their book says and then try to rationalise it, instead of examining whether they understand it well, and then whether it seems true and insightful. They tend to be irrational in such prejudice, and equally ignorant in dismissing the books of other book people if they think their identity is not aligned. You can find people of that character in all religions and the same character in non-religious people too. I say it is idolatry because they do not follow the truth. It is prejudice, predisposed ignorance.

Majorly it was a type of Christian person, a bible-idolizing person, that is pictured as I speak this way, because that is where my experience is most reliable. But to speak generally is more correct and fair, so I named it generally.

What do you mean by 'intellectual dishonesty'. Please give an example. — Amity

I say it is intellectual dishonesty, because in order to believe what we read without wrestling it, when the belief is wrong, one needs to suppress the spirit of truth that internally is pleading for us to question the belief. For example, it happens a lot, when a Christian is new they might ask a question that no one in their church can answer. So they just don't understand. Then, somebody might suggest that it is better to believe it than to doubt the Word of God. So they would concede because they don't want the church to think that they don't believe the Word of God. It's a type of emotional blackmail, but there's other examples too. When someone believes that homosexuality is sin because the bible says so, but they don't understand why, that's what they are doing. Prejudiced beliefs. Parrots. It is intellectually dishonest because in their greed to believe, they need to suppress that question within that says "why?". Then, in order to justify their belief when that question comes from outside them, they need to generate an answer.

Why would you believe that there is a fear of loss of salvation ? — Amity

Book people believe that the book is the authoritative declaration of God, and that salvation depends upon obedience to what God says. So it naturally seems like betrayal and forfeiture of that salvation if they begin arguing with what they suppose God has said in the book.

Why would you think that they might believe in any kind of God character, even if He is interpreted as being rational and capable of being reasoned with ? — Amity

It goes with the territory, that the type of book idolizing person I described necessarily believes that the book is the authoritative teaching of God.

Wonderful resources! Thank you :)

Yes, rhetorical questions really invoke thought. I think the best knowledge is discovered that way, as you can see the comparative shallowness of a plain statement compared to a richness of a wealth of possible statements coming in a moment, in response to a question.

This is one of my favourites:

In Romans 8:31 it says, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” We can supply the answer: “No one!”

Where people would make the mistake of thinking "No one can be against us, if God is for us", well, doesn't Jesus directly contradict that by saying "if the world hates you, remember that it hated me first"? Of course He does, so that is actually a really good example (though being a different one), that goes to show what gave rise to my objection. It is people who misuse rhetorical questions in that way, that create confusion and anti-knowledge, and (@Amity, look:) that is exactly the same type of lack of creativity and error that I was objecting to on Sunday. But it stayed with me. Inside of me, there was some battle going on, trying to reconcile this discrepancy. Of course, the more proper answer is "If God is for us, then anyone who is against us must also be against God" - similarly stated by Jesus "anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me, it is not me that they receive, but the one who sent me" .. or "when they persecute you and drive you out of their synagogues, even when they put you to death thinking they are doing a service to God, they do these things to you because they have not known me, nor do they know the one who sent me".

OK, foolso4, I perceive that our conversation cannot be constructive as long as you are viewing me the way that you do. You have thought wrongly of me, and that has caused you to treat me wrongly, so that you are not giving me the fair regard that I deserve.

In evidence of this, I can show you

What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated". — Fooloso4

.. which is based upon my having advised that you not take such a calculated approach as you were intending to do, as an effort to try and change me. I said that you should just let truth manifest through your humble service [to me].

How did you come to view me as having criticised your honest discussion when that is not what I did?

You seem to have not thought any of this through since you keep changing position. — Fooloso4

.. and this shows that you are personally hating me when you shouldn't be. I am here to learn, as I said in the OP. Which means, intrinsically, that I am expecting to find reasons to change my position!

In your last paragraph of this post, you suggest that in order to "find and know" the truth, I should be ready to let go of some of the beliefs I cling to, and now that you have found evidence that I am doing just that, you have turned it into a negative thing by saying that I "keep changing my position".

So, as far as I can see, you are fixated on addressing me in a negative light, only looking for opportunities to complain against me, and that is incapable of producing constructive conversation.

For your comments on the fall in the Genesis account, I do not wish to discuss that theology in this thread, but I have given some facts in this post that I think you should consider. My theological views of the fall do not support some of the points you have raised here.

Thank you Coben. Those examples are something new for me. In reading them, I don't know whether it is possible to make the point that He makes by them, without the use of questions, or rather, that by forming them as questions, He invites the hearer to respond and to which their response would be shameful. So they were silent, because they could not produce an answer that would justify them (to gain the lead in the conversation).

Conversely, if He had made the statement "You discuss that you have no bread because you are doubting God" or "You still don't see it and you don't understand", "Your hearts are hardened", "You have eyes, but you don't see, and you have ears but you don't hear", "you do not remember" .. all these statements are plainly stating their failures, which is hard criticism, and offers no constructive value. So there is an element of grace in the use of rhetorical questions this time. By asking why, it takes the focus off their failure and puts it toward the cause of their failure, which facilitates an understanding of how they might be more successful. That could have been achieved by teaching with direct statements, but in so doing there is a risk of offending or frightening them, and losing their admiration. That's interesting!

So anyway, to be clear, I'm not against rhetorical questions and I might have inadvertently planted that idea by having said that rhetorical questions are breaking a fundamental principle of language - that is, to use a question as a statement rather than a question. But as it turns out, that a rhetorical question is only effective when the answer to it is acknowledged as being supportive of the point of the statement, so in that way, a hearer is in fact being asked to answer the question even if the only value of the question is not for the speaker's benefit of receiving the answer - but that the speaker receives the confidence of the hearer who has acknowledged that the speaker has subjected his point to the hearer's scrutiny and has been approved by it.

So then, rhetorical questions do have an element of risk because they do invite a hearer to respond, even if it be a silent acknowledgement.

In this post, I identified three main risks of a rhetorical question, and the risks only exist if the speaker's presupposition is fallacious (IOW, if what they are suggesting is necessarily true, is in fact, not necessarily true).

• the hearer might correct the speaker by answering so as to show the speaker's fallacy
• the hearer might choose to not correct the speaker, but begin to regard the speaker as a person who is wrong
• the hearer might not perceive that the speaker is wrong, and thus follow the speaker into a fallacious way of thinking

There is another risk to rhetorical questions, that exists even when it is robust: that they might produce a disruption to the conversation if the hearer mistakenly believes that they would benefit by rebutting.

For an example, the disciples might have answered "we discuss that we have no bread because there is no bread. Simple as that", and as you can see, that they would have quickly found that to be an embarrassing answer in light of the facts that Jesus could produce that they ought rather to have every good reason to trust. So they dared not say it.

But these days are a bit different, for a number of reasons, and as I explained in this post regarding an example from James, sometimes we might wrestle with what the speaker is saying (because we do not see that the speaker is present to defend his position, and it empowers us to become the defendant and the judge). I think that is why there is so much of the problems I find amongst book-idolising people, it is essentially an intellectual dishonesty that prevents them from wrestling with the speaker for fear that they would lose their salvation by choosing to wrestle Him - and of course, that is to believe in quite a different character than the one who says "come now, let us reason together".

So that's some new, interesting stuff for me. I hope this has helped to explain too, the things I have said.

Amity, look what I have found! .. I owe you some answers!

What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ? Did it lead to an improved understanding? — Amity

At first, it didn't seem to have anything particularly new for me, so I wasn't really compelled to comment on it. But as you can see, I did refer to the Charlie Brown example a few times, and that evolved into an understanding that some rhetorical questions in fact are not valid (because the speaker's expected conclusion contains an element of fallacy). So it is good that I can report to you now, that you may be encouraged to know that you have brought forth one of the most valuable facts I have at the present time.

My contention has been rooted in the misuse of rhetorical questions, and when I began the thread, I didn't know that a rhetorical question needs to be incontrovertibly supportive of the speaker's loaded presupposition. Charlie Brown's rhetorical question clearly has a flaw in that sense, that in fact, Lucy might well be entitled and capable of saying what is right and wrong.

So I liked that, because I know Lucy's character and in my cartoon imagination I saw how a 3 year old girl, Lucy, might say that with such innocence that confounds Charlie Brown!

As for the rest of your post, I also wish to apologise double for having not thanked you for your contribution sooner. I can see that you really are a thoughtful, kind person, you did good work to gather the pieces that you brought to me, and you are motivated by a genuine love in doing so (Matthew 7:12). So it truly is regrettable that I failed to grasp that sooner, and that I didn't see the warning signs of this very thing in your words, and that we subsequently were severed and grappling for reconciliation.

I might have spoken differently to avoid such conflict if I had been a bit wiser, so I am grateful that you are who you are, and that despite finding that you are sometimes not appreciated fairly, still you have not held back from bringing your firstfruits.

I would have chosen TLV (that's the one I read), or KJV or NASB. Still, this whole Isaiah 1:18 is quite off-topic though. The scripture was not given as being relevant to rhetorical questions, but with regard to the background of why I have brought this discussion forth.

You had questioned whether I did say to the lady in passing, that "every question deserves an answer" or whether I had meant to make a point by saying it. I explained that both, I had said it in passing and that I was making a point by saying it, that when a person does what she did, she is not really doing the required reasoning to be persuasive toward me. It is typical of biblical people to be that way, who have a custom of idolizing scripture but not really understanding it's true value. It is too common, so as I typed the word "reasoning", I remembered Isaiah 1:18 and I thought it would be nice to show you that God does appreciate an opportunity to work through things.

I am sorry that it grated you, I don't know how many rude bible thumpers have assaulted you with scripture in the past, but I know my own portion, how hurtful it can be. I hope this has explained my intention properly and that you might look back on what I have said as a friendly person to see that I have meant no harm.

Humble service to who are what? God? The truth? — Fooloso4

No, humble service to me!

What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated". — Fooloso4

No you read me wrong. You asked if a carefully constructed rhetorical question might help, to which I advised you to not be so calculative but rather let the truth manifest it's own conviction.

OK, so leave the rest of your post with me to consider, and I will report back to let you know how it sinks in.

OK, thanks for that explanation. FWIW, the NIV doesn't have the keywords that I was relying on "let us reason together". So perhaps that is where the whole deviation is rooted, and I will take on board to use links in future (as I said). I can't see any value in responding further, it's a derailment and off-topic to the thread. You could PM me if you have a personal grievance, more than happy to work that out in an appropriate place.

Thanks for the clarification. A sad truth that is, (while it is). There is potential for unity though, if men are loving the truth enough. When truth is #1, we accept convictions and corrections joyfully, and we do not ridicule others when it comes to them. You will no doubt be familiar though with the rhetoric "narrow is the path leading to life, and few go that way".

Nice to meet you, thanks for your contributions!

Why must a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion? — Fooloso4

Did you read the background to that observation? It shows that a rhetorical question is only effective if the answer to the question supports the speaker's point. In order for a rhetorical question to be effective, any valid answer given to the question must be consistent with the single conclusion that the speaker is drawing by putting the question in the given context. Therefore, it is robust.

Is this a rhetorical question? — Fooloso4

It is too early for me to know. I think that my answer to it has a potential to challenge the "single robust conclusion" that you were expecting to find, that is "it doesn't" (which is yet possible, if you can lead me to see it).

What is the apodictic connection between a truly rhetorical question and the questioner's expectation? It may be that the "single robust conclusion" one who is asked the question might reach is that the questioner is misguided, and it is likely that this will not agree with the questioner's expectation. — Fooloso4

Hmmm, it looks to me that you have answered the question. If a hearer doesn't agree that the speaker's conclusion is necessarily true for the question, then the speaker's point has become discredited. Therefore it fails to be a robust statement, and is a failure in communication so far as a speaker's objective is to effectively convey knowledge.

In Genesis 3 God asks Adam and Eve a series of questions: “Where are you?”, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”, “What is this you have done?” (3:9-13)

Are these rhetorical questions, iow, "slang"? — Fooloso4

Yes, they appear to be rhetorical questions. I have already conceded that rhetorical questions are not slang, and are in fact valid constructs of language (albeit, they do carry risk by inviting a reply, even if they might ultimately be found robust after investigation).

Was God misusing language? — Fooloso4

Not at all. In fact, a rhetorical question is not a misuse of language at all, because even if the answer is given, it produces the intended statement:

a well-presented rhetorical question can have more impact than a plain statement — Serving Zion

I am looking for an argument though, that says I am wrong to say invalid rhetoric questions (whereby the conclusion is not necessarily true) are invalid language. (An example was given by Charlie Brown earlier).

Was God ignorant of where they are and what they did? — Fooloso4

No, and the purpose appears to be bringing conviction to them for their ignorance of those things.

Note their responses do not lead to a single robust conclusion. — Fooloso4

It is true to say that they might have given any number of answers, but it also is true to say that there was a single robust conclusion regardless of the answer they might give:

"I do not want to be with you", "yes, there is someone else being to me who you ought to be", "I have done what you said to not do", "I have sinned against you". In that single robust conclusion is the judgement that vindicate the speaker in the hearer's view, and that perpetuates his authority to speak over the hearer, by mutual agreement.

Seeking out what is right and knowing what is right are not the same. What you cling to may not be right even though such doubt may compel you to cling to it even more. Is it possible a well phrased rhetorical question will help loosen your grip? Or is that the thing you want most to guard against? — Fooloso4

I would advise to not take such a calculated approach, rather in humble service, allow the truth to manifest by purely honest discussion. James has observed that the "earthly, sensual, demonic wisdom is selfish and full of jealousy, but the wisdom that is from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy, impartial, not hypocritical". But yeah, you can see an evolution of thought through this thread that demonstrates a tendency to cut loose the wrong when the right comes to light.

Thanks for asking!

You wrongly assumed I did not Google the reference. — Amity

I don't believe I was wrong to assume so. It was the obvious explanation for why you would object to the action of referencing rather than asking for an explanation.

It takes no real effort, even if there is not a natural interest. — Amity

True enough, yet I do understand the internal pressures that impede us from going where others desire to lead us. I have years of experience in these matters. Even when I provide links, there are some people who, being prejudiced against the value of scripture, will simply not click it. For your information, I once was a person who, despite others copy/pasting right into the page for me, would not even look at it - with as much skill as I am able to read a newspaper without seeing the advertisements. So it equips me with experience to understand how such behaviours, regrettable though they may be, in fact can and do occur.

Or perhaps this was a 'wrong assumption' which was intentionally placed and carefully played. — Amity

Speculative reasoning. Let me know if you need more information to help with that.

What 'internal pressures' did you think you understood as being a block to any effort ? — Amity

You have a predisposition to oppose the use of scripture, because you think it is "preachy" and that appears to be a despicable practice in your opinion.

It is easy to find Isaiah 1:18 or any scriptural reference. Not so easy to see the relevance here. — Amity

Alright. Well, as I said, make of it what you will. I had remembered that scripture because it shows God invites reasoning and that is contrary to the spirit that produces views such as what I was addressing on Sunday, and that interprets questions as having rhetorical value without first answering the question. I thought you might rather benefit by that perspective.

I think you're making too much out of this, — T Clark

Well, I don't know what good that might do for you, but for me I am pleased to have investigated thus far. I know much more already.

It is clear though, that right use of language is paramount to communication, and that invalid (fake) rhetorical questions do not produce good.

A valid rhetorical question reinforces the speaker's authority, and increases the value of the statement in the hearer. So, it actually is not very stupid.

Invalid rhetorical questions either tempt a hearer to break the communication protocol in order to correct the speaker's error, or degrades the speaker's authority if the hearer doesn’t retort, or if the hearer doesn't perceive the error, misleads the hearer to assume that the speaker's conclusion is absolutely right (that closes their mind and they are prone to resisting contending ideas).

Of those three outcomes, the latter is most harmful, and is precisely the wrong that I had objected to on Sunday.

I have found your comments fair and agreeable. Let me know if that surprises you and I will see if I can clarify. Thank you for your contributions.

A question, you say, is by nautre and invitation for the other person to speak. Well, not always. — Coben

I'd rephrase that then, to be more generally accurate. A question is, by nature, asking for assistance to find an answer. In the example you gave of Shakespeare, "How do I love thee?", he is searching to understand something, and though not inviting the response of the one whom he is addressing, it fits well with observations about @fresco's idea:

From the pov of 'the committee nature of self', such questions are aspects of internal dialogue. — fresco

he is sharing an insight into the nature of deliberations — Serving Zion

The risk of a poorly formed (ie: fake) rhetorical question, is that the hearer who does not arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker, is compelled (and entitled) to interject and detract from the speaker's statement (and, subsequent authority to speak).

Well, on the scale of stupidity, from Kanye to Einstein, I would give it a stupidity rating of... oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question. I see what you did there. — S

Yes, I have a subtle sense of humour ;)

You make wrong assumptions. Bravo ! — Amity

That is exactly why I said Bravo!

Your rhetorical question "how helpful is that ?" was a perfect case in point :up:

I agree, in all seriousness, that it would have been more helpful if you had seen the scripture. That I merely referenced it, is not sufficient for the purpose.

I don't know where you found anything in my post that says you can't challenge the use of rhetorical questions. — Coben

It is when you say "It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not.", that you appear to be saying that though being framed as a question, the expectation is that it does not invite the hearer to respond. That is a most common use of rhetorical questions.

If you think disagreement means you the other person thinks you can't challenge a belief or opinion they have, you are going to feel that people are trying to control you all the time. — Coben

Yes, that is the problem, essentially. A civilised dialogue provides turns for each party to speak. A question is, by nature, an invitation for the other party to speak. But a rhetorical question does not intend to provide that invitation, because as you have said, it is not a question, it is a statement.

Therefore, it is natural that if a speaker uses a rhetorical question and does not expect to receive an answer (as Charlie Brown did above), then he will believe that the hearer has spoken out of turn (because the hearer interjected against a statement, he was not invited by the speaker to speak).

That is what the essential problem is, in what I have found.

The example I gave from James 4:12 explains that although the question is rhetorical, it is not confounded by a hearer interjecting to answer it, because the fundamental principle of the rhetorical question, is that it "must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation" - and the example from Charlie Brown did not do that, so therefore it confounded the speaker. Therefore, the rhetorical question in the Charlie Brown cartoon is not truly valid as a rhetorical question, because there is a valid answer to it that the speaker did not expect. He fell victim to that "risk" I have mentioned.

However, it is not always straightforward - depending on who is asked and where the answers come from. — Amity

Evidently! :ok: That is why I say that rhetorical questions are risky, if the speaker's intention is to preach rather than to teach.

Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ? — Amity

Bravo! (I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest).

Sounds somewhat preachy. — Amity

Ok, nevermind what that sounds like then. Make of it what you will :)

So - are you saying you can't remember the point ? — Amity

Yes, at this time, that is true. I only remember the topic at large.

While it is not necessary to explain, it might help to put your question in context.
What were the differences between you in 'handling the scripture as intended' ? — Amity

I am sorry, it just is not possible to furnish those details to you. It really does evade me at this time.

However, all of this is a distraction from the rest of my post. — Amity

Rich words! .. I certainly did not intend to do that. I chose to respond only to what was necessary.

What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ? — Amity

It has already been covered in prior material on this thread.

Did it lead to an improved understanding? — Amity

Do you understand why you are asking this question?

Are you sure you said it 'in passing' ? It sounds like you had a point to make about a particular passage but didn't want to, or couldn't, spend too much time on it. Can you remember the piece ? — Amity

Yes, I did say it in passing, but also yes I did have a particular point to make (that was quite a bit larger). She had quoted the scripture and I said "that's not just a rhetorical question, you know" .. so I was saying that she was not handling the scripture as it is intended, by using a question that invites an answer as though it should not be "reasoned with" (Isaiah 1:18). But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :)

Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'. — Amity

That is precisely what I love about children! .. there really is nothing in their nature that stops them doing what is straightforward and (seemingly) right!

Languge is for us and we get to use it how we collectively like and even, often, how we individually like. It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not. That is making the point in a different way that via statements, since it is, essentially a statemen in question form. There is no one to give us a ticket for breaking a supposed rule. We get to play with the forms we have created and it's great we do. If some guy kept trying rhetorical questions and did them clearly, but no one understood, well, that would be too bad. But we generally do understand and so it's fine. It's our language. — Coben

Well, it is only a part of language that happens to be in discussion here today. There are more important considerations to functional communication, than the proper use of language.

I am a person who, when I discover that others are wrong, I seek out what is right and then I cling to it and I share that knowledge with others. So that is what I am here to do, with regards to a finding I have, that people seem to assume a rhetorical question is not allowed to be challenged.

I don't know what "the committee nature of self" is, — T Clark

I had to Google "committee nature of self" and then I realised that he is sharing an insight into the nature of deliberations, so it immediately made better sense to read that he was referring to my question as "such questions" because I really am "thinking out loud" .. but then I saw how it could just as well be said of those who use the rhetorical question. So it made me think, I found it to be true, and I liked it too :)

I like the idea of a rhetorical question being one the speaker is suggesting listeners ask themselves. — T Clark

That idea seems pretty accurate, but in order that the question delivers rhetoric and doesn't tempt the hearer to oppose the speaker, it relies upon the hearer agreeing with the speaker's own answer.

So, is a rhetorical question ever not also a loaded question?

The speaker has risk in a rhetorical question - that if someone doesn't agree with the conclusion he is drawing, they are compelled to retort. Whereas a simple statement would not tempt the hearer with the same compulsion (passions considered though,..!).

I think that is the real crux of my investigation: whether the hearer has the right to respond 'out-of-turn' as it would be, and if we consider that rhetorical questions are not to be answered, then it seems to be an oppression of sorts upon a hearer (where I am being a righteous judge of the hearer's right to be heard).

There is a unique value in your argument, that a well-presented rhetorical question can have more impact than a plain statement by virtue of the hearer drawing his own discovered comprehension, a realisation, being a knowledge that originates from internal reasoning as compared to a rote head knowledge that is painted on (if I really am right to believe that they are different.. and, I am not so sure of that, given the arguments that come to mind).

Although it isn't the most common use of a rhetorical question (because most speakers use them out of passion to appeal for support), though when questions in scripture appear to be rhetorical such as "... you though, who are you to judge your neighbour?" (James 4:12), they mostly do have that quality to them. They invite retort, and if the reader is bold enough to challenge the writer, through processing our plea there is a conviction of the truth and we gain valuable knowledge. It is a knowledge that comes from within us (ie: John 4:14) - we own the knowledge because we discovered it, it isn't plagiarized.

That's interesting, and though it has gone a long way to explain the value of rhetorical questions, still I have not found conclusively that a rhetorical question does not invite an answer. I have introduced a new principle though: a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation.

Thanks for the discussion!