Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete  Quote:
Originally Posted by victorbravo In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion. | Are you seriously stating that the 2 elements are not inter-related? Quote:
Matthew 22
40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
| |
Yes, I am serious. You asked if the logic holds water in your original post. I said no because it is a faulty syllogism.
Your argument requires you to establish a bunch of other premises. The syllogism you laid out is defective. That's my only point. Whatever your argument is, it is not supported by the syllogism you presented.
It's syllogism 101: your conclusion must not add additional terms not included in the premises.
Just to review:
Quote:
|
p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND
|
Quite true, no issue at all with this. It tells us how we should love God.
Quote:
|
p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
|
Also no argument with the truth here. It tells us how we should love our neighbor. Note the command to love our neighbor has a different standard: "as yourself", not "with all your heart", etc. So the command is a separate and independent command, not subject to the first (because that command was directed to our behavior to God).
Your conclusions introduce new elements:
Quote:
|
c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.
|
"If you strive to love God completely. . . ."
Nothing in either of the two premises discusses your striving or desire. The command is a command, regardless of your desire.
"you will love yourself in a godly manner, . . . ."
There is nothing in the two premises that states that any result comes from loving God in the right manner. So this is another element introduce that was not included in the premises.
And there is nothing at all in the premises that support the "thus allowing you to love your neighbor" clause. It's a completely new element.
Same with the second conclusion, for the same reasons:
Quote:
|
c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors
|
Of course the first clause is true, but nothing in the premises support those terms—that is, there is nothing in the premises that describes God's love at all. It is an introduced element.
And there is no imperative "should" in either of the premises that connects our "self love" to God's love at all.
BTW, the Matt. 22:40 quote also clearly establishes that the two commands are logically independent of each other (otherwise Jesus would have said something like: "on this one commandment the other necessarily follows").
Again, whatever your argument is, it is not supported by your syllogism. That is all I'm saying, nothing more. I suggest a different approach.