Logic of the Bible

The Truth Is God

buy

    

Enable Javascript and reload page to hear audio

The Logic of the Bible

. When people start to mature, they find themselves asking big questions. Why am I here? What's the purpose of life? . Where did it all come from, and where is it all going? Why is there anything at all? What should I do with my life? And how should I behave in the world?

. They begin to question everything, and they want to know the truth for themselves. . They become dissatisfied with simply being told what to believe. And they wonder if there are any real reasons to believe it.

. So the questions come: are there any principles of reason that we can rely on to give us certainty about what to believe? . Are there any reliable precepts that give guidance on how to behave? Are there any trustworthy rules that tell us why the world is the way it is?

. I believe there are. And here I would like to show you the general principles of reason that can be used to understand reality and our place in it. . These are the principles that underlie many of the proverbs and precepts of Scripture such as the Golden Rule.

. The principles to which I'm referring are the basic rules of logic. Logic is the study of how true and false statements relate to each other. . How can we claim things like God's Word is true and fail to study logic which is the basic math of true and false? . And what I present here is not difficult; it can be taught to grade-school children. I talk about the basic relationships of AND's, OR's, and IF's. . Much of this you will already know instinctively. And there are many books and resources to study logic in depth. So I will be brief. If you are already familiar with logic, the interpretations start here.

. Every area of study such as math, science, biology, history, politics, and theology all make statements about the subject and show how one fact in that area leads to another fact.

. Logic is the study of propositions. And propositions are sentences that make statements of fact that we can consider to be true or false. . This differs from other sentences such as questions, or commands, or exclamations which make no claims that are either true or false. . Other names for the concept of a proposition are "statement", "fact", "claim", "assertion", "assumption", "supposition", etc. . Some examples of propositions are: the light is on; 2+3=4; the sky is blue; the grass is green; no one is perfect; . all men are mortal; some men are evil, and there is only one God. All these statements are either true or false.

. A proposition has a truth-value that is either true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time, and it cannot be neither true nor false. . A proposition must be either true or false. This is much easier than a number which could be any one of an infinite possibility of values. So logic is much easier than arithmetic.

. And a proposition does not depend on the language used to say it. It will mean the same thing and be either true or false whether it is written in English or Spanish or Japanese or Greek or Hebrew. . And since we are not focusing on which language to use, we might as well make things as simple as possible and abbreviate our statements with as few symbols as possible. . For example, we could use the letter, L, to represent the statement, "the light is on". Or we could represent the statement, "the sky is blue", with the letter, B. . We could use the letter, T, to represent that a statement is true. And we could use F for false. . Then we can abbreviate the fact that the sky is blue by writing, B=T. And we can write L=F when the light is not on. . As long as the symbols used are defined somewhere in the text you're reading, and as long as the author uses the symbols to mean the same thing throughout the book, . then it should be easy enough to follow the author's arguments as he uses those symbols.

. We can use symbols to represent propositions in a more general sense. If we let the letter, p, stand for any statement, then we are not concerned with what the statement is about. . We're only concerned with its essential characteristic of being either true or false, T or F. And since p is not about any particular subject, there's no way to know whether it is true or not. . So we must consider every possible truth-value that it might have. We have to consider the possibility that it might be true, and we have to consider the possibility that it might be false. . And if we use another letter, q, to stand for any other proposition, then the only thing we mean by this is that it is different than the proposition, p. . But q is still either true or false, and we must consider every possible truth-value of q.

. And we can construct more complicated statements by connecting simple statements with words like, "and", "or", "not", "if", "then", "but" and "when", etc. These more complicated statements . are called compound statements, and they are just as much propositions that are also either true or false. For example, consider the statement, "the paper is white". . We can abbreviate this statement with the symbol, W. Then an easy compound statement can be constructed from this simple statement by negating it. . A statement is negated when the word, "not", is placed in the statement to make a true statement false or a false statement true. . In this example, if the paper is indeed white, then W=T. The negation of this is the paper is not white. Or we can write this as, "not W". . It is customary to use the symbol, "~", to symbolize the word, "not". Then the negation of the statement, W, is ~W and is read, "not W". If W=T, then ~W=F, and if W=F, then ~W=T.

. If we generalize further, and use an arbitrary proposition, p, then we can construct a truth-table to show the effect of a negation on every possible truth-value that p can have. This is shown in the following table.

. Below is the truth-table for the negation of proposition, p.

p ~p
T   F..
F   T

. The first column on the left lists every possible truth-value that p can have. The second column lists the effect of applying the negation, ~ , to each truth-value of p. The effect is to reverse its truth-value.

.It should be noted that since there is only two possible truth-values to any proposition, we have ~ ~ p = p. . The effect of applying the negation twice is to get the truth-value with which you started.

. Now let's consider constructing a compound statement by connecting two simple statements together with the connective word, "and". . We already have W, meaning the paper is white. Consider another statement, "The ink is black". Let's give this the symbol, I. . Then we can construct the compound statement, "The paper is white, and the ink is black." . And this whole statement is true only when it is true that the paper is white, and it is also true that the ink is black. If either of the simple statements is false, then the whole statement is false. . With the symbols defined here, we could more easily write this as, "W and I". And this proposition is true only if W=T and I=T, and the statement is false if either W=F or I=F or both W=F and I=F.

. It is customary to represent the word, "and", with the symbol, "⋀". Then the compound statement above can be written, W⋀ I, and is read, "W and I", or more formally it is read, "W is in conjunction with I". . And we can generalize by considering the conjunction of any two arbitrary propositions, p and q, with a truth-table for conjunction.

. Below is the truth-table for the conjunction of p and q.

1 2 3
p q p⋀q
F F F..
F T F
T F F
T T T

. Columns 1 and 2 list every combination of true and false that p and q can have. And Column 3 lists the corresponding truth-value for the conjunction of p and q. Note that the conjunction is true only if both p and q are true.

. And similarly, we can construct a compound statement with the connective word, "or". We call compound statements connected with "or" a disjunction, and the word, "or", can be symbolizes as, "⋁". . For example, consider the compound statement, "I have steak, or I have eggs." We can represent this in symbols as, "S⋁E", where S and E have the obvious meaning. . This statement is true when any one of S or E is true. And below is the truth-table. for the disjunction of any two arbitrary propositions, p and q.

p q p⋁q
F F F
F T T..
T F T
T T T

. The first two columns list every combination of p and q as before. The right column lists the corresponding truth-value for the disjunction of p and q. . Note that the disjunction is true if any one of p or q is true. It is false only if both p and q are false.

And lastly,. let's consider compound statements connected by the words, "if" and "then". These are of the form: if something, then something else. . They are called conditional statements because the truth of the "something else" depends on the condition of the "something" being true. For example, consider the sentence: . if the switch is up, then the light is on. This if-then sentence is itself a statement that, like any other statement, is either true or false.

. This conditional sentence does not say that the switch is up or down, and it does not say that the light is on or off. . But if this if-then statement is true, then it only means that when it is true that the switch is up, then we are guaranteed that it is true that the light is on. . If the switch were up when the light is off, however, then this conditional sentence would be a false statement. So if the light is off, then the switch had better be down. . Yet this if-then sentence does not mean that if the switch is down, then the light must necessarily be off. . The light might go on for other reasons, one of which is the switch being up. There might also be other switches that turn the light on.

. In the formal study of logic, the simple statement after the "if" is called the antecedent; in the sentence above, the antecedent would be, "the switch is up". . And the simple statement after the "then" is called the consequent; in the sentence above the consequent would be, "the light is on". . The entire if-then statement itself is called a material implication because the antecedent implies the consequent.

. The antecedent and consequent could be any kind of proposition or statement. And if we generalize by symbolizing the antecedent with the letter, p, and symbolizing the consequent with the letter, q, . then we can consider every combination of truth-values for p and q and show the truth-table for material implication. Below is the truth-table. for material implication, which is given the symbol, "→".

p q p→q
F F T
F T T..
T F F
T T T

. Note that an implication can be stated between any two propositions as long as the consequent q is not false when the antecedent p is true. . Also it is interesting to note that with the AND and OR connectives, p can be interchanged with q. But with implication the position of p and q matters, and the order of their use cannot be interchanged.

. And the relationship of material implication can be constructed in English using words other than "if" and "then". For example, it should be easy to recognize the antecedent and consequent in the following sentences: . The car will move when you step on the gas pedal. Whatever goes up must come down. Twisting the nose produces blood. Fire results from lighting a match.

. Arguments have a similar construction to the conditional statement where the truth of one set of facts leads to the belief in the truth of another set of facts. . In the language of an argument, the antecedent is called the premise, and the consequent is called the conclusion of the argument. And the usual argument is of the form: the premise proves the conclusion. . And instead of saying that the conditional statement is true, we say that an argument is valid when the conclusion logically follows from the premise. . The following sentences are arguments where I have put a (p) immediately after the premise, and I put a (c) just after the conclusion. . Because the car is moving with constant speed up the hill (p), the car must have an engine (c). All men are mortal and Socrates is a man (p); therefore, Socrates is mortal (c). . We know that the moon is not made of green cheese (c) since the astronauts have brought back moon rocks (p). . Now, we can debate whether these arguments are valid or whether the premises are true. But if the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.

. And English is more of a subtle and complicated language than logic; it takes practice and experience to translate a spoken language into the symbols of logic. . But when we do, we can have more confidence in understanding the meaning of those words. . For example, a conclusion typically follows words like, "therefore", "hence", "thus", "so", "proves that", "consequently", "it follows that", "we may conclude that", and "we may infer that", etc. . And a premise typically follows words like, "since", "because", "for", "as", "in as much as", and "for the reason that", etc.

. It is important to understand that the relationship of proof between premise and conclusion has the same truth-table as does the relationship of implication between antecedent and consequent. . One is just another way of saying the other. And other ways of specifying an implication are that there is an hypothesis, or theory, or reason, or explanation that relates one set of facts to another.

. When people start asking why, and look for meaning or purpose, what they are really asking is how, and what set of facts leads to that. . When they want to be certain, they are asking how to be sure that one set of facts will lead to the result. They are asking how to be sure your argument or theory is valid and how you know your premises are true. . Even matters of faith and ultimate purpose rest on being sure of the facts and what they imply. Is your theory reasonable?

. And since proof, or material implication, is so important to understanding, it should be interesting to know that the AND and OR connectives can be expressed in terms of implication. . This is easily proved with a truth-table for any arbitrary propositions, p and q. For example, the truth-table below shows that the conjunction, p⋀q, can be expressed in terms of material implication as, ~(p→~q). .

1 2 3 4 5 6
p q ~q p→~q ~(p→~q) p⋀q
F F T T F F..
F T F T F F
T F T T F F
T T F F T T

There are six columns, labeled 1 through 6. Columns 1 and 2 list every combination of truth-values that p and q can have. Column 3 lists the negation of Column 2. . Column 4 lists the truth-values for when p implies ~q. Here we put a T whenever Column 1 implies Column 3. The only time Column 4 is false is the last row where Column 1 is T but Column 3 is F, which is contrary to implication. . Column 5 is just the negation of Column 4. The parenthesis only mean we evaluate what is inside the parenthesis before evaluating what's outside of them. And Column 6 is the conjunction of p and q that we have seen before. . Notice that for every possible value of p and q, Column 5 has the same value as Column 6. This proves that (p⋀q) = ~(p→~q).

. In a similar way a truth-table can be set up to show that (p⋁q) = (~p→q). I will let the interested readers set up the table and prove this for themselves. And so it is interesting to note that all of propositional logic can be expressed in terms of parenthesis, implication, and negation. . No matter how complicated your propositional logic expression, it can be reduced to the use of 3 symbols and the variables used.

. There are a few more tables that need to be shown before discussing how all this relates to recognizing the developing proverbs and principles. First, it should be noted that a conjunction of facts has implications. It's easy to show that (p⋀q)→(p→q), as shown with the table below..

1 2 3 4 5
p q p⋀q p→q (p⋀q) → (p→q)
F F F T T..
F T F T T
T F F F T
T T T T T

Column 3 in the table above is the standard definition of conjunction, and Column 4 is the definition of implication. What should be noticed here is that there is no combination of p and q for which Column 3 is T when Column 4 is F. This means Column 5 is never false. . So we have proved that (p⋀q)→(p→q) is identically true for all values of p and q, and so it can be accepted as a general principle.

. Since we have from the table previous to last that ~(p→~q)=(p⋀q), and we have from the last table that (p⋀q)→(p→q), we know that ~(p→~q)→(p→q). . And there is no need to construct a table to prove this since this is easily seen by replacing equivalent statements. This is the principle . behind my verses on Page 4 that read, "And if a fact that is assumed does not disprove reality, then we may conclude that the fact is true and can be used to prove everything." . Here p is the fact that is assumed, and q is reality or everything. Saying that p does not disprove q means ~(p→~q). And if this is true, then so is (p⋀q), which means that p is true, which in turn means that it proves that q is true. . You might also recognize this principle in the saying, "For whoever is not against you is for you." Luke 9:50.

. Precepts and proverbs and general principles are not specific to particular people, places or things. They apply to a broad range of circumstances and situations. . And the more circumstances and the broader the range of situations to which a general principle applies, the more useful it is. . The principles of logic are the most general and are valid in all situations because they apply to the relationship between all statements without regard to any particular subject matter. . Any precept, rule, theory, or proverb finds its validity when it is an interpretation of logical principles. . If we can discover the logic behind a proverb or principle, then that validates its reliability and justifies its use.

. For example, the Golden Rule could be derived as shown in the following table:.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
p q p⋀q p→q q→p (p→q)→(q→p) (p⋀q)→[(p→q)→(q→p)]
F F F T T T T..
F T F T F F T
T F F F T T T
T T T T T T T

Column 3 and 4 are conjunction and implication as before. Column 5 is where q implies p and is only false in the second row where q is T but p is F. . Column 6 is where Column 4 implies Column 5. And Column 7 is where the conjunction of Column 3 implies Column 6. . And since Column 7 is true for all values of p and q, this proves that it is a general principle useful in all circumstances.

. Thus, we have as a valid principle:

(p ⋀ q) → [ (p → q) → (q → p) ]                 The Golden Rule.

. This says that if two things coexist in conjunction, then if one implies the state of another, then the other will imply the state of the one.

. This is a general principle of logical reasoning. So it should apply to particles as well as to people. It should apply to the past, present and future. . It should help us to predict the future as well as explain the past. It is a key to prophecy, precepts, understanding ultimate destiny, and giving us rules to live by.

. For example, with two particles interacting with each other, we can interpret the Golden Rule as follows: if one particle exerts a force on another, then the other will exert a force on the one. . Or as Isaac Newton's third law of motion might say, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Here I'm interpreting material implication, "→", to mean the act of exerting a force, since that does imply a change in a particle to some other state. . And the states involved are described by propositions that specify the position and momentum of a particle.

. Implication can always be interpreted as one fact exerting an action on another fact. In logic that action is to change the truth-value of one proposition depending on another. . For particles, that action is the act of applying a force. For people, that action may result in one person causing pleasure or pain to another. . So in the realm of people, the Golden Rule could be stated, if two people are coexisting in society, then whatever action one person does to another, then that person has the right to do to the one. . Or, an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ( Ex 21:24). And since this is the case you should do to others what you want them to do to you ( Matt 7:12). . You should love your neighbor as yourself ( Lev 19:18). For God will give to everyone according to what he has done ( Rev 22:12).

. Other verses to which this applies would be: Give and it will be given to you ( Lk 6:38). Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you ( Matt 7:1).

. However, some people might object to being treated as a proposition. That seems too simplistic to them. They'd rather think that logic is a game of manipulating symbols when constructing arguments. . It might help in discerning the truth about statements in math or science. And it might help in establishing facts in a court of law. . But humans have free will in what they assert and how they behave. So how can logic apply to morality? How can true and false say anything about right or wrong? . So they think that morality is arbitrarily based on political correctness, and they try to change public opinion to suit their own desires.

. Yet it is the definition of irresponsible to think and act like your actions do not have consequences that effect you in return. . And if you're going to claim that your deeds are not subject to the reason of logic, then neither are you being reasonable when you go through the effort to state your objections. . You are negating the validity of your own opinion by saying that there are no consequences to what you do or say. . For the underlying assumption of any argument or claim is that your words and deeds have consequences like any other statement, or else you would not bother to say or do anything if you thought your actions had no effect.

. Your very life is like a proposition, for it is either true or false that you are alive or dead. It is either true or false that you have an eye or a tooth. . And it is either true or false that you are the cause of someone missing an eye or tooth or hand or life. . You certainly think your deeds serve as the premise for the conclusion of getting paid for your work. You certainly hope someone will love you in return when you make an effort to love them. . And you feel like taking revenge and acting towards them in like manner when someone hurts you, don't you? Then this proves you believe that one's words and his deeds form a statement to be judged and responded to in kind. . This rule is engrained in us as deeply as our feelings of love and revenge and responsibility and obligation.

. And these principles apply to more than your actions towards others. Your personal integrity can be established by these rules. For other interpretations of the Golden Rule would be the proverbs: Start over. Get back to basics. . Make sure of your faith. You must be born again (Jn 3:3). For all these proverbs describe a process of self-reflection, where you put your efforts into improving the basic assumptions on which you act. . Your basic assumptions are the premise that causes you to act, therefore, your actions should be to find reliable truths to live by. . For according to your faith will it be done unto you ( Mt 9:29). Your faith causes you to interpret the world as you do, and so the events in your life will only be evidence that proves to you what you believed. As Job said, . "What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me." ( Job 3:25). So let's try to find better reasons to have more confidence in life.

. When propositions are used to describe physical circumstances, and you insert a value of time between the start and ending circumstances, then the premise and conclusion of material implication become the cause and effect of physical interaction. . The implication you assert between cause and effect becomes an hypothesis or theory that can be tested if you can set up the circumstance that form the cause. . If the effect takes place, then this tends to confirm your theory, although there might be other circumstances that have the same effect.

. With this in mind it becomes possible to start thinking in terms of the ultimate cause of all things and the ultimate fate of the world. . And we can start thinking about the theory of everything, where the laws of nature come from, and is there an ultimate purpose that determines the fate of the universe. But then we need some definition of "everything" or "the world" or "the universe" or "reality" in terms of the logic we are using. . The definition that works here is to say that the universe consists of a conjunction of all the facts in it. For the most obvious things we can say about the world is that this thing exists, and that thing exists, and those things over there exist, etc., and they all coexist in conjunction. . We can use propositions that are true to describe various parts of the world that do exist. Then reality can be defined as,

R=p⋀q⋀r⋀s⋀t⋀u⋀v⋀w⋀… ,

. where each of the letters in this conjunction represents a proposition that describes a small part of reality. And each of them has to be a true description for there to be a true description of all reality. . And it may take an infinite number of propositions to describe all of reality. And each proposition in itself might consist of a conjunction of even more propositions that describe even smaller parts of it.

. It should be noted that p=p⋀p, for if p is T, then so is the conjunction, and if p is F, then so is the conjunction. And with this we can write, p⋀q⋀r⋀…=p⋀p⋀q⋀r⋀… Or in other words, . R=p⋀R, which can be written as,

(p ⋀ R) → [(p → R) → (R → p)] ,

. where this is just the Golden Rule with q replaced by R. Then since God is the Creator, He is the Cause of all things. And this says that God created the heavens and earth, thus all things should glorify God ( Colossians 1:16). . God will make all things new ( Rev 21:5). God is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ( Rev 22:13). . Or as I write, the premise on which everything rests will become evident. The final theory will explain how creation began. The Creator of the universe will be manifested. . And the cause of all things will manifest to such an extent that there will come a new creation again.

. And for a life prophesied to be the perfect expression of righteousness, this principle would allow us to predict important events in his life. He will do good deeds for others. . And what he does to others will be done to him. He would heal many and even raise others from the dead, therefore, he will rise from the dead as well. . God will glorify the Son so that the Son may glorify God ( John 17:1). And he will return to the glory that he had from the beginning ( John 17:5). . And "this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" ( Acts 1:11).

. There is yet another principle of reason at work in the world whose truth is seen in personal integrity and prophetic destiny. I call it the Diamond Rule because it describes how destructive or negating forces work to produce a stronger result. . And this is like a diamond being constructed from the destructive forces of pressure and heat.

. For any proposition, p, it is immediately true that

p = (~p → p)              The Diamond Rule

. For if p=T, then it is true that T=(F→T), and if p=F, then it is also true that F=(T→F). And this says that if some situation is truly the case, then even to assume that it's not will prove that it's so. . In the language of argumentation, this is called reduction to absurdity, where the fact is proved by assuming the opposite, and when the opposite results in absurd consequences, . then the negation of the opposite must be true. In other words, the fact itself is proven true.

. For example, if a man were accused of a crime at location A, but he was identified at work 200 miles away one hour later, then it could be argued that if he did commit the crime at location A, . he would have had to travel 200 miles an hour to be seen at work. But since it's absurd to think that cars travel that fast, he must not have committed the crime.

. And this principle is also described by physical situations of stable equilibrium, like a ball at the bottom of a bowl. If the ball is not at the bottom of the bowl, then gravity will exert a force that will cause it to move towards the bottom of the bowl.

. This principle is also at work in the following verses: There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed ( Mt 10:26). A city on a hill cannot remain hidden ( Mt 5:14). . Go into your room, close the door and pray. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret will reward you ( Mt 6:6). Whoever humbles himself will be exalted ( Mt 23:12). . Repentance leads to the knowledge of the truth ( 2 Timothy 2:25). Weeping may stay for the night. But joy comes in the morning ( Psalm 30:5). . If a seed falls to the ground and dies, it will produce many seeds ( John 12:24). If you believe in Christ, then even though you die, yet shall you live ( John 11:25). . Whoever loses his life for Christ will find it ( Mt 10:39). And as I might write: if your way of life does not produce death, then even your death will cause you to live.

. And all this strengthens personal integrity because it represents a process of correcting yourself, whether you're correcting your personal beliefs or your physical abilities or your intellectual pursuits. . You must admit you are ignorant before you learn. You must be willing to work to reach a goal. You must be able to admit you are wrong before you become known as honest.

. And in the realm of predicting the future of great prophets and the ultimate fate of the world, this principle would say that there will come a tribulation before the resurrection. There will come an antichrist before the coming of Jesus Christ. . The present heavens and earth will fade away before the coming of the new heaven and earth. For you cannot have the former after the latter.

. And this principle is obviously at work in the life of Christ. For if someone's life were to represent the truth, then even the opposite must prove that it is. His death must result in his resurrection. That person must rise from the dead to prove that he lives to bear witness to the truth. . His virtue is proven by his willingness to suffer for his cause. His glory is proven when he endured the shame.

. Of course, it's possible to also write, ~q=(q→~q), by simply replacing p with ~q in the previous formula. And this would be interpreted by verses such as, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bed ( Mt 5:15). . If salt loses its saltiness, it is thrown out ( Mt 5:13). Whoever finds his life will lose it ( Mt 10:39). . Whoever exalts himself will be humbled ( Mt 23:12). Or as I might write, if the fact that it is should prove that it's not, then it is completely proven wrong.

. This principle is at work in sin, where one seeks to acquire immediate glory only to lose it in time and then experience feelings of shame and regret. . They risks anger and revenge for temporal pleasures, and it leaves them feeling guilty with expectations of a harsh judgment to come.

. The objection to all this is usually that people are not propositions. Right and wrong are not as clearly distinguishable as true and false. No one always does only what is right, nor does anyone always do only what is wrong. We are human, and we sometimes do our best, and we are bound to make mistakes. . People can change, and we have free will to behave as arbitrarily as we like. So how can you base a judgment on something as arbitrary as that?

. It is not rocks and trees that state what is true or false, but it is we humans that make statements by our words and our deeds. . We act on choices we make based on our belief of what the events in our life mean. Here we are staring at our own mortality. This life and all we obverse is the only evidence we have. . If we have any faculty of reason, then this life too must form the bases of a decision to be made. What is to come from all of this? Is this all there is? . Or do we put our faith in reason and trust that the principle of cause and effect will carry us to a continued state of ultimate consequences? What then could those consequences be?

. If you think this life is all there is, then you are living for momentary honor and pleasures. You are denying that premises have continued consequences. . And you are acting to negate any honor you might have in the ultimate future. But if there is a final judgment that determines your fate, then you will be declared false and denied continued wellbeing.

. But if you are wise and believe that there are always consequences to be experienced, then you will use this life to prepare for the ultimate judgment in the future. . You will work to understand and increase your faith. And even if it takes some momentary sacrifice, you will work to honor what's right. And when the final judgment is revealed, your righteousness will be declared as true, and continued wellbeing will be your fate.

. Because our time on this earth comes to an end, we consider the meaning and purpose of our lives as if it were a single proposition to be considered. . And because we think of our lives in general terms as a single premise, there are consequences we expect based on it. Because we know we can die we are forced to face the final judgment of it like any other statement we might consider. . And like any other statement, it can only be judged as true or false, right or wrong, as either good or bad. So it is reasonable to expect a heavenly state for those who are judged as right and a horrible state for those who are judged as wrong.

. And now having read this article, the reader should be able to understand the opening verses of my book. The first page is here.. . .

     

 

If you'd like to leave a comment,

 

Copyright©2013 Michael John
All rights reserved