CathInfo.com

So we are no longer dealing with a negated disjunction, as you said previously?

Yes, we are.  A logical disjunction.  "OR" is a disjunction.  And since you made it necessary by applying the incorrect truth table (one that makes no sense in any statement that you try to use it with) I am specifying that it is a logical disjunction.  The compound statement, wherein it is contained is negated by "cannot".

And if this is a simple logical disjunction, (which differs from before, as you said cannot negates the disjunction) then...

It doesn't differ at all from what I said.  It's what I have said from the beginning.  Read and see for yourself.

The only difference is that you proposed for some reason to use a truth table for exclusive disjunction, which hasn't any practical value in language:

If it is FALSE that justification cannot take lace without the laver of regeneration, and it is FALSE that justification cannot take place without the desire thereof, than, according to your table, is it FALSE that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration, or the desire there of.

Right?

Yes, that's right and I know you realize that the Council would not utter the propositions if they in fact were false, therefore we know that they are true.  Arbitrarily changing the values of the propositions is merely an exercise in logic (a rather redundant one, which I am not exactly sure why we are even doing).  So where's the problem?

Woe to any man who dies while believing that a decree of God the Holy Ghost DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.

St. John 9:41: "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth."

Think material vs formal heresy here people and if it doesn't start to hit home now, then I don't know what will... also, think invincible ignorance of the true Faith not being sinful; ie not damned for infidelity, but still damned for original sin and actual mortal sins against the natural law.  Those who can know on the other hand, they are condemned for infidelity also, hence:

St. Matthew10:15: "Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."



WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE ALL THE DECREES OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST AS THEY STAND?

Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?

God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

Lest PERHAPS we die???  Shame on you Eve!  God said nothing of perhaps!

No, you shall not die the death.

Hmmm...  sound familiar?

Why hath God commanded you, that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

Lest what?  Lest perhaps we don't get baptism of desire or baptism of blood, which are both contrary to the very words of the God-man Himself and contrary to the decrees of God the Holy Ghost?

Forget it satan!  I believe God's words AS HE DECLARED THEM.

You treat "without the laver of regeneration" as something that can be either true or false in and of itself, as if true means it's there and false means it's not.  No, you have to operate on the value (T/F) of the proposition in the statement.  You have to say: "If it is true/false that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration/desire thereof, then..."  You have to do this for both propositions to produce a correct result of true or false.

How does that alter it?  Let us say that 'If it is true that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration', and enter that into the table in place of where I provided 'laver of regeneration' as a necessity for justification, it makes no difference to the table.  To recieve justification, you must receive the laver of regeneration.  The values are the same.  Me treating it as true or false is simply a way to shorten the amount of typing I must do.   :wink:

Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website:

K, we're dealing with Negation a compound statement...

Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):

K, the compound statement is a disjunction.

We're dealing Negation of a Disjunction! (Bad assumption on my part.)

I still don't see how the aNORb table is illogical.  I can give an excellent example that supports it.

The opera house cannot stay open, without government funding, or public support.

Are both required?  Not necessarily.  It supports the aNORb table perfectly.  But if we apply this to your table, we get illogical answers, as either would be sufficient to keep the opera house open.

And the only reason I'm debating on the logic tables is that each portion of the table must be valid if the logic is to be validly used, to my knowledge.  If one portion of the table is false, than logically, the statement is not supported under that law, and our interpretation must be wrong.  

I think... apparently logic is not my strong suit.