Hi/Bye

[Chriliman]

I remember you. You said that y=5x+2 is meaningless.

Haha, no. I said the statement "X is true" is meaningless if you don't define "X".

The statement "it's true that X=X" does have meaning.

 

[JacksBratt]

A loving God does not threaten people with terrible punishments. Many have left the church because of its double-bind message, where they have God saying in effect, "Love me or I'll beat the tar out of you." Forget it. That is not the way love works. The OT was a puff piece written to justify teh land as truly Israelite property, hence, they presented God as behind all this genocide and telling Moses to be without mercy. Again, a loving God does not do cruel things like that.
Also, while I wouldn't say the above is rape, I would say it is a definite form of social oppression upon women.

I understand you feelings about God and His action towards people like the Canaanites, Medianites, etc.

However, if I had a child I would do whatever it took to protect that child and allow it to grow and become the person that it was to be. This is what God is doing. From the beginning of time there has been right and wrong. God set this standard and expects all mankind to heed His law or mandate. The people of these apostate nations continually disobeyed His mandate, were well aware of their ways and refused to repent.... they were a roadblock and a cancer against His people. They were warned and then they were disciplined.

As a Christian as are you, if I don't understand the exact inner workings, politics and righteous actions of my God and yours.... I don't question it. I know that God is totally and undeniably righteous and can do nothing unrighteous. So His dealings with these nations, however unrighteous they seem to me as a mere mortal, will some day be explained to me as to the reality of God's righteous actions.

I know this may be difficult for an unbeliever to understand, but, isn't this why we come to our Lord as a child and grow from there. I did not always know why my father, mother, teacher, any adult, did what they did, when I was young. Many times it seemed wrong. When I grew older I understood.

I do know that God had very good reason for the genocides that He oversaw.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I do know that God had very good reason for the genocides that He oversaw.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Haha, no. I said the statement "X is true" is meaningless if you don't define "X".

The statement "it's true that X=X" does have meaning.

This is similar to saying "It's true that X=X", in this case we don't need to know the definition of "X" because it's axiomatic that something will always equal itself.

In the equation y=5x+2, we must know something about either y or x, in order for the equation to have any meaning, otherwise it's nonsensical.

If you deny it once more, we're never speaking again. I've reached my limit of dealing with Christians denying what they said.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That sounds like skepticism. Where are you getting your def. of Nihilism?

When I say I'm a nihilist I mean I don't take anything as absolutely true or inherently true. Call it what you want to.

A lot of non-Nihilists and non-skeptics would also want to say something like this. Classical Empiricists, for example. Typically skepticism is thought to be a stronger position on not knowing.

Ok.

It's interesting that you say that, because conditional statements are a logical form. So it looks like you're using a logical form to talk about logic being mere assumptions.

You identify conditional statements as being a logical form. You then say I'm using a logical form. I infer you mean that I'm using a conditional statement. This would be wrong; I said nothing of the form, "If..., then...". Using the word "conditional" in a statement does not make the statement conditional. So I don't see your point in anything you said here.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

OK...



And yet they both gave the same orders, didn't they? Don't you find that a bit odd?



So God loved people and justly ordered genocide, whereas Hitler hated people and unjustly ordered genocide? So if Hitler actually loved the Jews, his orders of genocide would be good?



Why did the Jews worship those false gods? I can't imagine that a single right-wing American Christian would worship another god. Perhaps some would under threat of violence, but even then probably most would not. Yet these Jews did so... why? Why did Solomon, who spoke with God personally and who was granted wishes (one of which was great wisdom), erect idols of false gods? Why on earth would he do that? It almost sounds as if early Judaism has pagan, polytheistic roots or something... almost as if their deity evolved from that of a man in Genesis to that of fire in Exodus, and on and on until the modern version which is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, disembodied mind.



So what you are saying is that without knowledge of Christ, we would have no knowledge that genocide is wrong?

Yes genocide is murder, the Nuremberg trials and executions were not murders. They had their chance in each case to come good. Without Christ only a few interested in Aristotle and his likes, would know genocide was immoral.

Solomon had 900 wives and some of them drew him into idolatry. After the crucifixion people tended to remain in their belief system it seems, it's a crux.

 

[Noxot]

Fascinating exegesis. And I'm not being sarcastic. So that covers genocide (not that I actually believe you're correct, I just think you did a good job defending your position), now can you please give me satisfactory explanations of why rape seems to be OK in the Bible?

Things like working on the Sabbath are punishable by death, yet if you rape a virgin then your punishment is... pay her father and then marry the woman that you raped??? What does this symbolize?

i'm not 100% certain that it speaks about rape. why? well a few verses before it describes rape:

Deut 22:25 (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

so I have my doubts that the following verse implies rape:


Deut 22:28-29 (KJV)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

it seems they both decided to have sex. i can see that such an act in those times would be dishonorable to the "head of the house" which would be the father and it dishonors the daughter as well. anyone who understands why marriage is a good idea which makes for a better world will understand why it is so important that they marry and what a good thing it could be for the both of them. God trys to sanctify sex since it has potential to cause a lot of problems and so marriage is what sanctifies sex.

why pay the father 50? 50 is the number of the jubilee. the jubilee is a very important symbol. it seems to be a symbol for forgiveness and regeneration. so basically this turns base passions into a spiritual discipline for life. instead of them both running around like horny rabbits they become partners and live a life together. the angels always try to take the evils of a person and lead them to some good for that is how you destroy evil.

but on a deeper level this speaks about the reunion of the spirit with the soul. it describes spiritual life and it describes eternal marriage. it was part of the path I took, that so many of us take. we are humbled by God and we shall never be separated. deut 22:28-29 describes salvation and union with God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

i'm not 100% certain that it speaks about rape. why? well a few verses before it describes rape:

Deut 22:25 (KJV)
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

so I have my doubts that the following verse implies rape:


Deut 22:28-29 (KJV)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

it seems they both decided to have sex. i can see that such an act in those times would be dishonorable to the "head of the house" which would be the father and it dishonors the daughter as well. anyone who understands why marriage is a good idea which makes for a better world will understand why it is so important that they marry and what a good thing it could be for the both of them. God trys to sanctify sex since it has potential to cause a lot of problems and so marriage is what sanctifies sex.

why pay the father 50? 50 is the number of the jubilee. the jubilee is a very important symbol. it seems to be a symbol for forgiveness and regeneration. so basically this turns base passions into a spiritual discipline for life. instead of them both running around like horny rabbits they become partners and live a life together. the angels always try to take the evils of a person and lead them to some good for that is how you destroy evil.

but on a deeper level this speaks about the reunion of the spirit with the soul. it describes spiritual life and it describes eternal marriage. it was part of the path I took, that so many of us take. we are humbled by God and we shall never be separated. deut 22:28-29 describes salvation and union with God.

First of all, would you be the least bit disturbed if it was indeed describing rape and prescribing that "punishment"? I'd hope so.

Secondly, why does the NIV say it's rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Do you disavow the NIV? What is your effective procedure for determining if a translation is acceptable?

 

[Noxot]

First of all, would you be the least bit disturbed if it was indeed describing rape and prescribing that "punishment"? I'd hope so.

Secondly, why does the NIV say it's rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Do you disavow the NIV? What is your effective procedure for determining if a translation is acceptable?

I could get by with the niv but I don't care for the niv, it has too much opinions about what people think is being said ( which is one of the biggest problems in Christianity btw). I prefer literal translations but it is just because over time I found out that I like them better. I looked at the original languages a bit and there are different words used with the 2 verses that I compared and that is why kjv has the word "force" in one verse while the other verse does not have that specific word. there is a chance I am wrong as I am no expert but it kind of seems obvious once you just look and see what the words are in the original.

my faith in God is pretty strong, being raped by the man would only mean that i was in a condition of sin and thus going towards restoration, it hardly changes the spiritual symbol of the narrative. because in the bible a common pattern is that our father is like a serpent to us at first and we all tend to stumble and not understand God until we grow in heavenly wisdom.

but I also know that humans are slowly evolving to become more and more human. i know that God deals with people being less than ideal otherwise everyones standards would have looked more like Jesus. in heaven the angels only see the divine reality of everything and so it does not matter if the bible is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but still, from those in the know, i can say that the scriptures are altered in favor of the preservation of the deeper meanings. thus you can find some wacky prophesies that never happened and false histories in the bible due to the angels set over it speaking in mysteries rather than attempting to preserve the crude past.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I could get by with the niv but I don't care for the niv, it has too much opinions about what people think is being said ( which is one of the biggest problems in Christianity btw). I prefer literal translations but it is just because over time I found out that I like them better. I looked at the original languages a bit and there are different words used with the 2 verses that I compared and that is why kjv has the word "force" in one verse while the other verse does not have that specific word. there is a chance I am wrong as I am no expert but it kind of seems obvious once you just look and see what the words are in the original.

my faith in God is pretty strong, being raped by the man would only mean that i was in a condition of sin and thus going towards restoration, it hardly changes the spiritual symbol of the narrative. because in the bible a common pattern is that our father is like a serpent to us at first and we all tend to stumble and not understand God until we grow in heavenly wisdom.

but I also know that humans are slowly evolving to become more and more human. i know that God deals with people being less than ideal otherwise everyones standards would have looked more like Jesus. in heaven the angels only see the divine reality of everything and so it does not matter if the bible is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. but still, from those in the know, i can say that the scriptures are altered in favor of the preservation of the deeper meanings. thus you can find some wacky prophesies that never happened and false histories in the bible due to the angels set over it speaking in mysteries rather than attempting to preserve the crude past.

Aside from the first paragraph I cannot discern meaning from anything you said.

 

[Noxot]

Aside from the first paragraph I cannot discern meaning from anything you said.

aside for my poor english I would say that it does not mean that I am speaking gibberish. but to answer the part of your question that was not a clear enough expression I will say that ofc i would be shocked to hear that raping a woman is how I could find me a wife. that does not seem like a good idea to me but I am against most laws that people make up anyways. I think I justified and explained everything I needed to now.

but I did think it useful to express that in religious experience that it is common for God to appear to be opposed to you or to be your enemy. that is one reason why i called the bible the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and also why i will say that the serpent pretends to be God but the image of the lamb in the book of revelation speaks like a dragon... because of sin distorting the person and thus their understanding of God.

 

[Cappadocious]

When I say I'm a nihilist I mean I don't take anything as absolutely true or inherently true.

Ok. Let me see if I can get clearer about that. So a respectable skeptical position is called Pyrrhonian skepticism. The Pyrrhonian skeptic would say that when an oar appears bent in water, we cannot conclude that this is an illusion, but have to suspend judgment. For all we know, oars do become bent in water.

Would you agree?

You identify conditional statements as being a logical form. You then say I'm using a logical form. I infer you mean that I'm using a conditional statement. This would be wrong; I said nothing of the form, "If..., then...".

Right, fair enough. I was being a little sloppy. What I meant was that calling logical laws and principles conditional implies that logical rules and principles would or could be or are true given some other. This is a conditional entailment relation. I can't see someone working out "conditional" without appealing to such a relation.

 

[Vicomte13]

one reason is because it attracted more souls to him. another reason is that humans die. another reason is because people who are evil do evil things to others.

A third reason is to teach the lesson - directly and in person - that death is nothing. WE, who fear and cringe at death, will compromise our morals and what we know God wants, in order to preserve ourselves. And we do that more than just life and death - truth is, few of us are exposed to life and death. We compromise over money, status and pleasure, fear of loss.

The ULTIMATE loss, to human eyes, is death. People will do ANYTHING to avoid that, especially people who don't trust (or believe in) God.

Jesus had to die SO THAT he could rise from the dead and thereby DEMONSTRATE that, yeah, God is the King over death as well, that at God's command, the dead rise. Suddenly, death ceases to be the end - IF (IFF) one is with God and follows Jesus. Death has lost its sting, if one sees clearly.

Jesus had to die, as a man, in part so that men would see a man die - and die at the hands of the most powerful authorities on earth: Church AND State, together. And then that man just simply rise from the dead. The most powerful human entities DID THEIR WORST, to just a single man, a nobody, and HE walked out of the tomb - The Roman Empire and the Jewish Temple and King Herod, all combined, were unable to destroy a nobody carpenter. The stripped him of everything, and they killed him, and God LAUGHED at them and the man walked right out of the tomb, demonstrating that, actually, the superpower government AND the religious authorities in all of their might AND the local police AND all of the human laws and the Laws of Nature and Death themselves have NO POWER AT ALL to bind God. They can pronounce and inflict death, and God simply throw them aside, with a big heavy stone, and bring a man back to life.

And Jesus had to be publicly tortured to death, in the most fearful way, to give the example that a man who really UNDERSTANDS that the Law of Nature itself, the laws of Physics and Biology, AND the laws of the superpower state, and the laws of pain and fear, can all be overridden by the CHOICE of a simple flesh and blood man to defy them all.

Jesus was tortured to death, and did not recant, and he walked out the tomb and destroyed the church of the time (the Temple and the entire priesthood are GONE FOREVER - all that's left is the religious debating society of the Pharisaic rabbis which call themselves "Judaism", but which do not have the power to actually obey the Sinai Covenant, because God stripped of them both the necessary altar and the necessary priests; the Roman Empire is also utterly gone. In fact, the Roman Empire fought Christianity for three hundred years, and in the end, the Empire lost. The Christians never bore arms. They died, in blood and agony, but they all went to heaven. Their torturers will peer up from the flames: their LAW was destroyed, their STATE was destroyed, their ARMY was destroyed, and they individually, their bodies and spirits, were destroyed. They fought God by destroying men - torturing and killing me - but the men were all restored everything, while THEY, the mob, the army, the mass, the empire, the law, the superpower, were ground into dust, the idols wiped away, but the MEN who worshipped the idols died too, but then got to live with the consequences of their defeat for the same endless woe they sought to inflict on the Christians who tried to save them).

It was important that Jesus be a man - for man to know that God knows what it is like to be a man.
It was important the Jesus be humiliated and tortured by both "church" and state, all levels of the state, that he be formally judged under the laws of three sets of men, including - importantly - the holy laws of the Temple and its prophet priest - the TEMPLE had to fail in the final instance, and condemn God to death, so that God could justly destroy it for good and thereby put an end to THAT covenant (by making it impossible to follow anymore).
It was important that he be publicly, visibly, shockingly and clearly KILLED, that he be dead as dead can be.

SO THAT when he walked out of tomb alive and rejoined his friends, the utter impotence and toothless of the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor, the Roman Army, the Roman governor, the Jewish King, the Jewish High Priest, the Jewish High Court, the Jewish Temple authorities, and the mob were all demonstrated. They all stood against God by destroying a man utterly. And they were all utterly unable to do it. All of those entities of that time are gone from the earth, but the people of Jesus remain, and we get to conquer death and live forever because he did.

The modern equivalent would be a man standing up to the United States and Russia, and being destroyed by a joint atomic bomb strike. And then his atoms reassembling and he walk out of the fire, rendering their nukes inert, and demonstrating that the combined might of the world is nothing, because the life of Christians is superior in durability to the laws of physics.

THAT'S what Jesus' death and resurrection demonstrates in the flesh and, if we trust him, what is promised to us: we are immortal and utterly invincible, even against the exploding of the sun and black holes, let alone mere men and rabies. Invincible, immortal and eternal - that is what we ARE, if we choose to be. The only way to that, though, is by obeying Christ. God made HIM that way, publicly, so that we know that if we do as he said to do, we can have the same reward (of life and imperishability, not of rulership over the universe, of course - we can be LIKE Christ, we can't BE Christ).

Christianity grants immortality superior to the power of the Laws of Nature. Christ's very public crucifixion and death, and his resurrection (immortalized for the public forever, by God, in the Shroud of Turin's evidence), proved it. God did that for Christ. If we TRUST Christ, he said that God will do that for us also. And we probably won't have to be scourged and crucified to obtain it. When we are bitten by the sting of sin's serpent, we must look to OUR "brazen serpent", which is Christ crucified and then risen, and we will live. Not in a mystical sense - a literal sense. Christ promises us immortality, just like his. Like him, we have to pass through death to get there.

Only death? So what?

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you think I am wrong?

 

[JacksBratt]

So you approve of infanticide in some cases? Before deciding whether to allow an infant to live we must take into account the child's heritage?

I don't approve of infanticide. This is a song of lamenting and wishful revenge. I'm not saying it is right and I don't believe that this passage of scripture is saying that it is a foundational stance for Christians to take as part of the belief and worship of God. It is simply a person writing a Psalm of their intentions. This was, by the way, a common practice in those days. Again, not that it was right, but it was the way.

 

[JacksBratt]

Moses ordered the execution of infants and God personally tortured and executed David's infant son.

Infanticide, therefore, can be righteous depending on the circumstances. Correct?

If God had the infant son of David die due to the sins of David, then this is God's right. He already said that He would give punishment for sins of the parents to the children of the third and fourth generations. We have no right to judge God.

One infant is not infanticide.

There are laws made by men for men. We punish a person for murder, stealing, rape, kidnapping, whatever. That is their earthly punishment. Their eternal punishment will only be for one thing, accepting Christ or not. Accepting Christ brings eternal life. Denying Him brings eternal death. It has nothing to do with murder, stealing, raping, kidnapping or anything right down to telling you parent a lie.

A murderer will enter heaven whether they were saved before or after the earthly crime. Your eternal destination is based on one thing and one thing only...........were you a child of God.

 

[JacksBratt]

I was doing you a great courtesy by not answering because I've destroyed that response so many times.

You still haven't destroyed this again for me.

 

[redleghunter]

A third reason is to teach the lesson - directly and in person - that death is nothing. WE, who fear and cringe at death, will compromise our morals and what we know God wants, in order to preserve ourselves. And we do that more than just life and death - truth is, few of us are exposed to life and death. We compromise over money, status and pleasure, fear of loss.

The ULTIMATE loss, to human eyes, is death. People will do ANYTHING to avoid that, especially people who don't trust (or believe in) God.

Jesus had to die SO THAT he could rise from the dead and thereby DEMONSTRATE that, yeah, God is the King over death as well, that at God's command, the dead rise. Suddenly, death ceases to be the end - IF (IFF) one is with God and follows Jesus. Death has lost its sting, if one sees clearly.

Jesus had to die, as a man, in part so that men would see a man die - and die at the hands of the most powerful authorities on earth: Church AND State, together. And then that man just simply rise from the dead. The most powerful human entities DID THEIR WORST, to just a single man, a nobody, and HE walked out of the tomb - The Roman Empire and the Jewish Temple and King Herod, all combined, were unable to destroy a nobody carpenter. The stripped him of everything, and they killed him, and God LAUGHED at them and the man walked right out of the tomb, demonstrating that, actually, the superpower government AND the religious authorities in all of their might AND the local police AND all of the human laws and the Laws of Nature and Death themselves have NO POWER AT ALL to bind God. They can pronounce and inflict death, and God simply throw them aside, with a big heavy stone, and bring a man back to life.

And Jesus had to be publicly tortured to death, in the most fearful way, to give the example that a man who really UNDERSTANDS that the Law of Nature itself, the laws of Physics and Biology, AND the laws of the superpower state, and the laws of pain and fear, can all be overridden by the CHOICE of a simple flesh and blood man to defy them all.

Jesus was tortured to death, and did not recant, and he walked out the tomb and destroyed the church of the time (the Temple and the entire priesthood are GONE FOREVER - all that's left is the religious debating society of the Pharisaic rabbis which call themselves "Judaism", but which do not have the power to actually obey the Sinai Covenant, because God stripped of them both the necessary altar and the necessary priests; the Roman Empire is also utterly gone. In fact, the Roman Empire fought Christianity for three hundred years, and in the end, the Empire lost. The Christians never bore arms. They died, in blood and agony, but they all went to heaven. Their torturers will peer up from the flames: their LAW was destroyed, their STATE was destroyed, their ARMY was destroyed, and they individually, their bodies and spirits, were destroyed. They fought God by destroying men - torturing and killing me - but the men were all restored everything, while THEY, the mob, the army, the mass, the empire, the law, the superpower, were ground into dust, the idols wiped away, but the MEN who worshipped the idols died too, but then got to live with the consequences of their defeat for the same endless woe they sought to inflict on the Christians who tried to save them).

It was important that Jesus be a man - for man to know that God knows what it is like to be a man.
It was important the Jesus be humiliated and tortured by both "church" and state, all levels of the state, that he be formally judged under the laws of three sets of men, including - importantly - the holy laws of the Temple and its prophet priest - the TEMPLE had to fail in the final instance, and condemn God to death, so that God could justly destroy it for good and thereby put an end to THAT covenant (by making it impossible to follow anymore).
It was important that he be publicly, visibly, shockingly and clearly KILLED, that he be dead as dead can be.

SO THAT when he walked out of tomb alive and rejoined his friends, the utter impotence and toothless of the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor, the Roman Army, the Roman governor, the Jewish King, the Jewish High Priest, the Jewish High Court, the Jewish Temple authorities, and the mob were all demonstrated. They all stood against God by destroying a man utterly. And they were all utterly unable to do it. All of those entities of that time are gone from the earth, but the people of Jesus remain, and we get to conquer death and live forever because he did.

The modern equivalent would be a man standing up to the United States and Russia, and being destroyed by a joint atomic bomb strike. And then his atoms reassembling and he walk out of the fire, rendering their nukes inert, and demonstrating that the combined might of the world is nothing, because the life of Christians is superior in durability to the laws of physics.

THAT'S what Jesus' death and resurrection demonstrates in the flesh and, if we trust him, what is promised to us: we are immortal and utterly invincible, even against the exploding of the sun and black holes, let alone mere men and rabies. Invincible, immortal and eternal - that is what we ARE, if we choose to be. The only way to that, though, is by obeying Christ. God made HIM that way, publicly, so that we know that if we do as he said to do, we can have the same reward (of life and imperishability, not of rulership over the universe, of course - we can be LIKE Christ, we can't BE Christ).

Christianity grants immortality superior to the power of the Laws of Nature. Christ's very public crucifixion and death, and his resurrection (immortalized for the public forever, by God, in the Shroud of Turin's evidence), proved it. God did that for Christ. If we TRUST Christ, he said that God will do that for us also. And we probably won't have to be scourged and crucified to obtain it. When we are bitten by the sting of sin's serpent, we must look to OUR "brazen serpent", which is Christ crucified and then risen, and we will live. Not in a mystical sense - a literal sense. Christ promises us immortality, just like his. Like him, we have to pass through death to get there.

Only death? So what?

 

[Chriliman]

If you deny it once more, we're never speaking again. I've reached my limit of dealing with Christians denying what they said.

I did say it's similar and really it's all about the = symbol. If there's an = symbol, then the equation has meaning. IOW, something = something. So I was wrong to say it has no meaning, but we still can't know if it's true or false unless we know something about "y" or "x".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. Let me see if I can get clearer about that. So a respectable skeptical position is called Pyrrhonian skepticism. The Pyrrhonian skeptic would say that when an oar appears bent in water, we cannot conclude that this is an illusion, but have to suspend judgment. For all we know, oars do become bent in water.

Would you agree?

It is possible that I am a brain in a vat and that you don't exist, but that is not a proposition I will ever take seriously. Likewise it is possible that oars bend in water, but that is not something that I will seriously entertain. The position I adhere to is rational skepticism along with my nihilism.

Right, fair enough. I was being a little sloppy. What I meant was that calling logical laws and principles conditional implies that logical rules and principles would or could be or are true given some other. This is a conditional entailment relation. I can't see someone working out "conditional" without appealing to such a relation.

That's not what I said. Please re-read post #214. I said that the laws of logic are assumptions, and that logic is conditional. Logic is the process by which we take initial assumptions and then see what consequences (theorems) follow. The logical consequences are conditional upon the assumptions being made. For example, Euclidean Geometry makes the assumption that parallel lines cannot cross; theorems follow. Non-Euclidean Geometry does not make this assumption and different theorems follow. The theorems that are derived are conditional upon the assumptions being made.