![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeast"God doesn't send anybody to Hell. People choose to go to Hell by rejecting a relationship with God."
No, I'm not going to debate the Problem of Hell. I will say that this particular response to the Problem of Hell by not really responding. Rather than address any substance in the Problem of Hell, the altered description simply attempts to refrain from looking at the problem.
These kinds of purely semantic responses to substantive issues don't address issues of substance. They only, and only really attempt to, obfuscate the issue, shroud it in a fog of distraction. That obfuscation is made up of just making the conversation and clear communication more difficult.
What's more, this kind of purely semantic response casts doubt on the honesty of the one using the argument. No, it's not, technically, a lie in that it's not the blatant stating of something the speaker believes to be completely untrue. But, that, too, would be a purely semantic argument.
These kinds of technical truths are exactly the kind of tactic one expects to be placed in the mouth of a fictional devil or devil-analog. Phrases like "he lies with the truth" have often been descriptions of such characters.
This is not to say that one should never discuss semantics. Semantics does have its place in conversation. My next tip, after this one, will be on the topic of semantics. The place of semantics is to help clarity of communication, not to hinder it.
No, I'm not going to debate the Problem of Hell. I will say that this particular response to the Problem of Hell by not really responding. Rather than address any substance in the Problem of Hell, the altered description simply attempts to refrain from looking at the problem.
These kinds of purely semantic responses to substantive issues don't address issues of substance. They only, and only really attempt to, obfuscate the issue, shroud it in a fog of distraction. That obfuscation is made up of just making the conversation and clear communication more difficult.
What's more, this kind of purely semantic response casts doubt on the honesty of the one using the argument. No, it's not, technically, a lie in that it's not the blatant stating of something the speaker believes to be completely untrue. But, that, too, would be a purely semantic argument.
These kinds of technical truths are exactly the kind of tactic one expects to be placed in the mouth of a fictional devil or devil-analog. Phrases like "he lies with the truth" have often been descriptions of such characters.
This is not to say that one should never discuss semantics. Semantics does have its place in conversation. My next tip, after this one, will be on the topic of semantics. The place of semantics is to help clarity of communication, not to hinder it.
