Wholley Jesus!

It seems we are viewing this topic from different perspectives. I see your point and O.K you could say that Jon's reply was a consequence, but it must have been a consequence of the effect my post had. I was using a broad and personal definition with Jon just to give a general idea. However, the three concepts are all present.
It depends on your view point.

From Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

con·se·quence
1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art.

---

and:

quote:

---

ef·fect
1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.
2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence: His protest had no effect.
3. the state of being effective or operative; operation or execution; accomplishment or fulfillment: to bring a plan into effect.
4. a mental or emotional impression produced, as by a painting or a speech.
5. meaning or sense; purpose or intention: She disapproved of the proposal and wrote to that effect.
6. the making of a desired impression: We had the feeling that the big, expensive car was only for effect.
7. an illusory phenomenon: a three-dimensional effect.
8. a real phenomenon (usually named for its discoverer): the Doppler effect.

---

The two words are used to define each other. If you see a fundamental difference between the two words, please tell us what it is.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Your definitions show the connection to each other and I find it amusing that both definitions mention a cause. They really are intertwined.

That's what I'm saying. If you're going to discuss them as different concepts, you're going to have to spell out what differences you mean.You're also going to have to spell out what that difference means with respect to "suffering for our beliefs" (or whatever it is that the topic is trying to address).

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I thought that you might like this.I give nothing as duties,
What others give as duties I give as living impulses,
(Shall I give the heart's action as a duty?)--- Walt Whitman

Perhaps another way to explain what you are saying is to have:

An Action

​

A Reaction

​

The effects of the reaction, both immediate and ongoing.

​

As pertaining to Jesus, we could say that the initial action was either God sending Jesus into humanity (biblical belief) or Jesus himself choosing to go against the grain of Jewish tradition (alternative belief).

​

The reaction was peoples love/hate perception of Jesus...both then and now, as well as the death of Jesus.

​

The effects of the reaction are the ongoing beliefs, behaviors, and arguments toward or against Jesus that have occurred throughout history.

​

Edited by Phat, : added by edit

Phats description in post 21 may answer your question. Action -reaction-aftermath. It is a process and you cannot separate them as different concepts because without cause there is no effect, without effect there is no consequence, without effect and consequence there is no cause. It is a way to percieve the cycle of life. In this case the life of Jesus.Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

Thanks for the alternative definition on cause, effect and consequence. I would say they have exactly the same meaning. In the case of Jesus I begin at his belief system being 1st cause. The beginning can be anywhere but for the sake of this debate I wish to keep it within his humanity. This way is then comparable to humanity today.
I believe we do not have the whole story, especially not the negative effects of Jesus' belief system. They are not taken to the full conclusion. The story becomes false by ommision of truths.
For example, the honourable and noble teaching of turning the other cheek is so lacking in cause, effect and consequence. What is the basis for such a teaching? What caused a person to slap another initially? What does the obviously angry person do when you turn the other cheek? More than likely slap it again. Very negative, especially for the victim\martyr. If you are the one being slapped, don't you have a choice?
Could we have been percieving Jesus from a narrow perspective? Could it be that Jesus was there to give us more freedom of choice, rather than restrict us to following? Could his teachings have been for us to learn to think for ourselves? Maybe the picture was deliberately incomplete for us to use our imaginations? I feel the exploration of these possible intentions could complete the story. The implications are that the whole story could free us to make better, more informed choices.

Billiard ball A is rolling toward billiard ball B. Start here:Jon entered room (a); thus Jon saw two billiard balls (b); thus Jon pushed one (c); thus it rolled (d); thus it hit another billiard ball (e); thus the second ball rolled (f₁) & the first slowed down (f₂).
furthe
The tree would look like:

(a)
        |
       (b)
        |
       (c)
        |
       (d)
        |
       (e)
       / \
      /   \
    (f1) (f2)

Can you tell me which is an effect that isn't also a cause; which is a cause that isn't also an effect and which is an effect that isn't also a consequence; and which is a consequence that isn't also a cause?All causes are effects. All effects are causes. There's no room for a third distinction”there's hardly room for the first two. Again, you have to demonstrate why there should be a distinction. You have to show us that there is an actual difference that should distinguish consequence from cause and/or effect. Repeating your argument over and over and over again not only doesn't help your position as well as stalling the discussion, it is also against forum guidelines.Jon

By standing on my head and squinting just right, I had almost figured out that that was what you were getting at. I'm glad Phat confirmed it, since he's more up on jabberwocky than I am. I thought I was the one who said that.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You might be interested in a book I've been reading that deals with the subject of Jesus. I think you would find reading it to be quite helpful to your understanding of some of the points you've mentioned here. It could also help clear up some misunderstandings. Book Link.Jon

Ringo[By standing on my head and squinting just right, I had almost figured out that that was what you were getting at. I'm glad Phat confirmed it, since he's more up on jabberwocky than I am.]
There is an easier way. It's called thinking outside the box or maybe it's not so easy for some.

Yes sir! The process depends on the starting point of choice and is followed by a reaction. The reaction causes another reaction which could then become the cause of yet another chain. They can only be destinguished by choosing a starting point as a cause.An illustration of this can be seen in a definition Ringo gave for consequence. The defintion used the senerio of a motor accident as the consequence to a cause of reckless driving. The scenerio can be taken one step further, either forwards or backwards.Taking it forward, the damage (omitted in the definition) caused in the accident could be termed the consequence, with the accident termed as the effect, and reckless driving the cause.Taking it one step backwards, the cause of the reckless driving could have been an emergency, so therefore would become the cause of reckless driving, making the reckless driving an effect of the emergency and the accident the consequence of the other two combined.
Clear as mud, yes?Using the concept of cause, effect and consequence allows the examination of three aspects of life taken from a chain of events. We could use more than three but to keep it simple, three is a nice round number.I think the whole concept could be termed as lateral thinking. That's a thought. It just sounds logical to me but maybe not to others.Can we move on now to the real topic?

Since when does "thinking outside the box" mean making up your own terminology and not telling anybody what it is? If you want to discuss the topic, you have to communicate. That means that the words have to be inside the box.Can you make your point in plain English?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Cause: Reckless driving.
Effect: (Unknown)
Conseq: Car accident.So, now you're missing the effect, which you earlier stated as one of three major parts in your sequence. Tell me, can't we simply take the consequence up here to be an effect? Oh... turns out we can. But, I'm confused, now. If we can rearrange our thoughts so that the consequence becomes the effect, then why do we distinguish between them in the rst place? So, we can also relate the cause as an effect? Well, then, what does that say of my previous post:

quote:

---

All causes are effects. All effects are causes.

---

Do you agree that all causes are effects, and that all effects are causes? Crystal Two is even simpler, though not as round. We all mustn't be very good lateral thinkers If the real topic is the 'conclusion' you've drawn from this bunk premise, then no.Jon