|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ BY YOUR STANDARDS, NOT ELECT ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 7 · Found: 158 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 12/14/06 1:54 PM |
| By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Let us for the moment grant that you can actually somehow unpack the law of non-contradiction from Titus 1:2 (I'm dubious that this is possible, especially since it is going to take some work to see exactly what kind of a claim it is that 'God cannot lie'). So, is it a matter of verification for you that scripture uses logic and it is reliable? That is, as you mentioned, Aristotle employed the same logic. If you were to read Aristotle and see him employ a reductio, for example, would you say "That form of argument may work, but I must see if the scripture employs it in the same manner. If I cannot find it employed in the same way, I must suspend my judgment". It strikes me that Aristotle was using and cataloging logic the way he did because it was good reasoning. Are you saying it is good reasoning because Jesus used it? How could Aristotle (and many Greeks before him) have discovered the same principles since all they had was "human wisdom", as it were? It just strikes me that you are using principles that are certainly not explicit in the text, and perhaps not even derivable from them in any meaningful sense. It seems like your attack on Thomistic and Aristotelian epistemology looks more like an attack on Humean empiricism. They are radically different. |
|
|
| 12/13/06 2:34 PM |
| By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
I suppose I was looking at your claim that Scriptural basis is the most "reliable", thus making me think you were thinking in terms of statistical probability or something of the sort. All truths are deduced by necessary inference. Interesting. So, to say that "2=2" or "All bachelors are unmarried males" are necessarily true under all conditions, one would need to deduce these, by necessary inference, from scripture? If not, then it is at least possible that 2 may not equal 2 or that there is at least one male who is a bachelor and is married? Also, can there be any arguments to show something should be considered axiomatic? I'm not trying to be cheeky, Neil, I'm just trying to figure out the extent of your position, especially since you (thankfully) don't refer me to another website. |
|
|
| 12/7/06 11:14 AM |
| By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Yes, I did make a blanket statement and it was intentional. Blanket statements are made all the time on these threads and, while it's not the best form of reasoning, I thought I would join in the fun. Most of the time, after a blanket statment is made, there is a parade of emoticons and "Good job, so and so, you really stuck it to those Papists." Yes, I did have a comment in mind and I'm not so sure there aren't others on this thread who might agree with the statment she made. Given each of the instances in the Bible of idolatry, what seems to be that which constitutes idolatry itself? Or is the account of idolatry merely a command in the imperative, "Do not worship x, do not worship y, z, k" ad infinitum? In order to decide if one is worshipping an idol, do we go down the list and decide if x is an instance of any of the other particulars listed and then, if it is not listed verbatim, we cannot make a judgment about it? |
|
|
| 12/6/06 11:06 PM |
| By Your Standards, Not Elect | | Oblivion | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Not so quickly, Neil. For one thing, I didn't accuse you personally of Bibliolatry. There was, however, a post a few months ago that actually said "Jesus is the word, the Bible is God's word, therefore Jesus is the Bible incarnate". That's treading pretty darn closely to idolatry if you ask me and if you want to defend it, go right on ahead and do it. If only Jesus is worthy of worship, and the Bible is Jesus, so to speak, then the Bible is worthy of worship. This is not a non sequitur since it follows directly from what was posted. I don't agree with it any more than you do, I hope. God didn't nuance idolatry, this is true. But a bunch of the Pharisee types knew the scripture they had and could still miss the point of it, especially in the way they were using it. Besides, there is a difference between veneration and idolatry, precisely because of the natures of the different objects toward which the attention is given. I'm not defending the practice of veneration, I'm just telling it like it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
