| William M. Klein 2008-02-14, 6:55 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:45Zsj.73459$Mu4.20127@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Pete, I don't see why you find this so difficult, unless you are simply
> trying to find areas to disagree.
Judson,
THIS is what others of us view as "circular reasoning".
You have a faith (assumption in "logic" terms) that places authority in the
Bible. THEN you say that reading theBible, it requires you to "take it as the
literal Word of God" (Pete's words). Then you use the "literal words" of the
Bible to justify the authority that you place in the Bible.
There is certainly nothing wrong with reaching your conclussions from the
assumptions you make. However, you can't state that the conclussion "proves"
the original assumption, when they are based on that assumption - unless you
admit that logic is curcular.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
|