For Programmers: Free Programming Magazines  


Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: You know you're a Christina when .. (was: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent de









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Re: You know you're a Christina when .. (was: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent de
Judson McClendon

2008-02-14, 6:55 pm

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> 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.


True

> THEN you say that reading theBible, it requires you to "take it as the literal Word of God" (Pete's words).


True, with this proviso: Well, it is literally "the Word of God" though
not every passage in the Bible is a literal statement. Not every statement
in the Bible is even true. The Bible sometimes records statements made
by people who are lying. Such things are understood through their
context, as in all human language commuincation.

> Then you use the "literal words" of the Bible to justify the authority that you place in the Bible.


Not true. Such would, indeed, be circular reasoning. I use the text
of the Bible to *define* what I believe, and use the text of the Bible
to defend it against criticism of it's internal consistency and so
forth, and to show what the Bible actually says, when someone
questions or challenges it. I may even use the text of the Bible to
show that how I use or interpret the Bible is consistent with the
Bible itself. But I do not use the text of the Bible to justify its
authority, *except* to people who already profess beliefs which
are, by definition, defined by the Bible. They, or others, may not
realize or acknowledge this, but that doesn't change the fact.

> 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.


Yes, I understand circular reasoning. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


Sponsored Links







Also available: Server administration forum archive | Web Design forum archive | Software forum archive | Hardware reviews archive

Copyright 2008 codecomments.com