RE: [biblicalapologetics] anything that is "other" than reason, is thus NON -rea
>1) Is begging the question rational?Well, since *you* think it is a logical fallacy (I can demonstrate that
>No, it's a logical fallacy. Whether someone CARES
>whether they are begging the question, is what
>determines whether or not they are being irrational.
begging the question is not always a fallacy), and is not rational that is
what is important with regards to this dicussion.
>2) How do you justify using reason as a means toBesides you rfalse dichotomy, you are begging the question. You said that
>knowledge and truth? With
>Because the only alternative to "reason" is "not
>reason" (i.e., there is no such thing as "non-reason"
>unless it is equated with "not reason" or
begging begging the question is not rational and yet that is what you are
building your theory of knowledge on. You are using reason to prove reason
is the only means to justify knowledge and truth. You are assuming that
which you are being asked to prove.
(i) Reason is the only means to determine knowledge and truth.
(ii) We used reason to determine this.
(iii) Therefore, reason is the only means to determine knowledge and truth.
Without begging the question (something you said was not rational), how do
you know that *reason itself* is the only means to determine knowledge and
<snip - when you address your question begging fallacy we can move on to the
rest of your inquiry>
~ J. Sloan
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
- Replying to Robert Bassett:
Thanks for replying. On 19 Jul 2005 at 12:15, you said:
> I do agree with what you say about religious hypocrisy Eric but youI was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
> must admit that there has to be one real truth.
question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
world religions, Christian denominations, and cults, it was my view
that the best way to frame a response was as I did: the Christian
religion is true, but being part of the "right church" won't save
you. I think this is the basics for further discussion.
> The Godhead must be either the trinity as described by RC and mostTrue, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
> Protestants, God and the glorified man Christ as described by JW and
> others or maybe 3 separate beings as described by Mormons. They cannot
> all be right.
different configuration altogether (binitarian, unitarian,
modalistic, panentheistic, etc.). I acknowledge that on a descriptive
level, the law of noncontradiction holds.
My assertion, for Jeep's sake, is that even believing in the
"right" understanding of Godhead is not enough. As I said to him in
my last message:
EP> In the last analysis, Bible knowledge without eternal life
EP> is worthless.
I think that holds for knowledge of true doctrines as well. In my
understanding, a person could conceptually believe in the "right" or
ultimately most correct understanding of theology, christology,
pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and all the rest, and still
not be "saved." Salvation is not obtained by intellectual assent even
to correct propositions and statement. Salvation is based on a
personal decision of the will to turn from sin and trust in Christ as
your sin-bearer, master, and risen Lord.
There are components of this decision that involve ideas (what is
sin? what does "risen" mean? etc.), but there are additional
components that require will, volition, allegiance, faith, and so on.
> I do agree though that participation in any religion doesnt guaranteeI think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
> salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
> words of the shepherd and heed his voice.
"differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
Scripture. Thanks for writing.