Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [biblicalapologetics] anything that is "other" than reason, is thus NON -rea

Expand Messages
  • Jimmy Sloan
    ... Well, since *you* think it is a logical fallacy (I can demonstrate that begging the question is not always a fallacy), and is not rational that is
    Message 1 of 78 , Jul 12 9:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      <snip>

      >1) Is begging the question rational?

      >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.

      Well, since *you* think it is a logical fallacy (I can demonstrate that
      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 to
      >knowledge and truth? With
      >reason?

      >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
      >"unreason(able)".

      Besides you rfalse dichotomy, you are begging the question. You said that
      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
      truth?


      <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!
      http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
    • Eric Pement
      Replying to Robert Bassett: ... I was addressing what I thought was Jeep s more fundamental question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
      Message 78 of 78 , Jul 20 8:06 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 you
        > must admit that there has to be one real “truth”.

        I was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
        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 most
        > 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.

        True, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
        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 doesn’t guarantee
        > salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
        > words of the shepherd and heed his voice.

        I think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
        "differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
        Scripture. Thanks for writing.

        --
        Eric Pement
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.