| |
In lugnet.general, Robert Bevens writes:
> > More specifically, I have understood it to mean that man has the capacity
> > for Grace, and in this way we are created in His image.
>
> Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother
> of all invention, not necessity.
Fair enough, but if you're going to criticize a view, you would be
well-advised to learn what that view is.
> > Aaron is actually citing well-established medieval doctrine in which God
> > was considered to be unlike any other creature, since, among other reasons,
> > He thinks (and sees, etc.) with the whole of His being, whereas lesser (ie:
> > all other) creatures think with only a portion of themselves.
>
> Oh gee, what was I thinking poking fun at this "well-established
> medieval doctrine"? I mean, after all, were are talking about
> something designed during the days when everybody knew the world was
> flat and a solar eclipse meant a bad year for crops.
You're committing a basic falacy of reason, in that you are assuming that,
since some of their views were incorrect, *all* were necessarily incorrect.
> > There's no reason to accuse Aaron of succumbing to some New Age sales
> > pitch simply because one finds his position untenable.
>
> Cause gosh knows that's what I did. Tell me, are you consciously
> attempting to be an instigator of something here, or is there some
> other explanation that perhaps I've overlooked? : )
If, somewhere within your sarcasm, there hide a few points, I'm sure they
might be worth reading, but if you come off as a loudmouth with nothing to
contribute, who's going to bother? And what benefit is it to you?
You can call me an instigator if you'd like, but I think my style of
debate, has been established here since long before your arrival or
delurking. I'm not interested in making someone look personally foolish; I
would much rather debate the issues. If you want to poke fun at me, by all
means, do so.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Fair enough, but if you're going to accuse me of criticizing a view without knowing what that view is, you would be well-advised to make absolutely certain that I don't, otherwise you're just making another assumption (as if that comes as any (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Hey whatever blows yer hair back. Interpretation is really the mother of all invention, not necessity. (...) I find South Park's ability to make certain people get upset over trivial things to be quite humorous indeed. (...) Oh gee, what was I (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
