To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23524
23523  |  23525
Subject: 
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:38:39 GMT
Viewed: 
472 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:

Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand
quite what you're getting at.  What is the flaw, exactly, in the original
example?

Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy:

Within a single framework, three independent sources are sufficient to confirm
a statement by a fourth source (the numbers aren’t central at this point;
merely trying to get to the bottom  of it).   But if, to  an external
observer, that entire framework is non-independent, then no confirmation from
within that framework is sufficient confirmation for the external observer.

Do you suppose that my underlying assertion is incorrect, or do you instead
think that my examples just aren’t matching my assertion?


I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are
criticizing.  You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as
an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out
that that is not one whit different from the Gospels.  Inside or outside the
source doesn't matter, because you cited your example as more believeable than
the Gospels even though from where I am sitting it is the exact same model.


-->Bruce<--



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
 
(...) Well, now I'm confused. Granted, the four magi Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are four LUGNET sources, but to LUGNET-savvy people they represent four discrete voices. However, to a non-LUGNET person, all four are subsumed under LUGNET and therefore (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
 
(...) I am still working on a full reply to (URL) your post>, but let me inject here briefly. That there are 4 Gospels does not add any form of credibility to the veracity of the Gospel (Good News) to most Christians, and certainly not me. In fact, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  BRUCE! Don't reply! Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
 
(...) Now THERE'S an understatement. I finally re-read the original formulation of my example, and the error practically bopped me in the nose. I'll see about reworking it. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
 
(...) Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand quite what you're getting at. What is the flaw, exactly, in the original example? Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy: Within a single framework, three (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

93 Messages in This Thread:





















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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR