Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:57:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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.
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 can't be considered independent within the context of LUGNET.
I guess what I'm getting at (whether or not my example is helping me!) is this:
to people who accept the Gospels as Truth (i.e., to people "within" the Gospel
universe), the four sources Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are believed to be
sufficiently independent to be used as validation of each other's work. But to
someone who doesn't accept the Gospels as Truth (i.e., people "outside" the
Gospel universe), the four sources are subsumed into a single source, namely the
Gospels. As such, to someone outside the Gospel-believing set, the four sources
are in fact one source, and no part of that source can independently validate
any other part of that source.
Could you provide a more decisive example? I used the clone-guy vs.
non-clone-guys example for humor, of course, but it's not so funny if my example
doesn't further the argument!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
