Interesting News article

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
And yet you argue that your view is flawless, which I could just as easily call a flaw. You're referral to our methods as having a flaw, something that someone merely needs to "recognize" is begging the question. You have not proven that your method is flawless, and thus you cannot claim that ours has flaws.

Without wanting to sound mean or callous, I have to chastize you.

I am pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about. Never once have I said my view is flawless; rather, I have said I recognize the flawed catholic view of tradition. I never said my ideas were without error, only that I can see the inconsistencies and errors in the catholics. By nature, it is harder to see an error in one's self, so I in no way claimed this.

Also, you could call my view flawed, but then the burden of proof falls to you. To call the view flawed, one must show where it is flawed. I have done this before concerning catholic tradition so I can justly say so. Whether you see it my way or not is immaterial. I have given my case due prespresentation and presented my arguments logically in prior threads. Therefore, I can say what I have. You, however, must show me how my view is flawed if you wish to disregard my view in debate. To simply say it is flawed does nothing. If you have already shown, in your view, how it is flawed, you are justified in doing so. Though, I am not sure you have done this.

So, your entire post is pointless. I have never said my view is flawless, thus you have no basis for argument along these lines.

In Christ,
jason

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

You are incorrect. When talking about a single subject matter, if one claims the other's view is flawed, then they must believe that their view is without flaw on this matter. If not, then what is the point of arguing, if both views are flawed? You would have no right to tell me I am flawed if you in an equal manner are flawed.

On this issue, you believe that your method is without flaw, or you would have no reason to point out my flaws, for without knowing flawlessness, one cannot discern flaws.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You are incorrect. When talking about a single subject matter, if one claims the other's view is flawed, then they must believe that their view is without flaw on this matter. If not, then what is the point of arguing, if both views are flawed? You would have no right to tell me I am flawed if you in an equal manner are flawed.

As I said previously, you know not of which you speak.

I can claim your view is flawed without thinking mine is flawless. Rather, mine is superiour while still flawed. This is actually a rather simple concept. For instance, I can argue that the best way to move files around the internet is using SCP (Secure Copy), while you think it is FTP. Clearly, mine is the better choice, but it still has it's disadvantages (flaws). So, my view is actually better (fewer flaws), but it still is not perfect. See the distinction?

On this issue, you believe that your method is without flaw, or you would have no reason to point out my flaws, for without knowing flawlessness, one cannot discern flaws.

This is plainly and patently absurd. It is quite clear you don't know what you are saying!

See above for an example of views vs flawlessness.

I believe my view to be better (less flaws) than yours. I never, never claimed it to be flawless. You are putting this requirement on me, which does nothing to bolster your argument.

Quite simply, to continue to argue this is foolhardy. Your position is untenable and in error (as I have shown).

In Christ,
jason

PS. If you would like some more examples of views that are better, while not being flawless:

1. Seatbelts vs not wearing seatbelts
2. Social programs vs not using social programs
3. Taxes for sports stadiums vs no tax support for sports statdiums.
4. Gun control

The list goes on and on and......

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

Your examples may be analogous, but we're talking about an issue on which there IS a correct answer. God is God, and God is absolute. God is Truth, and therefore Truth in regards to God is absolute. There is a correct way of understanding God's Word, and there are not-correct ways.

It's not a matter of advantages over disadvantages, for there is one way which is free from disadvantages, for it is OF GOD.

Therefore, your analogies are not analogous. Further, you completely dismiss my method; I've never seen you take a stance in that your view has flaws, as does mine, and that your view has advantages, AS DOES MINE. What advantages do you believe mine has? I've never seen you assert anything; I would love to hear them.

If you cannot, then again, your analogy fails, because all of your examples have a clear advantage/disadvantage equalibrium.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Grant -

I do not wish to discuss this further for I do not wish to embarass you. Though, I will address the questions raised in this post. If you wish to continue, please say so. Otherwise, this will be my last post on this topic.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Your examples may be analogous, but we're talking about an issue on which there IS a correct answer. God is God, and God is absolute. God is Truth, and therefore Truth in regards to God is absolute. There is a correct way of understanding God's Word, and there are not-correct ways.

Quite right. And what are those ways? That is the very point we are discussing. How do we know which ways are the correct way? Ahem, it is called interpretation. Therefore, my interpretation is better than yours because is has less flaws. That is the point.

Unless, of course, you know the will and mind of God and can flawlessly interepret the bible. Though, even claiming so would not prove it. That is another discussion indeed.

Example below of absolute truth and debate.

It's not a matter of advantages over disadvantages, for there is one way which is free from disadvantages, for it is OF GOD.

Quite right again. But what is of God? Again, we have to interpret was is of God. That dang interpretation thing again.

Therefore, your analogies are not analogous.

Actually, they are quite valid and applicable. Further, you have not shown why they are not analogous to this discussion. Simply dismissing them is not a valid argument.

Further, you completely dismiss my method; I've never seen you take a stance in that your view has flaws, as does mine, and that your view has advantages, AS DOES MINE. What advantages do you believe mine has? I've never seen you assert anything; I would love to hear them.

Grant. This is quite silly at this point. I do not have to tell you what advantages your system has or how it is not flawed to assert that my system is better. That is a ridiculous assertation. Think about it. If I were to say that the earth is square, and you were to say it is flat, we are both wrong, but mine is still closer to the truth than yours. Now, in debate, do I have to actually argue for your position? No. I simply have to defend mine while debunking yours. I implore you to think about this before you take it further.

Also, I need not acknowledge your argument to hold some tenant of it. I can simply believe it, or even incorporate that position into my argument. To assert that one must show support for varying opposing arguments in debate is groundless and absurd.

Lastly, I do not, in any way, have to give you the places in which my argument is found lacking. That is for the other side to find. To do so would be self defeating and pointless. Please, please think about these issues before responding.

If you cannot, then again, your analogy fails, because all of your examples have a clear advantage/disadvantage equalibrium.

Not so. Seatbelts do save more lives than without seatbelts. There is no equalibrium here. Though, the argument can still be made both ways concerning this issue. Hence, one is better (less flaws) than the other. Again, please think about this issue a little deeper.

Again, I am finished unless you wish to continue.

In Christ,
jason

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

You said that I have to show all the disadvantage/advantages of the analogies before I can dismiss them...but you are exempt from doing the same with the Catholic Church.

Please practice what you preach.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You said that I have to show all the disadvantage/advantages of the analogies before I can dismiss them...but you are exempt from doing the same with the Catholic Church.

Please practice what you preach.

That is a blatent misrepresentation of what I actually said. Whether intentional or not, it shows why we are not making headway.

You: Therefore, your analogies are not analogous.

Me:Actually, they are quite valid and applicable. Further, you have not shown why they are not analogous to this discussion. Simply dismissing them is not a valid argument.

Note how I never said 'advantages/disadvantages'. This is you trying to escape an argument that you cannot win. Precisely, this shows the untenable nature of your position.

Secondly, I have said that if I wish to call the catholic position flawed, I must show such:

To call the view flawed, one must show where it is flawed. I have done this before concerning catholic tradition so I can justly say so.

So, my actual argument was that one must show the flaws in an opposing argument if one wishes to dismiss it. Your mispresentation of my idea suggests that you are not entirely interested in honestly exploring this topic.

I stated that you must show my position to be flawed if you wish to dismiss it. To simply disregard it is not a valid argument.

You, however, must show me how my view is flawed if you wish to disregard my view in debate. To simply say it is flawed does nothing. If you have already shown, in your view, how it is flawed, you are justified in doing so. Though, I am not sure you have done this.

In other words, you have not represented my ideas with honest or integrity. You have failed to show any critical understanding of the very debate in which you are engaged. It is quite apparent that you simply wish to pursue this, not for the sake of debate or knowledge, but simply because you wish not to lose. That is poor.

If you wish to actually understand how you can construct an argument against my position; and argument that is valid and applicable, by all means continue. If you simply wish to retort because of pride or some equally foolhardy reason, I beseech you to bow out. Nothing will be gained if we continue simply for pride.

In Christ,
jason

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

We are arguing parallel. I do not think I'm incorrect, but I'm likely not arguing effectively, and for the sake of mutual charity, I will bow out, as I do not see a resolution coming, nor a resolution that would benefit either person.

God bless you,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Jason,

We are arguing parallel. I do not think I'm incorrect, but I'm likely not arguing effectively, and for the sake of mutual charity, I will bow out, as I do not see a resolution coming, nor a resolution that would benefit either person.

God bless you,

Grant

Fair enough.

God Bless.

jason