Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: rasqual <scott.marquardt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:35:54 -0000
David Bowie wrote:
rasqual wrote:
David Bowie wrote:
Maybe you've been missing over, and over, and over how I've been
asking not for recitations of principles but for specific application
of them to the issue at hand -- namely, any sense in which negation
doesn't imply mutual exclusivity, without assistance from
equivocation. You've NEVER produced such a thing, David, in years. In
November of ''99 you also cited being quite busy as a reason for not
supplying answers -- in a post that waxed at length in service, IMO,
of obfuscation and evasion.
Ignoring the personal attack,
Ironically, that's a personal attack. Characterizing my recitation of
fact as a personal attack is an attempt to dismiss that fact as an ad
hominem insult. But it's not. And you can prove it as quickly as you
can find just one instance where you've done what I've claimed you
haven't.
Why would I so confidently invite you to supply an example, David? Why
on EARTH would I do that, if I weren't sure that it was a fact, and
not just some gratuitous jab?
Can you show me a single post in all your time on usenet, where you've
shown how negation doesn't imply mutual exclusivity WITHOUT broaching
equivocation?
Yes, and not wow. Actually, i'm currently conducting a study on a
different but closely related issue (it deals directly with the
transmission of axioms that remain unspoken in undergrad linguistics
courses); i've collected some data, and i presented on it at last year's
Linguistic Society of America meeting, but i don't yet have enough data
for it to be publishable. But, basically, yeah, linguists take stuff
like that for granted.
Can you cite any other linguist who has ever said anything like that
about any subject at all, David? Can you QUOTE even one linguist who
has spoken about taking things for granted?
David, IMO you're engaging in ad hoc rhetoric.
Look in the section on pragmatics in most any textbook for an
introductory survey course in linguistics, and see if it makes any sense
without the assumption that natural human language is capable of *way*
more ambiguity than you're willing to credit it with.
David, I've said in several posts that I'm not taking issue with this
principle. I'm taking issue with your lack of having applied it to
Jeff's concern. You raise the spectre of natural language's
fallibility when you wish what critics say to be dubious. But you
don't explain your application of this in any way. You cite red barns
and believe you've dispensed with things. Then you go on to claim that
you're not saying this is true about ALL uses of language. Well of
course. Your own use of language, for example, gets a free ride.
Well, *and* what the overlap between mortal logic and divine logic might
be. You've asserted that mortal logic is...well, you haven't exactly
said it's identical to divine logic, but you assert that it's at least
very, very close. Actually, i'd like to know whether you really *do* see
it as identical.
"Identical?"
Of course it is, depending on what you mean by "logic." Does the law
of non-contradiction apply in the divine order of things? Of course it
does, or he couldn't predicate anything at all and expect us to accept
it, much less understand it.
Does a syllogism work in heaven for the same reasons it works on
earth? Of course. Does a four-term syllogism fail in heaven as on
earth? As a proof, certainly.
If you're wondering whether "logic" is some contentful thing that
supplies deity with product, then the answer is no, of course not. But
that's not what logic is. Yet LdS so often in this forum have spoken
of logic as if it were the "wisdom of man" or somesuch, while being
quite logical in their language in doing so. It's ridiculous. It's
sophomoric. And to treat such stuff seriously is itself a bit crazy.
In any event, i submit that there is no basis for assuming that they're
identical, little if any basis for assuming they're very similar, and
canonical basis for assuming that they're different.
Can you please site any GA in all of Mormon history to that effect?
Is this just a David thing?
Think of all the
points in canon where God says that divine ways are different than
mortal ways (perhaps most explicitly, for the Bible, in the "For my ways
are not your ways..." bit).
You're doing it again. You're citing something without applying it.
It's red barns all over again, David. Apparently, I'm supposed to
"think about" where "God says" this stuff -- even though I've also
been told, lately, that stuff God does might look like a lie -- and
apparently I'm supposed to "find" the glue that connects this to the
question of whether God is logical or not -- even though,
interestingly, I cannot understand what God "says" unless I'm taking
it for granted that he's predicating something about himself and about
we mortals.
:-/
OTOH, it'd be funner if you'd cite the scriptures, because the
particular issues they're treating would suffice to show that there's
no WAY of applying what you're trying to apply. Which explains why
you're not doing so.
"My ways are not your ways" -- but LdS talk about how Stephen saw,
while dying, that God has hands. Good grief. God has fingers, but
isn't necessarily logical.
Because Jeff claimed that God is limited to binary answers (leaving
aside the interesting but dataless case of non-answers) in response to
Moroni's Challenge--True or not-True.
?!
Moroni's challenge supplies that premise, not Jeff.
(I had had a summary of everything
from then to now here, but it became unwieldy.) I argue that such
binariness isn't a valid way of describing things, since natural human
language doesn't generally work that way. Got it?
Why are you warranted in claiming that the generalization that
"natural human language doesn't work that way" is applicable, without
making a connection, to Jeff's case, but (as I suppose you'd imagine)
that I would be unwarranted in claiming that your own use of natural
human language in this forum might suffer from some of the same
problems to devastating effect?
David, the problem is that you invoke show-stopper notions when
convenient, without showing why they stop the particular show at hand.
- S
.
- References:
- Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: David Bowie
- Re: when Jesus became God?
- Prev by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Previous by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
