no, no...
Submitted by rdll on September 4 2001 01:14:52
In reply to Re: Forgiven's fallacy submitted by JohnQ on September 3 2001 13:20:57
|
A fallacy is a mistake in logic, not a wrong conclusion, which is what you're accusing me of. Forgiven's mistake is to attack the conclusions of the "Jesus Seminar" by going after their personalities, which he seems to dislike. Such an attack is a fallacy. Now, none of this means that I'm necessarily correct. Logic is only a tool, after all. It's perfectly possible to come to a mistaken conclusion using perfect logic, if the assumptions you started with are wrong. Of course, it's also possible, if unusual, to come up with a correct conclusion using faulty logic--but that usually means you had the conclusion first, and were trying to prove it backwards. Lots of controversy surrounds the composition of the Gospels; surely you realize that of even the books that were included, there is uncertainty as to which was written when. I've even read decent arguments saying that only Matthew was written by an actual witness. On the other hand, if the "Gospel of Mary" was in fact written by Mary Magdeline, then of course it was written by a witness as well. And leaving it out was therefore without a doubt a political decision. And you know, none of this has any real bearing on my real point: that the majority of what most Christians believe has less to do with the Gospels and more to do with the rest of the Bible, what Paul, for example, wrote. If all you had were the four "canonical" gospels, then the practice of Christianity would be far different. evam me sutam, dude. rdll |
Follow ups: