Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier  Well if you are going to use the argumentum ad dictionarium (hey, if Paul can make up fallacies, so can I  ) as a rebuttal, then you might want to give the *rest* of the modern definition... where the same distinctions Paul was drawing are clearly stated for all of us modern board members to read. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Yes, my bad. I was assuming that people were conversant with contemporary debates on this subject and knew how to employ the proper terminology. You are correct that one shouldn't assume those things at places like the Puritan Board.
I was assuming that they had read "modern english-speaking" theologians and philosophers.
I was assuming that by bringing up the *same* questions "modern english-speaking" philosophers and theologians did, they were familiar with those discussions.
It would be lik me starting a thread asking some of the same questions "modern english speaking" mathematicians are asking and debating, and after getting my answers telling people that I didn't mean what those guys meant. I actually meant my terms the way the kids on deliverance did. You know, the red-headed kid with the banjo? |
Ok, I apologize for putting an abbreviated dictionary definition in my post. Of course you are right, there are multiple definitions of the word evil. But why didn't you deal with what I was addressing? I wasn't addressing what the "proper" definition of evil is. Read my post again. I brought up the (or as was pointed out, one) modern definition of the word to compare it to the hebrew usage to explain that there are multiple definitions of the word being used in this thread. I even said there is nothing wrong with that–words can be used in multiple ways. You guys argue that what I said was deficient since there are even multiple definitions of the word "evil" in a modern dictionary. How in the world does that weaken my point that there are multiple definitions of the word "evil" being used in this thread?
In my post I was explaining that there is one english question at the beginning of this thread. There are at least two different groups that are interpreting the question in a way that appears to create two different questions. For a person to understand the author of the first question's intent, and so reply to it, one must figure out what the person who asked the question meant by it. If one is answering a question he wasn't exactly asking, that might make it a little hard for everyone to agree on an answer, right? So I quoted some of what jdlongmire said elsewhere which matched the abbreviated definition that I listed. I thought that was enough to define what question he was actual asking, but I most definitely could be mistaken, and if so I'll simply re-answer the actual question. I should have simply asked him.
Jdlongmire, when you wrote out the question originally, were you thinking evil is immoral or as neutral or something else?
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Actually it was pointed out that what JOHN SAID about death was a personification. No one implied that what PAUL SAID was a personification.
And, furthermore, I don't hold to a modern physicalist understanding of creation.
Jesus tells us that if the people are quieted from shouting hosanna, the rocks will cry out. Hosanna means "save us now." God tells us that creation will now fight against us in our work whereas before the fall it cooperated with us. Of course metaphores are used, but I don't see the problem with that given my positions. Steve Hays comments:
"The natural world is a material manifestation, in finite form, of God’s impalpable attributes (cf. Ps 19:1-7; Acts 14:17; Rom 1:18ff.; Eph 3:9-10). Metaphor is deeply embedded in human language inasmuch as nature is figural of God."
Thus even though something is *metaphorical* that doesn't mean that the metaphorical statement is a *false* statement. Thus it is *true* to say that nature fights against us. If it is true to say this, it is true to call it an *enemy* because enemies fight against us.
Lastly, I'd point out that Brian Lanier (above) did a nice job responding to your "modern english speaking" point you were trying to make. It appears that the dictionary, the "modern english speaking one," makes room for my usage. And, as you pointed out, my usage comports with the Bible's usage.
So all around you've presented a nice case against J.D. and the others. For that I'm thankful. Since we're so close to thanksgiving perhaps I can slip this in ex post facto? If not then I have to wait an entire year to mention it.  |
I too believe that metaphors are not false statements. All I was trying to ask is if you thought the metaphor being used implied that death was intrinsically evil. It appeared that you did because why else would you bring it up? I never thought of people or things that become one's enemy as being intrinsically evil, so I asked you if you could think of some other examples of people who were intrinsically enemies. There may be some, and death may be one, I just couldn't think of any others. So my first reaction would be that bringing up the point that death is an "enemy" doesn't really help answer this thread's original question. I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought up, I'm just saying tat I am not yet understanding why it would help answer the question.