04-03-2008, 02:47 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,413
Thanks: 751
Thanked 616 Times in 401 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorbravo  Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis J.D.,
I answered your question. If you don't like the answer I gave then I have no further information I can provide. I don't believe that the basis for learning to love our neighbor is learning how to love ourselves in a Godly way. That thought is never repeated in the Scriptures.
As I've stated, c1 is faulty. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. | And as has been clearly demonstrated, your assertion is false.  | ??? I don't think it has been clearly demonstrated at all. The following is not a proper syllogism: Quote:
p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND
p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.
c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors
|
Leaving aside the other parts of the discussion, this is not a syllogism. It contains two fallacies: equivocation and an undistributed statement. In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.
P1 is a command to love God in a defined fashion.
P2 is a command to love your neighbor in a potentially different fashion: "as yourself".
The command in P1 is potentially different from the command in p2, so there is equivocation. There is no overlapping statement in p1 that p2 falls under so we have an undistributed statement. Because of this lack of connection, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn. Rich is correct. | This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for some time now, JD. You really do need to read a logic textbook before attempting to impress everyone by whipping out syllogisms. I don't know why you haven't listened to me, but maybe now that someone else is raising the same objections you will take heed.
__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
|