Quote:
Originally Posted by Christusregnat  Semper Fidelis,
Thank you for pointing out the intention behind your actions. However, my comments do not mention anything about a euphemism, nor were they related to the Warren / Kuyper question. I was merely seeking to point out that generalizations, per se, are not sin. Also, I admitted my ignorance of the party being generalized (WSC faculty), and therefore am unable to agree or disagree with the assessment that Mr. Ritchie's comments are beyond the pale. But then again, as I am not a moderator, it is not my duty to point out such things.
For the record, I do not consider broad-brushiness to be a violation of the 9th cmd, per se. As I said previously, it would depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, as I cited, the Holy Spirit's dictum through Paul would be a violation of the 9th cmd, which is an impossibility.
Thanks again for the dialogue!
Adam |
Adam,
You missed my point. Here is the passage you are referring to:
Quote:
|
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
|
The idea above is pretty well established in the literature surrounding the period. The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization". Paul is actually being very specific in how an elder is supposed to deal wtih unruly and vain talkers and deceivers. He illustrates his point with a euphemism of the day that Cretians are liars, beasts, and slow bellies. The idea of Cretian had become associated with that concept. We even use the ideas today in calling a person a Cretan. We don't have
a Cretan in mind but what the concept represents.
You cannot violate the 9th Commandment against a concept, the 9th Commandment is with reference to a neighbor - an actual person. The "neighbors" in view here are talkers and deceivers and Paul is bearing true witness by applying a euphemism to drive home a point.
A modern euphemism you might be familiar with is "The American Dream." When somebody says "He's living the American Dream" the reference is to the individual and not to say that all Americans have the same dream. We all know what "The American Dream" represents and it is a concept. The American Dream is not our neighbor.
Back on point then, there is no euphemism or "saying" that "all WSC Profs are happy with the FV". In fact, it is well-documented that the opposite is the case. One could never use WSC as a byword for "happy with FV". Also, responses (subsequently deleted) made it abundantly clear that generalizations were not in view but a specific Professor's writings, which were then used to paint the entire rest of the faculty. Whatever else could be said about that particular faculty member, one could not argue that he is "happy with the FV." That much is apparently obvious to the most casual observer of the Federal Vision.