Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by biblicalthought, Mar 16, 2008.
You're asking for trouble Paul.
Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!
keep 'em coming! oink, oink!
tag line: I love you, you love me, we're a happy family.
Morey's put together some scholastically sound materials in his day as well, "Death and the Afterlife" comes to mind as does his "Intro. to Apologetics" and "The Islamic Invasion".
Not true. He also saved them from some sort of creatures that had them trapped. I can't remember the details but I think they were frozen or something.
How about Gadfly
Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.
I just read this from Dr. Morey on his blog biblicalthought.com. I think he just hangs himself from what we are reading above. Here is what he said
To the Brethren,
When dealing with atheists, cultists, heretics, and anti-Christs, if they cannot refute your argument, they will try to dodge the bullet by using the “red hearing fallacy.”
1. They will claim that a typo in the text refutes your argument. But a typo has no logical relationship to the validity of an argument. If the editor of the publisher accidentally put “thee” instead of “the,” this is logically irrelevant to the argument.
2. They will claim that the religious affiliation of an author you cite refutes your argument. But this has no logical bearing on whether his argument is valid. If a book is:
(1.) published by an atheist publisher,
(2.) his book is promoted by atheists as a good answer to theism, and (3.) nothing is stated in the book about the religious affiliation of the author, one would assume that the author is either an atheist or an agnostic. If it turns out that he claims to be a “Catholic” in some sense, this does not mean he is so. There are Catholics who are pantheists, polytheists, and skeptics. Some “Catholics” have abortions and use birth control. He may be a cultural Catholic by birth (Polish, Italian, etc.). But the logical point is that his affiliation has no bearing on the validity of his arguments.
3. The oldest “red herring” is to claim that someone is “quoted out of context.” This means that they don’t want to deal with a citation per se. Instead, they try to escape from dealing with it by brushing it aside as “out of context.”
As you read blogs from Chad, pray for him as he is irrational as well as heretical. He is a poor lost sinner who is on his way to hell. He does not know the rudiments of logic or debate and is a waste of time except as an example of logical errors.
Mar 31st, 2008
Found at: A Review of Gregory Boyd’s Trinity and Process
Having been to both a secular university and graduating from a Jesuit university, I think the pagans have much more influence than any Jesuits.
Trying to paint VanDrunen as a Jesuit is complete nonsense. If I remember right, he was the chairman of the OPC Justification commitee. If he had an opportunity to subvert the Protestant Reformation, certainly there was his chance!
You are right, and Stephen has seemingly not taken notice of the most substantial post in this thread yet, that posted by Dr. Clark. It looks as if there are no valid counter-comments to be made by him on those points.