Technicoid Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:12 PM']V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense? Answer: In the negative. Response: Please observe that the reply is in the negative as to whether one can abondon the literal sense (for what appears to be good reason for doing so).[/quote] Please observe that it says [quote]Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, [/quote] that is, do we have to hold every word and phrase to be literal in the conditions under which the following are true [quote]even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical[/quote] and [quote]either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense[/quote] ? and the answer is [quote]In the negative.[/quote] That is, no, "each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters," must not "always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense" in cases where "the diction is employed in an applied sense" (metaphorical or anthropomorphical) and "reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense." No, we are not [b]required[/b] to hold to the literal sense if these cases are true. We can choose to hold to the literal sense, but we are not required to do so. Keep in mind that this is the literal sense of "every word and phrase." We are not free to dispense with the literal meaning of entire chapters. It only says that we don't have to hold to the literal sense of every word and phrase. The first clause is the proposition. Those that follow describe the conditions under which the proposition is in question. So, again, will you please explain paragraph III in light of sections IV, V, VI, and VII? If not, I'll have to assume that it's because you are unable to do so.
Don John of Austria Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:01 PM']Response: How are you attempting to prove from all this that there were only one set of first parents? [right][snapback]613950[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Science says that all men come from the same man about 60,000 years ago and all women came from the same women 150,000 years ago. Once agian The same man, the same women, there is only one frirst mother, and one surviving Father much much later. There is no doubt thatthere was one first mother. That is A fact, there is no doubt that there was later a man who carried onthe species and that all men come from him, science declares thatthere was an Eve that is provable and is therefore a fact. Science declares there is a single survivng male some 80,000 years later and he is the Father of all Homo sapians sapians males. How can you even ask how that is suppose to show that there is one origional parent. I would remind you that evolution would lead to an origional parent hypothesis few creatures mutate in mass in a way that allows them to procreate together.
Don John of Austria Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:15 PM']Response. Did the events described actually happen? If so, its history; if not its not history. [right][snapback]613957[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Many of them in fact did, some of them may have, and some most probably did not, so is it a history or not?
Cam42 Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:37 PM']Natural law as in the philosophical construct in reference to human rights. Not the laws governing nature. [right][snapback]613982[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Riiiiggghhhhttt....whatever... I have a degree in philosophy, I know where you are going....don't go there. Aquinas will beat you senseless.... Natural law most certain encompasses what I am talking about, incidentally....
Don John of Austria Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 09:37 PM']Natural law as in the philosophical construct in reference to human rights. Not the laws governing nature. [right][snapback]613982[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Philosophical constructs do not exist in a state of Nature, more than that a construct can only explain things like rights it cannot create them, a philosophical construct cannot "give you rights", you cannot derive "rights" from it anymore than you can derive a coke from it, a right is a thing which actually exist, and a intelectual construct ( philosophical or otherwise ) does not actually exist as a real thing. ( unless you are a Realist but you can't be that because you are an athiest) If rights come from the Natural Law and the Natural Law is only a philosophical construct then they would only exist where that Law had been constructed and might not exist either for or to those people who rejected the construct or where incapable of understanding it. Agian that is not a "right" as a right is inalienable from you. No you will have to come up with a better reason than that.
Technicoid Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:19 PM']Technicoid, Could we take Homer's Homer's Odyssey and deem it historical aswell? [/quote] Yes, it is historical. It tells us much about the time period in which the stories developed. It relates some factual details about travel during that time and possibly about specific individuals. It even relates customs about people during that time and the beliefs they held. How do you think we develop profiles of these civilizations without the kind of scientific objectivity to which we are now accustomed? Does that mean we can assume that the stories are factual recounting of every detail in an actual journey of a fellow named Odysseus? No. At the same time, we can't assume, based only on those texts, that they're [i]not[/i] the factual recounting of every detail. We only know that expresses something about the culture from which it came.
Recommended Posts