"(A)rgumentum ad biblia". I like that.
I do not regard your, Dave, or Glenn's positions as anything other than
arguable interpretations. You seem to regard them as irrefutable and get
downright testy if your dogma is challenged.
I am not condemning you and am sorry if you got that impression.
I also like Diana Eck's image of "ammunition belts full of Bible verses",
although for different reasons than you (and she) intended.
Dr. Eck also said in an interview,
"We are not in the position of being the judges of others, nor in the
position of being able to fully understand what, as we would put it, God is
up to in the world."
Discount the role of Satan if you want. He did not create the earth, but he
still has the run of it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: deception in perception
> Instead of an "argumentum ad hominem" we have an "argumentum ad diabolum"
> here. The logic is just as fallacious, as Dave and Glenn have pointed
> So is pulling selected verses out of their biblical contexts and, by
> them to mean whatever you want them to mean, using them to justify your
> position and condemn your opponents. Perhaps we could call this the
> "argumentum ad biblia," or "dueling verses." Diana Eck once referred to
> "ammunition belts full of Bible verses"--a good image.
> Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 11:21:08 EDT