- This topic is empty.
- Posts
No Nick, I said I was as guilty as you are. Since it's not wrong to add 1 and 1 together and get 2, i don't consider this guilt. My point was that you were guilty of this as well. Maybe guilty is the wrong word.
Quote You just said you were guilty so why not stop falling in this way and give scripture the place it deserves as the basis of truth?
Nick, perhaps you noticed that this idea is based on scripture. Perhaps you noticed that whenever I discuss it (until I come up against you) I am discussing scripture and then, when you appear, instead of discussing scripture, we have to argue about whether we're allowed to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. Addition is acceptable. It's when you add incorrectly that there is a problem.
I've asked you so many questions on here, that you are simply incapable of answering. All you seem to want to do is accuse me of what you yourself do. I am much more comfortable actually discussing what the Bible says. But if you aren't willing to even attempt to answer the questions directed at you, why should I? You keep holding me to a higher standard than yourself. You can do it, but I can't. I must answer your questions, but you never ever ever answer mine. You almost seemed brain washed in your repeated accusations without the ability to reason, or make an answer for yourself.david
Hi david,
No you should stand alone on scripture which you have a good grasp of,
and if necessary show the JWs doctrines to be false
unless they are you real masters.Hi GG,
Inference is no sound basis for belief.
But it is a popular technique among false teachers.
That is why all must seek for themselves and not follow other men.Hi,
Inference is a very popular basis for many human doctrines.
Of course nobody sees things the same way.
So divisions keep forming.David In general I do not like any organization who think that they have only the truth and others that do not belong are false always. That said, I did learn something from a gentle J.W. that told me that Jesus preexisted. The first reaction to that was, ' The Guy is crazy. But God did not leave me in that believe and little by little I began to understand that doctrine.
It is so sad that we have this division among us, and my wish for all is that God will let us unite. It will happen one day, in the Millennium when only the truth will be preached by Jesus and His Priests. So till then my friend, be of good cheer.
Peace and Love IreneHi E,
You said in another thread
“I believe that the Bible is the final and absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice. But none of us go around communicating by merely and only swapping bible verses or passages. We interpret. We restate. And so I believe that whatever the bible speaks to directly, and whatever we can know and learn by necessary inference is true. “Inferential ideas are subjects of debate, not agreement.
Hi SB,
You say
“You are simply using an argument from silence which is not the best idea in a debate. I could just as easily say “The bible never says to drive a car, thus, driving a car is not biblical!” To use the argument “it isn't directely mentioned in the bible” is foolishness. I could use that same argument for masturbation, “it isn't directely mentioned in the Bible, thus i can masterbate all the time”. Obviously, because of IMPLICATION we know it is wrong. So it is with Hell being Eternal.”Inference has led to the worst heresies.
Conscience can be some guide
What is written is truth.Hi TT,
You said re 1 Peter
“Peter's reference to those Christians as “strangers” and “pilgrims” in Gentile territories supports me and not you. Those were Gentile lands as you say. Yet those Christians who Peter addressed were “strangers” and “pilgrims” in those lands. So they must have been Jews carrying out their priestly mandate to the Gentile nations.”Should we rely on human inferences?
The world is ever hostile to God's people.just because inference has led to heresies… apparently in your case N, for instance ;), there is no logically necessary and sufficient reason present which says that inference MUST lead to heresy…. to say that it does is to commit a very simple and basic error, an informal fallacy called “the slippery slope”…
“In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.” (wikipedia)
“Slippery Slope:
Definition:
In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the “if-then” operator.” (Stephens Guide to Logical Fallacies)
Come on!! Get it together N! Start using your God-given mind properly!! For the bible says to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength…. does it not?
So why aren't you obeying this commandment?
Inference is what has led the church to formalize and close the canon of Scrip-tures. Since you cannot show me one single verse or passage int he Scripture that itself says there will be 66 books and no more in the completed canon of scripture, you show that while on the one hand you deny the use of valid inference, while on the other, somewhat hypocritically, you make use of inference when you believe and teach others that special revelation, the scripture, is complete and no more can be added to it. Don't bother mentioning Revelation 22:18-19, for they literally apply on to the book of Revelation itself, it is INFERENCE that leads us to apply these words to the entire canon of what we call “the holy bible”.
So stop being double minded N, you cannot have it both ways, either be consistent in your application of the “absolutely no inference” doctrine (which is ITSELF an INFERENCE!!!!), or stop insisting that others obey commands that you do not yourself obey. This is just like the Pharisees of old, who want to tie burdens onto the backs of others that they themselves are not willing to bear.
blessings,
kenHi E,
I can understand you defending the use of inference.
Trinity theory would truly be seen as an emperor wearing no clothes without it.It is not written
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2009,11:23) Could you define inference?
Inference is not simply just something taught as truth as something inferred could actually be true but at the same time it could also be false.The reason inference is so dangerous is because it asks someone to do away with the process of logical thinking
and what I mean by that is when we see obvious repetition as Nick said, everything is clear.This direct way of dealing with things has a benefit because when God says something like thou shalt not …. we don't infer anything, we just don't do it.
Now the truth is hard to get at sometimes so many people would rather infer where there seem to be holes.
Take Murder for instance
The Scriptures say thou shall not Kill
But the scriptures also have scriptures where God gave direct orders to kill without discretion(direction to kill everything)What this means by way of reading scripture
God told the community that agreed to His covenant that they were not to kill each other
Those who were enemies of God or Israel God told them to kill
The commandments are a covenant of community read and you will see that they had to agree.
God provides covenants for the sake of Justice.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2009,06:38) try dictionary.com
I did look at a online dictionary at the same time that I asked you your opinion but the dictionary failed to tell me what you think “infer” means. If we choose different definitions then we would be speaking of different things when discussing the merits of inference and that makes for a senseless argument over words.Entry for infer at freedictionary.com using The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company reads updated 2003:
Quote v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers v.tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” Academy.
4. To hint; imply.v.intr. To draw inferences.See there are multiple definitions and you may even be using one listed in this dictionary. That certainly complicates the situation. To complicate it even more there “infer” is misused according to this note.
Entry for infer at freedictionary.com using The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated 2003 reads:
Quote Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.
I admit I have fallen into the error of misusing the word “imply” for “infer”. So could you please tell me how you define “inference”. Thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
