Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Define depraved. According to M-W the word dates from the 14th century. What word was used before then?
|
Don't know. I'm not that old.
Quote:
|
And how do you know "the human heart is depraved?"
|
I know this from the bible, from personal experience and from observation and experience of the fallen world around me.
Are you senile? You don't remember what you posted a few days ago? See your 4007.
The parallels do not constitute an analogy. An analogy requires an
analog, i.e., something that shares pertinent features, but not all features, with the object under study. A medical student may practice open heart surgery on a pig because the heart of a pig is very similar to a human heart. The pig is an analog but no one is claiming that the pig is human. The pertinent features between Smith, Hubbard and Christ are that they all claimed to have revealed knowledge. The pertinent question is: why reject Smith and Hubbard while accepting Christ?[/quote]
Look up the definition of "parallel". In my M-W, it says in part:
something equal or similar in all essential particulars: COUNTERPART, SIMILARITY, ANALOGUE.
Smith and Hubbard's beliefs often contradict Christ's; yet, Christ's teachings are consistent with all scripture. My money is on Christ.
Quote:
|
Using scripture to prove scripture. You are back to circular reasoning.
|
Of course, I can use scripture to interpret scripture -- which you call "proving". Haven't you often tried to use scripture to discredit it? To show that it's replete with contradictions? In this particular instance, if scripture didn't give its readers explicit instructions on how to test truth claims, then everyone could make up their own rules.
