Brad Hudson wrote:Okay, let me recap. You spend several paragraphs telling me why I can't possibly understand, and then say my summary of your position is accurate with one nitpick. For the record, you first used the "subject to" language up thread:
subgenius wrote:God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc.
Yet, in my subsequent post i admit that, in fact, it
may not be the appropriate characterization.
Brad Hudson wrote:So, it seems, that despite not having completed algebra, I can understand calculus.
You in fact, do not understand - an ability to summarize, regurgitate, or "re-state" what has already been mentioned to you does not merit a claim of "understanding".
Your before-mentioned "summary of (my) position" was simply just that. It is not any indication of you knowing either calculus or algebra.
I recall a Calculus professor telling our class that there was two ways in which a student could pass the class....1-understand the material....2-memorize the material
clearly you are adept at the latter, but have yet to display the former.
This is evident in your original inquiry and subsequent posts on this matter.
Brad Hudson wrote:Again, you seem to not understand the purpose of asking questions. I'm asking them, not because I don't understand the subject, but because I've seen many different interpretations and I want to understand yours. Once I understand it, I'll decide whether to actually engage with you in a substantive manner.
balderdash! - exactly what "other" sources for the Law have been offered to you by any other Christian that would justify your claim? Have some of the hundreds been telling you that their source was QVC? Furthermore have the Mormons on this board been somewhat divergent on the source material? - i am sure everyone here would love to read a thread about your research and data.
Brad Hudson wrote:I don't believe I have admitted I don't know much about the scriptures.
that admission is not necessary.
Brad Hudson wrote: I do believe, say, Little Nipper would be better at quickly finding a verse that says a particular thing. I've read the standard works, multiple times, back when I was LDS, so I'm familiar with the basic course material.
reading it multiple times does not equate to being familiar.
Brad Hudson wrote: And it is fallacious to equate not being able to understand a subject matter with acknowledging someone else may understand better in at least some ways. It's like saying, so, A- calculus student, because there is an A student in the class, you aren't qualified to do calculus.
huh?
its actually more like saying, "hey you failed algebra so we can not let you register for the calculus class."
Brad Hudson wrote:I tutored calculus in college. It rapidly became clear that most students' problems with calculus was that they misunderstood something about algebra. But, I didn't throw thousands of pages of algebra textbooks at them and tell them to get back to me. I identified the "gap" in their algebra, explained what they were missing, and they almost always went on to do just fine with calculus.
speaking of fallacies
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authorityhttp://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotalthat being said...i have since identified the "gap" and explained what you were missing (ie. spiritual discernment...actual scripture knowledge, etc..)
Brad Hudson wrote:So, based on our conversations, what specifically is it that you think I have wrong about the algebra? If you understand both the algebra and the calculus, it should be an easy task for you to explain what I'm not understanding. But, so far, all you are doing is repeating, ad nauseum, that you are doing calculus and I can't understand it, without any explanation. In fact, it seems you are confusing assertion with explanation. My suspicion, although I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, is that you don't explain because you can't. Or, while you are more than happy to deconstruct other's positions, you are afraid of having your own subjected to the same analysis. So, you avoid expressing exactly what it is you do believe or you simply assert it is out of bounds.
i do not consider it a valid or sincere claim that i have not expressed my beliefs...it was that actual expression that started this discussion, yet you, as usual, cry foul.
Brad Hudson wrote:But I suspect our actual point of departure is here:
subgenius wrote:Is it because you are, in fact, discerning something spiritually instead of temporally? can you make that concession or will you retreat back to Algebra class?
this is but one "actual point"
another would be motivation...another would be actual knowledge of the subject...
Brad Hudson wrote:I do not (yet) accept your premise that it is possible to discern something spiritually as opposed to temporally. Can you justify your premise, or do you see it as axiomatic?
Are you seriously asking if the premise of being able to discern something spiritually is able to be discerned temporally?
it is almost as if you did not read and consider the scripture reference i provided. If this is the level of your engagement then obviously both of us are wasting our time.
This is, again, your fundamental flaw -
you insist that all things are temporal, plain and simple.which is fine, but it offers little reasoning or justification for your presence here....it even defies why you would make any
sincere inquiry.
Brad, there is a certain transparecny to your position...for example, you will state things like this"I think of it as more of a suspension of judgment than anything else."when every Christian concept of God recognizes the doctrine that man is never to sit in judgment of God - the story of Job epitomizes this as does many other scriptures! Yes, your statement is somewhat correct if taken out of context, but its redundancy is senseless...you post it as if you have come to some sort of illuminating conclusion when in fact it is basic doctrine that has already be stated, and is considered a "given" in Calculus class.
So, it is no wonder that i consider you at the milk stage or either the disingenuous/nefarious - either way = algebra class.
Some other examples of this point:I wrote -
God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc..."and you responded with
"And what it does it mean to be "subject" to them? Does it mean he literally cannot do anything that would contradict them?"(emphasis above mine)
how is it you can re-state exactly what i wrote and yet be confused about its meaning?...
again algebra class or something nefarious