The blessing of TV was-Pastors Leading the flock?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>
>>>Anneliese
>>(Disclaimer: Just giving some food for thought, "devil's advocate"-for lack
>>>of a better term.  Anneliese does *not* necessarily agree with the
>>>following.  There will be no "smileys", I'm not trying to be funny.):
>>
>Bro Jeff wrote:
>>If all these things that you go onto list make sense to you and they follow
>>good logic and you have a conviction in your heart then SO BE IT!
>
>>
>>If not then you are being a hypothetical extremist and have become that
>>which you detest.
>
>
>Anneliese replies:
>Actually, I was attempting to put into practice a "logic" technique I
>studied in college.  Its technical term is "skepticism", developed by Hume.
>It is not necessary that I actually believe in the extreme nature of the
>argument.  The structure of the argument is only to show that the original
>premise however accurate or inaccurate -- TV has *some* evil on it,
>therefore we should throw it out -- has an illogical or weak basis.  Whoever
>posited the original thought, re: TVs, did not support (and in my humble
>opinion still is not supporting) the argument in a fashion that gives
>strength to the supposition "if there is *some* evil in object A, then we
>should throw out object A".  I demonstrated this by substituting a number of
>items for "TV" (the original object A) and followed through with an
>*argumentum ad absurdum*.


MeNow:
I understood your intent and did not take anything you said personally.  I
just, it appears, was utilizing the same technique and followed to the
logical conclusion about the individual that would believe this way. Thus my
statement above and contiued below.

MeB4:
>>Either way it comes down to simply *YOUR* conviction.  If God sees fit to
>>place you in a church that has more conservative leanings then, like Job,
>>who are you to give counsel to the Lord???


You:
>I think you missed the point (and at least three reminders) that I was not
>trying to be specific or personal.  I was simply trying to demonstrate the
>original argument about TVs to its logical (and ultimately illogical)
>conclusion using the exact same line of thinking as the originator of the
>thought.  Please note, I did not attempt to elaborate on the moral issue
>(TV=right or wrong), only filled in several examples that fit the original
>qualifier of having *some* evil in it.


MeNow:
Possible that I missed your point. Again I don't believe that to be the
case.

Jeff Wescott
(Still working on that philosophy degree.....I still can't figure out which
college I should attend)