"People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, ⁴treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— ⁵having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."

I'm just observing that the passage could be applied to more than the usual suspects, and that each of us (including DeWaay AND myself) ought to reflect for ourselves before God if we are relating rightly to him.  It's a two-edged sword.

I'm interested, what do you consider discriminatory in my observation?

To be clear, I include myself in this indictment.  All too often I am:

... a lover of myself, lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to my parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not a lover of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with me.

What I object to is the implication that this applies to McLaren, but not to DeWaay.  Ironically, I'm actually protesting against the bias and discrimination that I perceive here.

Post Edited (Corey) : 5/30/2005 2:09:51 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Laika) : 6/1/2005 8:47:10 AM (GMT-5)

From the site Laika posted:

"Surprisingly, this important principle [PEDC] has acquired no particular name in the history of logic.

PNC (Principle of Non-Contradiction): at most one is true, both can be false

PEM (Principle of Excluded Middle): at least one is true, both can be true

PEDC (Principle of Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories): exactly one is true, exactly one is false”

I’m not an expert on this stuff, so I might be wrong. But it seems to me that all the author does is figure bivalence into the equation. But it’s not true (as he says of PNC) that a proposition and its contradictory can both be false. This destroys the very notion of contradictoriness. Given bivalence, one must be true and the other false. Nor is it true (as he says of PEM), that a proposition and its contradictory can both be true. This also destroys the notion of “contradictoriness.” All one needs is PNC and PEM in a bivalent system. Once bivalence (every proposition is either true or false) is given, then for any pair of contradictory propositions, one is true and the other is false (PNC) and there is no other option or middle ground between being and non-being (PEM).

Tom

"Beauty" in art is by defintion a purely subjective, relevant thing. In other words, your prop is to be read "...is beautiful TO ME." So it would be true if the speaker found Picasso's painting beautiful and false if the speaker found it not beautiful. Its truth doesn't extend beyond the subjective experience of the speaker which experience alone constitutes the truth grounds for the proposition. But the truth grounds of propositions like 2 + 2 = 4, or JFK was assasinated in 1963, or George Bush is now the President of the United States, lie outside the speakers own subjectivity. So bivalence still holds universally, it's just a matter of determining what the meaning of some assertion is--what constitutes its truth grounds.

Personally, Picasso's painting makes me feel kinda adverturous! I think it's the fruit at the bottom.

Next?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/2/2005 8:28:38 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Laika) : 6/2/2005 8:40:03 AM (GMT-5)

You can count me in to add some muscle in exchange for all the wisdom you have shared, Professor.

I would be glad to lend a helping hand to my new neighbor,

Gilligan. 

Post Edited (AtTheWell) : 6/4/2005 8:35:01 AM (GMT-5)