The power of prayer

[BashfulAnthony]

so you are taking the position that quoting people is in some way wrong.

Non, NS, I'm not.  I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot;  otherwise, don't bother.

[Nearly Sane]

Non, NS, I'm not.  I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot;  otherwise, don't bother.

so I should never, say quote Shakespeare 'First let's kill all the lawyers', because he isn't an acknowledged legal expert?

[SusanDoris]

BA

You have mentioned theologians several times; can you cite a theologian who actually knows something about the God they are supposedly studying and teaching about?

They may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the words and opinions of dozens or thousands of people, but that is not what I would like to know.

[BashfulAnthony]

so I should never, say quote Shakespeare 'First let's kill all the lawyers', because he isn't an acknowledged legal expert?

You may quote him in a discussion about personal views on lawyers, but not on factual matters, since he wasn't an expert, if there is such a thing, as experts on lawyers. We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.

[Nearly Sane]

You may quote him in a discussion about personal views on lawyers, but not on factual matters, since he wasn't an expert, if there is such a thing, as experts on lawyers. We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.

the Douglas Adams quote was on a personal view that Ippy shared. So on  that basis you are saying it is fine

[BashfulAnthony]

the Douglas Adams quote was on a personal view that Ippy shared. So on  that basis you are saying it is fine

Again: I'm asking why he needed to quote him.  It didn't add anything to his argument, more than if he had quoted my friend, Dave.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Non, NS, I'm not.  I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot;  otherwise, don't bother.

And that's the full on argument from authority fallacy. You need to separate the idea from the person making it; whether the idea is expressed by Aristotle, Douglas Adams or your mate Dave is neither here nor there. Either the idea stands on its merit or it doesn't. If Aristotle said something wrong and Dave said something right, so be it.

Acknowledging authorship though is done as a courtesy, not because their status improves the quality of the idea.     

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

You have mentioned theologians several times; can you cite a theologian who actually knows something about the God they are supposedly studying and teaching about?

They may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the words and opinions of dozens or thousands of people, but that is not what I would like to know.

One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.

[Nearly Sane]

Again: I'm asking why he needed to quote him.  It didn't add anything to his argument, more than if he had quoted my friend, Dave.

Because he felt it summed up what he wanted to say. Just as I might quote Shakespeare on killing lawyers which you have already accepted is fine

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.

One would assume that, yes. One would also assume though that - if these theologians wanted their claims of fact to be taken seriously - they'd make some attempt at least to bridge the gap from faith to fact.

[BashfulAnthony]

Because he felt it summed up what he wanted to say. Just as I might quote Shakespeare on killing lawyers which you have already accepted is fine

You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams.  I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adams' celebrity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams.  I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adam' celebrity.

But as acknowledging authorship of quotes and ideas is the standard protocol in open discussions, you probably "suspect" wrongly.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

But as acknowledging authorship of quotes and ideas is the standard protocol in open discussions, you probably "suspect" wrongly.

Well, you don't know, do you?

[Nearly Sane]

You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams.  I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adam' celebrity.

No, I'm not assuming it, I'm taking ippy as being truthful because he explains that he thinks the quote sums up Alan so well. You on the other hand are implying ippy was lying. What grounds do you gave to make that implication?

[BashfulAnthony]

No, I'm not assuming it, I'm taking ippy as being truthful because he explains that he thinks the quote sums up Alan so well. You on the other hand are implying ippy was lying. What grounds do you gave to make that implication?

Well, I'm sure ippy is grateful you are acting as his advocate, unsolicited.  Perhaps he ought to answer for himself, though I doubt he would contradict what you say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Well, you don't know, do you?

No, but nor do you - and you were the one making the accusation remember?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

No, but nor do you - and you were the one making the accusation remember?

Okay. Stalemate.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I'm sure ippy is grateful you are acting as his advocate, unsolicited.  Perhaps he ought to answer for himself, though I doubt he would contradict what you say.

so you have no grounds for implying ippy is a liar.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Okay. Stalemate.

No, you were the one making the accusation so the burden of proof was with you. You haven't provided it.

Fool's mate more like. 

[SusanDoris]

One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.

[/quote]That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:

We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.

[BashfulAnthony]

That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:

We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.

To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts.  There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert.  There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation.  To me, it is straightforward:  I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.

[BashfulAnthony]

That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:

We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.

I believe that the NT is factual, so those learned in its study are dealing in facts, rather than mere opinion. I do not include the OT in that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts.  There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert.  There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation.  To me, it is straightforward:  I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.

I don't doubt that they are expert in what the Bible says. None of them though so far as I'm aware have any expertise at all in building the logical bridge from faith to fact.

[floo]

BA,

I don't doubt that they are expert in what the Bible says. None of them though so far as I'm aware have any expertise at all in building the logical bridge from faith to fact.

Belief is one thing FACT is quite another.Where the Bible is concerned faith and logic are often at odds.

[Gordon]

To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts.  There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert.  There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation.  To me, it is straightforward:  I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.

How have you, and those you refer to as qualified, addressed the risk that the NT content contains mistakes or lies?