Skip to content

Search Results for: DEALING WITH APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS: PART

Prothero on Christianity, Jesus, and the Trinity

Stephen Prothero, of Boston University, is the rare professor who is to a household name and face. He’s been on all sorts of media, and is an able spokesman for the cause of religious literacy. Preach it! His latest book, God is Not One, is possibly the best introduction to a variety of religious traditions for the general reader. It’s well-written, informative, humorous, apt at… Read More »Prothero on Christianity, Jesus, and the Trinity

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Round 4 Part 1

In this post I venture to offer some debate advice: be very hesitant to accuse your opponent of a logical fallacy.

  • First, your lack of sympathy for his position can easily cause you to be see ones which are not really there.
  • Second, it is often unclear whether or not the dude is actually making an error in reasoning – begging the question is particularly tricky to diagnose, for instance, and some of the “flags” I’ve thrown in judging previous rounds are debatable.
  • Third, there is a temptation to quickly allege a fallacy rather than dealing with the truth or falsity of your opponent’s premises. (This can verge on making an ad hominem fallacy yourself.)
  • Fourth, you may be tempted to make up a new sort of error in reasoning new for the occasion, and accuse your opponent of it.

In round 4, Burke makes the 3rd error, Bowman the 4th.

Burke argues,

Even Acts 5, where the apostle Peter accuses Ananias of “lying to the Holy Spirit” (verse 3) and his wife of trying to “test the Spirit of the Lord” (verse 9) is not an open and shut case. The usual argument made from this passage is that Peter accuses Ananias of “lying to the Holy Spirit” and Sapphira of trying to “tempt the Holy Spirit”; but since an impersonal power cannot be lied to or tempted, the Holy Spirit must therefore be a person and therefore it follows that the Holy Spirit is God. The logic here is not terribly good, and the argument ends with a non sequitur.

Neither this nor what follows it make clear what Bowman’s errors in reasoning are supposed to be. What exactly is the argument he’s criticizing? Is it this?Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Round 4 Part 1

Philip Jenkins on Philo’s theology

At The Anxious Bench, eminent historian Dr. Philip Jenkins has a nice basic summary of Philo’s merging of Platonic theology with that of the Hebrew Bible. This summary fits nicely with the one I quoted towards the end of episode 76 of the trinities podcast. Dr. Jenkins says, in part: Having excluded God from the world, though, Philo used a Stoic concept to bring him… Read More »Philip Jenkins on Philo’s theology

I'll sue ya - Wierd Al

Want to sue yourself? Theology can help!

This unfortunate woman crashed her vehicle, injuring herself and fatally injuring her husband. But what’s interesting is what’s happening now: she’s going to sue herself, to get money from her own insurance company. A Utah woman will be the plaintiff and the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit that has legal experts scratching their heads. … a Utah court has ruled Bagley, the representative of her… Read More »Want to sue yourself? Theology can help!

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 1

The innovative and (then) controversial language introduced at a meeting of catholic bishops in the year 325 was that the Father and the Son are homoousion, literally “same ousia.” But what is an ousia? This question continues to haunt trinitarian theology. Until we understand the meaning of a sentence, we can’t agree or disagree with it, or even go looking for evidence for our against it.… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 1

red fox

Christopher Stead on mysteries in theology

I allow, indeed I declare, that the mystery of the Godhead surpasses rational apprehension; and it may be that in the end it will have to be represented by a contradiction. But it is essential that this should happen only when all our rational resources are at an end. It is ludicrous if we represent divine mysteries by avoidable contradictions, by muddles, which more disciplined… Read More »Christopher Stead on mysteries in theology

The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?

I missed an excellent post by our friend the Maverick Philosopher back in January: …if the proper parts of a cat can be feline in the very same sense in which the cat is feline, without themselves being cats, then we have an analogy that renders intelligible the claim that the Persons of the Trinity are divine without being Gods.  The picture is this:  God or the… Read More »The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?