Posted on 03/15/2005 10:00:29 AM PST by mojito
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
John 8Sure sounds to me as though Jesus intended things to change a bit after His ministry.3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The ancient Greeks were really wierd about bestiality -- they seem to have everything -- Europa mated with a bull, while Zeus did it with loads of femmes as different animals.
It would have sense of itself as a mouse, so everything ought to be OK.
What is a species?
In other words, when you and I speak of a "cat," how do we know that we're speaking of the same thing?
> What is a species?
Wow. Well, back to grade school with you!
> heaven and earth have not yet passed away
Well, then either the law hasn't passed away, or the line is notably internally inconsistent.
> We could, therefore, conclude that "forever" meant for as long as God chose to sustain the Aaronic priesthood
Ah. Then "forever" doesn't actually mean "forever." Makes one wonder what otherr things are said that aren't meant...
Being deliberately obtuse does not serve you well.
Neither do vaguely worded descriptions of how long a law is supposed to last.
But in any event... this discussion has gotten *far* afield. Let's either terminate it, or get it back to discussing whether or not we should permit medical experimentation that some people don't understand and are irrationally frightened of.
This is what I'm asking. Is the idea of "cat" in my mind different from a particular cat? Is it a generalization drawn from my experience of little fuzzy creatures that I've observed? If so, how can my idea of "cat" be the same as your idea of "cat," since we have observed different fuzzy creatures? And does the idea correspond to any reality, since things we've labeled "cats" are merely apparently similar creatures in the process of evolution.
The problem:
For Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, and Taine there is strictly speaking no universal concept. The notion, to which we lend universality, is only a collection of individual perceptions, a collective sensation, "un nom compris" (Taine), "a term in habitual association with many other particular ideas" (Hume), "un savoir potentiel emmagasiné" (Ribot). The problem of the correspondence of the concept to reality is thus at once solved, or rather it is suppressed and replaced by the psychological question: What is the origin of the illusion that induces us to attribute a distinct nature to the general concept, though the latter is only an elaborated sensation?...Nominalism, which is irreconcilable with a spiritualistic philosophy and for that very reason with scholasticism as well, presupposes the ideological theory that the abstract concept does not differ essentially from sensation, of which it is only a transformation. The Nominalism of Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, Huxley, and Taine is of no greater value than their ideology. They confound essentially distinct logical operations--the simple decomposition of sensible or empirical representations with abstraction properly so called and sensible analogy with the process of universalization. The Aristotleans recognize both of these mental operations, but they distinguish carefully between them.
The solution:
[Moderate Realism] reconciles the characteristics of external objects (particularity) with those of our intellectual representations (universality), and explains why science, though made up of abstract notions, is valid for the world of reality. To understand this it suffices to grasp the real meaning of abstraction. When the mind apprehends the essence of a thing [the species] (quod quid est; tò tí en eînai), the external object is perceived without the particular notes [accidents] which attach to it in nature (esse in singularibus), and it is not yet marked with the attribute of generality which reflection will bestow on it (esse in intellectu). The abstract reality is apprehended with perfect indifference as regards both the individual state without and the universal state within: abstrahit ab utroque esse, secundum quam considerationem considerattur natura lapidis vel cujus cumque alterius, quantum ad ea tantum quæ per se competunt illi naturæ (St Tomas, "Quodlibeta", Q. i, a. 1). Now, what is thus conceived in the absolute state (absolute considerando) is nothing else than the reality incarnate in any give individual: in truth, the reality, represented in my concept of man, is in Socrates or in Plato. There is nothing in the abstract concept that is not applicable to every individual; if the abstract concept is inadequate, because it does not contain the singular notes of each being, it is none the less faithful, or at least its abstract character does not prevent it from corresponding faithfully to the objects existing in nature. As to the universal form of the concept, a moment's consideration shows that it is subsequent to the abstraction and is the fruit of reflection: "ratio speciei accidit naturæ humanæ". Whence it follows that the universality of the concept as such is the work purely of the intellect: "unde intellectus est qui facit universalitatem in rebus" (St. Thomas, "De ente et essentia," iv).
Wow. You write like any of a number of philosophy majors I knew when I was getting my engineering degree. Always trying to come up with reasons to confuse the simple.
What do I mean by "cat?" Well, if I say "cat," and don't qualify it further (say, by mentioning bobcat, lions, tigers, etc.), I mean a common house cat. Species Felis, Genus Catus. What breed is irrelevant. if it can breed with a Felis Catus and have offspring which are fertile, then it's a Felis Catus, common housecat.
Any discussion beyond that is meaningless Liberal Arts crap.
> The problem: For Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, and Taine there is strictly speaking no universal concept.
That's *their* problem. Most of the rest of humanity is able to get along just fine, and more or less perfectly understand the people they communicate with. I leave it to philosophers to waste their lives navel-gazing and wondering at the whichness of the why.
At least ya got the day right! (Most uninformed folks thinks the Sabbath is Sunday...)
Lots of work! I've got a house that needs LOTS of repair.
(Some places in IT are HOLEY!)
Yeah... just read what Jereimaih had to say (from GOD)
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
(Or was resurrected?)
Someone needs to tell this to the members of the LDS organization!
There was an OT requirement of TWO or more witnesses.
None appeared: case dismissed.
I have a degree in ME, FYI. The thing that interested me in engineering was the assumptions that began every problem. Most of these assumptions are philosophical assumptions that engineers are habituated to ignore.
What do I mean by "cat?" Well, if I say "cat," and don't qualify it further (say, by mentioning bobcat, lions, tigers, etc.), I mean a common house cat. Species Felis, Genus Catus.
Which begs the question. The terms "genus" and "species" are derived from Aristotle's philsophy, which was not materialist, as yours seems to be.
What breed is irrelevant. if it can breed with a Felis Catus and have offspring which are fertile, then it's a Felis Catus, common housecat. Any discussion beyond that is meaningless Liberal Arts crap.
It seems to me that things you don't understand you regard as "Liberal Arts" crap. I understand. I used to believe the same thing. It's generally a healthy reflex, since most liberal arts colleges teach liberal arts crap. But not all liberal arts study is crap.
Studying Aristotle would be worthwhile, for example, particularly the categories and the four causes.
> The problem: For Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, and Taine there is strictly speaking no universal concept. That's *their* problem. Most of the rest of humanity is able to get along just fine, and more or less perfectly understand the people they communicate with. I leave it to philosophers to waste their lives navel-gazing and wondering at the whichness of the why.
It's your problem, since you share their philosophical assumptions. You're a nominalist, whether you recognize it or not.
> The thing that interested me in engineering was the assumptions that began every problem. Most of these assumptions are philosophical assumptions that engineers are habituated to ignore.
Because these "assumptions" hold in the real world. We start from the assumption, for example, that F=M*A isn't going to just change to F=M*1.2A for the hell of it. Engineers leave such assumptions to the Creationists.
> The terms "genus" and "species" are derived from Aristotle's philsophy
Big Deal. "Easter" was derived from "Ostara." Does that make Easter dependant upon pre-Christian pagan Europeans?
> It seems to me that things you don't understand you regard as "Liberal Arts" crap.
Incorrect. I regard as "Liberal Arts" crap things which are "Liberal Arts" crap. Such as this meaningless discussion. Shall we now discuss the philosophical ramifications of the fact that Dog and God are the same word, just spelled differently?
> Studying Aristotle would be worthwhile
Studying Archimedes even more so.
> You're a nominalist, whether you recognize it or not.
Meh. And you might well be a Hoosifrudgian, for all you know, in the view of the Circling Poets of Arium. Does it make a difference to you? Does that snippet of knowledge effect whether you get up and go to work, whether you think the sky is blue, or what your mood is?
> Sure sounds to me as though Jesus intended things to change a bit after His ministry.
How so? As Elsie points out, the OT requirement of 2 accusers were not there. Had 2 accusers been there, what would the result have been?
If you aren't a believer in God, you wouldn't understand.
If you are a believer in God, then I'm surprised you don't already understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.