Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
Hello Forum and special greetings to Matt,
This quote says a lot Matt. Actually I was attempting to counter the broad brush approach of dj and a few other posters. I had no idea we were headed toward a discussion of idolatry. This is a false premise, simple and basic.
|
Hope,
Yes, it does say quite a lot. You are correct, but it's not about bucketing everyone the same. I hadn't been posting on this forum at all until what happened on this thread.
a) You reacted to dj and a few others (mostly dj).
b) I reacted to your reaction.
Thus the cycle that brings us here began. During times of difficult communication, I try to spend a few minutes each day to think back through what everyone is actually saying. I want to make sure that I am hearing while I am talking. I know it appears that I am hearing nothing in this case. That's an appearance. I didn't suddenly fall off my rocker.
I will be brief this morning. I have a lot to do today, but I do have a bit more to say in response to your post later one. You brought up the point about false premise. Here is the definition of a "false premise".
Definition of a False Premise:
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form.
I want to make sure I understand your usage of "false premise" here. It may be important. I cannot clearly deduce your meaning from the text of your message.
Can you elaborate on the details of the "false premise" in this case? (Note: I am not trying to point out logical argumentation error. I am trying to understand the substance behind your use of "false premise".)
Note to others: This may seem like a technical detail that is irrelevant to most, but Hope is a really smart guy and he doesn't use a phrase like this without having a specific meaning. I want to make sure I hear the meaning before I say more.
Thanks,
Matt