Sentences with phrase «argumentation not»

It's also important to note that Humanae Vitae deals more with the personal and societal effects of contraception and roots its argumentation not so much in Christian revelation but in nature and reason.

Not exact matches

My philosophy department dismissed me as a futurist and the economists dismissed me as a philosopher (A little vindication: I have since had a few individuals contact me and apologize for dismissing me and in review they have found my premises and argumentation sound even if they still do not necessarily agree with my conclusions).

Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality by Pim Pronk Eerdmans, 350 pages, $ 24.99 paper An interesting book not so much for the position it advances (approval of homosexual relations) as for the claim that any position on homosexuality (or anything else) must be reached on the basis of moral reflection independent of nature, science, or theology.

Even when not engaged in face - to - face argumentation, Jews and Christians spoke about each other in essentially disputational terms.

In a similar way I think you argumentation with TheOldAdam was largely emotional and not logical — though it had the pretense of reason.

Simply because the organic metaphor has had politically undesirable ramifications in the past should not disqualify it forever as an object for theological reflection and argumentation.

Then, when the skeptic disbelieves in the space ship because of the Chad's poor argumentation and the invisible, undetectable nature of the space ship, Chad asks, «What investigation have you done to disbelieve in my invisible and undetectable spaceship which I can not offer any good arguments for?»

Although I hope not your position, the dialogue you use is similar to the one found in counter-culture argumentation, to develop and build anti-Christian positions and attacks against fundamental belief and faith central to real Christian teachings.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

Christians on both sides, but especially the pro-slavery side, urged followers to simply abide by the «plain meaning» of biblical texts and not allow complicated, nuanced argumentation to cloud their mind.

Hartshorne believes that his method is sufficiently empirical to support his claim to having an empirical epistemology, but he does not exclude transcendental argumentation from empirical method.

This is where Hartshorne could, and in some implicit ways does, drive a wedge in Brightman's view, because Brightman is willing as a point of method to collapse metaphysical questions into epistemological questions.29 Hartshorne is not so willing, and thinks personalism must employ both inductive (empirical) and transcendental argumentation to support its own claims.

Also, you should know that you should back up your claims with a bit more of argumentation (e.g., why would the multiverse hypothesis fail Occam's razor; you can't honestly believe that I would just accept such a conclusion without asking for the justification).

The way to such heightened sensitivity is not by means of philosophical analysis and argumentation at all.

When I present anything that challenges their doctrine, they do not react by Scriptural argumentation, but by sending me books by Kim Riddlebarger, Finnis Dakes, etc..

He did not use fallacious argumentation because he did not logically assert anything.

Clearly, the fallacies are in the logic used by the individual, not in any sort of formal argumentation.

But there is also reason to believe that, even had Aristotle been able to complete the Metaphysics, the gap we find (or feel) would not have been filled by any attempt at logically compelling argumentation.

And some of the argumentation is presented but not in the clear and systematic way which the subject matter requires.

While the programme refers to The Truth and Meaning of Sexuality by the Pontifical Council for the Family (1995) it really doesn't use to fulladvantage the argumentation provided.

This understanding of how metaphysics proceeds helps us to understand why the arguments of theists against modern atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, and co.) are invariably inconclusive and, for one who does not understand the limited potential of metaphysical argumentation, ultimately unsatisfying.

I would argue that good systematics originates in prayer and in the praxis from which knowledge comes, and not in second order philosophical argumentation.6

Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation.

This is why I believe it's so important to study both historical religious arguments supporting the abolition of slavery and historical religious arguments opposing the abolition of slavery (see my post on Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis» for a sampling), as well as historical religious arguments supporting desegregation and historical religious arguments opposing desegregation — not because I believe both sides are equal, but because the patterns of argumentation that emerge are so unnervingly familiar:

We must also note that Cyprian is using such argumentation techniques to reiterate that water alone is not enough to symbolise the blood of the Lord, but that wine is absolutely indispensable.

That we all crave for such valuation does not need lengthy argumentation.

I do not, make no mistake, object to natural - law reasoning or argumentation.

My main interest here is in the structure and the demands of theological argumentation as such, not in an interpretation of Ogden's theological argumentation.

This type of argument is again broadly evidentiary in nature, although it reflects not the «turn to the subject» characteristic of the appeal to individual experience, but rather a «pragmatic» or «linguistic» turn, as illustrated by Whitehead's observation that the evidence of human experience as shared by civilized intercommunication «is also diffused throughout the meanings of words and linguistic expressions» (cited in TPT 74).12 Such an appeal is an essentially historical form of argumentation.

Such a hermeneutical aspect of experiential argumentation is not, therefore, distinctive of any particular «methodological alternative,» but rather ingredient in them all.

The bickering, name calling, and argumentation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does not draw people to Christ.

Rationalistic theologies, such as Charles Hartshorne's, are based largely on a priori reason or rational argumentation, and deem these valuable precisely because they are not particular.

As the ground of assurance here is not rational, argumentation is irrelevant.

What I wanted to get across was that I don't particularly attack bad ideas or viewpoints, but bad argumentation.

Just for those who might take his «argumentation» seriously, describing the wish that everyone would see the same truth as you do is at least a wish for less freedom., even if that is not accompanied with an actual attempt to minimize other people's freedoms.

Furthermore, they have not been taught basic skills in historical investigation, weighing of evidence, and argumentation.

Not to mention the circular argumentation that presents itself by such a belief is astounding... it is or exists because god did therefore it is and exists because god did... etc..

Because of this incompleteness God's subjective immediacy does not end, despite God's always having a specific satisfaction, and that is why there is, only in God's case, no perishing, With respect to all these points my argumentation rests on the reversal of poles in God (by which an aim is possible for God which is formally independent of any concrete actual world, while Christian does not use God's reversed polar structure but uses God's everlastingness as his main argument.

You really don't seem to have a good grasp on logic, and you seem to often fall back on IMPLICATIONS of the ad populum fallacy or others and use very poor argumentation that has been refuted by sound logic many, many times..

Where I say: God's aim (that of God's consequent nature) is achieved, and remains open, because it is an aim which continually «shifts» (and can be such because God's aim is formally independent of any actual world whatsoever, but materially consequent on the evolving world, Nobo says: the aim of God's primordial nature is never achieved, but the data available at the beginning of every stage are synthesized every time, and this is sufficient for prehensibility — not the same argumentation, as can be seen, but a closely related one, indeed.

Differences of degree alone are not easily consistent with the ID argument, which posits a difference in kind between stones and flagella, analogous indeed (in their argumentation) to the difference between naturally produced things and artificially produced things.

«Love does not wrong to its neighbor» — granted, that quote is from the Bible, which is outside this line of argumentation.

Matthews would not accept this line of argumentation, saying, «when you call a person a name, you effectively end the conversation because you imply that the person has absolutely nothing good to offer and should be discounted from the dialog completely.»

I'm only addressing the argumentation in your answer of course, not the humanitarian aspects of this topic as a whole.

One may agree or disagree with its argumentation (I don't, for instance), but that one clearly indicates research and is backed with references.

Planned Parenthood is just using word games and not making a logically valid point from an argumentation standpoint.

I want to give you a lot of personal details, with the hope that 1) you don't see me as just talking about this stuff as abstract political argumentation, and 2) maybe I get to contribute something new / different to a familiar debate.

Teaching the language of physics thus means not only teaching the language structures typically used in the subject, including the specific terminology and grammar, but also the reasoning or argumentation that we find in physics and how this is expressed in language.

There are good reasons to conserve our resources and find a more economical way of using energy, but the argumentation is not linked necessarily to climate.

If you weren't so focused on argumentation and diet dogma, you might've noticed that phrase «ill health».