Return to Index  

naw, not really

May 2 2012 at 1:18 PM

JVH say  (Login JVH)

Response to I might



Generalizations are blanket statements, so, "ecclesial books such as the bible tale about cosmology, anthropology, ontology, philosophy and so on with a lot of "opinion" in between - and it's the latter all the ruckus is about......." does not qualify as a "blanket statement" whereas "Talmud is rabbinical commentary" does.

As for "definitions being blanket statements, quote often", that sounds suspiciously like a 'blanket statement" as well, as does "It [the bible] is a REFERENCE book on the beliefs of Jewish people over a long period of time."happy.gif and when I pose "Good thing then you detest "blanket statements", you know darn well what it is in reference to, unless, of course, you've gone dense all of a sudden. wink.gif 

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 Respond to this message   

Find more forums on Religion and PhilosophyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement