Replies

As Fru has said, the only outside sources you offer are yourselves. For example, my friend says that all liberals are actually hatched from the eggs of lizard monsters on Mars. As objective and independent proof of that argument from an outside source, I offer my own agreement with him. Case closed and it is therefore true

Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs, because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition.

Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)

What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses cooraborate the history. Reliable men have vouched for the Scripture's veracity, as well as the Church's veracity. But in the end, it comes down to experience and faith in their witness. How do you know George Washington was a president?

Regards

FK: "As Fru has said, the only outside sources you offer are yourselves. ..."

Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs [referring to the example from FK], because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition. Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)

First of all, don't get me started on whether liberals are human. In all fairness, that deserves its own thread. :)

The point I was making is that an already predisposed, like-minded source cannot count as a legitimate "outside source". You wouldn't allow me to say my Reformed theology claims are true because the outside sources of Calvin and Luther agreed with them, would you? :)

What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses corroborate the history.

You KNOW how I would answer that question. :) Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.

How do you know George Washington was a president?

I'd use the same sources as you. The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president. I'm not saying that all the Fathers were corrupted and crooks. I am saying that human nature is human nature. Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially. Well meaning and good people often do take a bad situation and make it worse. Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.