Official site for the state of Oregon. Includes links to county and city pages, business, government, education, and Oregon facts.

State agency index.

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <093.50.19.05.858954000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
> >
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <091.36.16.05.291484000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >So we're saved because of our ability to reason?
> >>
> >> You who criticized BB for his false dilemma are so quick to come up
> >> with this one of your own? NO, I never said that. What I said is that
> >> we are not saved if we insist on using our ability to reason _against_
> >> God, which is what he does who clings to heresy, despising the true
> >> teaching of the Church.
> >
> >But that means that:
> >a) we know what the true church is,
> >b) we know what the true teachings of the church are, and
> >c) that we are using our reason against God.
>
> >I don't see how you can get to a), b), or c) without reason. How do we
> >know that what we know is true, Matthew?
>
> This, Bob, is just a more complicated version of the same false dilemma.
> Are you hoping to hide the dilemma under yet more incomplete choices?

I don't know. You are seeing something I don't -- a false dilemma. Can
you be a bit more explicit in what you mean so that I can try to follow
along?

>
> >What if I am a man whose 'reasoner' is broken? Does that mean that I
> >cannot be saved?
>
> No. But you miss the point: it is BB's insistence on _deliberate misuse_
> of his 'reasoner', using it to teach heresy, that damns him. But a man
> whose 'reasoner' is broken is not ipso facto guilty of _misusing_ it, much
> less deliberately.

You arrive at that conclusion using reason; I still don't see how a man
whose 'reasoner' is broken would come to the same conclusion.

If a man's 'reasoner' is broken, he cannot via reason come to the
conclusion that his 'reasoner' is broken. He would have to take someone
else's word for it, just like a blind man has to take someone else's
word that rainbows exist.

So why should he trust you, or me, or Bart, or Steve? And maybe, just
maybe, Jesus has revealed Himself in a way that a broken reasoner will
follow.

> WHy are you muddying the waters by pretending you can treat these cases as
> equivalent?

Probably because I think the situation is more complex than it appears.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

"basicallyblues" writes:
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>
>>posted a lengthy defense of this in the article. Give me a break.
>>It wa