Re: Religious Book Discusion Groups

In article <Cd8Rj.2001$Zs1.483@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...
>
>On Mar 30, 7:35 pm, the Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
> > The problem is, of course, that by following this procedure, you
>almost
>>certainly guarantee that the 'truth' you get is not truth at all. There
can be
>> only one 'adequatio' in the classic definition of truth, "adequatio rei
et
>> intellectus".
>>
>> Not to mention, there cannot be more than one truth. Everything else is
only
>>approximation, whether good or bad. But once you insist on there being
more than
>> one, you guarantee your approximation will be bad.
>
>This is the Christian fundamentalist idea that there are 'absolute
>truths' and no other religion holds these 'truths.'

No, it is neither fundamentalist nor even specifically Christian. It is
straight
out of the Aristotelian philosophical tradition.

Perhaps if you would actually take the time to learn before you post, you
would
have known this, and spared yourself the much deserved embarassment of
making
such a gross philosophical and historical error.

[snip]


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)