The Bengals are going to win one game this year

Hope it’s not against us. Dallas has no business loosing today against Cincinnati.

Comments

Anonymous said…
:)Good luck to Cowboys,Dan.

i love Ocho Cinco for the entertaining/joker value he adds to the (getting progressively uptight with their dumb, limiting selfexpression rules) NFL, but I do agree - Cowboys ought to win this game.
**
Excellent points on equivocation and logical fallacies in prev.post. In theory avoiding it looks easier then in reality, sadly..

O.
October 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Godismyjudge said…
That was a close one... We really hurt ourselves with turnovers and kickoff coverage. Oh well, a win is a win.

Yep, it's hard; which is one of the reasons I try to avoid being overly dogmatic.

God be with you,
Dan
October 8, 2008 at 7:04 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Scripture and Philosophy

Steve Hays added his thoughts to a discussion I had with Paul Manata on choice and determinism . Steve says: Dan fails to distinguish between semantic equivocation and conceptual equivocation. Between the meaning of words and the meaning of ideas.The compatibilist/incompatibilist debate is fundamentally a debate over the concept of freedom, not the meaning of words in a dictionary. This seems like a key issue, because it moves the debate away from exegesis to philosophy. The question is not if philosophy is permissible and useful in theology. I am not opposing all philosophy; only the practice of reading technical philosophical definitions into scripture. Nor is the question if setting up technical definitions is normal philosophical behavior. But philosophy can be discussed in ordinary language by “tight wording” and specificity. Indeed scripture discusses philosophy in common language. To show that I have no hard feelings towards setting up special definitions in philosophical ...
Read more

Acts 4:28 - Mental Resolution or Causal Predetermination

The Scholastics used to ask “does predestination place anything in the predestined?” A relevant question indeed concerning Acts 4:28. Consider the translation change from the 1984 NIV to the 2012 ISV: “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” 1984 New International Version “to carry out everything that your hand and will had predetermined to take place” 2012 International Standard Version The NIV speaks of God’s choice – a mental resolution on His part – the ISV speaks of God’s actions impacting and determining the events. In the NIV, God’s mind is set; in the ISV the events are set. The Greek term proorizo is flexible in either direction – both translations are permissible. Yet the ISV clarifies the ambiguous term in favor of Calvinism. The argument for determinism based on the ISV is simple – God predetermined sinful actions for which man is morally responsible, therefore compatible determinism is true. But this argument is not quite so ...
Read more