Sometimes people use examples from the Bible to try to persuade you to believe something is true which is not. They use an unusual case to support the conclusion with which they want you to agree. But we are warned not to believe that just because something is logical in one situation it will also be logical in all situations or under all circumstances. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks explain in "Come Let us Reason" that this is called a "Hasty Generalization". The example they use is an argument about drinking wine in general. The person tries to persuade you with something Paul did in the Bible. "If Paul recommended wine for Timothy, then it is good for Christians today."
This example of a recommendation was for medicinal use for Timothy. The person cannot logically use a medicinal recommendation for wine drinking as a valid argument to recommend social drinking and other contexts for all other types of situations. Do you see the difference? One recommendation has a specific context and use which is not the same as the widespread, common and general type.
The authors even point out that the wine that Paul was recommending was not the same as today's alcohol level (it was watered down back then) so the logic falls apart even in the context of the type of wine being spoken of in the unusual case of this recommendation of wine to Timothy.
The point is that in using logic to persuade someone to agree, a person must use the same terms that do not contradict each other. Here there are contradictions in the type of recommendation (medical does not equal nonmedical) and in the use of the word wine (watered down wine does not equal pure wine).
We live in the middle of many dark and illogical philosophies and ways of thinking which are dressed up in "good-looking" forms but are actually illogical. There is also a parallel in the unseen world- the enemy dresses up himself and his following fallen angels (demons) in "good-looking" or "good-appearing" robes of light so as to lure us nearer and draw us away from truth and Christ. Wat
This example of a recommendation was for medicinal use for Timothy. The person cannot logically use a medicinal recommendation for wine drinking as a valid argument to recommend social drinking and other contexts for all other types of situations. Do you see the difference? One recommendation has a specific context and use which is not the same as the widespread, common and general type.
The authors even point out that the wine that Paul was recommending was not the same as today's alcohol level (it was watered down back then) so the logic falls apart even in the context of the type of wine being spoken of in the unusual case of this recommendation of wine to Timothy.
The point is that in using logic to persuade someone to agree, a person must use the same terms that do not contradict each other. Here there are contradictions in the type of recommendation (medical does not equal nonmedical) and in the use of the word wine (watered down wine does not equal pure wine).
We live in the middle of many dark and illogical philosophies and ways of thinking which are dressed up in "good-looking" forms but are actually illogical. There is also a parallel in the unseen world- the enemy dresses up himself and his following fallen angels (demons) in "good-looking" or "good-appearing" robes of light so as to lure us nearer and draw us away from truth and Christ. Wat
RSS Feed
