Ben C Smith

One of the alternate names on that Wiki page for this fallacy is fallacy of the lonely fact. I love that name. I keep trying to hum it to the tune of Owner of a Lonely Heart by Yes, but of course I have to rush the three syllables of fallacy compared to the mere two of owner.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

If you think my opinion of your view is completely erroneous, it might help to actually answers my questions about your view instead of just repeating what you wrote many times before. The reason you're not being understood is because what you wrote is incomprehensible, not because it was not read. Repeating yourself will not help, but explaining yourself might.

I dunno, perhaps "as5874's fallacy"?

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Maybe we can say the practitioner of the hasty generalization fallacy is the "owner of a lonely fact"?

Stephen

aa5874

But, your satement is bogus, you understood me perfectly.

I repeat, in any event, it is just four words.

Origen was a literalist.

You still don't understand?

GakuseiDon

Perhaps we can close this thread, by noting that aa has spoken non-literally in the past, therefore his statement "Origen was a literalist" should not be taken literally.

aa5874

But your statement is literally not true.

You just literally make up stuff about me.

S.C.Carlson

I understand that your argument by repetition has gotten tedious. What your position is has not been hard to understand. Your reasoning, however, has been. Merely restating your conclusion does not fix the difficulties with your reasoning.

The fact is that Origen was (in)famous for his allegorical exegesis, so calling him a "literalist" is an exercise in ridiculousness and it really betrays a certain among out ignorance -- just like your secondary claim that Origen's views were not condemned as heretical.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself calling Origen a "literalist," because repetition does not turn a false statement into a true statement.

Stephen

If I could only bet on intrade that your response will repeat "Origen was a literalist" . . .

aa5874

Now, to expose your apparent ignorance of Origen, I will tell you that Origen wrote that "the words of God" were LITERALLY Jesus who was crucified on earth during the days of Pilate.

I will expose your ignorance of Origen and tell you that Origen wrote that "wisdom" was not impersonal, "wisdom" had literal life, "wisdom" was the literal living God.

Words that were used philosophically or figuratively by other writers , like "Logos", "the Word", "the Light", "the Truth" and "Wisdom", Origen claimed that these mere words were LITERALLY Jesus who was crucified on earth.

Origen wrote that mere words had LITERAL life, words are Gods and did create the world and the first man, Adam.

Origen was a literalist to an extreme.

You must be confused. You seem to think your are an authority or inerrant.

You think that if you repeat he was not, without any support, that your illogical statement will turn true.

Now, take a good long look for yourself at Contra Celsus, De Principiis, and Rufinus and it may surprise that Origen wrote about things normally considered figurative was to be understood LITERALLY.

It is true that Origen wrote that the words of God, the Logos, was the Creator, the words of God literally became a man, that the words of God was truly born of a virgin, and that the words of God was crucified.

Origen was a literalist to the extreme.

Amaleq13

You are correct that my statement "Origen did not believe Adam was literally created by God." is incorrect but do you truly not see that this is irrelevant to the main point? Seriously, one college level class in logic will eliminate the majority your mistakes.

The fact remains that Origen did not believe that the biblical story of Adam in the garden should be interpreted literally.

The fact remains that this same story, according to the definition you claim to be using, would be interpreted literally by a literalist.

The fact remains that these two facts conclusively establish that your repeated assertion is false. Origen was clearly not a literalist according to that definition.

Yes, but one only needs a single contrary example to refute your global assertion and we have that. Do you truly not understand the basic logic involved here? Numerous supporting examples of Origen interpreting the Bible literally do nothing to counter a single contrary example when one makes an all-inclusive claim such as yours.

"All dogs are white." is a similar all-inclusive claim.

Pointing out the many white dogs one can see does nothing to change the fact that you have a black dog sitting at your feet and that this single contrary example refutes the claim.

Understand?

Not according to the definition you claim to be using.

You may now return to repeating foolishness. :wave:

aa5874

But, you have returned with your foolishness, even though the facts have been shown to you.

You refuse to accept the meaning of "Biblical Literalism" and contine to spout the false notion that a literalist must accept everything literal in the Bible when you know that such position is completely untenable.

If is wholly inconceivable for a literalist to accept everything as literal about Peter as written in the Bible, if it is believed Peter was a literal human.

Peter cannot literally be a human, a stone and Satan at the same time.

But, Origen, in his stupidity, wrote that the words of God was literally the Creator, was a man, truly born of a woman was literally crucified.

And, you still continue with your foolishness.