Calzaer

Assuming you are a native speaker of English, this is a de facto denial of the idea that crack babies are a DIRECT result of Original Sin. The key word is "likewise", and the important word shift is from "sin" to "crack". Since the concept of "crack" is not identical to the concept of "sin", "crack" is not an example of "sin". DOING crack may be an example of sin, but the crack itself is not.

Again, this is assuming you are a native English speaker. I apologize if you are not.

(BTW: I also would like to apologize for my misuse of the word "penultimate". It was your penultimate post at the time I wrote mine, but you submitted another before my own went through, making this denial not in the "penultimate" post, but in "a previous" post.)

Calzaer

Then you are incorrect in your crack baby comparison. Crack babies are not predisposed to crack, they are physically addicted to crack. Once detoxified, they no longer have a weakness or a craving for crack. In order for your comparitive clause to make sense, the conceptual variable has to be consistent. "Weakness for" may be interchangable with "predisposed to", but neither clause is identical to "physically addicted to".

I think perhaps you lack a firm grounding in the concept of physical addiction and the relevant information on what a "crack baby" is.

yguy

Not so. Comparison of two ideas doesn't necessarily preclude one being an example of the other or even one being the result of the other. I suggest that the second is not only an example of the first, but also a result of it.

This is nothing but the splitting of semantical hairs.

yguy

Can one be addicted without being predisposed?

The addiction to sin can be overcome as well.

Calzaer

You asked what the contradiction was, and I assumed you could speak your own native language fluently. My apologies; you didn't even know you'd made a contradiction.

But if you ever turned in a term paper like that, there'd be so much red ink on it you'd think I chose to cut my jugular rather than grade your paper. Do you really expect anyone to know what you're saying when YOU don't even know what you're saying?

If one is an example of the other, the word "likewise" would be redundant and the image noun (in this case, "crack") would be synonymous with the pre-image (in this case, "sin"). Since the two are not identical, the image clause is not an EXAMPLE. It is either a COMPARISON or an ANALOGY.

Calzaer

One can be predisposed without being addicted (think of a sober individual with a family history of alcoholism). The baby is addicted. The humans are predisposed. If the humans are not addicted, then there is no comparison with the baby.

Are you sure English is your first language?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE obtain a firmer grounding on the concept of physical addiction! An individual physically addicted to certain types of hard drugs, particularly crack and heroin, can easily DIE if attempting to leave the drug without proper medical intervention. If God created us with this sort of addiction to sin, WE HAVE NO FREE WILL.

yguy

As you can imagine, I am utterly crestfallen.

Young man, you have no interest in what I'm saying. You have no greater purpose here than to flaunt your knowledge of linguistic technicalities.

Dr Rick

No argument here.

yguy

The baby is also predisposed, of course.

But all humans become addicted eventually, and there is your comparison made. It's not perfect in the sense that there is a time delay between birth and addiction in the case of sin; but that is not a substantive difference, because a crack baby is really just a much more tragic variation on the original theme.

yguy

Thanks for paying attention, Doc.