This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity. Here are two important points about analogy:
No analogy is perfect, that is, there is always some difference between analogs. Otherwise, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one, and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy.
There is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. For example, Lewis Carroll once posed the following nonsense riddle:
How is a raven like a writing desk?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood Ivanhoe, you made a substantial contribution in answering " Why do so many hate the Bible?"
Just to establish what we are talking about: (from the Roman-Catholic view)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6U.HTM
I. The Natural Moral Law
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.
The natural law expresses t ...[text shortened]... Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678.
12 Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005.
At least you've shown one of the reasons, e.g. mumbo-jumbo circular arguments.
" The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit."
BTW there's seems a lot of Valentinus in that quote , I thought the RCC banned Gnostics.
Are you a "heretic" Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by no1marauderMerriam Webster Online will surely enlighten you in this regard.
I don't agree with their title: "False" means "not true" and an analogy is not meant to have a particular truth value. In the body they use the term "fails" which is more technically accurate. An analogy can be useful or non-useful, but it cannot be "true" or "false".
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=false&x=10&y=18
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs this poorly phrased, Ivanhoe, which says the same thing I did?:
Marauder: "It is also the position of the Roman Catholic Church, is it not, that the Church is the only human agency that can properly interpret the Natural Law?
That is poorly phrased, marauder.
From the Roman Catholic Cathechism:
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation s ...[text shortened]... e sin of Pride can cause serious and fatal distortions in the interpretation of the Natural Law.
No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared,[1] that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments,[2] constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation.[3]
Pope Paul VI
Humanae Vitae
Originally posted by frogstompLicking your wounds, dear Froggy ?
Good Ivanhoe, you made a substantial contribution in answering " Why do so many hate the Bible?"
At least you've shown one of the reasons, e.g. mumbo-jumbo circular arguments.
" The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit."
BTW there's seems ...[text shortened]... us in that quote , I thought the RCC banned Gnostics.
Are you a "heretic" Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is perfectly phrased, marauder .... and since you claim you can read I would suggest to make a proper analyses of the things you said, the things this encyclical says and the things the Roman Catholic Cathechism says about the subject ..... then you will hopefully see that you phrased your statement poorly .... you may even discover why you stated it so poorly.
Is this poorly phrased, Ivanhoe, which says the same thing I did?:
No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared,[1] that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles His divi ...[text shortened]... thful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation.[3]
Pope Paul VI
Humanae Vitae
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you put that in the "frogstomp sucks" thread.
Frogstomp: "human behavior created natural law and not the other way around."
Since you are not prepared to accept anything I say I guess it is time to talk to your Master's Voice about this statement. It is non-sense.
Of, course I'm not prepared to accept anything that comes from an indoctinated source.
And you're being obnoxious doesn't come from the Spirit so you can stuff your "Master's Voice" remark back into your inner sanctum, and go to confession.
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompI love you too, froggy.
Why don't you put that in the "frogstomp sucks" thread.
Of, course I'm not prepared to accept anything that comes from an indoctinated source.
And you're being obnoxious doesn't come from the Spirit so you can stuff your "Master's Voice" remark back into your inner sanctum, and go to confession.
By the way: Your "Master's Voice" has allready spoken. It claimed you phrased your statement "poorly" ..... It also claimed to agree with me ... reading this please keep in mind I qualified your statement about the natural moral law as non-sense .....
Originally posted by ivanhoeShould have be instructive to you then.
I love you too, froggy.
By the way: Your "Master's Voice" has allready spoken. It claimed you phrased your statement "poorly" ..... It also claimed to agree with me ... reading this please keep in mind I qualified your statement about the natural moral law as non-sense .....
whether no1 agrees or disagrees with me doesn't alter what I said,,, have you ever spoken anything that didnt didnt come from the RCC?
what no1 calls Natural Law is Lockesian
I was refering to Hobbsian State of Nature
get it right and you wont look like such an argumentative butthead
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstomp.... but froggy .... now you are falling in two holes at a time
Should have be instructive to you then.
whether no1 agrees or disagrees with me doesn't alter what I said,,, have you ever spoken anything that didnt didnt come from the RCC?
what no1 calls Natural Law is Lockesian
I was refering to Hobbsian State of Nature
get it right and you wont look like such an argumentative butthead
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt says the same thing I said: that the RCC asserts that it is the only "authentic interpreter" of the Natural Law.
It is perfectly phrased, marauder .... and since you claim you can read I would suggest to make a proper analyses of the things you said, the things this encyclical says and the things the Roman Catholic Cathechism says about the subject ..... then you will hopefully see that you phrased your statement poorly .... you may even discover why you stated it so poorly.