A Question for Christians

[David Sklansky]

"it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent""

What is wrong with this tactic? It is common in math proofs. If the opponent is on firm ground he can't be trapped.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
"it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent""

What is wrong with this tactic? It is common in math proofs. If the opponent is on firm ground he can't be trapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Math proofs are a significantly different thing than what masquerades here as a philosophical discussion. Lestat did not ask for a "proof", he asked for a statement of belief or interpretation of scripture/teachings.

The tactic I was refering to was the process of laying out a sufficiently vague question while holding back the true complications of the question you really want answered. Then piece-meal doling out the additinal information, restrictions, complications, etc to twist and turn the answers given.

While sometimes fun to do and often successful in discrediting the answerer -- the technique is much less efficient in reaching a reasonable answer or fostering a successfull debate.

[IronUnkind]

Mathematical proofs deal with objective entities which are morally, politically, and ontologically neutral.