Ironically, when I studied at a Baptist seminary, I was not assualted verbally, ridiculed, etc.
Pilgrim, I do hope that you do not think that the above is what I was doing. Please understand that I was not addressing baptism, the Trinity, or anything else other than the illustration of the dog.
Nevertheless, I do believe that what I wrote above was correct. You wrote
One de facto MUST deduce that Spot is a normal dog because he has four legs.
Which is what I was responding to when I wrote "Pilgrim, it seems to me that you are saying that we deduce that Spot is a normal dog, because he has four legs." I was pointing out that Robin said Given A, and Given B, then C; but that you apparently took it a Given A, and Given C, then B.
Robin said:
A. All normal dogs have four legs, and
B. Spot is a normal dog; therefore
C. Spot has four legs.
But from your saying "One de facto MUST deduce that Spot is a normal dog because he has four legs," to me it seemed that you were understanding Robin to have said:
A. All normal dogs have four legs, and
B. Spot has four legs; therefore
C. Spot is a normal dog.
If I misunderstood you, then please forgive me. I still maintain that what Robin did say about Spot, as he said it, was aptly illustrated by my mathematical analogy, and was correct. Once again, this is
only in regard to the illustration of the dog.
If you disagree, then may we agree to disagree, just as we must do with regard to baptism. There is certainly no ill will on my part.
