Changes

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal.  In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything.  Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's?  Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"?  Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge?  If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge.  A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy.  That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy.  It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on.  Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule.  Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is?  If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]} 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal.  In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything.  Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's?  Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"?  Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge?  If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge.  A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy.  That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy.  It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on.  Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule.  Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is?  If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]} 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] .  Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy.  The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation.  A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] .  Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy.  The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation.  A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)