It would be good to know what version of the Bible you are using because the verses do not say it was a vision. The account in Luke goes so far to say that Elias and Moses were talking with Jesus prior to Peter et al waking up and becoming aware of the situation.
"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." - Matthew 17:3 KJV
"And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." - Mark 9:4 KJV
"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." - Luke 9:30-32 KJV
No. But it is great that you acknowledged that you made assumptions.
I acknowledge that you erroneously attributed the quote to Jesus in post 51... I am boggled. Why does your mistake matter? Especially when it had absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being discussed.
No. There is no sentence rule with non sequitur. There are likely going to be at least two clauses. It comes from Latin meaning "it does not follow". It's not hard to find examples of single sentence non sequitur: https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/
If you believe non-sequiturs are a minimum of 2 sentences long: can you explain why you called a single sentence non sequitur in post 39?
The reply "That can't be true because Tuesday is seven letters long." is an example of non sequitur.
So the alarming thing is how in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that non sequitur required two sentences? Did you look up examples and come to the conclusion that all of the examples you briefly looked at had two sentences therefore it was a requirement? That in itself is an example of poor inductive reasoning that led you to an absurdly incorrect conclusion about a simple concept. Sure, you might have been following your intuition regarding what "felt right" in that instance, but without the requisite logical checks and balances you ended up in a world of incorrect conclusions and misconceptions about how things work.
This is basically what you are doing when you make up things on the fly like that:
It would be helpful if you could look up what tautology means before commenting on it.
Considering you conflated two different laws of thought and seem to refuse to recognize that the law of identity is a tautology, and that you were saying the opposite of your excerpt text stated, I don't think this is worth discussing further.
Not quite. Divine revelation is the condition of being directly shown something. Intuition is a process for arriving at an answer, it is subject to human err. I would argue that intuition is part of pathos.
You didn't. I would have liked if you had a cohesive rebuttal to transmutation or the possibility of an alternate grace mechanism. You basically just came to the conclusion that "those concepts don't feel right therefore they can't be true." which doesn't add anything to a rational discourse.
It might be the case that you have been led to an understanding of things that is specific to you and what you need. I can see that. I would suggest the interpretation that you aren't presenting universal truths and are mistaking those truths relative to your circumstance to apply universally.
It would be like stating that shellfish should never be eaten and insisting to everyone else that it will always be the case for yourself and anyone you meet that shellfish is not to be consumed. Based on Romans 14, it might very well be the case that you shouldn't eat shellfish and that anyone you eat with shouldn't eat shellfish. It might become a deeply rooted belief that you have that shellfish is never to be consumed. Also based on Romans 14, that perception of shellfish, while existing as a truth within your realm of existence, would not universally be true.
It may be the case that your perception of fallen angels, etc. is a specific understanding that the Holy Spirit has given you and only for you. If fallen angels, unclean spirits, etc. could be saved by some intervention perhaps it would be the case that it isn't in your design or purpose to participate in that mission. It would make sense that your understanding would not align with that function.
Your method of "feeling out answers" might be exactly what you should be doing in order to find answers for yourself and perhaps even those directly around you. But don't confuse that with logical process, rational discourse, and logos.
"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." - Matthew 17:3 KJV
"And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." - Mark 9:4 KJV
"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him." - Luke 9:30-32 KJV
No. But it is great that you acknowledged that you made assumptions.
I acknowledge that you erroneously attributed the quote to Jesus in post 51... I am boggled. Why does your mistake matter? Especially when it had absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being discussed.
No. There is no sentence rule with non sequitur. There are likely going to be at least two clauses. It comes from Latin meaning "it does not follow". It's not hard to find examples of single sentence non sequitur: https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/
If you believe non-sequiturs are a minimum of 2 sentences long: can you explain why you called a single sentence non sequitur in post 39?
The reply "That can't be true because Tuesday is seven letters long." is an example of non sequitur.
So the alarming thing is how in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that non sequitur required two sentences? Did you look up examples and come to the conclusion that all of the examples you briefly looked at had two sentences therefore it was a requirement? That in itself is an example of poor inductive reasoning that led you to an absurdly incorrect conclusion about a simple concept. Sure, you might have been following your intuition regarding what "felt right" in that instance, but without the requisite logical checks and balances you ended up in a world of incorrect conclusions and misconceptions about how things work.
This is basically what you are doing when you make up things on the fly like that:
It would be helpful if you could look up what tautology means before commenting on it.
Considering you conflated two different laws of thought and seem to refuse to recognize that the law of identity is a tautology, and that you were saying the opposite of your excerpt text stated, I don't think this is worth discussing further.
Not quite. Divine revelation is the condition of being directly shown something. Intuition is a process for arriving at an answer, it is subject to human err. I would argue that intuition is part of pathos.
You didn't. I would have liked if you had a cohesive rebuttal to transmutation or the possibility of an alternate grace mechanism. You basically just came to the conclusion that "those concepts don't feel right therefore they can't be true." which doesn't add anything to a rational discourse.
It might be the case that you have been led to an understanding of things that is specific to you and what you need. I can see that. I would suggest the interpretation that you aren't presenting universal truths and are mistaking those truths relative to your circumstance to apply universally.
It would be like stating that shellfish should never be eaten and insisting to everyone else that it will always be the case for yourself and anyone you meet that shellfish is not to be consumed. Based on Romans 14, it might very well be the case that you shouldn't eat shellfish and that anyone you eat with shouldn't eat shellfish. It might become a deeply rooted belief that you have that shellfish is never to be consumed. Also based on Romans 14, that perception of shellfish, while existing as a truth within your realm of existence, would not universally be true.
It may be the case that your perception of fallen angels, etc. is a specific understanding that the Holy Spirit has given you and only for you. If fallen angels, unclean spirits, etc. could be saved by some intervention perhaps it would be the case that it isn't in your design or purpose to participate in that mission. It would make sense that your understanding would not align with that function.
Your method of "feeling out answers" might be exactly what you should be doing in order to find answers for yourself and perhaps even those directly around you. But don't confuse that with logical process, rational discourse, and logos.
