The Christian Vanguard

If A and B share the same essences, like "Being" and "Goodness" share the same essence, does that mean that the terms we use for A and B respectively are synonymous? This question was brought up to me in the context of a discussion had on the Trinity and Divine Simplicity. If all three persons of the Trinity share in the same essence, then the terms would be synonymous, which is absurd. Obviously The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit do not refer to the same person and are not interchangeable.  But it doesn't follow that if something shares in the same essence that the terms must be synonymous, and this is illustrated when we think about the convertibility thesis, which is what my last few posts have been touching on. Though being and goodness are convertible and the same, they are not synonymous terms. They refer to the same thing, but differ in thought. “Good” expresses the idea of desirability, which the term “being” does not express. “Good” adds the ...

Dennis Prager has this video up on the meaning between the difference of saying "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays". While I agreed with much, if not most, of what he said, I do think he made a critical error that could undermine his entire case.  How can Prager say that Christmas is his Holiday, but not his Holy-Day? They're the same thing. To separate the meaning of Holiness from Holiday, Prager is doing exactly what he is trying to fight against, Secularization. You can't secularize Holiness but then fight against the secularization of Christmas.

Much has already been said about whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Why another drop in the ocean? Because I haven't seen anyone make this point, or at least explicitly make this point, and so that justifies me adding to the noise. That point is that the distinction between de re and de dicto is relevant here.  Take the following syllogism: 1. Mary Jane believes Spider-Man is a hero 2. Spider-Man is Peter Parker  The temptation is to conclude that  3. Mary Jane believes that Peter Parker is a hero But this would not be true if Mary Jane does not know that Spider-Man is Peter Parker. So how do we account for this? We do so by making the semantic distinction between de re and de dicto. De re means "of the thing" and de dicto  means "of what is said." (3) follows from (1) and (2) on the de re  interpretation, but not on the de dicto .  For example, take the proposition, "Adrian believes that someone is a fr...

Some feminists object to the use of the word "man" to expression mankind (maybe they too object to my use of the word "mankind". Maybe they prefer "humankind" or "personkind." I take it for granted we all know what I'm talking about when I say mankind, including the feminists, whom necessarily know what I'm communicating in order to object to it.) because it shows that men have some kind of superiority over women, or at least it is not gender neutral.

In the 1960's or so, we had the civil rights movement. This was the movement that secured civil rights to certain people, particularly black people. In the present day, some try to label the LGBT movement for the applicability of marriage to same-sex couples a civil rights fight as well. In the treatment of animals, those who want to secure certain rights to animals also try to fall under this category, but more commonly under the words "humane", to indicate fair treatment. In these three categories, we call them these names, civil rights fighters, humanitarians, and whatever else. But what we don't see is someone who fights for the rights of minorities a "minority-ist", a "black-ism" or even a "animaltarian." However, there are many people today who, purporting to defend equal rights for females, call themselves "feminist." Why is this unlike the others? Why don't these people pick up "civil rights act...