In all of my various deliberate ignoring of the ad hominem attacks against me, I have somewhat accidentally set aside all of the "but you said..." parts of what people have said. Let me be perfectly clear: yes, I have made arguments that were disproven and I have set them aside and continued forward with better arguments. That's a pretty normal part of these kinds of debates, at least in the places I'm accustomed to debating. If that's not considered proper etiquette on these particular debate forums, I apologize.
You have not once done that. This pragraph right here is the very first time you have acknowledged that *any* of your arguments have been wrong (although you, notably, haven't said which ones).
This is the last time I'm going to respond in any way to any ad hominem argument. Feel free to say anything you want about me, but if you expect me to reply (or even care), argue the point, not the person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
You cannot claim that Paul does not wish us to judge gay people when Paul specifically judges gay people throughout the Epistles, and calls for us to follow him in doing so.
Have you ever heard a parent say "Do as I say, not as I do?"
Except I am specifically citing what Paul says. And what Paul says we should say in turn.
But he tells you not to judge.
He also tells us to judge. I know you don't like that he does, but the fact that it contradicts you is not grounds for dismissing it.
Paul describes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that marriage exists for the purposes of sex. Paul never describes marriage as being between gay people, and says that gay sex is not to be tolerated.
Not disagreeing with any of that.
Then you cannot argue Paul is not against the idea of gay marriage, or that the word marriage as Paul defines it could apply to gay unions.
You really don't understand what it means to be literal, do you? The claim I made was simple: "the Bible never equates 'porneia' and 'evil'. That quote uses the term 'evil' twice, once to describe covetousness and once to equate 'inventors of evil' to a whole bunch of other stuff. It describes 'porneia' as 'impure', 'degrading', and 'unnatural', and as having 'due penalty'. None of those things are the same as 'evil'.
Also "vile" and "wicked," and yes, these phrases are indeed synonymous with evil. All of them point to being abhorrent to God, which is what sin is, which means a transgression against morality, which is what defines an evil act.
Ridiculous. Paul specifically states that marriage is for sexual intercourse, and that people are to be celibate if not married. Paul is also adamantly against gay sex. Therefore campaigning against gay marriage is entirely in accordance with Paul's teachings.
No. There is a logical leap you're making that's not supported by the text. It's the leap between "Paul says gay people shouldn't have sex (and therefore shouldn't marry)" and "It's my job to petition the government to keep people from marrying."
Does not Paul advocate doing things for the good of others, that they may be saved?
Therefore, it's entirely justifiable.
Again: there are no people out there petitioning the government to keep women silent.
No, there wouldn't be, because Paul says women should be silent in the churches, not everywhere. However, Paul does not say gay people should not have sex in church, or should not have sex just in a Christian community. Paul is saying that gay sex anywhere is an abomination.
To ostracize someone for being gay IS treating them differently and IS discrimination. Avoidance IS a type of treatment.
1) There is a difference between avoiding someone in your own life and ostracizing them, which is an engineered social event.
However, both are types of treatment, and both are discrimination if done because that person is gay.
Also, if you bothered to think on the topic, Paul is advocating the second one!
2) Have you ever heard anyone say "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?"
Paul has several not nice things to say.
That's the difference between avoiding someone and treating them differently because you disagree with them.
Except Paul is advocating the latter.
Or are you going to argue that segregation was not discrimination? "No, the white-only restaurants aren't discriminatory at all. See, we're not serving them differently, we're just NOT serving them. Because they're black."
No, those were businesses, and they're not held to moral standards, they're held to legal and societal ones.
...
Turning someone away at your the front door of your home -- your property, your living space -- is completely different.
Not if you're doing it just because they're gay. Both are forms of discrimination. The person who is turned away from a restaurant, a water fountain, a church, or a home just because he is black is discrimination. It is no less discrimination if it is done because he is gay.
Yes, there is. Paul describes marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Description is not definition.
Quote from Genesis 2:18-25 »
18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.’
24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Oh, this is rich. There's even less about marriage in Genesis than there is in Paul's writings. Literally, let's go through this.
Verse 18: man needs a "helper and partner".
Verses 19-23: god can't find one, so he makes one.
Verse 24: "If you're a man, you cling to your wife" (If A, do B to C. Same problem as Paul.) Will add here that "become one flesh" has nothing to do with marriage; Paul describes having sex with a prostitute as "becoming one flesh", too.
Verse 25: Shame didn't exist yet.
Still absolutely zero in terms of defining marriage. Please try again.
It's right in front of you. Marriage is defined as being between a union specifically a man and a woman in which sex occurs and religious significance ensues. Furthermore, the purpose and significance of marriage are given, and these are wholly incompatible with same sex marriage.
So the fact remains: you cannot argue that either the Torah or Paul allowed for same sex marriage. Indeed, there is no mention of same sex marriage, and there never would be, because they would not have applied the word "marriage" to the concept of two people of the same
Therefore I again ask what you hope to accomplish by this, when it is clear that the idea of same sex unions being called marriage is completely antithetical to the meaning of the word in the Bible?
The challenge is simple, it's on the table, and it's clear. Show me an actual, literal, in-the-text definition of marriage in the Bible.
Marriage is repeatedly described as being between a husband and wife. How many times do you seek to ignore this?
Description is not definition. I don't know how to make this any clearer. If you don't care to actually take on the challenge, than man, just walk away. Beating your head against the wall is not making you any smarter.
It is if the description offers parameters in which what a word means and does not mean are outlined. That's what "to define" means.
Now, does it go outright and say, "Marriage, noun, a word meaning..."? No it does not. The Bible predates Webster quite a bit. But that doesn't change the fact that we find the boundaries of the word means, delineating it from what it doesn't mean (aka a "definition"), easily within the texts. A marriage is a formal union recognized by laws between a man and a woman in which they are joined, become husband and wife, and in which rights, obligations, and expectations (societal and religious) are applied to the married couple, their families, and their children, among which is consummation.
Not to mention, yet again, which gender combinations fall under "marriage" are very clearly defined, which is that marriage pertains to a husband and wife pair, and therefore a man and a woman. Nowhere in the Bible is a husband/husband or wife/wife pair recognized, and both are established as being completely against the idea of marriage.
Note that the same thing doesn't apply to Paul and banning gay marriage. Paul say buggery was wrong, and it's safe to assume that gay marriage leads to anal sex, and you will end up on the wrong side of God's wrath because of it -- but there's nothing in the Bible that indicates that we as humans should give gays an 'advance' on God's wrath, and quite a few places that strongly indicate we should not, lest we end up on God's blacklist ourselves.
However, Paul does say we should work to save others from God's wrath, and that all we do should be for the benefit of others. Ergo, to try to stop as many people from engaging in homosexuality is entirely justified. Furthermore, if you agree, as you say here, that gay marriage leads to gay sex, and that Paul says gay sex is sinful, then does not the duty to prevent those who would lead others astray from spreading their temptations not extend to the efforts to allow gay marriage?
Excellent argument! Except that A, in the first sentence examined, ("If you are a man, have sex with your wife"), isn't actually "be a husband." It's "be a man." So by your own reasoning, you cannot be a man unless you have a wife. Which is clearly absurd.
My reasoning? Good lord, man. The apostle Paul wrote it and you symbolized it (perhaps not even correctly, at that) -- no part of this is my reasoning. But you're right about one thing -- the conclusion is absurd.
That leaves us with two possibilities: Either Paul made a logical error, or you did. Both options are very much in play, but bearing in mind that Paul wasn't writing for the benefit of logicians (if he did then symbolizing his work wouldn't be necessary in the first place) -- I think the most likely possibility is that you have left out from the symbolization some things that Paul regards as implicit or obvious. I find it exceedingly unlikely that if asked, Paul would say that he actually meant to imply that every man must have a wife.
The error you're making is in your postulate. We're not testing "If A, then do B to C". We're testing the much more complex claim "If (If A, then do B to C), then (If A, then C)."
1) A => "do B to C" [hypothesis]
2) ~"do B to C" => ~A [contraposition, 1]
3) ~C => ~"do B to C" [if you don't have a C you can't do B to it]
4) ~C => ~A [2, 3, modus ponens]
5) A => C [contraposition]
6) (A => "do B to C") => (A => C) [conditionalization on the hypothesis]
QED.
Basing arguments on invalid logic, while commonplace, isn't something you should be doing, because it can lead to erroneous results.
3) ~C => ~"do B to C" [if you don't have a C you can't do B to it]
If not wife then not have sex with wife
4) ~C => ~A [2, 3, modus ponens]
If not wife then not husband [look at line 2 and 3 use substitution]
5) A => C [contraposition]
If husband then wife
6) (A => "do B to C") => (A => C) [conditionalization on the hypothesis]
If if husband then have sex with wife then if husband then wife [using the condition of the original hypothesis]
QED.
No error in logic
Again i am not trying to make an argument. I am trying to see if i translated the argument correctly. i am not concerned with any grammatical errors in a translated sentence.
Originally Posted by TomCat26
OP's rationale is basically unless the literal statement is there, the bible doesn't say it.
That's like saying, Jesus never said Genocide was wrong.
Jesus never did say genocide was wrong, specifically. He said murder was wrong, and you cannot commit genocide without committing a whole bunch of murder, so you'll end up on the wrong side of God's wrath regardless, but that claim literally is true.
Note that the same thing doesn't apply to Paul and banning gay marriage. Paul say buggery was wrong, and it's safe to assume that gay marriage leads to anal sex, and you will end up on the wrong side of God's wrath because of it -- but there's nothing in the Bible that indicates that we as humans should give gays an 'advance' on God's wrath, and quite a few places that strongly indicate we should not, lest we end up on God's blacklist ourselves.
I'm going to use your logic too. Nowwhere does Jesus say Murder is wrong.
I challenge you to find where in the bible Jesus says murder is wrong.
Originally Posted by TomCat26
OP's rationale is basically unless the literal statement is there, the bible doesn't say it.
That's like saying, Jesus never said Genocide was wrong.
Jesus never did say genocide was wrong, specifically. He said murder was wrong, and you cannot commit genocide without committing a whole bunch of murder, so you'll end up on the wrong side of God's wrath regardless, but that claim literally is true.
Note that the same thing doesn't apply to Paul and banning gay marriage. Paul say buggery was wrong, and it's safe to assume that gay marriage leads to anal sex, and you will end up on the wrong side of God's wrath because of it -- but there's nothing in the Bible that indicates that we as humans should give gays an 'advance' on God's wrath, and quite a few places that strongly indicate we should not, lest we end up on God's blacklist ourselves.
I'm going to use your logic too. Nowwhere does Jesus say Murder is wrong.
I challenge you to find where in the bible Jesus says murder is wrong.
Ok.
Quote from Matthew 5:21-22, Oremus Bible Browser »
21 ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire.
Originally Posted by TomCat26
OP's rationale is basically unless the literal statement is there, the bible doesn't say it.
That's like saying, Jesus never said Genocide was wrong.
Jesus never did say genocide was wrong, specifically. He said murder was wrong, and you cannot commit genocide without committing a whole bunch of murder, so you'll end up on the wrong side of God's wrath regardless, but that claim literally is true.
Note that the same thing doesn't apply to Paul and banning gay marriage. Paul say buggery was wrong, and it's safe to assume that gay marriage leads to anal sex, and you will end up on the wrong side of God's wrath because of it -- but there's nothing in the Bible that indicates that we as humans should give gays an 'advance' on God's wrath, and quite a few places that strongly indicate we should not, lest we end up on God's blacklist ourselves.
I'm going to use your logic too. Nowwhere does Jesus say Murder is wrong.
I challenge you to find where in the bible Jesus says murder is wrong.
Ok.
Quote from Matthew 5:21-22, Oremus Bible Browser »
21 ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire.
By OP's logic. Nope, that's not Jesus saying murder is wrong. It is the reasonable meaning, the strong implication, but its not literally true.
This thread should have ended with
Genesis 2
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
But it didn't. Even though the meaning, intent, strong implication is there, OP is looking for literal statement.
But if you use the rationale of the OP, you can argue anything. After all, I can simply argue Jesus merely was quoting something about murder, but his beef was with "anger" with a brother or sister.
What Jesus literally stated there was that Anger with your brother or sister is wrong, or calling someone "you fool" is wrong.
Thus my conclusion stands, if the OP's interpretation is applied to the bible, I can even claim under the same rationale that Jesus never said murder is wrong.
By that extension, I can go on and claim, "you know guys...the bible never REALLY said killing an entire race of people is wrong"
Again i am not trying to make an argument. I am trying to see if i translated the argument correctly. i am not concerned with any grammatical errors in a translated sentence.
The substitutions all look right to me, in broad strokes.
For reference, modus ponens doesn't mean "substitution" -- it refers to the formal inference rule "A, (A->B) :: B." Actually, what I'm doing is not a simple application of modus ponens, it's really a double application followed a reconditionalization. I'm taking A->B and B->C and deriving A->C.
And QED stands for the Latin "quod erat demonstrandum" -- it doesn't really mean "no error in logic," it means "this is exactly the statement I was asked to prove." Think of it as the formal logical analogue of dropping the mic.
God never said stealing is wrong.
Response: "Thou shalt not steal"
Well....God said thou shall not do it, but he didn't say that stealing was wrong. The word "wrong" doesn't even appear in there!
My logic is infallible.
Just because God commands us not to do something, doesn't mean its wrong.
After all, elsewhere in the bible, God says don't eat shellfish. (Leviticus 11:9)
We know it was a good idea not to eat fish without fins or scales because many of these sea creatures are poison. But it's not wrong to eat these things. Christians today eat shrimp.
Therefore, just because God commands us not to do something, doesn't mean its wrong. Therefore the bible never says stealing is wrong.
The bible says if you kill a man, you will goto hell. But that doesn't mean killing is wrong.
For all we know, that's just a neutral statement of consequentialism.
Look, if I say, if you flick that light switch, the light will turn on, that's simply consequentialism.
If A, then B. Simple cause and effect.
It's illogical to assume that a mere expression of consequentialism necessarily implicates "wrongness"
Therefore, we can't assume that the bible is actually saying killing is wrong when it says
if you kill someone you will goto hell.
Quote from Matthew 5:21-22, Oremus Bible Browser »
21 ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, first of all Jesus only quotes what was said in "ancient times" and never actually says not to murder, also:
1. It's irrelevant what Jesus thought about murder, it only matters whether he specifically said it was wrong.
2. The quote comes from the old testament, and if you believe that you would also have to believe it's wrong to eat shellfish.
3. Even if Jesus says murder is wrong, he never says it's "evil."
4. Even if murder is wrong or evil, the bible says not to judge. Also where does Jesus say it's ok to discriminate against murderers? I don't see you quoting that passage.
5. The bible definitely doesn't tell Christians to go out and support laws against murder. Just because it's wrong in Jesus' opinion doesn't mean the bible wants us to make it illegal for other people.
6. By the way, show me a definition of murder in the bible? I know it's implied that it means wrongfully killing people, but an implication isn't a definition. Where does it spell it out?
I find it exceedingly unlikely that if asked, Paul would say that he actually meant to imply that every man must have a wife.
I have no doubt that you're correct.
1) A => "do B to C" [hypothesis]
2) ~"do B to C" => ~A [contraposition, 1]
3) ~C => ~"do B to C" [if you don't have a C you can't do B to it]
4) ~C => ~A [2, 3, modus ponens]
5) A => C [contraposition]
6) (A => "do B to C") => (A => C) [conditionalization on the hypothesis]
Congratulations! You just proved that, according to the Bible, every man has a wife. Except that's absurd, which means that either your logic is wrong -- and I have to admit, it's absolutely not -- or Paul is wrong.
...I guess Paul is wrong! Which of course kills the entire debate, because as soon as you open the door for Paul to be wrong, you can't argue that the literal word of the Bible is true anymore, because it's provably not.
Which means, in the end, that absolutely everyone is reading the Bible and getting what they want to out of it, because a strict literal reading of the Bible provably creates actual logical absurdities.
Which, I have to admit, is an even better result than I have ever gotten out of this kind of discussion! Thank you, Crashing00. You're the man, and I adore you. In an entirely non-homosexual kind of way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Congratulations! You just proved that, according to the Bible, every man has a wife. Except that's absurd, which means that either your logic is wrong -- and I have to admit, it's absolutely not -- or Paul is wrong.
Another possibility is that Paul, not addressing his epistles to logicians or expecting them to be analyzed this closely, simply made a phrasing mistake. Another possibility is that your symbolization of his statements is incomplete or introduces errors that were not actually intended. It is dangerous to pluck one sentence out of its context, or to attempt to symbolicate naively-written text.
Which means, in the end, that absolutely everyone is reading the Bible and getting what they want to out of it, because a strict literal reading of the Bible provably creates actual logical absurdities.
I'm inclined to agree, but I must say I find it surprising that the idea of finding contradictions in the Bible is new to you. It's quite well-trodden ground in religious apologetics, on both sides of the issue. Of course, the Bible is a treacherous minefield of errant nonsense and I have nothing but the most extreme skepticism for the claim that it is the true divinely-inspired word of the suitably omni- creator of the universe. But the assumption of Biblical truth is the ground on which we are met.
Which, I have to admit, is an even better result than I have ever gotten out of this kind of discussion! Thank you, Crashing00. You're the man, and I adore you. In an entirely non-homosexual kind of way.
That's awfully sweet of you, but I remain very surprised that I'm the first person who's pointed out to you a potential mistake or contradiction in the Bible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
And I guess I owe Essence an apology. He wasn't engaging in Doublethink or willful self-deception after all. I was the one with the misunderstanding about that.
I'm gonna have to concur with Tomcats argument here.
Nowhere in the Bible is there a literal statement that says explicitly
"You should not rape anyone who refuse your advances".
Therefore from a Biblical standpoint, you cannot condemn rapists anymore, because the Bible doesn't explicitly state that Rape is not OK if they refused your advances.
Show me chapter and verse anywhere in the bible where it says exactly word for word that You should not rape anyone who refuse your advances.
If you can't do it, than Rape is OK according to the Bible. Because I don't have to prove that the Bible DOES say Rape is OK, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
For those truly interested in finding truth on this subject listen to Gay Christianity Refuted. It is long and time consuming, but this is a professional apologist of the Christian faith and he totally proves that all of you are wrong in this 5 hour refutation of gay Christianity.
For those truly interested in finding truth on this subject listen to Gay Christianity Refuted. It is long and time consuming, but this is a professional apologist of the Christian faith and he totally proves that all of you are wrong in this 5 hour refutation of gay Christianity.
These links tend not to be useful and frankly are an appeal to authority.
A professional apologist proves all of us wrong you say.
I can simply counter that argument that tons of professional priests, pastors, organizations, theological scholars, and church goers proves this "professional apologist" of yours wrong.
Now tell me, did that advance the argument at all? Are you convinced?
Is my argument compelling because I said those people out there know why you're wrong!
If you point to a website this is whats going to happen
1) Nobody is going to visit it.
or
2) Even if someone is diligent enough to watch the FIVE HOUR video, they're going come away with a different set of take-away points than you.
This is the debate forum. If you have good reasons, don't just point to some random TED talk, youtube video, random website.
Instead, take what you learned from the video, take its points that you learned and argue it forcefully here.
But that takes so much effort. I'd much rather post a link for the truth seekers. I could waste hours on here debating with people who wouldn't concede the point even if God himself spoke from heaven on the issue.
I don't need to debate anyone on the topic when James White, who professionally debates people on this subject (and totally owns them when he does), has already debated as well or better than I ever could.
The only thing I'll say is that the gospel is conveyed using heterosexual marriage as a metaphor. Christ is the groom. The church is the bride. You miss the boat on marriage and you miss the gospel. It is that important.
And by the way I did not see my previous post as an appeal to authority. I mentioned that he is a professional debater because I want people to know that he is worth hearing out. Once people listen to him they'll understand that his arguments stand on their own merits because they are very good.
I don't need to debate anyone on the topic when James White, who professionally debates people on this subject (and totally owns them when he does), has already debated as well or better than I ever could.
Then TomCat26 was correct about your appeal to authority. If you can't make an argument yourself, don't.
The only thing I'll say is that the gospel is conveyed using heterosexual marriage as a metaphor. Christ is the groom. The church is the bride. You miss the boat on marriage and you miss the gospel. It is that important.
You are aware that pretty much everyone here agrees the Bible is against homosexual marriage, right? Really, only one guy was saying the Bible wasn't against it. Everyone else--from the Atheists to the Deists to the Liberal Christians--are saying the Bible is opposed to homosexual marriage.
But that takes so much effort. I'd much rather post a link for the truth seekers. I could waste hours on here debating with people who wouldn't concede the point even if God himself spoke from heaven on the issue.
I don't need to debate anyone on the topic when James White, who professionally debates people on this subject (and totally owns them when he does), has already debated as well or better than I ever could.
The only thing I'll say is that the gospel is conveyed using heterosexual marriage as a metaphor. Christ is the groom. The church is the bride. You miss the boat on marriage and you miss the gospel. It is that important.
And by the way I did not see my previous post as an appeal to authority. I mentioned that he is a professional debater because I want people to know that he is worth hearing out. Once people listen to him they'll understand that his arguments stand on their own merits because they are very good.
If that was your intent, rather than appeal to authority then I apologize. But surely you recognize putting up a five hour video to a random website is a tall order.
I mean, if you feel burdened by the idea of posting the main points of this guy, James White, how then will your audience feel at watching a five hour video?
Every School of thought always has people on the side that have a new interpretation on things. Usually someone is trying to sell you something.
Mostly they are just wastes of time. The noise to signal ratio is truly extraordinary.
Just a little while ago, we had a poster on this very website named greatest I AM who would point links to ted talks about the FIVE RULES OF MORALITY or why it was the acme of morality to deny women equal rights. The reasoning was convoluted, poor, and junk argumentation that was lengthy and draining to disprove.
When you point out to a new video, I hope you well understand that most people (rightfully) toss links into the trash bin alongside the random illuminati, 9/11 conspiracy videos. The noise to signal ratio is just too high to even consider random links that people post up.
When someone points me to a random video, frankly I just ignore it unless I have a reason to believe the person talking is credible. The bar is very high. I don't listen to the congressional record. I don't read every new and upcoming supreme court opinion. I don't follow the federal reserve's QE and open market operations. And these are things which you don't even have to convince me are important!
The bar is basically so high that unless I will somehow be incomplete in my knowledge of the area, I will probably ignore any hyperlink.
I mean, ultimately if i had five hours to spare and I could either spend the next five hours reading Aquinas or listen to some random guy on the Internet, I'd probably pick Aquinas as being more edifying and beneficial.
I don't mean to be unfair, but you're probably contending with a similar cost-benefit analysis from other people.
============================================================================
btw, just to give you an idea how tall your order is, I tried to assert on this very forum why reading the bible at a minimum is necessary to be informed on religion.
To me, it's unthinkable that someone could be well informed on religion, and not actually read the book that influenced western civilization for the past 2 millenia.
But I couldn't even get agreement on that, and was pretty much shot down by group opinion.
You do realize that this link in no way creates a situation in which eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex, right? They're both perfectly equivalent under the New Covenant, which is to say that
34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Not that I want to argue this point:
But, eating shellfish isn't mentioned as a sin in the New Testament by anyone (and Jesus says putting stuff in you can't make you unclean). Thus, under a New Covenant interpretation, its ok.
As has been said, in the New Testament Paul says in Romans that homosexuality is not ok. Thus--under a New Covenant interpretation--it could be argued that the old laws hold.
OK, from God's lips folks! Putting stuff in you can't make you unclean, leave the gay folk alone now! The big man himself has determined it.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone here would concede the point if God spoke it from the heavens, even most of the atheists.
What exactly is the point in question? I would concede* that God exists and that gay marriage is against his wishes. I would not concede that gay marriage is wrong.
*Setting aside Cartesian perception problems and some other stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
btw, just to give you an idea how tall your order is, I tried to assert on this very forum why reading the bible at a minimum is necessary to be informed on religion.
What exactly is the point in question? I would concede* that God exists and that gay marriage is against his wishes. I would not concede that gay marriage is wrong.
But if God is omnipotent, isn't he capable of making gay marriage intrinsically wrong?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You have not once done that. This pragraph right here is the very first time you have acknowledged that *any* of your arguments have been wrong (although you, notably, haven't said which ones).
What you are doing in this whole debate is an example of stonewalling, IMO, sure -- it's not as blatantly obvious as this http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=513359, but it's essentially the same thing.
This is the last time I'm going to respond in any way to any ad hominem argument. Feel free to say anything you want about me, but if you expect me to reply (or even care), argue the point, not the person.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Except I am specifically citing what Paul says. And what Paul says we should say in turn.
He also tells us to judge. I know you don't like that he does, but the fact that it contradicts you is not grounds for dismissing it.
Then you cannot argue Paul is not against the idea of gay marriage, or that the word marriage as Paul defines it could apply to gay unions.
Also "vile" and "wicked," and yes, these phrases are indeed synonymous with evil. All of them point to being abhorrent to God, which is what sin is, which means a transgression against morality, which is what defines an evil act.
Does not Paul advocate doing things for the good of others, that they may be saved?
Therefore, it's entirely justifiable.
No, there wouldn't be, because Paul says women should be silent in the churches, not everywhere. However, Paul does not say gay people should not have sex in church, or should not have sex just in a Christian community. Paul is saying that gay sex anywhere is an abomination.
However, both are types of treatment, and both are discrimination if done because that person is gay.
Also, if you bothered to think on the topic, Paul is advocating the second one!
Paul has several not nice things to say.
Except Paul is advocating the latter.
...
Not if you're doing it just because they're gay. Both are forms of discrimination. The person who is turned away from a restaurant, a water fountain, a church, or a home just because he is black is discrimination. It is no less discrimination if it is done because he is gay.
It's right in front of you. Marriage is defined as being between a union specifically a man and a woman in which sex occurs and religious significance ensues. Furthermore, the purpose and significance of marriage are given, and these are wholly incompatible with same sex marriage.
So the fact remains: you cannot argue that either the Torah or Paul allowed for same sex marriage. Indeed, there is no mention of same sex marriage, and there never would be, because they would not have applied the word "marriage" to the concept of two people of the same
Therefore I again ask what you hope to accomplish by this, when it is clear that the idea of same sex unions being called marriage is completely antithetical to the meaning of the word in the Bible?
It is if the description offers parameters in which what a word means and does not mean are outlined. That's what "to define" means.
Now, does it go outright and say, "Marriage, noun, a word meaning..."? No it does not. The Bible predates Webster quite a bit. But that doesn't change the fact that we find the boundaries of the word means, delineating it from what it doesn't mean (aka a "definition"), easily within the texts. A marriage is a formal union recognized by laws between a man and a woman in which they are joined, become husband and wife, and in which rights, obligations, and expectations (societal and religious) are applied to the married couple, their families, and their children, among which is consummation.
In other words, the definition of marriage.
Not to mention, yet again, which gender combinations fall under "marriage" are very clearly defined, which is that marriage pertains to a husband and wife pair, and therefore a man and a woman. Nowhere in the Bible is a husband/husband or wife/wife pair recognized, and both are established as being completely against the idea of marriage.
However, Paul does say we should work to save others from God's wrath, and that all we do should be for the benefit of others. Ergo, to try to stop as many people from engaging in homosexuality is entirely justified. Furthermore, if you agree, as you say here, that gay marriage leads to gay sex, and that Paul says gay sex is sinful, then does not the duty to prevent those who would lead others astray from spreading their temptations not extend to the efforts to allow gay marriage?
My reasoning? Good lord, man. The apostle Paul wrote it and you symbolized it (perhaps not even correctly, at that) -- no part of this is my reasoning. But you're right about one thing -- the conclusion is absurd.
That leaves us with two possibilities: Either Paul made a logical error, or you did. Both options are very much in play, but bearing in mind that Paul wasn't writing for the benefit of logicians (if he did then symbolizing his work wouldn't be necessary in the first place) -- I think the most likely possibility is that you have left out from the symbolization some things that Paul regards as implicit or obvious. I find it exceedingly unlikely that if asked, Paul would say that he actually meant to imply that every man must have a wife.
1) A => "do B to C" [hypothesis]
2) ~"do B to C" => ~A [contraposition, 1]
3) ~C => ~"do B to C" [if you don't have a C you can't do B to it]
4) ~C => ~A [2, 3, modus ponens]
5) A => C [contraposition]
6) (A => "do B to C") => (A => C) [conditionalization on the hypothesis]
QED.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind!
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
a = husband
b = have sex
c = your wife
If husband then have sex with wife
If not have sex with wife then not husband
If not wife then not have sex with wife
If not wife then not husband [look at line 2 and 3 use substitution]
If husband then wife
If if husband then have sex with wife then if husband then wife [using the condition of the original hypothesis]
No error in logic
Again i am not trying to make an argument. I am trying to see if i translated the argument correctly. i am not concerned with any grammatical errors in a translated sentence.
I'm going to use your logic too. Nowwhere does Jesus say Murder is wrong.
I challenge you to find where in the bible Jesus says murder is wrong.
Ok.
By OP's logic. Nope, that's not Jesus saying murder is wrong. It is the reasonable meaning, the strong implication, but its not literally true.
This thread should have ended with
Genesis 2
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
But it didn't. Even though the meaning, intent, strong implication is there, OP is looking for literal statement.
But if you use the rationale of the OP, you can argue anything. After all, I can simply argue Jesus merely was quoting something about murder, but his beef was with "anger" with a brother or sister.
What Jesus literally stated there was that Anger with your brother or sister is wrong, or calling someone "you fool" is wrong.
Thus my conclusion stands, if the OP's interpretation is applied to the bible, I can even claim under the same rationale that Jesus never said murder is wrong.
By that extension, I can go on and claim, "you know guys...the bible never REALLY said killing an entire race of people is wrong"
The substitutions all look right to me, in broad strokes.
For reference, modus ponens doesn't mean "substitution" -- it refers to the formal inference rule "A, (A->B) :: B." Actually, what I'm doing is not a simple application of modus ponens, it's really a double application followed a reconditionalization. I'm taking A->B and B->C and deriving A->C.
And QED stands for the Latin "quod erat demonstrandum" -- it doesn't really mean "no error in logic," it means "this is exactly the statement I was asked to prove." Think of it as the formal logical analogue of dropping the mic.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
God never said stealing is wrong.
Response: "Thou shalt not steal"
Well....God said thou shall not do it, but he didn't say that stealing was wrong. The word "wrong" doesn't even appear in there!
My logic is infallible.
Just because God commands us not to do something, doesn't mean its wrong.
After all, elsewhere in the bible, God says don't eat shellfish. (Leviticus 11:9)
We know it was a good idea not to eat fish without fins or scales because many of these sea creatures are poison. But it's not wrong to eat these things. Christians today eat shrimp.
Therefore, just because God commands us not to do something, doesn't mean its wrong. Therefore the bible never says stealing is wrong.
========================================================================================
The bible says if you kill a man, you will goto hell. But that doesn't mean killing is wrong.
For all we know, that's just a neutral statement of consequentialism.
Look, if I say, if you flick that light switch, the light will turn on, that's simply consequentialism.
If A, then B. Simple cause and effect.
It's illogical to assume that a mere expression of consequentialism necessarily implicates "wrongness"
Therefore, we can't assume that the bible is actually saying killing is wrong when it says
if you kill someone you will goto hell.
Ok, first of all Jesus only quotes what was said in "ancient times" and never actually says not to murder, also:
1. It's irrelevant what Jesus thought about murder, it only matters whether he specifically said it was wrong.
2. The quote comes from the old testament, and if you believe that you would also have to believe it's wrong to eat shellfish.
3. Even if Jesus says murder is wrong, he never says it's "evil."
4. Even if murder is wrong or evil, the bible says not to judge. Also where does Jesus say it's ok to discriminate against murderers? I don't see you quoting that passage.
5. The bible definitely doesn't tell Christians to go out and support laws against murder. Just because it's wrong in Jesus' opinion doesn't mean the bible wants us to make it illegal for other people.
6. By the way, show me a definition of murder in the bible? I know it's implied that it means wrongfully killing people, but an implication isn't a definition. Where does it spell it out?
I have no doubt that you're correct.
Congratulations! You just proved that, according to the Bible, every man has a wife. Except that's absurd, which means that either your logic is wrong -- and I have to admit, it's absolutely not -- or Paul is wrong.
...I guess Paul is wrong! Which of course kills the entire debate, because as soon as you open the door for Paul to be wrong, you can't argue that the literal word of the Bible is true anymore, because it's provably not.
Which means, in the end, that absolutely everyone is reading the Bible and getting what they want to out of it, because a strict literal reading of the Bible provably creates actual logical absurdities.
Which, I have to admit, is an even better result than I have ever gotten out of this kind of discussion! Thank you, Crashing00. You're the man, and I adore you. In an entirely non-homosexual kind of way.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Another possibility is that Paul, not addressing his epistles to logicians or expecting them to be analyzed this closely, simply made a phrasing mistake. Another possibility is that your symbolization of his statements is incomplete or introduces errors that were not actually intended. It is dangerous to pluck one sentence out of its context, or to attempt to symbolicate naively-written text.
I'm inclined to agree, but I must say I find it surprising that the idea of finding contradictions in the Bible is new to you. It's quite well-trodden ground in religious apologetics, on both sides of the issue. Of course, the Bible is a treacherous minefield of errant nonsense and I have nothing but the most extreme skepticism for the claim that it is the true divinely-inspired word of the suitably omni- creator of the universe. But the assumption of Biblical truth is the ground on which we are met.
That's awfully sweet of you, but I remain very surprised that I'm the first person who's pointed out to you a potential mistake or contradiction in the Bible.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Thank God.
Nowhere in the Bible is there a literal statement that says explicitly
"You should not rape anyone who refuse your advances".
Therefore from a Biblical standpoint, you cannot condemn rapists anymore, because the Bible doesn't explicitly state that Rape is not OK if they refused your advances.
Show me chapter and verse anywhere in the bible where it says exactly word for word that You should not rape anyone who refuse your advances.
If you can't do it, than Rape is OK according to the Bible. Because I don't have to prove that the Bible DOES say Rape is OK, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My argument is infallible.
Have a nice day.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
These links tend not to be useful and frankly are an appeal to authority.
A professional apologist proves all of us wrong you say.
I can simply counter that argument that tons of professional priests, pastors, organizations, theological scholars, and church goers proves this "professional apologist" of yours wrong.
Now tell me, did that advance the argument at all? Are you convinced?
Is my argument compelling because I said those people out there know why you're wrong!
If you point to a website this is whats going to happen
1) Nobody is going to visit it.
or
2) Even if someone is diligent enough to watch the FIVE HOUR video, they're going come away with a different set of take-away points than you.
This is the debate forum. If you have good reasons, don't just point to some random TED talk, youtube video, random website.
Instead, take what you learned from the video, take its points that you learned and argue it forcefully here.
I don't need to debate anyone on the topic when James White, who professionally debates people on this subject (and totally owns them when he does), has already debated as well or better than I ever could.
The only thing I'll say is that the gospel is conveyed using heterosexual marriage as a metaphor. Christ is the groom. The church is the bride. You miss the boat on marriage and you miss the gospel. It is that important.
And by the way I did not see my previous post as an appeal to authority. I mentioned that he is a professional debater because I want people to know that he is worth hearing out. Once people listen to him they'll understand that his arguments stand on their own merits because they are very good.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone here would concede the point if God spoke it from the heavens, even most of the atheists.
Then TomCat26 was correct about your appeal to authority. If you can't make an argument yourself, don't.
You are aware that pretty much everyone here agrees the Bible is against homosexual marriage, right? Really, only one guy was saying the Bible wasn't against it. Everyone else--from the Atheists to the Deists to the Liberal Christians--are saying the Bible is opposed to homosexual marriage.
So, I'm not sure why you feel this podcast since it's agreeing with us.
If that was your intent, rather than appeal to authority then I apologize. But surely you recognize putting up a five hour video to a random website is a tall order.
I mean, if you feel burdened by the idea of posting the main points of this guy, James White, how then will your audience feel at watching a five hour video?
Every School of thought always has people on the side that have a new interpretation on things. Usually someone is trying to sell you something.
Mostly they are just wastes of time. The noise to signal ratio is truly extraordinary.
Just a little while ago, we had a poster on this very website named greatest I AM who would point links to ted talks about the FIVE RULES OF MORALITY or why it was the acme of morality to deny women equal rights. The reasoning was convoluted, poor, and junk argumentation that was lengthy and draining to disprove.
When you point out to a new video, I hope you well understand that most people (rightfully) toss links into the trash bin alongside the random illuminati, 9/11 conspiracy videos. The noise to signal ratio is just too high to even consider random links that people post up.
When someone points me to a random video, frankly I just ignore it unless I have a reason to believe the person talking is credible. The bar is very high. I don't listen to the congressional record. I don't read every new and upcoming supreme court opinion. I don't follow the federal reserve's QE and open market operations. And these are things which you don't even have to convince me are important!
The bar is basically so high that unless I will somehow be incomplete in my knowledge of the area, I will probably ignore any hyperlink.
I mean, ultimately if i had five hours to spare and I could either spend the next five hours reading Aquinas or listen to some random guy on the Internet, I'd probably pick Aquinas as being more edifying and beneficial.
I don't mean to be unfair, but you're probably contending with a similar cost-benefit analysis from other people.
============================================================================
btw, just to give you an idea how tall your order is, I tried to assert on this very forum why reading the bible at a minimum is necessary to be informed on religion.
To me, it's unthinkable that someone could be well informed on religion, and not actually read the book that influenced western civilization for the past 2 millenia.
But I couldn't even get agreement on that, and was pretty much shot down by group opinion.
So better luck with your guy.
OK, from God's lips folks! Putting stuff in you can't make you unclean, leave the gay folk alone now! The big man himself has determined it.
What exactly is the point in question? I would concede* that God exists and that gay marriage is against his wishes. I would not concede that gay marriage is wrong.
*Setting aside Cartesian perception problems and some other stuff.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why stop there?
Why start there?
But if God is omnipotent, isn't he capable of making gay marriage intrinsically wrong?