If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Aetherius Lamia]

braidedsilver

Also, as a point of reference. Marriage is the English word for a union of two families through the coupling of their offspring. This union, in what ever language you refer to it, has virtually nothing to do with religion.

Um ... says who?

braidedsilver

Marriage is *NOT* a religious term.

Uh ... yeah it is?

braidedsilver

Don't make me start a semantics war.

I'm kind of already on one.

Quote:

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME marien < OF marier < L marītāre to wed, deriv. of marītus conjugal, akin to mās male (person)]

I tend to associate that era -- and the corresponding Latin -- with the Roman Catholic Church, although I certainly am not educated enough to trace the etymology of the word. So yes, in that sense it's my own personal bias. However, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the word came from elsewhere, some secular Roman court, or what have you.

So ... unless someone is willing to research the history, it seems we're both free to say what we want ... I claim it's religious, you claim it's not ...

[Aetherius Lamia]

Temba

so homosexuals aren't people god created what are they then? alians?

No, they would be heterosexuals with a homosexual problem. rolleyes Just like God didn't create alcoholics, but rather, people prone to alcohol addiction.

By the way, there are many who say that scientists have actually done more to disprove homosexuality as a valid sexuality than they have to support it ... "There is no gay gene," blah blah. Does anyone have any comments for it? As far as I'm aware, they have found that there seems to be a complicated interplay between nature and nurture. One study found an increase in probability of homosexuality in siblings if one turned out gay, but I dunno the specifics or the validity of it. As far as I know, scientists haven't yet found anything conclusive, leaving the entire thing up for debate: "My feelings are valid!" "I think you're just confused."

[Aetherius Lamia]

I can't believe this page went by and no one said anything about it ...

[linaloki]

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

Can you prove that statement?



If morality is existent outside of God's power, then here's the problem we have.

We know, for a fact, that God has free will.

We know, for a fact, that God has dictated morality to us.

We know that morality defines what is good.

If we accept that God is good, and that He has free will, then, if morality exists outside of God, God is only good because He CHOOSES to be good. If God were intrinsically good, then He would be intrinsically moral, and thusly subject to the SAME MORAL LAW He dictated to us, because it is all outside of His power to change. If God is subject to this same moral law, then it becomes moral to kill for various reasons. This is a contradiction, as we know it is not moral to destroy, say, an entire world because we see the world as evil. Reductio ad absurdum, and therefore, morality is not existent outside of God's power.

I'm curious, but how is this bolded part supported exactly? I don't see the connection. Why does it suddenly become moral to kill for various reasons?

If God is good, then all He does is moral. If He is subject to the same morality as we are, and He has killed (See, S&G, The Flood, The 10th Plague, et cetera), then His killings are moral, and therefore, we can kill in those same ways and still be acting morally.

But, for instance, the owner of a car has the right to drive it. Because he drives it does not mean anyone else is allowed to drive it without his permission. God is in a different position than us.

That is, perhaps, the worst analogy I've ever seen.

God is indeed in a different position than us. However, if morality exists outside of God, or omnipotence, it is thusly unchangeable. God created us after God was God. Since the morality cannot be changed, and it applies to us, and it applies to God, then it must apply to both of us in the same way since there was no way morality could dictate itself to specify humans before humans came to be. Therefore, if all God does is moral by the standard of the unchangeable moral form, and the morality cannot be specific about being-to-being application, then whatever God does, morally, we are allowed to do it to.

Imagine a world where there's this island. Bob lands on this island. He finds this code of conduct in a cave, along with lots of metal and electronics. He gets locked in the cave. The code of conduct states that, if everything he does at the end of the day does not break anything within the code, he will be supplied with food and can therefore live. Bob therefore chooses to follow the code. He gets bored one day and decides to create a bunch of robots with free-will. He tells them that they need to follow this code that he follows. Everything he does is acceptable by the code. The robots can follow it or not, but Bob will punish any code breakers. One day, Robot G breaks law 47 of the code. Bob stomps on Robot G and, consequentially, Robot G is destroyed. Bob still gets his food that day because stomping on Robot G, or any robot, does not break the code. Therefore, since the robots are subject to the same code as Bob, and Bob can, within the code, stomp on robots, the ROBOTS can stomp on robots.

Comprende?

You assume it does not say already state rights relative to position, or that the rights relative to position could not be obvious consequences of what already was stated.

I assume that because positions DID NOT EXIST.

Unless you are suggesting that a form, a CONCEPT, can have knowledge, then it COULD NOT KNOW of position. If you ARE suggesting that it does in fact have knowledge, then it becomes not a form, not an idea, but a BEING, at which point you are suggesting that there is a HIGHER BEING THAN GOD.

Example: It's 1998. Bill, Jill, and Trey all live together. They want to get every major video game. They decide that Bill gets to buy and own all the Sony games, Jill gets to buy and own all the Nintendo games, and Trey gets to buy and own all the Sega games.

As most of us know, Sega kinda sorta died and became Nintendo's property after the Dreamcast. So, what happens 3 years later when Sega is officially dead, and suddenly this new Xbox thing comes out? They have to CHANGE THE RULES. But if the rules are unchangeable...

[linaloki]

Metal Till I Die

linaloki

The Great and Mighty Barry, Destroyer of Worlds

As it is, we both accept the NT. However, you cannot supply a verse that outright says "And Christ abolished every law." Why? Because He didn't.

Correct. However, you cannot come up with a verse that outright says, "And Christ was unable to abolish certain laws." So, we are at an impasse. Except that I've given a Biblical criteria defining my view. Where's yours?

I am going largely to ignore the vast majority of this post. Why? It's largely the same junk that we have been going back and forth about for the last 3 pages. Above, with the first word, I believe, you have said all that is necessary. You have outright admitted that you cannot directly prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) what I have asked you to prove.

Further, you have struck at your own arguments when you say this:

Quote:

I need to find that verse again, but there was a verse I read once in the time of "ago" that stated that before the Law, God had laid the Law into every man and woman's heart. You'll forgive my lack of proof for that, I'll try to find it later.

And I don't disagree. Yet, by your own sayings, you yourself have struck at the heart of your own arguments. I have largely asked for you to prove two things:

A. That Christ was able to abolish every law (you've admitted that He did not abolish every law)

B. Your method, namely going only by what is explicitly written (which you have outright contradicted with your most recent post)

You have proven neither, but rather have cast both into very serious doubt. Your "proofs" consist very largely of ad ignorantiam arguments (which are fallacious) and of a very mistaken understanding of linguistic meaning (the meaning of 'omnipotence', for example).

Therefore, for the sake of the argument, I really have no choice (for the sake of my own sanity) to assume that therein lies a tacit concession (don't bother affirming or denying it), and that the answer is ultimately "no, I cannot prove those points which I have been asked to prove."

That being said, I intend in my next post (which I shall make in the next day or two) to advance and expound my own position at length, and demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there exist some moral laws which cannot be abolished. I shall assume the following:

A. All contradictions are impossible (it is not the case that both a sentence and its negation be true at the same time).

B. God is the Necessary Being (He who cannot not be).

C. God is the Good.

(I can prove B and C if you want, but I'll only be able to demonstrate that there exists The Good, and that there exists the Necessary Being; I won't be able to demonstrate that the Christian God is either...but if He isn't, ought we really worship Him?)

Now, this is hilarious.

You have just perhaps made one of the BIGGEST leaps in logic I've seen since... well, since last time I talked to you, so it's not surprising.

Because God KNEW the Law before He had all of His Chosen People gathered together in one spot and got that Moses dude to write everything down... then He wasn't making it up? So, He couldn't have had, I dunno... Omniscience? A plan? Or perhaps you believe God would've gone door-to-door with the law and told everyone to write it down.

As for my "directly stating" I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, well of course I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is probably not a single Biblical fact that, even when arguing on terms of the Bible being true, ANYONE can prove beyond a "shadow of a doubt", because there'll always be someone out there that wants to ignore proof and definitions and bring up extra-biblical bs, like quoting Saints or apocryphal books.

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise. And that's something I've already done that you've ignored.

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

THEREFORE, God can create a moral law.

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Christ could not abolish every law. With the New Covenant, we are to spread the Word. If God keeps some of the Word from us, we cannot spread the Word. Therefore, the New Covenant must not exclude parts of the Word. This includes what is and is not a sin. Therefore, God does not work with surprise sins. Therefore, every sinful thing was covered by the Word.

We were told to spread the Word at Christ's Ascension. Therefore, there was no Pauline or other Epistle word to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching is the Word we are to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching covered every sinful thing. Therefore, we can logically and Biblically set up a standard wherein anything that was deemed sinful by Christ is sinful, and anything that was not talked of or deemed sinful is NOT.

The only "ad ignoratim" arguments I'm making is that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest anything other than what I've just said. That your argument does not exist in the Bible and can therefore be ignored. Unless you want me to believe Christ taught about space squirrels, there is nothing logically wrong with arguing that what we do not have proof of can be ignored. The logical fallacy appears when I start arguing that we SHOULD believe in it because there's no proof.

Go ahead and try to prove your little pet theory. My guess is that it'll never once quotes Christ, maybe will have 2 quotes from Paul, and will pull everything else from a random Saint or other RCC sanctified philosopher.

[Metal Till I Die]

linaloki

ow, this is hilarious.

You have just perhaps made one of the BIGGEST leaps in logic I've seen since... well, since last time I talked to you, so it's not surprising.

Because God KNEW the Law before He had all of His Chosen People gathered together in one spot and got that Moses dude to write everything down... then He wasn't making it up? So, He couldn't have had, I dunno... Omniscience? A plan? Or perhaps you believe God would've gone door-to-door with the law and told everyone to write it down.

Ok, then either by "the law" you mean the mosaic law, or simply a set of moral laws. If the former, then you contradict the common notion that the Mosaic Law was for the Jews only, and if the latter, then you call into question whether or not some moral laws really are changeable.

Quote:

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise.

This is an ad ignorantiam argument.

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

You haven't proven the second to last sentence. You have not proven that every law which God might "make" would not result in a contradiction.

Quote:

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Christ could not abolish every law. With the New Covenant, we are to spread the Word. If God keeps some of the Word from us, we cannot spread the Word. Therefore, the New Covenant must not exclude parts of the Word. This includes what is and is not a sin. Therefore, God does not work with surprise sins. Therefore, every sinful thing was covered by the Word.

We were told to spread the Word at Christ's Ascension. Therefore, there was no Pauline or other Epistle word to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching is the Word we are to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching covered every sinful thing. Therefore, we can logically and Biblically set up a standard wherein anything that was deemed sinful by Christ is sinful, and anything that was not talked of or deemed sinful is NOT.

The only "ad ignoratim" arguments I'm making is that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest anything other than what I've just said. That your argument does not exist in the Bible and can therefore be ignored. Unless you want me to believe Christ taught about space squirrels, there is nothing logically wrong with arguing that what we do not have proof of can be ignored. The logical fallacy appears when I start arguing that we SHOULD believe in it because there's no proof.

Aside from all of this being ad ignorantiam (and aside from completely dodging the original question, namely whether or not Christ is able to abolish every law), you are presupposing a strictly sola scriptura worldview (which is self-defeating). Can you prove that God does not reveal the moral law in other ways (such as by the Magisterium of the Church, by Tradition, and by the human reason)?

Quote:

Go ahead and try to prove your little pet theory. My guess is that it'll never once quotes Christ, maybe will have 2 quotes from Paul, and will pull everything else from a random Saint or other RCC sanctified philosopher.

Quoting Galileo: "I can not be expected to suppose that the Most High God has endowed us with reason only to expect us to forgoe its use."

My post shall be coming up within a day or two (I intend to leave nothing unproven, nothing ambiguous, nothing undemonstrated, and nothing unexplained).

[Dark Lord Drake]

linaloki

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

If God is good, then all He does is moral. If He is subject to the same morality as we are, and He has killed (See, S&G, The Flood, The 10th Plague, et cetera), then His killings are moral, and therefore, we can kill in those same ways and still be acting morally.

But, for instance, the owner of a car has the right to drive it. Because he drives it does not mean anyone else is allowed to drive it without his permission. God is in a different position than us.

That is, perhaps, the worst analogy I've ever seen.

God is indeed in a different position than us. However, if morality exists outside of God, or omnipotence, it is thusly unchangeable. God created us after God was God. Since the morality cannot be changed, and it applies to us, and it applies to God, then it must apply to both of us in the same way since there was no way morality could dictate itself to specify humans before humans came to be. Therefore, if all God does is moral by the standard of the unchangeable moral form, and the morality cannot be specific about being-to-being application, then whatever God does, morally, we are allowed to do it to.

Imagine a world where there's this island. Bob lands on this island. He finds this code of conduct in a cave, along with lots of metal and electronics. He gets locked in the cave. The code of conduct states that, if everything he does at the end of the day does not break anything within the code, he will be supplied with food and can therefore live. Bob therefore chooses to follow the code. He gets bored one day and decides to create a bunch of robots with free-will. He tells them that they need to follow this code that he follows. Everything he does is acceptable by the code. The robots can follow it or not, but Bob will punish any code breakers. One day, Robot G breaks law 47 of the code. Bob stomps on Robot G and, consequentially, Robot G is destroyed. Bob still gets his food that day because stomping on Robot G, or any robot, does not break the code. Therefore, since the robots are subject to the same code as Bob, and Bob can, within the code, stomp on robots, the ROBOTS can stomp on robots.

Comprende?

You assume it does not say already state rights relative to position, or that the rights relative to position could not be obvious consequences of what already was stated.

I assume that because positions DID NOT EXIST.

Unless you are suggesting that a form, a CONCEPT, can have knowledge, then it COULD NOT KNOW of position. If you ARE suggesting that it does in fact have knowledge, then it becomes not a form, not an idea, but a BEING, at which point you are suggesting that there is a HIGHER BEING THAN GOD.

Example: It's 1998. Bill, Jill, and Trey all live together. They want to get every major video game. They decide that Bill gets to buy and own all the Sony games, Jill gets to buy and own all the Nintendo games, and Trey gets to buy and own all the Sega games.

As most of us know, Sega kinda sorta died and became Nintendo's property after the Dreamcast. So, what happens 3 years later when Sega is officially dead, and suddenly this new Xbox thing comes out? They have to CHANGE THE RULES. But if the rules are unchangeable...

And you can't a write out a list containing possible eventualities for things that do not yet exist?

And besides that you utterly fail to adress the part where I say that the rights relative to position could possibly be obvious consequences of what already was stated.

[Dark Lord Drake]

linaloki

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise. And that's something I've already done that you've ignored.

And you have failed to prove that his position has no place or that it has something to suggest otherwise. Proving yours has a place does not make it more valid because the other argument came second.

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

THEREFORE, God can create a moral law.

You did not prove that it cannot be contradictory.

Quote:

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Christ could not abolish every law. With the New Covenant, we are to spread the Word. If God keeps some of the Word from us, we cannot spread the Word. Therefore, the New Covenant must not exclude parts of the Word. This includes what is and is not a sin. Therefore, God does not work with surprise sins. Therefore, every sinful thing was covered by the Word.

That argument does not work unless the Old Testament is proven to be totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise. As that is what we are arguing over, it cannot be included. Because, if the OT was not totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise, it is still there and is not being kept from us and therefore is not being excluded from the Word.

Quote:

We were told to spread the Word at Christ's Ascension. Therefore, there was no Pauline or other Epistle word to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching is the Word we are to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching covered every sinful thing. Therefore, we can logically and Biblically set up a standard wherein anything that was deemed sinful by Christ is sinful, and anything that was not talked of or deemed sinful is NOT.

Logically, as the New Testament was written after Christ's Ascension, that does not mean what was said then is saying the New Testament contains everything. It says what was already given out was enough. It does not say the NT has everything in it. Parts of what what not explicity stated could be given by the later books. The NT doesn't cover ever last second of Jesus's life, parts that are not stated outright could be expected to come from the apostles.

Quote:

The only "ad ignoratim" arguments I'm making is that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest anything other than what I've just said. That your argument does not exist in the Bible and can therefore be ignored. Unless you want me to believe Christ taught about space squirrels, there is nothing logically wrong with arguing that what we do not have proof of can be ignored. The logical fallacy appears when I start arguing that we SHOULD believe in it because there's no proof.

There is nothing to suggest what you said. Abolishing some laws does not logically lead to being able to abolish all laws. Your argument does not exist in the Bible and can be ignored.

[linaloki]

Dark Lord Drake

And you can't a write out a list containing possible eventualities for things that do not yet exist?

And besides that you utterly fail to adress the part where I say that the rights relative to position could possibly be obvious consequences of what already was stated.

Um... no. Especially if you're not a person. A form cannot have knowledge, only a being can. Unless you're suggesting that there is a higher BEING than God, something I wouldn't suggest you suggest and still call yourself a Christian, there couldn't have been differences in morality based on eventuality if it was a form.

You fail to make that sentence make any sense whatsoever. Use less appositives.

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise. And that's something I've already done that you've ignored.

And you have failed to prove that his position has no place or that it has something to suggest otherwise. Proving yours has a place does not make it more valid because the other argument came second.

His position is a purple space squirrel. Until there is some semblance of proof of it, it should be ignored. He claims that makes my argument "ad ignoratim", when, in actuality, arguing FOR something because of a lack of proof is the true "ad ignoratim" fallacy. Mine is more valid than his because mine actually has evidence, as well as Biblical foundation.

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

THEREFORE, God can create a moral law.

You did not prove that it cannot be contradictory.

Show me how it CAN be.

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Christ could not abolish every law. With the New Covenant, we are to spread the Word. If God keeps some of the Word from us, we cannot spread the Word. Therefore, the New Covenant must not exclude parts of the Word. This includes what is and is not a sin. Therefore, God does not work with surprise sins. Therefore, every sinful thing was covered by the Word.

That argument does not work unless the Old Testament is proven to be totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise. As that is what we are arguing over, it cannot be included. Because, if the OT was not totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise, it is still there and is not being kept from us and therefore is not being excluded from the Word.

Did Christ say, "Go and make Jews" or "Go and make disciples"? To make disciples, we use the teachings of Christ, not the Old Testament.

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

We were told to spread the Word at Christ's Ascension. Therefore, there was no Pauline or other Epistle word to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching is the Word we are to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching covered every sinful thing. Therefore, we can logically and Biblically set up a standard wherein anything that was deemed sinful by Christ is sinful, and anything that was not talked of or deemed sinful is NOT.

Logically, as the New Testament was written after Christ's Ascension, that does not mean what was said then is saying the New Testament contains everything. It says what was already given out was enough. It does not say the NT has everything in it. Parts of what what not explicity stated could be given by the later books. The NT doesn't cover ever last second of Jesus's life, parts that are not stated outright could be expected to come from the apostles.

I never said it meant the NT covered everything. I said it meant Christ's teachings covered everything. Read often? And did Christ say, "Go and make disciples, but wait until I bitchslap Paul and get him to write the crap I didn't cover?" Or was it something else?

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

The only "ad ignoratim" arguments I'm making is that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest anything other than what I've just said. That your argument does not exist in the Bible and can therefore be ignored. Unless you want me to believe Christ taught about space squirrels, there is nothing logically wrong with arguing that what we do not have proof of can be ignored. The logical fallacy appears when I start arguing that we SHOULD believe in it because there's no proof.

There is nothing to suggest what you said. Abolishing some laws does not logically lead to being able to abolish all laws. Your argument does not exist in the Bible and can be ignored.

There's nothing to suggest that Christ gave some OT laws the okay and others the thumbs down? My argument, which is all about using the teachings of Christ, isn't found in the Bible?

Hahahaha! That's funny! You're not serious, right? Oh, wait... I forgot... You've never actually READ the Bible. I'm sorry, you poor thing. You should try doing that before arguing about it.

[linaloki]

Metal Till I Die

linaloki

ow, this is hilarious.

You have just perhaps made one of the BIGGEST leaps in logic I've seen since... well, since last time I talked to you, so it's not surprising.

Because God KNEW the Law before He had all of His Chosen People gathered together in one spot and got that Moses dude to write everything down... then He wasn't making it up? So, He couldn't have had, I dunno... Omniscience? A plan? Or perhaps you believe God would've gone door-to-door with the law and told everyone to write it down.

Ok, then either by "the law" you mean the mosaic law, or simply a set of moral laws. If the former, then you contradict the common notion that the Mosaic Law was for the Jews only, and if the latter, then you call into question whether or not some moral laws really are changeable.

Where there Gentiles in the time of Adam?

Metal Till I Die

Quote:

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise.

This is an ad ignorantiam argument.

Did a Latin textbook rape you as a child? Or perhaps a logic book?

Ad ignorantiam is arguing FOR something BECAUSE there is no evidence. Saying that we can ignore ideas that lack evidence is not ad ignorantiam.

Metal Till I Die

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

You haven't proven the second to last sentence.

No one can do anything non-contradictory, yes? Law of contradictions, P & ~P cannot be. If I can do it, and no contradiction is caused, then God can also do it.

Metal Till I Die

You have not proven that every law which God might "make" would not result in a contradiction.

God is Good, right? No law God creates is immoral, and no law can be created as a contradiction.

Metal Till I Die

Aside from all of this being ad ignorantiam

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaped.

Metal Till I Die

(and aside from completely dodging the original question, namely whether or not Christ is able to abolish every law), you are presupposing a strictly sola scriptura worldview (which is self-defeating). Can you prove that God does not reveal the moral law in other ways (such as by the Magisterium of the Church, by Tradition, and by the human reason)?

Aaaaaand here we are.

Go ahead and prove to me the following:

A) Sola scriptura views are wrong.

B) Sola scriptura views are self-defeating.

C) The non-scripture references you quote come from God, and please. Do that BIBLICALLY. After all. The ONLY assumption we're working off of here is that the BIBLE is fact. Not the Church.

Metal Till I Die

(I intend to leave nothing unproven, nothing ambiguous, nothing undemonstrated, and nothing unexplained).

Hm... Might wanna wait post humously to write that, then. Since I can 100% guarantee you will fail at proving your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Metal Till I Die

I intend to leave nothing unproven, nothing ambiguous, nothing undemonstrated, and nothing unexplained.

Well, then, you have a ******** worth of explaining to do.

I suggest starting with your sexuality and working your way up from there.

[Dark Lord Drake]

linaloki

Dark Lord Drake

And you can't a write out a list containing possible eventualities for things that do not yet exist?

And besides that you utterly fail to adress the part where I say that the rights relative to position could possibly be obvious consequences of what already was stated.

Um... no. Especially if you're not a person. A form cannot have knowledge, only a being can. Unless you're suggesting that there is a higher BEING than God, something I wouldn't suggest you suggest and still call yourself a Christian, there couldn't have been differences in morality based on eventuality if it was a form.

You fail to make that sentence make any sense whatsoever. Use less appositives.

Gravity doesn't need to know what it does, it just is. It doesn't need objects for the law to exist. If there were no material objects it could still exist, it would just have no effect. And then once objects were introduced it would take effect. Before the objects it could still exist. Oh yeah and you can stop with suggesting I say it's intelligent. No strawmen please.

Oh so you ignored it and didn't just bother to tell me it was because it didn't make sense to you? Great way to do things. Anyways, I was saying the first moral rules could suggest obvious moral rules for what is moral for a being in a lesser position.

Quote:

Dark Lord Drake

linaloki

What I CAN prove, however, is that there IS a place for my standard to work Biblically and logically, and that there is NO reason Biblically to believe anything beyond that standard because there is NOTHING Biblically to suggest it otherwise. And that's something I've already done that you've ignored.

And you have failed to prove that his position has no place or that it has something to suggest otherwise. Proving yours has a place does not make it more valid because the other argument came second.

His position is a purple space squirrel. Until there is some semblance of proof of it, it should be ignored. He claims that makes my argument "ad ignoratim", when, in actuality, arguing FOR something because of a lack of proof is the true "ad ignoratim" fallacy. Mine is more valid than his because mine actually has evidence, as well as Biblical foundation.

He isn't arguing for it due to a lack of proof. He stated outright he was currently saying yours has no evidence and that he would later put evidence for his. So no strawmen thanks.

Quote:

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

THEREFORE, God can create a moral law.

You did not prove that it cannot be contradictory.

Show me how it CAN be.

Your claim is that it cannot be contradictory. You provide the proof that it isn't. You made the claim, not me.

Quote:

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Christ could not abolish every law. With the New Covenant, we are to spread the Word. If God keeps some of the Word from us, we cannot spread the Word. Therefore, the New Covenant must not exclude parts of the Word. This includes what is and is not a sin. Therefore, God does not work with surprise sins. Therefore, every sinful thing was covered by the Word.

That argument does not work unless the Old Testament is proven to be totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise. As that is what we are arguing over, it cannot be included. Because, if the OT was not totally thrown out except for explicit statements otherwise, it is still there and is not being kept from us and therefore is not being excluded from the Word.

Did Christ say, "Go and make Jews" or "Go and make disciples"? To make disciples, we use the teachings of Christ, not the Old Testament.

And if even part of it's thrown out they aren't making Jews, so don't be stupid and say that is what it must be if any part of the old laws stay. And if all the old law isn't thrown out you can't simply say it's not part of being a disciple.

Quote:

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

We were told to spread the Word at Christ's Ascension. Therefore, there was no Pauline or other Epistle word to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching is the Word we are to spread. Therefore, Christ's teaching covered every sinful thing. Therefore, we can logically and Biblically set up a standard wherein anything that was deemed sinful by Christ is sinful, and anything that was not talked of or deemed sinful is NOT.

Logically, as the New Testament was written after Christ's Ascension, that does not mean what was said then is saying the New Testament contains everything. It says what was already given out was enough. It does not say the NT has everything in it. Parts of what what not explicity stated could be given by the later books. The NT doesn't cover ever last second of Jesus's life, parts that are not stated outright could be expected to come from the apostles.

I never said it meant the NT covered everything. I said it meant Christ's teachings covered everything. Read often? And did Christ say, "Go and make disciples, but wait until I bitchslap Paul and get him to write the crap I didn't cover?" Or was it something else?

Are you like being dense? You are obviously claiming Christ's teachings are fully included in everything attributed to Christ in the NT. You claim Christ's teachings cover everything. Therefore you say the NT covers everything. You don't allow for the possibility that part of the teachings not outright written are being covered by the disciples.

Quote:

Dark Lord Drake

Quote:

The only "ad ignoratim" arguments I'm making is that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest anything other than what I've just said. That your argument does not exist in the Bible and can therefore be ignored. Unless you want me to believe Christ taught about space squirrels, there is nothing logically wrong with arguing that what we do not have proof of can be ignored. The logical fallacy appears when I start arguing that we SHOULD believe in it because there's no proof.

There is nothing to suggest what you said. Abolishing some laws does not logically lead to being able to abolish all laws. Your argument does not exist in the Bible and can be ignored.

There's nothing to suggest that Christ gave some OT laws the okay and others the thumbs down? My argument, which is all about using the teachings of Christ, isn't found in the Bible?

Your argument assumes things that aren't there. So no it's not covered. Is it that hard to fathom that assuming certain things for your argument to work means it is not fully covered? You assume that morality is not an absolute, it is only directed by what God says. Until you prove that otherwise, your argument is on an assumption that is not in the Bible. That get through your skull?

Quote:

Hahahaha! That's funny! You're not serious, right? Oh, wait... I forgot... You've never actually READ the Bible. I'm sorry, you poor thing. You should try doing that before arguing about it.

Congratulations on how pathetic you look.

[Dark Lord Drake]

linaloki

Metal Till I Die

Quote:

You pretend that my definition of omnipotence is faulty, but you conveniently ignore the fact that we AGREED ON THE DEFINITION.

God can do everything non-contradictory.

Being able to create a moral law is NOT contradictory. I can do it, therefore God can do it.

You haven't proven the second to last sentence.

No one can do anything non-contradictory, yes? Law of contradictions, P & ~P cannot be. If I can do it, and no contradiction is caused, then God can also do it.

You haven't proven you can make a valid moral law. You are assuming they have no backing besides what someone says. To be able to do so you must first prove that moral law is solely dictated by God. Which you haven't done.

[Aetherius Lamia]

*feels ignored* sweatdrop Not that I've been saying anything that important anyway ...
Note: Idiotic Gaia admins removed the ability to disable emoticons.

This morning I again read Mark 10.1-9, where Jesus addresses the issue of divorce:

Quote:

He set out from there and went into the district of Judea (and) across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them.
The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."
But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

Footnote:

Quote:

[2-9] In the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, Jesus declares that the law of Moses permitted divorce (Deut 24:1) only because of the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:4-5). In citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus proclaims permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning human marriage (Mark 10:6- cool . He reaffirms this with the declaration that what God has joined together, no human being must separate (Mark 10:9). See further the notes on Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9.

(Hyperlinks to those verses are provided in the footnote at the provided website.)

I had to read the following several times:

Quote:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

I used to argue, "Of course, when asked about heterosexual divorce, he would discuss heterosexual marriage," and argue that this passage didn't necessarily exclude homosexuals from marriage, but rather that Jesus didn't mention homosexuals simply because he wasn't asked about them. (If discussing the best way to harvest a field of tomatos, you wouldn't necessarily discuss a field of potatos.) I had to read this part several times:

Quote:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Jesus quotes the Jews' creation story, and his point is quite clear: God intentionally made us male and female, and the union of man and woman as one flesh is a direct consequence of being made male and female ... and this is marriage, a direct result of God's plan and actions. Jesus makes no distinction between marriage and heterosexual marriage because there is none to be made. I am not arguing from silence that there is no homosexual marriage because Jesus didn't mention homosexuals. I am saying, very simply, that men have always unioned with women; we have always had this institution of marriage, and the idea that homosexuals are being denied it is new.

After reading that chapter, it seemed quite clear what the order of things was meant to be. Men were meant to union with women and bring children into the world; this is called marriage, and a family. (This morning I again briefly mourned that God didn't bless me with a womb as a woman, but then realized that more than half the humans on this planet had them, that men are needed, and that I was only considering half of the deal.)

I then thought, "Well, what's to stop me from unioning myself with a man?" The answer appears to be, nothing. Only this union is not marriage; it is instead a legal or civil union. Furthermore, I cannot become one flesh with him, because we lack the sexual complementary... I must think more about what this truly means; I do not claim to completely understand it yet. There seems to be some kind of spiritual and physical connection between men and women. God has made the physical complements more obvious, and we ourselves discover the emotional complements ... At this point I must refrain from further speculation; at this point I should read John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and investigate what he has to say about sexuality and marriage. Surely he has more insight than I.

My next question was, "And what's to stop me from raising children with this guy?" This question was the hardest of all to answer, and I currently don't think I'm capable of answering it satisfactorily ... For one, I am not sure that God intended for us to be homosexuals; the argument that I was not meant to take it up the butt or in the mouth has an air of validity to it. (For one, neither cavity seems to be of the proper shape or design.) And is chaste love of another man truly "homosexual"? I do not think so; we were meant to love one another.

In this light the Catechism makes more sense when it says:

Quote:

[Homosexual actions] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.