Metal Till I Die
linaloki
I don't listen to metal, and therefore don't recognize it readily. I'm a Classic Rock junkie.
Are you
gay or something?
What, for listening to the stuff that made your precious metal even possible? Lemme tell you, without Deep Purple, Foghat, Pink Floyd, and other bands, you wouldn't even have metal, because nearly all modern music can be directly traced back in style and influence to the 60s and 70s, which can be traced back to the 20s and 30s.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
You're attacking the interpretation of the counter-evidence while supplying none of your own to support your own theory.
The beautiful thing is this, though: I don't have to supply evidence if am questioning the counter-"evidence," and the counter-"evidence" has remained unproven. Perhaps this makes it more clear:
It is obvious and unquestioned by the both of us that the Levitical law (issued by God) forbids butt sex. Neither you nor I question that.
Actually, I do. It's a little too specific to just be a ban on male-on-male a**l sex.
Metal Till I Die
However, you are claiming that this law is no longer in effect. Thus, the burden of proof is not on the one claiming that it is in effect or that it ever was in effect (the latter is given by both of us), but rather on the one who says that it is not.
You (and other liberal "Christians" ) say that x abolishes the law. I am wanting you to prove that x actually abolishes the law.
Nice, there, with the quotation marks around "Christians". Got any more ad hominems or personal attacks you want to throw in while you're at it? Of course, I could just say, "You're gay for the Pope, rofllolstfu" and ignore you, but personally I'm trying to actually have logical discourse here.
And before I can prove that the crucifixion of Christ abolished ANY laws, I have to ask: What do YOU believe is the reason that certain laws were abolished, hm?
Metal Till I Die
The way I see it, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that your counter-evidence isn't compelling. It's your freaking counter-evidence.
I'm not countering anything, tho. I'm applying the theory that the New Covenant of Christ abolished certain laws to laws you don't think it should cover. However, the only criteria I see for the laws you DO think it should cover is Christ's teachings, which didn't cover homosexual male a**l sex. What YOU need to do is prove that there is other criteria involved.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
I could attack the NT verses and say, "Obviously, since the gospel writers had no p***s and where all illiterate drunkards, these are writings of madmen, and anything they claim Jesus said or did cannot be taken as true!" This would require some evidence, tho.
But the fact of the matter is that, if there were an argument between two people, and one of them did not accept the NT verses, then it is hardly the case that the burden of proof lies on the one who does not accept them. It lies on the one who does accept them to prove that the NT verses hold true.
For this reason, I tend to avoid certain sorts of arguments with the infidels. If you'll notice the vast majority of my recent arguments with the heathens, my arguments have not been for positive assertions, but rather for compatibility/incompatibility.
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?
Metal Till I Die
Furthermore (and I just realized this), the idea that the law must be explicitly spelled out in the Bible is utterly absurd. Did Sodom and Gemmorah have the Torah to tell them right for wrong? They did not, but they were nonetheless consumed by God's wrath, and likewise for all the world prior to Noah.
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.
Metal Till I Die
If every law must be explicitly spelled out in the Bible to be in effect, then God is most unrighteous in flooding the world, and also in consuming Gemmorah and Sodom in His great wrath (I shall, as I said before, demonstrate this readily later on, after this particular point of discussion has been resolved).
That's a terrible comparison. The God of the OT is not the God of the NT, as you said yourself earlier. They are both God, but the covenants He had with the people, and the people which where under the law, were not the same as the covenants and the people of now.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
I can think of one where He cannot, too. The scenario where He doesn't exist, and the Bible is all a lie.
That scenario is strictly excluded since the argument, strictly speaking, is a Christian one. Yet, Christian Platonism has always been common (especially with St. Augustine), and cannot be readily ignored.
Then what of Christian polytheism? Or the belief that God rules the world through karma and not morality? Both are Christian arguments, yet we ignore them.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
But you're not using that scenario. And why's that? Because we're accepting, for this argument, Biblical truth. What the Bible says is true.
Therefore. You have to make your theory a Biblical truth. Or at least give Biblical evidence supporting it.
As I said, I will do this later. That said, I've already shown why I don't have to, within the context of this particular discussion. I am not attempting to prove a point, but rather am questioning an argument which has been advanced by you and by others.
Therefore, I will ask you in a most plain and simple manner: Can you prove your assertion or not?
Already did multiple times. Not to mention that, even if it's not accepted as "proof", it's certainly acceptable as the most evidenced theory, which satisfies scientific and logical advancement.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
Strictly speaking, there's no proof that there are any laws He can't abolish. Until that proof arises, we must assume that all laws He created can be abolished.
This is an
ad ignorantiam argument.
Good to know. We are an ignorant people. We cannot KNOW that there is not a giant purple space squirrel floating somewhere out there, and we therefore discard it. Your theory is, currently, a giant purple space squirrel.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
Can you prove they aren't? I proved it later via definition. If we accept that God is omnipotent, then He has power over all things.
If God is omnipotent, then He has power over all things, insofar as it does not pose a contradiction.
Correct.
This includes, then, morality. God being able to define and control morality is not a contradiction.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
If He has power over all things and created all things, then He has power over morality.
Unless it poses a contradiction. Can you prove that it doesn't in this case?
Yes. Because I, a mortal, can claim something to be immoral, and all I can control, a.k.a. me, have now fallen subject to that law I have set. God, being omnipotent, can do the same things I can, as I am not more able than an omnipotent God, and can therefore logically claim things to be immoral and put all that He can control, a.k.a. everything non-contradictory, under subject of that law.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
Recall that what we consider moral and immoral couldn't exist if WE didn't exist, and God existed before WE existed.
As a Platonist, I disagree (I believe in the Forms). I will expound on this later, after you either prove that it isn't, or admit that you cannot.
Yeah, ******** the forms. Either you have to prove the forms exist and admit, then, that God is not omnipotent, or I'm 100% certain I can ignore that mess.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
My proof lies in the definitions of God, as generally accepted by the Church and the church.
What "Church" are you talking about?
That crazy one you like to suck up to.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
It also lies within logical flow and application of Biblical verses to this logical flow. It also lies in the fact that this theory has withstood the test of time and has yet to be disproved.
Mine's older. You understand that, right? We are talking about something as old as (if not other than) Socrates.
No, we're not. Application of the forms to Christianity, or even the Abrahamic God, is waaaaaaaay post Christ.
Not to mention that, IIRC, morality wasn't one of the forms... Justice, beauty, yes. Morality, no.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
I don't need to prove that every law is different. I need only show that there exists a case in which moral law was changed. This shows that the morality behind the law was not absolute.
This only works if you can prove that all morality is the same.
Last I checked, that's what YOU were arguing, since you're arguing for a changeless, timeless, absolute morality.
Metal Till I Die
Quote:
Proof by definition: God is the Creator. Hell, let me quote something you might find familiar.
"We believe in One God, the Father and the Almighty,
maker of Heaven and Earth and all that is Seen and Unseen".
You haven't demonstrated (nor is it agreed) that God creates those things which were
ex aeteritate. He didn't create Himself, for example.
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 think that needs more fleshing out, because I've got more in my head, but I'm tired and have about 6+ hours of sociology work to do... I'll try to flesh out anything needed later.
As of current, my argument to use the teachings of Christ as a standard to define the acceptability of the Old Laws into the New Covenant is far more compelling that your suggestion to make an intangible, unprovable, unknowable form the definer. If you're right, then there's absolutely no certainty that there isn't a moral law we know nothing about we're actually breaking daily, and there is therefore no certainty of salvation.
