- Feb 4, 2005
- Reaction score
- Saint Paul, MN
- Political Leaning
I'm saying that there is a difference between shall and should. Follow along.sebastiansdreams said:But we are not talking first person. We are talking theoretically, the words of God. You are arguing that God, in saying "You SHOULD do this" is not God conveying His will?
And since you can't prove that it does and HISTORICAL evidence proves it not to mean it EITHER. Your harping on this point is becoming tedious. Also, we've gone over the "only" stuff already. Stop being alliterate.sebastiansdreams said:Okay, assuming that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual sex, which you cannot prove, then there is a possibility that a married couple, through law, would not be sinning by having sex. But that is also throwing out the argument that marriage is meant for man and woman based solely on the premise that it does not say "thou shalt only marry your own sex."
And since you don't know what God meant obviously, how can you know what's what.sebastiansdreams said:Firstly, bigotry suggests that I think less of homosexuals than I do of myself. And that is not a correct statement, so do not presume to make such a loaded statement unless you are certain it is fact. Furthermore, it is not the place for man to seek his own pleasure, just so long as he does not leave the boundaries of what God has clearly stated, rather it is the place of man to go above and beyond to seek the actual will of God. If you are wavering on a fence between sinning against God and feeding your own desires, it is better to lean towards pleasing God.
Sure you can. You can go back to the bank. That's a repeatable thing. You could also present a deposit slip, camera recordings, teller relations, etc.sebastiansdreams said:I went to the bank yesterday.
But I know you possibly couldn't believe that because I cannot prove it through means that are "scientific, irrefutable, provable in test cases, and REprovable."
Unexplainable? I thought you were explaining it as god. OK, let's take a couple place where religion (christianity) was pushed into and see what happened. India, Mother Theresa along with $50M went in to change people for the better, is there a difference in their poverty or quality of life since her proselytizing? No. Moving on to Africa, catholicism becomes the continent's fastest growing religion, AIDS becomes pandemic, millions dying. Did poverty or quality of life enrich Africa during this movement? No. Of course, that's all syllogist logic isn't it?sebastiansdreams said:You're welcome to have your faith, just don't say it's provalble any more than the invisible pink unicorn standing behind me is.
But if your invisible pink unicorn was causing millions of people to change their lives in an unexplainable positive way in which they all claim is true... then maybe you ought to take a second thought about just saying He couldn't possibly exist.
LOGIC 101:sebastiansdreams said:Sadly you don't understand that using a syllogism is false logic. It doesn't prove anything.
Where in that do you get false logic?
The middle term in the premises of a standard form categorical syllogism never refers to all of the members of the category it describes.
All Russians were revolutionists, and all anarchists were revolutionist, therefore, all anarchists were Russians.
The middle term is 'revolutionist'. While both Russians and anarchists share the common property of being revolutionist, they may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we cannot conclude that anarchists are otherwise the same as Russians in any way. Example from Copi and Cohen, 208.
All trespassers are shot, and someone was shot, therefore, someone was a trespasser.
The middle term is 'shot'. While 'someone' and 'trespassers' may share the property of being shot, it doesn't follow that the someone in question was a trespasser; he may have been the victim of a mugging.