You mean like when the person living in Greece, and spoke Greek said you were wrong on the definition of a word, and you went out to find a bunch of biblical scholars to try and prove that you were actually right? Like that?
The Problem of Slavery in the Bible
- Thread starter fOx
- Start date
Exactly! And that's why inductive reasoning fails to determine motivations from outcomes.
Oh, and don't forget about post #118, where the person living in Greece and spoke Greek admitting to making a mistake about what his own Greek word means in English.
And you don't want to miss post #188, where I show ancient Greeks from ~300 BCE using the word in ways other than "prostitution".
I mean if there was such clarity I wouldn't be able to cherry pick sources at all because they'd all say the same thing wouldn't they? I also noted that such debates had happened through history so this isn't just a case of you and me. How many people have to be wrong, how many people have to misinterpret Bible before you are forced to accept the problem lies with the Bible for being unclear?
If you want a direct answer I would say that not only do I know what morality is, but that I know better than an all powerful being choosing to let a malevolent entity mess with us rather than, you know, not. Either god doesn't get to claim omnipotence or he doesn't get to claim morality
"I only said the word meant cheating, I never at all meant the word was supposed to mean cheating!"
I don't think you really understand what you're saying here
Yes I did. I pointed out that your own rules say god is allowing Satan to mess with us. If he's going to allow Satan to throw stuff in our path to conceal the supposed true message then not only would he allow satan to warp the Bibles message, but he already has
If you say it to someone actively suffering from police brutality, yes you are condoning it. If you are being beaten up by your thug of choice and I rock up and instead of telling the thug to back off tell you to be a good victim and just take it, I am condoning the beating you are receiving. Telling someone who is a slave to just be a good slave when you could instead tell them not to be, or tell their owners they are wrong, is condoning slavery. So, since the Bible condones slavery and modern laws don't, which is the more moral?
Ah so you're arguing with the church then? You're saying they got their information wrong. That they misinterpreted something. That they erred because to err is human. But, as I warned you, there's a problem with that. Because if the people who wrote the Bible can misinterpret the Bible you have no guarantee they didn't misinterpret it while writing it. And you instantly render the Bible a fallible work of humanity and no longer the untouchable paragon of gods will you insist it is.
"Everyone is wrong but me!"
Opinion presented as fact. Try again.
I've pointed out several my dude. As have others in this topic. Your refusal to accept them does not make them not exist
Yeah if you can choose not to listen to an argument because I haven't drawn a red circle round it, I can ignore when you just throw wikipedia articles at me. But while we're on the subject, let's talk about your accusation here and your repeated attempts at using the term inductive reasoning. Because I don't think you actually understand what either of them actually means and it's really starting to come off like you've got a "Debate term of the day" calendar or something. So, let's say someone were to draw a coin from a bag of coins and, upon seeing it was a twenty pence piece, declare the whole bag is therefore full of 20p coins, that would be inductive reason. But of the two of us, the one who's doing that...is you. You've got this book full of archaisms and are declaring "well some of this seems moral, therefore it is all moral!" Perfectly moral, no less. You're the one making an absolute statement so all I need to do is point out the logical inconsistencies and absolutism can no longer be claimed. Thats not "working backwards" as you so wildly claim, but logical extrapolation.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As for argument of ignorance...again, you're guilty of that. Your whole argument that the Bible is moral is "because it is". You're not proving anything true, you're just denying evidence to the contrary. Now, I'm quite happy to keep going at this like two assholes on the internet, but if you're going to try and claim some sort of intellectual superiority based on terms I strongly suspect you only know from having them used against you then for your own gods sake know what you're talking about
If I have seven sources and you have one (your blank translation box doesn't count) what's more reasonable to believe: That what the word really means isn't clear? Or that your one source is wrong incomplete?
You're working backwards again. You're assuming that the bible is unclear because people misinterpret it. That's backwards.
One has nothing to do with the other. You can't judge a mathematical formula by seeing how many students fail a test. Even if the entire class fails, it doesn't necessarily mean that math is wrong, or that the book is unclear or that the teacher is bad.
Okay, so what is morality?
When did I say that the word meant cheating? Quote me saying that.
I asked you a yes or no question:
"So you don't think an omnipotent, omniscient deity could protect such a book from corruption, even after all that? Yes or no: would doing such a thing be outside of this deity's power?"
You have not answered the question. Please do so.
Then why isn't "if you're overdosing call 911" condoning drug usage? What's the difference?
I don't see any difference between "If you've overdosing, call 911" and "if you're being mugged, give them what they want", and "if you're a slave, obey your master".
To claim that the church "misinterpreted" something is based on the assumption that they ever consulted the bible to see what it says on the subject of crusades in the first place.
Can you prove that? I highly doubt that. Unfortunately for you, your argument relies on this assumption being true.
That's what you get for working backwards.
You're making the claim that different branches of Christianity exist because of genuine misunderstandings or different interpretations of the bible.
The burden of proof is on you. Prove your claim.
I've been waiting this whole time for you to do such a thing, but nothing you type withstands scrutiny.
My whole argument is contained in post 76. Please refresh your memory.
Last edited:
I'm kind of amazed it needs to be explained in this day and age that scripture is up for interpretation and always has been. Christians are still fighting the same spiritual arguments they were 2000 years ago. They've been interpreting scripture all along. The first schism was over whether or not to accept gentiles into their congregations. And if they could, what of circumcision? Did allowing people who were not Jewish into the faith mean that Abraham's compact with God no longer applied? The bible didn't provide a lot of answers on that one. Then of course they started wondering about the nature of Christ. Was he a spirit or a man and what were the theological implications of either?
Obviously they sorted those out. But they were hardly done arguing with each other. After the practice of Christianity was no longer restricted in Rome, there was a big song and dance with bishops arguing over whether or not to accept back into the fold parishioners who had abandoned the faith under coercion by the state. There was a clear winner, obviously, but the schismatic faction opposed to reintegration remained in North Africa for a long ass time.
And then they started arguing over the Trinity. Which tends to happen when you assert that your god is 1 being who is 3 beings all distinct from one another who are the same being and their own separate being at the same time. And I know what you're thinking: How many sleepless nights did I have to spend studying to earn that theology degree? The answer is that I never got a degree. Anyway. The majority of Christians in the 3rd century believed that the three parts of the Trinity were co-equal and co-substantial. Then the Arian Christians came along asserting that because Christ appeared on earth in the flesh, that diminished his divinity and made him less than God the Father. It was actually that doctrinal dispute that prompted the Council of Nicaea. The Council ultimately sided with Trinitarian doctrine, but Arian doctrine still had a foothold among the Gothic and Slavic tribes.
And then there were further schisms that on one branch ended up shaking out into churches like the Armenian Apostolic and Coptic churches, and the other branch eventually morphing into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And then of course Catholicism would experience the Protestant Reformation. And free of the Vatican's authority, the Protestants started splitting off into even more denominations, each one with a different interpretation of the scriptures bringing us such things as Southern Baptists, the Quiverful movement, biblical literalism and the prosperity gospel.
And if we really want to get into confusing territory, we could spend weeks discussing the various religions that syncretized with Christianity in the New World such as Voodoo and Santeria.
Obviously they sorted those out. But they were hardly done arguing with each other. After the practice of Christianity was no longer restricted in Rome, there was a big song and dance with bishops arguing over whether or not to accept back into the fold parishioners who had abandoned the faith under coercion by the state. There was a clear winner, obviously, but the schismatic faction opposed to reintegration remained in North Africa for a long ass time.
And then they started arguing over the Trinity. Which tends to happen when you assert that your god is 1 being who is 3 beings all distinct from one another who are the same being and their own separate being at the same time. And I know what you're thinking: How many sleepless nights did I have to spend studying to earn that theology degree? The answer is that I never got a degree. Anyway. The majority of Christians in the 3rd century believed that the three parts of the Trinity were co-equal and co-substantial. Then the Arian Christians came along asserting that because Christ appeared on earth in the flesh, that diminished his divinity and made him less than God the Father. It was actually that doctrinal dispute that prompted the Council of Nicaea. The Council ultimately sided with Trinitarian doctrine, but Arian doctrine still had a foothold among the Gothic and Slavic tribes.
And then there were further schisms that on one branch ended up shaking out into churches like the Armenian Apostolic and Coptic churches, and the other branch eventually morphing into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And then of course Catholicism would experience the Protestant Reformation. And free of the Vatican's authority, the Protestants started splitting off into even more denominations, each one with a different interpretation of the scriptures bringing us such things as Southern Baptists, the Quiverful movement, biblical literalism and the prosperity gospel.
And if we really want to get into confusing territory, we could spend weeks discussing the various religions that syncretized with Christianity in the New World such as Voodoo and Santeria.
No no House, we’ve been through this. You have zero sources. Because of the seven links you’ve provided I believe it was three did not give the definition you were looking for while the others were Biblical references. Meaning you are attempting to claim that what the Bible says is accurate because, look here, the Bible says it’s accurate. Circular logic is no logic at all.
Try again.
If I arrive home and fine a window broken and my possessions missing I can be pretty sure someone has broken in. That is also working backwards. You’re continued attempts at discrediting me solely by using such a phrase only demonstrates you don’t understand the phrase.
Try again.
If someone is claiming the mathematical formula is easy I can absolutely claim it is not if everyone in the class fails it.
Also, interesting analogy where you claim it’s possibly the teacher being bad. If our mathematical formula is the Bible then our bad teacher is god. You’re admitting god has the potential to be fallible.
Seeing others in harms way and doing something about it when you have the power to would be a good start
Ah so now , apparently not content with saying Greek words don’t mean what they mean, you’re moving on to saying English words don’t mean what they mean. If multiple languages have to be warped to fit your view of the world, it’s not the languages that are wrong.
Try again.
On a purely theoretical level, it would not be beyond his power...buuuuuut as you have previously noted “can” control everything does not equate to “does” control everything. And if god is perfectly happy letting Satan mess with us you have no guarantee he isn’t messing with the Bible
Because “we will help if you’re dying” is not the same as “be a good drug user” Those are very disparate statements that you’re trying to claim as analogous, rendering your argument nonsensical.
Try again.
You are once again attempting to claim a religious call to war was not religious. This is not quite the show stopping counter claim you think it is.
Try again.
The Franciscan order, which broke apart from the main branch of Christianity at the time because of differences of opinion on whether the J-man intended a life of poverty or not. It’s super easy to find things like that, this wasn’t a particularly onerous burden.
When your counterarguments include such gems as “this word doesn’t mean what it means”, “the literal crusades were not a religious thing” and of course the classic gem “that doesn’t count because you didn’t draw a red circle around it” then it’s not the arguments that don’t hold up, it’s the scrutiny.
Try again.
Oh no my dear House, I think it’s you who needs to refresh your memory. I’ve been either fitting with or pointing out the flaws in those premises this whole time. You’re the one who seems to have forgotten things, like how you laid out god created a book but never specified that was specifically the New Testament. Meaning your argument that the New Testament is the infallible, uncorrupted word of god is...because it’s the New Testament. It’s true because it’s says it true. Circular logic that doesn’t fit within your own premises.
Try again.
Yeah it’s this vast history of mixing and matching that makes me largely distrustful of monotheism. You get far too many people like House who seem to think that “one way=only way=MY way” despite religion being a melting pot of shared ideas. At least polytheism admits it
These forums REALLY don't like links. Or perhaps it doesn't like special unicode characters.
So sorry, I had to triple-post at the beginning here:
1) Strong's concordance et al
Strong's definition is "πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication. "
And from that same page, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says: " πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general"
So we both agree that this source both A) Gives the definition and B) isn't just a "biblical reference"?
And in my generosity, I only count that as one source.
2) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3
You'll notice from the name of the book, that it is a dictionary, and if you follow the link (it gives you a snippet of a page at first, just click on it and it'll enlarge), you'll see that it says: "porneia sexual immorality"
So sorry, I had to triple-post at the beginning here:
We have? And it was concluded that I had zero sources? When? In what post? You're sure you didn't just imagine that?
Okay, let's go through them in order of appearance:
1) Strong's concordance et al
Strong's definition is "πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication. "
And from that same page, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says: " πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general"
So we both agree that this source both A) Gives the definition and B) isn't just a "biblical reference"?
And in my generosity, I only count that as one source.
2) Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3
You'll notice from the name of the book, that it is a dictionary, and if you follow the link (it gives you a snippet of a page at first, just click on it and it'll enlarge), you'll see that it says: "porneia sexual immorality"
3) Theological Dictionary of the new Testament
I barely know how to read this one since everything is clustered together in one paragraph with Greek and citations throughout, but under the heading The Non-Jewish World and under the subheading Usage, there are three usages of the (English) word "fornication", one usage of "homosexuality", and one usage that says "to live very licentiously". None of these cite the bible, so you can't claim "circular reasoning". This is just how ancient Greeks used the word, as shown by the citations.
4) Dictionary of New Testament Theology (according to this site, since I can't find a more direct link)
This one says: "[Porneia] can describe various extra-marital sexual modes of behavior insofar as they deviate from accepted social and religious norms (e.g. homosexuality, promiscuity, paedophilia, and especially prostitution). "
Not a lot to it because I can't find a preview of the original book online, like I could with the previous link, but the book and page number is cited, so you're welcome to buy the book (or find it at a library, if they're open) and verify it for yourself.
5)A Greek-English Lexicon
It straight-up says "fornication, unchastity"
6) English-Greek Dictionary
Under "Fornication", there's our porneia word.
I barely know how to read this one since everything is clustered together in one paragraph with Greek and citations throughout, but under the heading The Non-Jewish World and under the subheading Usage, there are three usages of the (English) word "fornication", one usage of "homosexuality", and one usage that says "to live very licentiously". None of these cite the bible, so you can't claim "circular reasoning". This is just how ancient Greeks used the word, as shown by the citations.
4) Dictionary of New Testament Theology (according to this site, since I can't find a more direct link)
This one says: "[Porneia] can describe various extra-marital sexual modes of behavior insofar as they deviate from accepted social and religious norms (e.g. homosexuality, promiscuity, paedophilia, and especially prostitution). "
Not a lot to it because I can't find a preview of the original book online, like I could with the previous link, but the book and page number is cited, so you're welcome to buy the book (or find it at a library, if they're open) and verify it for yourself.
5)A Greek-English Lexicon
It straight-up says "fornication, unchastity"
6) English-Greek Dictionary
Under "Fornication", there's our porneia word.
7) Wikitionary
Ancient Greek - Noun - 2. fornication
This page has 6 citations, two of which can be found in the list above.
So which three of these don't give the definition "I was looking for"? Also, explain why you think that the rest are only "biblical references"
Nowhere have I said that working backwards, inductive reasoning, can NEVER get you to the right conclusion, or that it is ALWAYS invalid.
It's just that, when working backwards, you will most likely (and you have been) end up committing a logical fallacy.
For instance, given your broken window example, is it the ONLY explanation that someone broke in?
What if someone who had your permission, like your landlord or a family member, used a key to get inside and stole your possessions, and then someone else, maybe even a big bird, broke your window afterward?
Although the "someone broke in" conclusion might be reasonable, other possibilities exist.
So all I have to do is appeal to those other possibilities, and then, if you can't rule them out, your proof fails. You yourself said that all you need to do is "point out the logical inconsistencies and absolutism can no longer be claimed." All I need to do is point out that other possibilities exist, and then your conclusion is no longer certain.
So when you say things like "The church did X, and that means they did it because the bible says to do X!", all I have to do is point out that there could have been other reasons that have nothing to do with the bible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's because the bible is unclear, since this is your claim, as opposed to any of the other million reasons that have nothing to do with the bible.
like A) The whole class is stupid, B) they failed the class as a show of protest against the teacher's stance on social issues, C) The bus that all the students were crashed that morning, making all the students miss the one test that decided their grade for the semester, resulting in a failing grade.
I can keep making up possibilities if you want.
So your possibility that Satan is messing with the bible is just a possibility?
But if you tell someone who is actively getting mugged to comply and ante up in order to survive, you ARE condoning mugging
Nah, It just seems like you're the one with the nonsensical argument. This is a clear contradiction on your part involving two similar life-threatening scenarios where one's immediate safety is given priority over some other threat or illegal action. You say that in one case, the illegal action is being condoned, but in another case, it isn't. A double standard. A contradiction.
A Religion can claim to get messages straight from God or some prophet, or some extra-biblical source, or just a decision of the Pope/Leader.
If you're claiming that the church consulted the bible in order to justify their crusades, you need to prove that claim. You obviously can't.
Ancient Greek - Noun - 2. fornication
This page has 6 citations, two of which can be found in the list above.
So which three of these don't give the definition "I was looking for"? Also, explain why you think that the rest are only "biblical references"
Yes, it is, and yes you can be.
Nowhere have I said that working backwards, inductive reasoning, can NEVER get you to the right conclusion, or that it is ALWAYS invalid.
It's just that, when working backwards, you will most likely (and you have been) end up committing a logical fallacy.
For instance, given your broken window example, is it the ONLY explanation that someone broke in?
What if someone who had your permission, like your landlord or a family member, used a key to get inside and stole your possessions, and then someone else, maybe even a big bird, broke your window afterward?
Although the "someone broke in" conclusion might be reasonable, other possibilities exist.
So all I have to do is appeal to those other possibilities, and then, if you can't rule them out, your proof fails. You yourself said that all you need to do is "point out the logical inconsistencies and absolutism can no longer be claimed." All I need to do is point out that other possibilities exist, and then your conclusion is no longer certain.
So when you say things like "The church did X, and that means they did it because the bible says to do X!", all I have to do is point out that there could have been other reasons that have nothing to do with the bible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's because the bible is unclear, since this is your claim, as opposed to any of the other million reasons that have nothing to do with the bible.
Sure, you can claim that understanding a formula isn't easy if everyone in the class fails it, but there are other possibilities. There's no telling that your claim is the only correct claim.
like A) The whole class is stupid, B) they failed the class as a show of protest against the teacher's stance on social issues, C) The bus that all the students were crashed that morning, making all the students miss the one test that decided their grade for the semester, resulting in a failing grade.
I can keep making up possibilities if you want.
Do you believe that there is one objective definition of morality that transcends time, culture, and context?
So you can't quote me saying that the word porneia means "cheating" or "adultery" or whatever you're claiming? Great, then we're agreed that I never said that. Moving on...
Thank you.
So your possibility that Satan is messing with the bible is just a possibility?
So if you tell someone who is actively suffering from drug usage to call 911 in order to survive, you AREN'T condoning drug usage
But if you tell someone who is actively getting mugged to comply and ante up in order to survive, you ARE condoning mugging
Nah, It just seems like you're the one with the nonsensical argument. This is a clear contradiction on your part involving two similar life-threatening scenarios where one's immediate safety is given priority over some other threat or illegal action. You say that in one case, the illegal action is being condoned, but in another case, it isn't. A double standard. A contradiction.
Religion =/= The Bible
A Religion can claim to get messages straight from God or some prophet, or some extra-biblical source, or just a decision of the Pope/Leader.
If you're claiming that the church consulted the bible in order to justify their crusades, you need to prove that claim. You obviously can't.
Can you link me to a source that says this? Just skimming Wikipedia, I don't see anything that says that the Franciscan Order (of which there are three, further split into eight sub-groups) ever officially separated from the Catholic Church.
Last edited:
I did not, its this one right here.
Try again
I keep telling you to read that source more carefully House. As it describes itself: "Strong's Definitions is a collection of unique Greek and Hebrew words and their definition from the Old and New Testament."
And if its a definition from the Bible, then you're saying "Look, the Bible is accurate because the Bible says its accurate!" And thats just circular logic.
Try again
Same problem. Its not defining the word, its defining what it thinks the Bible's usage of the word is. Which doesn't prove anything
Try again
I absolutely can because it's literally saying it's a dictionary of the new testament. Which means it's not saying "This is what the word means" it's saying "This is what the Bible thinks it means." You can't try and back up what the Bible says by quoting the Bible
Try again
See above. "The Bible is right because look here the Bible says its right!!" is not a serviceable argument.
Try again
Given you asserted the word meant cheating or adultery, literally none of them. So you're back to zero sources.
Try again
Tried trimming things down to fit in only one post, couldn't manage it, oops. So this whole section of "We teach House how language works" is going to be its own thing, seems a reasonable division
Yeah I figured you'd fall for this trap. Other possibilities existing mean the conclusions is no longer certain you say? Hmm, sounds awfully like the reasoning I've been using to demonstrate the fallibility of the new testament to me. Now we've demonstrated you agree with my line of thinking I'd like you to tell me why it doesn't apply to your argument. You say the new testament is the ultimate source of morality but, well, several other possibilities exist don't they? I can apply those three premises you laid out to the old testament. Or the Quoran. And thats just sticking with the Abrahamic religions, maybe the ultimate book of morality has been the Mabinogion this whole time. You criticise me for working backwards but thats all your argument is, House. If I'm not allowed to use "backwards thinking" to demonstrate the flaws in the BIble, you're not allowed to use it to demonstrate supposed infallibility. So what argument do you have left?
Again, if it's a religious war it's being justified by religion. If its being justified by religion then either the moral example of that religion is wrong, or the people interpreting that religion are wrong. But if the people who wrote the book can't interpret the book accurately, how can any of the book be trusted?
Try again
See above. This is an indictment of your own logic far more than it is of mine
Try again
Nope. I don't believe there's anything that transcends time culture or context
You say right here the Bible allows divorce in cases of cheating. I'm afraid "Nuh-uh I never said that!" is not a great tactic when I can quote you saying the things you're trying to back out of saying.
Try again
As is your suggestion he isn't. Or that he is with modern laws. This is a line of thinking that doesn't really undermine anyone but yourself, House.
Try again
Ah ah ah House, you're changing the wording. Your original comment only said "If you are overdosing, call 911", which could just mean the labelling was wrong, you were prescribed the wrong dosage, the medication is faulty, etc. Whoever specifically mentioned illegal actions? Sounds like you moving the goalposts to me. Or thinking backwards, I thought we weren't supposed to be doing that?
Also, interesting use of the word "illegal". I thought laws were Satan's domain?
This just sounds like "Everyone is wrong but me!" again. Why are they wrong and you are not?
Try again
I mean I can go grab you extensive quotes from Pope Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont if you like. Whole lot of Bible verses thrown around in that. You want a few choice ones or the whole thing?
You asked for different denominations. Franciscans are a different denomination from, say Benedictines. You even say the Franciscans have split into even more subgroups which, lets face it, highlights my point rather nicely. Oh and since you've specifically mentioned splitting from the Catholic church, let's bring Protestants into this. Even more splitting! So who's really right? How can anything claim absolute morality when there's so many ways of looking at it?
Also, aww, you didn't reply to my last two points. I was genuinely curious to see how you'd try justifying your argument of "the new testament is true because the new testament says its true"
As a minor point, "denomination" means a branch of christianity at the level of a separate church (i.e. Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican / etc.)
The Francisans and Benedictines are religious orders rather than denominations. As far as I'm aware they're all Catholics, so despite having different monastic traditions and practices, the two groups should be theologically consistent.
They can all be Catholics but still have a very different way of interpreting the Bible though. Thats the point I'm getting at, if the Bible was the perfect source that Houseman claims then there wouldn't, couldn't even, be any disagreements at all. If there was only this once source of morality and it was so easy to understand, why were the Franciscans branded heretics when they first popped up?
From that post:
Oh okay, that makes sense. At that point, you were still under the impression that I was claiming that the word meant "adultery". See below.
1) There's also Thayer's Greek Lexicon, which is a completely different book, and which I notice you didn't comment on.
2) I think you're reading that sentence wrong. That sentence is not saying that their DEFINITIONS come from the Old and New Testaments. That sentence is saying that the WORDS come from the Old and New Testaments, which is the only way that the sentence makes sense. Otherwise, you'd end up with words listed in the book that aren't ever used in the Bible. But we don't see that! Why not? Because the WORDS are from the bible, not the definitions.
Like, if someone were to say "I'm going to paint it blue", but you don't know what "it" refers to, but you see them start painting a closet door, then the guy comes back and says "There, I painted it blue", then "it" must refer to the closet door.
It's the same logic here. Since we can clearly see that all of the words are taken from the bible, and there are no words that aren't found in the bible, we can conclude that "from" refers to "words", not "definitions".
Why do you think that the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 is basing its definitions off bible usage?
1) You're ignoring the fact that none of the citations on that page come from the bible. How can the bible be used to define the word if the bible isn't even cited when defining the word? Oh, because you didn't even look at the page? Because you just looked at the title and drew conclusions from that? That would explain it.
2) It's called "A Dictionary of The New Testament" that because the words, as with Strong's Definitions, are FROM the New Testament. The authors took the individual words from the books of the bible, arranged them alphabetically, and defined each one.
Why do you think that the Dictionary of New Testament Theology bases its definitions off of bible usage?
See below re: Cheating
Not as long as we're assuming the premises in post 76.
The question was "Why should you get your morality from the bible?"
The answer was: "Assuming that a person believes that:
1. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God exists
2. Gave his instructions for humanity in the form of a book
3. Rewards people who follow that book
It should seem obvious. "
Satan messing with the bible should contradict with these premises. If God gave us the book, wants us to follow the book, and has the power to protect his book from corruption, then the book should be invincible.
Of course you can! But since you'd be changing the premise, as "God", as I used the word, refers to the "Christian God", you'd be essentially talking about a different topic.
Nothing you've written in that paragraph demonstrates that this is true. I've been working forward from the premises.
I never said you weren't allowed to use it. You've just been using it wrong, because you forget that different actions can lead to the same result.
Given your "bag of coins" example, you're observing that a certain coin was drawn from a pouch, and then you're asserting that the whole bag only contains coins of that denomination. You can't prove that unless you look at every other coin in that bag. So when you "work backwards", and I call you out on it, I'm telling you that you need to dump out all the coins on the table and check them all, because if even one of them is a different denomination, you are refuted.
Again:
religion =/= Bible
The Catholic Church =/= Bible
The Pope =/= Bible.
Just because the religion justifies a war, it doesn't mean that the bible does.
Just because the religion demands that every women attend a naked pool party with the pastor, it doesn't mean that's what the bible says.
Also again, the Church didn't write the bible. The bible predates the Church.
So do you admit that you cannot prove that the bible caused the crusades?
So, theoretically, there exists a time, or culture, or context in which God "deliberately letting a malevolent entity mess with us ", is moral?
How about genocide? Can that be moral in a certain time, culture, or context?
Yes I did, and I've never denied that.
Saying: "The bible allows divorce in cases of cheating" is not saying "The word porneia means adultery". This is just you working backwards again.
If porneia means fornication (which is what I had in mind at the time of that post), then all fornication would necessarily be adultery/cheating, so it would not be inaccurate to say that the the bible allows for divorce in cases of adultery, because there is no act of adultery that is not also an act of fornication.
Both of us.
I explicitly said "illegal drugs" in post #187 , to which you acknowledged that we were talking about illegal drugs when you said: "How are those two things contradictory? A person isn’t going to avoid trouble just because they overdosed on illegal drugs in place of taking a suitable amount. This isn’t a rebuttal, it’s nonsense."
We both said "illegal drugs".
But I see something that I missed in post #187, something that might help us past this blocker.
You said "A person isn't going to avoid trouble just because they overdosed on illegal drugs..."
Yes, actually, they will. I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not.
It depends on the government, but a majority of states in the US have "Drug Overdose Immunity laws", and some states and countries will even provide you with free clean needles. I've even read that somewhere, a hospital in some European country will just give you medical-grade heroin as long as you have a doctor administer it, in their safe and clean environment.
So, now that you know that, are you going to change your answer? Do all these initiatives mean that they condone the use of illegal drugs?
I read that, but I had no idea what you were talking about, since I never said what you accused me of saying, so I ignored it.
Can you prove that?
Were they? Can you prove that?
Catholics have different levels of canon.
There is stuff considered certain and true. That is basically nothing.
There is stuff that is considered true and canon but not absolutely certain. Catholics should behave according to that knowledge. Usually that is stuff that was debated for a long time and then settled by a pope or a council. That kind of debate can be restartet, if the need arises.
There is stuff that is uncertain and debated right now.
There is stuff no one cares about.
So catholics do agree enough to recognize each other as the same fate.
Maybe you are mistaking Franziscans for another group ?
Because its provided with the same source, which defines itself as a new testament translation not an Ancient Greek lexicon
The fact remains they are declaring what the words mean in a biblical context, not in the language, which means you're still attempting to demonstrate the BIble is accurate by pointing to the Bible
Joined these together because I feel the clue is rather in the names there. "The BIble is right to use this word because look, see here where it says in the Bible" is circular logic
Yep, see above. "The BIble is right to use this word because look, see here where it says in the Bible" is circular logic
Yeah but then that leads us back to one of my earliest criticisms. That if god is all powerful and publishes books every so often to keep us updated on morality then there's no reason his most recent edition is still the new testament. Or ever was the new testament.
Yeah but god is just a noun and can refer to any of them. Prove that its specifically your god and your book that your premises adhere to.
Yeah no, you really haven't. Because your three premises have a wide range of applications. Its why I figured it would be fun to go along with them. So your insistence that they can only possibly fit your particular literature of choice is based on...what, exactly?
Can't help but notice you still haven't pointed out how this doesn't apply to you just as much as it does to me
I refer you back to when you mentioned someone had to do enough research to satisfy their peers. These are your peers. They say the Bible warranted the crusades. Are you saying everything they believed was wrong? I believe you got very snarky when you thought Neuromancer was arguing against all the scholars you could bring up, seems odd you think its fine for you to do it.
Also given it was the church that compiled the texts of the new testament, decided which books would go into the new testament and for hundreds of years were the only ones who could copy out the new testament, yes, they did in fact write the book
To the first, no. Because context; he's all powerful and all loving. Satan messing with us either means he can't stop it, thus demonstrating he is not all powerful, or can but won't thus demonstrating he isn't all loving
Secondly, yes. Again, context. Wiping out a disease would be genocide but I'm not going to lose any sleep over single celled organisms
Nope, all adultery could be considered fornication but not all fornication is adultery. This is why I said you were attempting to warp two languages, because now you're insisting English should change around your examples too
Thats actually interesting, did you have any more links? The first one was a bit vague in places, I'd like to know more.
But I'd say yes, if you're going to do things like that you're tacitly condoning drug use
Chopping your post up a bit Satinvian but it works better here. But yes, the Franciscan orders were declared heretics in 1323, when they and the papacy had a bit of a disagreement on how exactly the clergy should maintain their poverty. All based on differing interpretations of bit of Luke I think. So thats a yes to both of your questions House.
If you wish to read more, Satinavian, a lot of this forms the background to Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose", which is why the example sprang to my mind
See I find it endlessly fascinating how much squabbling there can be between people all worshipping the same one dude. Its like some weird family reunion
Oh so your entire argument is because it says "New Testament" in the title? That's your proof that the books don't provide dictionary definitions as to what the word means, but rather, show how the word is used in the bible?
It has New Testament in the title because what these books do is that they take all of the Greek words out of the New Testament, put them in alphabetical order, and then they provide a definition as to what the word means. I showed you an example that cites DOZENS of extra-biblical (means NOT FROM THE BIBLE) sources. But you didn't look at any of that. You just said "it has NT in the name, therefore it's the bible proving the bible".
If you won't even look at the evidence that I link you to, I'm done entertaining this absolutely ridiculous claim.
Assuming the premises, God would let us know if he had updated anything.
You want me to prove what I meant when I said capital-G God?
Do you know the difference between "god" and "God"? One is a proper noun that refers to a specific thing. The Christian God. Yahweh. Jehovah.
But okay, you want me to prove it, let me just consult the author. Oh wait! I'm the author! And I say I meant The Christian God. There, proven.
I've never insisted that. If you want to argue that
1) Allah exists and loves us.
2) Allah wrote his word in the Quran
3) Therefore, we should listen to it
Go right ahead.
Prove it.
Prove it.
You already brought up the Nicene Creed and the Council of Rome, and last time you did, I pointed out that they only defined the canon for their religion, Catholicism, and that their decision wasn't binding on the rest of humanity. You had no rebuttal.
How does "letting Satan mess with us" demonstrate that "he isn't all loving"?
When you're married, all fornication is necessarily adultery/cheating, and the context is clearly about married couples.
I don't have any more links, but you should be able to search some of the key words in those titles and find more information yourself. That's how I found those.
But okay. You think that these facilities and initiatives condone drug use. In that last link, they call it as "heroin-assisted treatment " program. They use medical-grade heroin to treat addiction, much like how nicotine patches and gum are used to quit smoking. Would you argue that nicotine patches encourage nicotine addition? Hopefully not. Their only purpose is to curb cravings and get you to kick the habit as you slowly wean yourself off over time. Same methodology applies here. The end goal is to get you to quit.
But if you still disagree, all I can say is: "that's just your opinion"
Oh, so your proof is a work of fiction?
If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean. Not my fault you can't provide non-cyclical sources
I mean he didn't with the new testament, so we've already failed to fit that in your premises
I gave you a task House, you've ignored it. Prove that your premises apply only to the new testament
I can apply pretty much everything you say in favour of the new testament to the quran, you realise that right?
Already brought up Pope Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont. He quoted the Bible pretty extensively in that. You want some choice quotes or the whole thing?
First reference to a specific Christian Church organisation is from about 110 AD. New Testament as the entity you would in theory recognise came onto existence around 393 AD. So, yes, they literally wrote the book.
Also, does not the fact that you're admitting that certain doctrines fit into things like the Council of Nicaea demonstrate the whole picking and choosing thing I've been saying was bad from the beginning
In the same way that if I had a pet dog, let it loose on you and then didn't do anything to stop it you'd think I was a bit of a twat
So being married and fornicating with the person you're married to is adultery? Odd definition your going by there House
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because yeah I'd say those are condoning drug use. As a side note, I'd be kind of interested to see if you could make placebo nicotine patches. Something you could slap on to think you were getting your fix but in reality gave you nothing at all...
No, my book recommendation to Satinavian, who seems interested in genuine discussion, is a work of fiction. My proof to you would be "the actual historical events that happened". Do you think attempting to deny documented history as you are increasingly doing puts your argument in a favourable position?