Religion and personal responsibility

[mr friendly guy]

That's lovely. The example is intended to be a unique one, Mr Friendly Guy. Not a declaration that every single crime is absolved because we might just be guilty of something ourselves

If you are indeed without sin, cast that stone. That's the point of the phrase.

Ignoring the fact that I made it abundantly clear I don't accept that bullshit premise of needing to be without sin to cast the stone, let me explain some logic for you

1. Only those without sin can past judgment (premise)
2. Everyone has sin (premise of the Christian religion)
3. Therefore if these 2 premises are to be followed no one can pass judgment. (Logic)

4. This is not a declaration that every single crime is absolved because we might just be guilty of something ourselves (your conclusion)

5. Your conclusion is contradictory to what you and the Christian religion has stated. Therefore you are pulling this crap out of nowhere to try and justify your position.

Seriously, your tactic is no different from a "smokescreen" tactics racists uses after making a racist comment by simply saying in their next breath I am not racist. At least those Christians who admit that bullshit conclusion of not judging can see that conclusion MUST logically follow from their premise.

[Lord Woodlouse]

That's lovely. The example is intended to be a unique one, Mr Friendly Guy. Not a declaration that every single crime is absolved because we might just be guilty of something ourselves

If you are indeed without sin, cast that stone. That's the point of the phrase.

Ignoring the fact that I made it abundantly clear I don't accept that bullshit premise of needing to be without sin to cast the stone, let me explain some logic for you

1. Only those without sin can past judgment (premise)
2. Everyone has sin (premise of the Christian religion)
3. Therefore if these 2 premises are to be followed no one can pass judgment. (Logic)

4. This is not a declaration that every single crime is absolved because we might just be guilty of something ourselves (your conclusion)

5. Your conclusion is contradictory to what you and the Christian religion has stated. Therefore you are pulling this crap out of nowhere to try and justify your position.

Seriously, your tactic is no different from a "smokescreen" tactics racists uses after making a racist comment by simply saying in their next breath I am not racist. At least those Christians who admit that bullshit conclusion of not judging can see that conclusion MUST logically follow from their premise.

*shrug* There are degrees of sin in much the same way there are degrees of criminality. In much the same way I'd have no problem taking morality advice from someone who committed some petty office stationary theft while I would have a hefty problem taking such advice from, say, a child molestor. I would say I am not a criminal, but that is not strictly true. While I can't prove that the event displayed in the Bible follows a similar colloquial use of language as the one I highlighted, I do think it's a reasonable assumption to make.

...and this is apart from the very fact that the event it intended to be a one off. Highlighting the value of forgiveness. It does does not mean that these people may never pass judgement ever again. OR that if this same woman commits the same crime she gets the same treatment. The notion is that the punishment remains the same, the punishment for the crime is STILL death, but she has been granted forgiveness and a second chance by virtue of a third party. She can't bank on that as a rule. That's not the intended message.

[mr friendly guy]

*shrug* There are degrees of sin in much the same way there are degrees of criminality. In much the same way I'd have no problem taking morality advice from someone who committed some petty office stationary theft while I would have a hefty problem taking such advice from, say, a child molestor. I would say I am not a criminal, but that is not strictly true. While I can't prove that the event displayed in the Bible follows a similar colloquial use of language as the one I highlighted, I do think it's a reasonable assumption to make.

Well I guess I better concede the argument then, since Jesus obviously said only those with a certain amount of sin shouldn't judge. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

...and this is apart from the very fact that the event it intended to be a one off. Highlighting the value of forgiveness.

Geez, thats funny, if its a once off why then do you argue that its supposed to be applied on "a basis of your neighbours and friends". Let me guess, you are going to say "once off" really means once for each person as opposed to only once for that woman adulterer.

It does does not mean that these people may never pass judgement ever again.

So what? The harm has already been done because we didn't pass the judgment the first time.

And of course I am going to wait for the Biblical quote that says you may pass the judgment the next time if she still sins. Otherwise you are just pulling what you want to see out of your arse.

On a side note Christian apologists DO use this type of argument to prevent criticism of God, after all, only those who are without sin should cast the metaphorical stone right?

OR that if this same woman commits the same crime she gets the same treatment.

Evidence?

The notion is that the punishment remains the same, the punishment for the crime is STILL death, but she has been granted forgiveness and a second chance by virtue of a third party.

More of the same.

She can't bank on that as a rule. That's not the intended message.

Tell you what. When you perfect a time machine, you can go back in time and ask Jesus (assuming he really exists) what he "really" meant. Until then I like everyone else will interpret what was written in the context of what was written as opposed to interpreting them how I want with no supporting evidence, kind of like how the Christian apologists love doing.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Well I guess I better concede the argument then, since Jesus obviously said only those with a certain amount of sin shouldn't judge. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

The amount of information at hand in the specific situation is exceedingly light. Like much of the Bible the meaning is not implicit.

Geez, thats funny, if its a once off why then do you argue that its supposed to be applied on "a basis of your neighbours and friends". Let me guess, you are going to say "once off" really means once for each person as opposed to only once for that woman adulterer.

Actually my original statement was a completely blind assumption. I've not yet read that section of the Bible (I am going through the process of reading it at the moment), and I only gained the specific context after discussing it with a friend (which I displayed).

You can take that as a concession, of sorts, if it makes you feel better. *shrug*

So what? The harm has already been done because we didn't pass the judgment the first time.

What harm? She was going to be stoned to death for committing adultery. She might go forth and commit adultery again, sure, but I'm struggling to figure out what this harm is that has now already happened because we did not pass judgement.

And of course I am going to wait for the Biblical quote that says you may pass the judgment the next time if she still sins. Otherwise you are just pulling what you want to see out of your arse.

I'm interpreting what I see, certainly. Taking this action in context with Jesus' other actions. I find my explaination consistent. You don't. That's your business. You can interpret the Bible however you want.

On a side note Christian apologists DO use this type of argument to prevent criticism of God, after all, only those who are without sin should cast the metaphorical stone right?

No idea. First I've heard of it.

Evidence?

Pure assumption on my part, actually.

Tell you what. When you perfect a time machine, you can go back in time and ask Jesus (assuming he really exists) what he "really" meant. Until then I like everyone else will interpret what was written in the context of what was written as opposed to interpreting them how I want with no supporting evidence, kind of like how the Christian apologists love doing.

Do as you like, Mr Friendly Guy. I'm not exactly trying to convert you.

[mr friendly guy]

Well I guess I better concede the argument then, since Jesus obviously said only those with a certain amount of sin shouldn't judge. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

The amount of information at hand in the specific situation is exceedingly light. Like much of the Bible the meaning is not implicit.

Appeal to ignorance.

Actually my original statement was a completely blind assumption. I've not yet read that section of the Bible (I am going through the process of reading it at the moment), and I only gained the specific context after discussing it with a friend (which I displayed).

You can take that as a concession, of sorts, if it makes you feel better. *shrug*

I accept.

So what? The harm has already been done because we didn't pass the judgment the first time.

What harm? She was going to be stoned to death for committing adultery. She might go forth and commit adultery again, sure, but I'm struggling to figure out what this harm is that has now already happened because we did not pass judgement.

Strawman. And a poor one at that.

I'm interpreting what I see, certainly. Taking this action in context with Jesus' other actions. I find my explaination consistent. You don't. That's your business. You can interpret the Bible however you want.

Red Herring. A person's right to interpret the Bible how they wish is not the issue. At issue is what is the correct interpretation of this particular Biblical text.

Evidence?

Pure assumption on my part, actually.

Thought so.

Tell you what. When you perfect a time machine, you can go back in time and ask Jesus (assuming he really exists) what he "really" meant. Until then I like everyone else will interpret what was written in the context of what was written as opposed to interpreting them how I want with no supporting evidence, kind of like how the Christian apologists love doing.

Do as you like, Mr Friendly Guy. I'm not exactly trying to convert you.

Ah. I see sarcasm isn't your strong point.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Appeal to ignorance.

Call it what you like, mate. The lack of information gives lots of room for interpretation. It would be particularly odious of me to claim an impliciit fact in my own interpretation, but I am not doing this.

Strawman. And a poor one at that.

How so? You claim harm, I ask where the harm is. Where is the strawman?

Red Herring. A person's right to interpret the Bible how they wish is not the issue. At issue is what is the correct interpretation of this particular Biblical text.

...and if we could answer that with certainty I'm sure we would have only one Christian denomination. We can't.

Ah. I see sarcasm isn't your strong point.

I have detected your sarcasm. Would it have tickled your fancy more if I responded with "Ho ho, you're being sarcastic!"?

[mr friendly guy]

Appeal to ignorance.

Call it what you like, mate.The lack of information gives lots of room for interpretation. It would be particularly odious of me to claim an impliciit fact in my own interpretation, but I am not doing this.

This refutes my point that your argument hinges on a logical fallacy, how exactly?

Strawman. And a poor one at that.

How so? You claim harm, I ask where the harm is. Where is the strawman?

Because I wasn't refering to harm in the context of stoning an adulterous woman (since I kind of don't see adultery as a stoning offence). I was (and have always in my previous posts) referring to how Christians apply the "don't cast the first stone" idea BEYOND the cases of adultery and into other areas. That is where its harmful because that philosophy just as easily advocates not judging dangerous or unethical behaviours (even if it is only for the first time according to you).

Red Herring. A person's right to interpret the Bible how they wish is not the issue. At issue is what is the correct interpretation of this particular Biblical text.

...and if we could answer that with certainty I'm sure we would have only one Christian denomination. We can't.

Stilll arguing from ignorance I see. And you are starting to develop your own WoI. Bravo, bravo.

I have detected your sarcasm. Would it have tickled your fancy more if I responded with "Ho ho, you're being sarcastic!"?

Well now that you mentioned it...

But I was actually hoping you would make an attempt to address the point I raised among my sarcastic banter. Namely that your conclusions require incredible leaps of logic.

[Lord Woodlouse]

This refutes my point that your argument hinges on a logical fallacy, how exactly?

I consider my conclusion a logical extrapolation based on the OTHER actions of Jesus. Otherwise this event would be quite out of context.

Because I wasn't refering to harm in the context of stoning an adulterous woman (since I kind of don't see adultery as a stoning offence). I was (and have always in my previous posts) referring to how Christians apply the "don't cast the first stone" idea BEYOND the cases of adultery and into other areas. That is where its harmful because that philosophy just as easily advocates not judging dangerous or unethical behaviours (even if it is only for the first time according to you).

Depending on how universal you interpret the meaning. Do you think there is no room for interpretation? Is Jesus' word implicit enough to end all argument here? Personally I don't think so.

Stilll arguing from ignorance I see. And you are starting to develop your own WoI. Bravo, bravo.

WoI? Sorry?

The point is, Mr Guy, that there is room enough with things NOT implicitly said in the Bible for us to fill in the gaps. I am not saying I do so because Jesus commanded to, I say I do so from using my own rationality to fill in what I consider to be gaps of explaination.

But I was actually hoping you would make an attempt to address the point I raised among my sarcastic banter. Namely that your conclusions require incredible leaps of logic.

They would only be leaps of logic if the leap was made irrationally. I honestly don't think this is the case.

They are unproven leaps, however, and in that it is equally as rational to disagree with them.

[Edi]

WoI? Sorry?

Wall of Ignorance. That term tends to be one of the prelimanry cues for the lightweights to get the hell out of Dodge before somebody starts unleashing the heavy artillery.

You're missing the point that your interpretation of the issue is not logically sound unless one accepts certain assumptions about the validity of your religion from the outset, which mr. friendly guy does not do.

The point is, Mr Guy, that there is room enough with things NOT implicitly said in the Bible for us to fill in the gaps. I am not saying I do so because Jesus commanded to, I say I do so from using my own rationality to fill in what I consider to be gaps of explaination.

This requires the aforementioned acceptance of certain assumptions at face value.

But I was actually hoping you would make an attempt to address the point I raised among my sarcastic banter. Namely that your conclusions require incredible leaps of logic.

They would only be leaps of logic if the leap was made irrationally. I honestly don't think this is the case.

As long as you accept the certain assumptions, but when faced with someone who doesn't, the leaps do become irrational.

They are unproven leaps, however, and in that it is equally as rational to disagree with them.

It is more rational to disagree, since there is no obvious causal or other logical connection. There is a reason why faith is believeing in something even in the absence of any rational reason to do so.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

*shrug* You can have my concession then. I obviously can't rationalise my belief with satisfaction for you. Maybe when I'm finished actually reading the Bible I might be able to make a better go of it, but as it is we just have what I personally consider a logical assumption.

[Edi]

*shrug* You can have my concession then. I obviously can't rationalise my belief with satisfaction for you. Maybe when I'm finished actually reading the Bible I might be able to make a better go of it, but as it is we just have what I personally consider a logical assumption.

I understand the logic you're using just fine, but I do not accept the assumptions you use as the basis to form that logic, because from an empirically observable standpoint it falls short of the standards of verifiable evidence. You will never be able to explain and rationalize your beliefs to me in a way that will make me agree with you, but if it works for you, it's all the same to me. Just keep in mind that when you get into any debates here, especially religious ones, a lot of the people will often challenge the fundamental assumptions and premises underlying your beliefs and that you take for granted instead of the specific beliefs in particular. That will give them the quickest route to victory, and like in this thread, you can be set at a disadvantage because you have a hard time seeing the angle of attack.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

*shrug* You can have my concession then. I obviously can't rationalise my belief with satisfaction for you. Maybe when I'm finished actually reading the Bible I might be able to make a better go of it, but as it is we just have what I personally consider a logical assumption.

I understand the logic you're using just fine, but I do not accept the assumptions you use as the basis to form that logic, because from an empirically observable standpoint it falls short of the standards of verifiable evidence. You will never be able to explain and rationalize your beliefs to me in a way that will make me agree with you, but if it works for you, it's all the same to me. Just keep in mind that when you get into any debates here, especially religious ones, a lot of the people will often challenge the fundamental assumptions and premises underlying your beliefs and that you take for granted instead of the specific beliefs in particular. That will give them the quickest route to victory, and like in this thread, you can be set at a disadvantage because you have a hard time seeing the angle of attack.

Edi

*shrug* The assumptions I'm using are just what I feel are extrapolations on the nature of a human (potentially divine!) entity. I understand there's nothing implicit here that can prove that nature, but the thing is I don't consider it irrational to make that assumption. It's a little off topic, anyway, since we're talking about how religions encourage accountability and whatnot. Potentials don't really cut it.

As I say, my concession is there for everyone to ravenously devour. I simply don't know enough about that specific context to make a fully educated argument anyway. As I say, on reading the Bible fully that might change. I might have some quotes that prove my point. I might not. We'll see.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is when you use these assumptions as premises for arguments.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Perhaps this ambiguity could have all been avoided if the Bible had been written by Sheliak instead of humans.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps this ambiguity could have all been avoided if the Bible had been written by Sheliak instead of humans.

Or if it had been written by humans who weren't full of shit.

[mr friendly guy]

Perhaps this ambiguity could have all been avoided if the Bible had been written by Sheliak instead of humans.

Or if Christian apologists actually read what is in the Bible instead of making up things which aren't there in a bid to make the Bible reflect their own personal beliefs.

Let me just give you an example

1. God told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree of knowledge (premise, stated in the Bible)

2. Adam lived for hundreds of years after eating said fruit (premise, stated in the Bible)

3. Therefore this is a biblical contradiction (logic).

Now lets repeat that with the apologist talking

1. God told Adam he would die if he ate from the tree of knowledge (premise, stated in the Bible)

1 a) when God said die, he meant a spiritual death and not a physical one (premise, which is not stated in the Bible which the apologist pulled out of his arse).

2. Adam lived for hundreds of years after eating said fruit (premise, stated in the Bible)

3. Therefore this is NOT a biblical contradiction (logic)

If you accept the extra premise, the conclusion follows logically from it. Unfortunately that extra premise is not supported by Biblical quotes, and hence there is no reason to accept it. This is an example of having valid logic, but drawing an incorrect conclusion because your premise is wrong (not that the apologist care since they want to draw this conclusion).

That is exactly what Woodlouse is doing in his arguments. At least he freely admits that these extra premises are assumptions which he just "thinks are correct". I don't see the point of pursuing this further since Woodlouse has already conceded.

[wolveraptor]

Alternatively, some apologists say that since Adam did eventually age and die, god was not lying when he made that statement.

[Lord Woodlouse]

While I tend to take Genesis as mostly a metaphor, the specific example is a bit silly. Adam did die, eventually. The implication seems to be that in the "Garden of Eden" he would have lived forever. This is hardly an outright contradiction.