Damn, it was only a dream!
sigh, it **would ** be nice…
That’s easy. If the Authority in question is Gaudere, it’s not a fallacy! 
Just watch your spelling, or risk violating her Law.
pldennison, if this is your other point, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You seem to believe someone must either accept an entire book as historically accurate, or reject it completely as fiction. Can I not read a novel about Wild Bill Hickok and make different judgements about the various exploits detailed therein? Is it not possible that some of the passages represent actual events, yet some do not? Personally, I find no intellectual disconnect in dismissing the “supernatural” events of the Bible, while allowing the possibility of other more “natural” events.
Of course, one can also believe that no genocide really occurred, yet still question the judgement of those who do think it happened. And even if you think the slaughter is accurately portrayed in the biblical accounts, I can still question the thought processes that justify the morality of it. Just because a book may outline Wyatt Earp’s actions at the OK Corral and provide a moral reasoning for them, I am free to disagree with the author’s logic, independent of my belief in the reality of the described events.
I believe no such thing. I believe it is, to put it charitably, unfair to quite purposefully pick and choose which parts you believe and which you do not for the express purpose of putting someone at an apparent moral disadvantage in a debate or argument. It is also unfair to pick and choose which parts you believe, as Ben does, and criticize others for doing the same, as Ben has done with such posters as FriendOfGod.
Undoubtedly. It is, however, intellectually dishonest to question that judgement as Ben did, by claiming that a person describes the killing of homosexuals as “a praiseworthy act.” It implies a charge of homophobia in the complete absence of any context whatsoever. Ben, once again, picked and chose homosexuality out of a longer list of “sins” in order to mischaracterize someone’s argument. He excels at this.
Well that seems reasonable to me. Some of the events are less likely than others. Genocides have been known to occur even in modern times and we can witness them happening right now. (See “ethnic cleansing” in Yugoslavia). How many times has a “bodily assumption into heaven” been recorded in history? Or a human parthenogenetic birth? When I read the Bible, I’ll accept the fact that Solomon was the son of David without too much question, but when I’m told that god spoke to Moses through a burning bush, I’ll be more skeptical. I don’t see any inconsistency in my point of view.
Again I’ll have to disagree. The ten commandments do hold a special place in Christian doctrine and in christian society. Why are so many children encouraged to learn them? Why are they so commonly referred to in literature and secular as well as religious documents? Why do some public places post the ten commandments?
To hide the big gaping hole in the wall?
If I get what you’re saying, Arnold, you mean that there are some aspects of the Bible that are very believable (wow, they wore sandals? Amazing!) and some that are extremely dubious in nature (“rose from the dead”, my ass!) that require faith in order to be taken seriously.
However, the “factual” aspects of the Bible should have other sources to back them up. Hell, there’ve been several instances of ancient Roman records that mention “Jesus of Nazareth” or something like that, so we have substantial evidence that Jesus existed. What the records lack is any mentioning of him walking on water or turning water into wine, so those are events that can be more freely dismissed (outside of faith, of course).
To go with Hardcore’s example of Wild Bill… sure, you don’t dismiss the existence of such a man just because he was mentioned in a fictional book, but you also don’t conclude that he DID exist based on that one example alone.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m willing to bet that neither the Nicene Creed nor the Apostle’s Creed nor the Catholic articles of faith, nor indeed any Christian denomination’s statements of faith and doctrine mention the ten commandments at all. This pretty much excludes them from having any special place in Christian doctrine–not that they don’t have a Christian cultural importance. But the fact that they hold any special significance at all is due, again, to their supposed inscription by the hand of God on the stone tablets and their having been arbitrarily set aside by chapter divisions by Biblical compilers. There are no chapter divisions in the original works.
Ask any Christian on this board what is important about Christian doctrine, and you will never hear “The ten commandments,” not even if you quiz them for an hour. You will hear, with little variation, that the most important things are to believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected, and to heed Jesus’ words to love God with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself.
So all this “Nine-Commandment Christian” bullshit is just that: Bullshit. It’s a way, once again, for one person to instill in themselves a feeling of moral superiority over another, by “catching” a person “violating” a rule that has no particular significance. It would be one thing if Christians took a vow to follow the Ten Commandments. But they don’t.
I agree, but for older historical records such as those of the jewish people (with parts of the Bible covering 1300 - 600 BCE IIRC, I’m no historian) it might be hard to find a second source, which is where an archaeologist would (I presume) apply some critical thinking in determining what is likely and what isn’t.
pldennison: I can’t speak for every christian on the board, but I know what I remember from being raised as a christian (Roman Catholic to be more precise). When I went to confession, I was taught “to know what to confess, go over the ten commandments one by one and try to remember what you did that went against the commandments.” The ten commandments were one of the only parts of the bible that we were ordered to memorize. (Memorization of some parts was encouraged, but the ten commandments were to be learned by rote by every pupil.)
In a Catholic Encyclopedia that I consulted at home this morning (not the same as the one you can find online) the section on the commandments said that the ten commandments were part of our “covenant” with god, and that the full “covenant” included Jesus’ words in the new testament. I can’t remember the exact terms used, and I couldn’t post from home due to lack of time. When time permits I will post a more exact summary.
So in my case, the ten commandments were given more importance than other parts of the bible, and were to be used to help me decide what moral behaviour was. I would wager that many other Roman Catholics were taught in the same way.
I’m not going to get into appropriateness of the expression “nine-commandment christian” because I hate to be dragged into personal disputes.
Read what Cecil says.
pldennison, you should read the Bible more often. From the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-19:
I doubt very much Jesus was excepting the 10 Commandments in the bolded phrase.
Why do you assume he chooses which part to believe based solely on the moral advantage in a debate? Why not assume Ben has used his reasoning skills to decide which parts to believe? Perhaps you possess far greater powers of extrasensory perception than I, and can discern Ben’s motivations without his explicit delineation. Or maybe Ben has given his reasoning just as you have mentioned and I just missed it.
And again, even if he has made exactly the statement you describe, can’t he (or I for that matter) assume for the sake of argument the reality of certain events as described AND the existence of said Supreme Being, yet still debate the morality? I’m not sure I fully understand your rules for debates.
How is this unfair? If my mother has a book on Alien Abductions, and I choose to believe some sections (e.g. the existence of the people described, their credentials, etc.), yet I do NOT believe the part about the abductions, would you think it unfair of me to criticize my mother for accepting the Alien Abduction Theory?
Obviously, you have some issues with Ben’s posting style, and have chosen to air them in a thread he started about Libertarian. Perhaps you are right, and he is the Great Satan of the SDMB, wishing only to tarnish the image of loving Christians everywhere. But I think you have arrived at this conclusion based strictly on emotion, not logic, and should realize you are doing so.
Guys, let me point out that I have, in fact, answered all of pld’s complaints (such as they are) at length in the course of replying to CMKeller’s arguments in the “Why is G-d so cruel in the OT?” thread.
Pld, would you care to actually respond to my arguments, or are you just going to reiterate your gripes ad infinitum?
-Ben
Phil’s points are “gripes”, but yours are “arguments”? That, in itself, says volumes.
Yes Lib, it says that Ben doesn’t view pithy soundbites as substantive discussion.
(insert smiley to show tongue in cheek)
Are you really going to get twisted out of shape because someone refers to the other side’s points in less than glowing terms whilst elevating their own position? If so I suggest that you get to work on most of the GDers forthwith.
pan
“We judge others by their behavior. We judge ourselves by our intentions.” — Ian Percy
Well personally I judge all and sundry by their pizza eating ability. YMMV.
pan
What Ben’s statement does say is that he is not worth arguing with. When one side is so closeminded that they wont consider your arguments even arguments the debate turns from a intelligent debate into a moronic debate. And we all know the old saying “don’t argue with a moron, he will take you down to his level and beat you with his experience”
Libertarian is not a moron. But getting a straight answer from him is like getting blood from a stone. Just read the “Cruel God” thread in GD to see what I mean.
Definately not a moron. Of course most of the stuff he babbles on about is so far over my head all I can do is nod and smile. Only thing keeping me from thinking he is doing nothing but twisting words and meanings to suit him, is the other dopers.
Of course what irritates me the most is his black/white outlook on life. It’s either them or us, good or evil, cold or hot. That and his constant jabs, arrogant smirks, and the fact that he likes to rub it in ones face that God blessed him with more brains. (his posts where he belittles people is probably 3500 of his 4000 posts) I respect the hell out of ya Lib, but way to fight that ignorance with a polite christain attitude. (I probably step over the edge into Hipocripsy(sp?) with this one, but what the hell, I’m ignorant)
Uh, excuse me? I responded to all of pldennison’s arguments, and all he did was to reiterate them. Can you blame me for thinking that he’s griping rather than arguing when he completely ignores what I have to say?
-Ben
You mean kind of like how you used the word “rant” to describe my proof that you’re lying? Or how my comments about how Hugh Ross is a creationist were described by you as “Inquisition-level (in)tolerance”?
Nice diversionary tactic, Lib. When several people present copious evidence of what Kimstu called your “belligerent dishonesty,” just start quibbling over whether I have been properly respectful to someone who can’t even be bothered to respond to my arguments.
-Ben