[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 15:48:08 03/16/06 Thu
Author: Lord Veritas
Subject: All this for nothing
In reply to:
Quiznos
's message, "Re: Was Christ married?" on 10:28:06 03/14/06 Tue
>You wrote:
>>To my knowledge, there is no historical evidence that
>>Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, or anyone
>>else, whatsoever. However, since I am always open to
>>hear arguments, feel to try to make a case for it.
>>Historical and scriptural evidence only please (i.e.
>>no "Da Vinci Code" quotes).
>
>In this line of argument you have postulated a
>question (the intent likely is to somehow prove
>Mormonism false)
LV: No. This was started in response to a remark MyLadyBanshee made on another thread, claiming she had a lot of information to prove that Christ was married. That, combined with the Da Vinci Code fad, raised my curiousity. Your assumption that I intend to spin this to mean Mormonism is false is incorrect.
>and then limited the resource for the
>argument to the bible or some proven historical
>document. You ere here in that first of all, the Bible
>is not a proven historical document and it value as a
>historical document is speculative to many scientists.
LV: Wrong again. Scientific concerns with the Bible are based on the plausibility of events such as the parting of the red sea, and the timeline of the length of the universe's existence, not with the Bible's value as a historical document. The reason why other historical documents are included in the debate is because people are skeptical of the Bible's historicity, despite the fact that it is the most consistent and reliable text from the ancient era. Archaelogical evidence, and even scientific evidence, are allowed if they are relevant to the subject of this thread, which is whether or not Christ was married.
>I however believe the Bible to be true and am only
>skeptical to the extent that man has had his hands in
>it. Thus your purpose (to prove someone elses theory
>or belief wrong) and the limited resource essentially
>create a weak or at least skeptical basis for your
>arguments.
LV: The resource is hardly limited. There are many references to the life of Christ in both the Bible and in historical documents written by men such as Joseph Flavius, Pliny the Minor, and Tacitus, many of whom were not Christians, and many of whom hated Christ. The only weak thing here is your accusation, which is both invalid and false.
>
>Though I am not certain, I personally have not
>heard/read an LDS Prophet make the statement in
>finality that Christ was ever married nor to whom if
>he was.
LV: Nowhere did I say that the LDS claimed that Jesus was married. Your assumptions have taken you in the completely wrong direction.
> Of course if one has then I stand corrected.
>However, I offer the following personal opinion.
>
>The scriptures (if we stick just with the Bible)are
>full of the commandment to marry. In fact one
>particular scripture (1 Cor 11:11) it states Men/Women
>are to be together in the Lord (meaning married of the
>Lord). Given that the Lord required it of us (to be
>married) as he did with Adam and Eve for the purpose
>of procreation, it seems perfectly plausible that He
>would do the same.
LV: No one said that marriage was bad. I only stated that there is no evidence that Christ was married whatsoever. The argument that it was plausible for him to get married is irrelevant, since just because something is plausible does not mean that it happened. It is plausible that the Germans and the axis powers could have won World War II. But the fact is that they didn't, and, unless someone can prove the contrary, the fact is that Christ wasn't married. And spreading lies about people is simply wrong.
>As an example, Christ was baptized.
>Most Christian religions require some form of baptism.
>The purpose of baptism according to most Christians is
>to symbolically remove the physical effects (generally
>symbolized by dirt/filth) of sin. However, Christ was
>perfect and without sin therefore there was likely
>another purpose for the baptism of Christ.
Lv: Do you think the fact that he needed baptism so he could become a Priest of Melchizedek may have sufficed for the "other purpose"?
>My
>hypothesis is that He, being the example, would
>require us to be baptized not just for the symbolism
>but for obedience to the will of His Father as well.
>In the case of marriage and absent any scriptural
>documentation, the reverse could be true, in that if
>we are commanded to be married it too seems reasonable
>to assume that Christ would likewise be obedient to
>His own commandments and thus would have been married
>to fulfill all righteousness.
>What do you think?
LV: I think you avoided the debate topic. Your hypothesis was interesting, but off topic. We are not debating whether or not it would be reasonable that Christ to me married. We were debating whether or not he was actually married. I could reasonably assume that J.R.R. Tolkien worshipped the Nordic gods, based on the fact that they heavily influence the Silmarillion, which is the backstory of the Lord of the Rings. However, just because something is reasonable does not mean that it is true. J.R.R. Tolkien was not a pagan, he was a Roman Catholic. And Jesus was not married, unless you can provide evidence that he was. Which is not what you did. All you did was make up assumptions of what you thought I really wanted to ask, then attacked those assumptions instead of the actual debate topic. Then you finished with rhetoric that spent more time proving that which was not brought up in the first place (i.e. whether or not it was good/reasonable for Christ to get married). I understand that this may be your first time, but please, try to avoid making these mistakes in the future, so the rest of your arguments do not crumble like this.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [>
Re: All this for nothing -- Quiznos, 13:00:05 03/17/06 Fri
We can go tit for tat, however, my point is that you postulated that question and asked for proof or at least to refute your evidence (wisdom, ideas, etc.) that since there is no evidence to the fact that Christ was married someone who might believe that to be the case has to prove it to you. Your style (as evidenced by other writings) generally is that you feel your argument is superior or can't be refutted. Your position is that the Sheepdogs ideas (as an example) are week and thus must be false. You will probably deny this to protect the real purpose of your emails and that is to prove the LDS faith errent. Given that background (which is all I have of you and I don't need more) then I have a basis for my postulation of your intentions.
As for science's concerns of the bible you are soundly incorrect. Their position is much closer to mine in that though truth likely exists in the document, the evidence (written) is tainted by the course of man's effort.
Obviously the use of writers, as you suggest, whose disdain for Christ is well known, would not be an accurate source of evidence. You suggest it is possibly a good source because of their abeyance to His beliefs. Given that basis, their observations again would be tainted and of no value. In this case, the case of whether Christ was married or not, is best handled through objective observation and a circumstantial case. Therefore I provided my logic equation. I did not however provide my objective observation to as you said prove that you said "Nowhere did I say marriage was bad." I never said nor implied that. I did however provide a logical course to follow, meaning that if Christ commanded us, it seems plausible that He himself is obedient to His own commandments.
>LV: No one said that marriage was bad. I only stated
>that there is no evidence that Christ was married
>whatsoever. The argument that it was plausible for him
>to get married is irrelevant, since just because
>something is plausible does not mean that it happened.
> It is plausible that the Germans and the axis powers
>could have won World War II. But the fact is that
>they didn't and, unless someone can prove the
>contrary, the fact is that Christ wasn't married.
The point for me is a logical equation. If a = b, and b = c then a = c. Secondly, the fact that there is an absence of evidence about truth, does not make it less truth. This logic is synonomous with the unknown perpetrator in a murder. The murder happened and the evidence to the killer is absent therefore the murderer did not exist.
Secondly, the evidence in the case of Hitler's Germany is well documented and proven in the current world powers, which does not include the domination of Germany.
>And spreading lies about people is simply wrong.
I am not sure which lies your speaking of. I did not present lies I presented hypothesis.
I presented an example of the relevence of my hypothesis as follows:
>>As an example, Christ was baptized.
>>Most Christian religions require some form of baptism.
>>The purpose of baptism according to most Christians is
>>to symbolically remove the physical effects (generally
>>symbolized by dirt/filth) of sin. However, Christ was
>>perfect and without sin therefore there was likely
>>another purpose for the baptism of Christ.>Lv: Do you think the fact that he needed baptism so he
>could become a Priest of Melchizedek may have sufficed
>for the "other purpose"?
Your reply in this instance was purely off the mark and not relevant. You are trying to prove something was wrong with a relationship I didn't present. I was not writing about the relationship of the baptism of Christ and a form of priesthood. I was writing about the need for baptism. In other words, if baptisms purpose is to symbolize the removal/washing away of sins, why was Christ baptized. I postulated that the purpose was greater than just the symbolic washing and then I theorized that it could be for obedience to His Father. Given that basis my hypothesis that Christ could have been married as a requirement to be obedient to God's will stands firm.
You then stated:
LV: I think you avoided the debate topic. Your
>hypothesis was interesting, but off topic. We are not
>debating whether or not it would be reasonable that
>Christ to me married. We were debating whether or not
>he was actually married. I could reasonably assume
>that J.R.R. Tolkien worshipped the Nordic gods, based
>on the fact that they heavily influence the
>Silmarillion, which is the backstory of the Lord of
>the Rings. However, just because something is
>reasonable does not mean that it is true.
HUH? I presented a hypothesis and plausible is for you to consider. I guess if you have an alterior motive then you wouldn't consider it. You rest your argument on the weak basis of the absence of evidence.
J.R.R.
>Tolkien was not a pagan, he was a Roman Catholic. And
>Jesus was not married, unless you can provide evidence
>that he was. Which is not what you did. All you did
>was make up assumptions of what you thought I really
>wanted to ask, then attacked those assumptions instead
>of the actual debate topic. Then you finished with
>rhetoric that spent more time proving that which was
>not brought up in the first place (i.e. whether or not
>it was good/reasonable for Christ to get married). I
>understand that this may be your first time, but
>please, try to avoid making these mistakes in the
>future, so the rest of your arguments do not crumble
>like this.
You can call me grasshopper and I will call you master. After all is said and done, my suggestion master is for you to remove the condescending direction to me. I will ameliorate my skills in your eyes only if you assume that your wrong (opposite to your current approach to argument which is that you stick your self out as being correct in a safe argument - I say safe because I believe that there is very little evidence, at least written, that Christ was married). Hypothesis are for testing. Test mine.
Grasshopper.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
You have wasted your time...again -- Lord Veritas, 14:04:43 03/18/06 Sat
(I had to cut out some of the earlier argument to meet the 100 line requirement-the response was originally 167 lines)
>We can go tit for tat, however, my point is that you
>postulated that question and asked for proof or at
>least to refute your evidence (wisdom, ideas, etc.)
>that since there is no evidence to the fact that
>Christ was married someone who might believe that to
>be the case has to prove it to you. Your style (as
>evidenced by other writings) generally is that you
>feel your argument is superior or can't be refutted.
LV:
1) It is a debate. Everyone thinks their argument is superior, including you and me. You should have know that from the beginning
2) Your accusation is absurd, because if one truly thought their argument could not be refuted, they would not bother engaging in the debate in the first place. You have common sense. Use it.
>Your position is that the Sheepdogs ideas (as an
>example) are week and thus must be false. You will
>probably deny this to protect the real purpose of your
>emails and that is to prove the LDS faith errent.
LV: Reread those posts. The condemnation of Sheepdog's arguments is so obvious that it would make no sense to deny it. The purpose of this particular thread is not to prove LDS errant. It is to determine whether or not Christ was married. You have already been told this before, and you will not be told it again.
>Given that background (which is all I have of you and
>I don't need more) then I have a basis for my
>postulation of your intentions.
LV: No you do not. You have simply twisted evidence to support your already ridiculous assumptions.
>As for science's concerns of the bible you are soundly
>incorrect. Their position is much closer to mine in
>that though truth likely exists in the document, the
>evidence (written) is tainted by the course of man's
>effort.
LV: More nonsense. A man who studies physics is not concerned about whether or not Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. A Chemist does not care whether or not Paul wrote his own epistles. An astronomer does not care about the manuscript transmission process. You really should think these things through before you type them up.
>
>Obviously the use of writers, as you suggest, whose
>disdain for Christ is well known, would not be an
>accurate source of evidence. You suggest it is
>possibly a good source because of their abeyance to
>His beliefs.
LV: No. They were examples given to show that evidence of Christ's life is numerous and varied, to refute your statement that the evidence I specified for consideration was insufficient.
>Given that basis, their observations
>again would be tainted and of no value.
LV: Just because something is tainted does not mean it has no value. For example, the Iliad is tainted with a religious belief in pagan gods that do not exist. However, it still has value as one of the great literary achievements of human history, because of the story it tells and the way it tells it. In addition, it led to the discovery of the actual city, Troy, so it did have same value, even though it was tainted.
>In this case,
>the case of whether Christ was married or not, is best
>handled through objective observation and a
>circumstantial case.
LV: Yet, all you did was create a logical model to try to prove that it was plausible for Christ to get married, which is not what this thread is about. It is about actuality, not plausibility.
>Therefore I provided my logic
>equation. I did not however provide my objective
>observation to as you said prove that you said
>"Nowhere did I say marriage was bad." I never said nor
>implied that.
LV: You stated that marriage was good, despite the fact that that is completely irrelevant to whether or not Christ was actually married. You brought it up without any prompting, implying that you thought that I was saying marriage was bad.
>The point for me is a logical equation. If a = b, and
>b = c then a = c. Secondly, the fact that there is an
>absence of evidence about truth, does not make it less
>truth. This logic is synonomous with the unknown
>perpetrator in a murder. The murder happened and the
>evidence to the killer is absent therefore the
>murderer did not exist.
LV: Your logic equation was useless because it did not address the topic.
>Secondly, the evidence in the case of Hitler's Germany
>is well documented and proven in the current world
>powers, which does not include the domination of
>Germany.
LV: Hitler's Germany was brought up to show that plausibility is not equal actuality. It was possible for Hitler to win, but he didn't, just like it was possible for Christ to marry, but he didn't, unless you have evidence for the contrary.
>
>>And spreading lies about people is simply wrong.
>
>I am not sure which lies your speaking of. I did not
>present lies I presented hypothesis.
LV: Reread the post. You were not accused of lying. It was a statement on the importance of telling the truth about people. This proves that you were not paying attention.
>You then stated:
>LV: I think you avoided the debate topic. Your
>>hypothesis was interesting, but off topic. We are not
>>debating whether or not it would be reasonable that
>>Christ to me married. We were debating whether or not
>>he was actually married. I could reasonably assume
>>that J.R.R. Tolkien worshipped the Nordic gods, based
>>on the fact that they heavily influence the
>>Silmarillion, which is the backstory of the Lord of
>>the Rings. However, just because something is
>>reasonable does not mean that it is true.
>
>HUH? I presented a hypothesis and plausible is for you
>to consider.
LV: Your hypothesis was tested. It did not address the actual topic, which was whether or not Christ was actually married. Your hypothesis was about whether or not it would be possible for Christ to get married. Since it did not address the subject of the thread, it failed. So either improve your argument, or stop posting.
>You can call me grasshopper and I will call you
>master.
LV: Now you are just being childish
>After all is said and done, my suggestion
>master is for you to remove the condescending
>direction to me.
LV: If you are not mature enough to handle it when someone shows the shortcomings of your arguments, that is your problem.
>I will ameliorate my skills in your
>eyes only if you assume that your wrong
LV: For one to assume that they are wrong in a debate is, to say the least, counterproductive.
> Hypothesis are for testing. Test mine.
LV: Once again, you make false assumptions about my argument, attack those assumptions, and think that makes you right. If you actually want to debate, address the debate topic instead of evading it. Then you might actually make some progress, instead of wasting your time, and mine.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: All this for nothing -- Quiznos, 22:08:46 03/19/06 Sun
OK. Back early in law school in the study of court room procedures, we would present really lame arguments for the purpose of defending the position. However, arguments that are proven to a jury or judge, whatever the case may be, simply meant it complied with a particular structure. Particulalry it meant that either the argument/postion/case was proved outright by appealing to emotions/evidence of the jury or we simply created doubt in the one or more people in the case of the defense.
Given that, you stated "To my knowledge, there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, or anyone else, whatsoever" and then asked the thread follower to prove otherwise. To answer your thread I will categorically state that I too am not aware of any written documentation on the marriage of Christ to anyone.
Given that as a basis, and the fact that the question still would exist meaning "Did Christ get married", until one of us comes up with some written documentation (whether substantiable or not) the question is not naswerable and is therefore moot. This means neither you nor I can prove to one another with the level of evidence mandated in your demand. It does not however prove you are right simply because you created the parameters.
However, to strengthen the discussion and debate, I offered something for you to consider, I offered a broader set of variables and evidence to devleop your question. I simply provided circumstantial and substantive evidence that Christ created laws. I assumed you would accept those (meaning that notion that it is Christ who creates laws pertaining the spiritual development) this is waht I claim to be the A in the logic equation (which by the way is essential in debate). Given the notion that He creates laws I assumed one must agree that He obeys His own laws (because He is perfect, His laws therefore must be perfect, therefore He would obey His own laws) this would be the B in the logic equation. I then provided evidence of submitting to His own laws such as His baptism and this would be the C. Thus I stated A=B, B=C therefore A=C. In other words, He created laws (marriage is the current example) therefore He would obey the law He creates. Given the equation, Christ was therefore married. I therefore claim that Christ was married and to whom I do not know. You then would need to refute that argument in order to prove that Christ did not marry. You need only to prove any one of the three variables incorrect.
I n eed to add a little personal perception. In the threads you have regarded me inaccurate/weak/etc. you imply my ignorance and weakneses are inhibiting the discussion. However, I must state that my intention has all along been to provide debate and I don't need discorse in ridicule. These are important topics. You are niether superior, nor inferior to me. We are to people intending to develop a question and drive to answers.
I will add this as to my form of debate. Early in college I had to take a class on research principles. It was a class essentially based on statistical methods. Mostly for forming relationships in the dependent variable with one or more independent variables. We are required to form hypotheses and then a null (complete opposite) hypotheses. We are then required to prove the null hypotheses (not our own) if the null is proved to be true the formed hypothesis can not be true. In this way one wouldn't be able to taint the outcomes with biases or introduce third party influences.
Given that your position was stated that if an argument isn't good we shouldn't have it or keep it. That basis essentially increases ones propensity for sticking out an argument for the purpose of protecting the argument (generally defined as protecting an ego). If this were the case (you win an argument even if it is true), the outcome, if you win, is that the argument though false could be accepted and perpetuated as truth.
My point is that you should try harder to be neutral that way if an argument is bad it does no harm.
Grasshopper.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: All this for nothing -- Quiznos, 09:17:14 03/20/06 Mon
Looking back on my last post there was a couple of errors that will likely hang up your reading of my post.
First: in the end I stated: If this were the case (you win an argument even if it is true), the outcome, if you win, is that the argument though false could be accepted and perpetuated as truth. I meant to say in the parens that -you win the argument even if it is NOT true).
Secondly: the logic equation is mandated in debate and argument development. You have to tie your variables to the equation otherwise they are third party (not-related) variables.
Here are my A,B and C.
A=Christ is the creator of spiritual laws
B=Christ is perfect therefore His laws are perfect
C=Christ follows perfect laws
When applied to the question of whether He was married:
A=Christ commanded men to marry women
B=Because Christ is perfect this law is perfect
C=In order for Christ to remain perfect He would have to obey His perfect law.
I present the argument that A=C or because Christ created the law to marry in order for Him to remain perfect He would have to marry.
I therefore state that based on the argument I presented Christ was married.
You can refute my variables or you can present any other logical explanation. But you can not simply deny that He was married based on the lack of documentation.
Grasshopper
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
This is going nowhere -- Lord Veritas, 09:34:44 03/21/06 Tue
>OK. Back early in law school in the study of court
>room procedures, we would present really lame
>arguments for the purpose of defending the position.
>However, arguments that are proven to a jury or judge,
>whatever the case may be, simply meant it complied
>with a particular structure. Particulalry it meant
>that either the argument/postion/case was proved
>outright by appealing to emotions/evidence of the jury
>or we simply created doubt in the one or more people
>in the case of the defense.
LV: Now you have gone from not addressing the debate topic, to making up a lengthy excuse on why you are not directly addressing the debate topic. Your law school backstory is a tangent that has nothing to do with whether or not Christ was married, so it is useless.
>Given that, you stated "To my knowledge, there is no
>historical evidence that Jesus Christ was married to
>Mary Magdalene, or anyone else, whatsoever" and then
>asked the thread follower to prove otherwise. To
>answer your thread I will categorically state that I
>too am not aware of any written documentation on the
>marriage of Christ to anyone.
LV:That explains everything
>Given that as a basis, and the fact that the question
>still would exist meaning "Did Christ get married",
>until one of us comes up with some written
>documentation (whether substantiable or not) the
>question is not naswerable and is therefore moot.
LV: The question is answerable. You just decided that you would rather create formulas than find actual evidence.
>This means neither you nor I can prove to one another with
>the level of evidence mandated in your demand.
LV:No, the level of evidence is sufficient. The evidence specified (biblical, historical, and archaelogical evidence) has been used to show the lives of many people such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cyrus the Great, Tiberius, etc. The only thing insufficient here is your conclusion that the question is unanswerable.
>It does not however prove you are right simply because you
>created the parameters.
LV: Nobody said that.
>However, to strengthen the discussion and debate, I
>offered something for you to consider, I offered a
>broader set of variables and evidence to devleop your
>question.
LV:Whether or not Jesus was married is a question so simple that it needs no development. What you did was tantamount to trying to develop a question such as "Is a tree a plant or an animal?". All your attempt did was try to make the question harder than it really was, to compensate for the fact that your knowledge on the life of Christ was too limited for you to argue in favor of either position.
>I simply provided circumstantial and
>substantive evidence that Christ created laws. I
>assumed you would accept those (meaning that notion
>that it is Christ who creates laws pertaining the
>spiritual development) this is waht I claim to be the
>A in the logic equation (which by the way is essential
>in debate). Given the notion that He creates laws I
>assumed one must agree that He obeys His own laws
>(because He is perfect, His laws therefore must be
>perfect, therefore He would obey His own laws) this
>would be the B in the logic equation. I then provided
>evidence of submitting to His own laws such as His
>baptism and this would be the C. Thus I stated A=B,
>B=C therefore A=C. In other words, He created laws
>(marriage is the current example) therefore He would
>obey the law He creates. Given the equation, Christ
>was therefore married. I therefore claim that Christ
>was married and to whom I do not know. You then would
>need to refute that argument in order to prove that
>Christ did not marry. You need only to prove any one
>of the three variables incorrect.
LV: There is no need to prove any of it incorrect. Your entire equation is merely an attempt to display the plausibility of Christ getting married. Since the plausibility of Christ getting married does not answer whether or not he was actually married, your logic was a complete waste of time that could have been better spent researching his life, to create an argument that actually had some merit
>I n eed to add a little personal perception. In the
>threads you have regarded me inaccurate/weak/etc. you
>imply my ignorance and weakneses are inhibiting the
>discussion. However, I must state that my intention
>has all along been to provide debate and I don't need
>discorse in ridicule. These are important topics. You
>are niether superior, nor inferior to me. We are to
>people intending to develop a question and drive to
>answers.
LV: You tried to act like you knew more than you really did and your bluff was called. Get over it.
>I will add this as to my form of debate. Early in
>college I had to take a class on research principles.
>It was a class essentially based on statistical
>methods. Mostly for forming relationships in the
>dependent variable with one or more independent
>variables. We are required to form hypotheses and then
>a null (complete opposite) hypotheses. We are then
>required to prove the null hypotheses (not our own) if
>the null is proved to be true the formed hypothesis
>can not be true. In this way one wouldn't be able to
>taint the outcomes with biases or introduce third
>party influences.
LV: More excuses.
>Given that your position was stated that if an
>argument isn't good we shouldn't have it or keep it.
>That basis essentially increases ones propensity for
>sticking out an argument for the purpose of protecting
>the argument (generally defined as protecting an ego).
>If this were the case (you win an argument even if it
>is true), the outcome, if you win, is that the
>argument though false could be accepted and
>perpetuated as truth.
LV: The topic of the structure of argument has nothing to do with whether or not Christ was married. If you want to discuss the theory of logic, go to a forum on the theory of logic, and quit being a distraction.
>My point is that you should try harder to be neutral
>that way if an argument is bad it does no harm.
>
>Grasshopper.
LV: Bad arguments do cause harm. They are distracting, do nothing to progress the debate, and send people off on tangents. Your ad hominem approach does nothing to help things.
Quiznos, you are so far off topic that it is not even amusing. It is sad. The topic was whether or not Christ was married, a simple question with a simple yes or no answer. Yet, instead of actually addressing the question, all you have done is try to prove the possibility of Christ getting married (possibility does not reflect actuality) on an assumption that did not use any actual evidence whatsoever. Then you behaved like a brat when this was brought to your attention, and continued to evade the topic. And now, you have included your life story to explain why you evaded the topic, resulting in more evasion of the topic. Although you did finally admit that you had no evidence for Christ being married, that brings up the question of why you bothered to argue about something you knew nothing about in the first place.
Your refusal to address the topic has made you unfit for this debate, and it is pointless for me to engage you in a debate anymore, since you are not even going to stay on topic, and always take things personally, and I no longer wish to waste time to point out your inadequate logic models over and over again. Goodbye and best of luck in your future endeavors.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: This is going nowhere -- pwned, 07:29:46 03/23/06 Thu
>LV: Bad arguments do cause harm. They are
>distracting, do nothing to progress the debate, and
>send people off on tangents. Your ad hominem approach
>does nothing to help things.
>
>Quiznos, you are so far off topic that it is not even
>amusing. It is sad. The topic was whether or not
>Christ was married, a simple question with a simple
>yes or no answer. Yet, instead of actually addressing
>the question, all you have done is try to prove the
>possibility of Christ getting married (possibility
>does not reflect actuality) on an assumption that did
>not use any actual evidence whatsoever. Then you
>behaved like a brat when this was brought to your
>attention, and continued to evade the topic. And now,
>you have included your life story to explain why you
>evaded the topic, resulting in more evasion of the
>topic. Although you did finally admit that you had no
>evidence for Christ being married, that brings up the
>question of why you bothered to argue about something
>you knew nothing about in the first place.
>
>Your refusal to address the topic has made you unfit
>for this debate, and it is pointless for me to engage
>you in a debate anymore, since you are not even going
>to stay on topic, and always take things personally,
>and I no longer wish to waste time to point out your
>inadequate logic models over and over again. Goodbye
>and best of luck in your future endeavors.
lol Quizno's got schooled.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: This is going nowhere -- Quizno210hopper, 17:18:14 03/23/06 Thu
Your original statement (at the beginning of this thread which is what I read) was that there is no evidence that Christ was married and you asked that someone provide evidence showing that he was married.
You premise is that because there isn't evidence (that you know of) and unless someone can show you evidence that He was married you proclaim He was therefore not married. I conceded many posts back that I don't have any documentation that He was married. But just because I don't have the evidence and you asked the question it does not somehow make your contention correct. Using your logic I could contend that without evidence that He wasn't married He therefore was married.
So in order to spur the debate I provided a logical formula. One that you have not addressed. I could make accusations as you have been doing that your totally off course. But I consider the topic more important than the intellectual debate.
I will offer the question. Do you have proof that He was not married?
Finally, I contend that because Christ was perfect, He has to obey the same laws He dictates. Thus, since He provided the commandment to marry He had to comply with that commandment in order to remain perfect. Thus based on that circumstantial relationship I state that Christ was married.
Also, for the record I have children and a wife that keep me on my toes, thus I have no ego especially with regard to interaction with someone I don't know. I don't need asnine tit for tat arguments with you. If this issue is important to you then debate the issue not my style or your perception of who won or lost. Because I guarantee you, we are all Goliaths until we stand next to a little kid with rocks and a sling.
Grasshopper
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: All this for nothing -- Bubba Gump, 18:26:09 07/06/06 Thu
1 Corinthians 7:7-9
[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: All this for nothing -- Bob Blaylock, 05:04:27 06/01/06 Thu
No one said that marriage was bad. I only stated that there is no evidence that Christ was married whatsoever. The argument that it was plausible for him to get married is irrelevant, since just because something is plausible does not mean that it happened. It is plausible that the Germans and the axis powers could have won World War II. But the fact is that they didn't, and, unless someone can prove the contrary, the fact is that Christ wasn't married.
There is no significant evidence one way or the other. There is no significant evidence that Jesus was married, nor is there any significant evidence that he was not.
For you to state that “…unless someone can prove the contrary, the fact is that Christ wasn't married” is illogical. If someone else were to state, “…unless someone can prove the contrary, the fact is that Christ was married”, both statements would be equally wrong. The fact is, we don't know whether he was married or not. Lack of proof that one possibility is correct does not mean that the other equally-unproven possibility must be correct.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
