[ 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: 15:28:59 03/20/06 Mon
Author: Quizno210hopper
Subject: Was Christ Married?
In reply to:
Unbiased
's message, "Re: Is an Apple an Orange?" on 14:29:58 03/20/06 Mon
>In a debate you must be able to PROVE something.
NO, in debate you must be able to convince people of your position. Based on the audience even lame debators can win a debate with an appeal to emotions and away from logic.
>LV: It is equally "fair" to put the burden of proof on
>you to provide evidence that Christ WAS NOT married
>since that is your final conclusion. Your conclusion
>is based on a LACK of evidence. NOT on evidence.
>This is a logical fallacy as I am sure you are aware.
>However in general, your argument IS stronger than
>Mormon210's argument (oops I meant Quiznos...)
This was contained in my earliest response and was obviously lost to LV.
>Mormon210 (oops Quiznos..): Your "argument" is
>completely circumstantial and up until your last post,
>you were getting toasted in the debate by LV. I mean
>seriously... you were just getting pounded badly by
>most standards of measure. :)
I guess this is your perception. However, without going through the debate LV presented no argument. He simply said there was a lack of evidence. Not once did I make any claim to evidence. Given that, what do you base your analysis of my presentation.
>BUT in your last post
>you did lay out your reasoning a bit more clearly.
>Your logic equation is a deduction and not a PROOF
>however, so you have not defeated the argument at
>hand. You have simply put forth another hypothesis.
Actually, logic equations are formulae intended to develop relational variables into a hypothesis. The test on the Hypothesis would be to determine the validity of the relationships and the value of the variables in the equation. I, from the beginning, presented my thoughts in a manner consistent with logical analysis. Secondly, there was a lack of an argument from LV and I was attempting to refine the question. So I was not answering a question, I was forming debate where only a challenge existed.
>JUST ONE tangent to examine would be the semantics of
>the term "commanded" in reference to God "commanding"
>men to marry. What exactly does God mean by that?
>Does he explicitly mean that every man must marry
>otherwise it's a sin? At what point do we draw the
>line? What if a man is unmarried his whole life but
>marries at the last second before death? Does that
>count? What if someone dies at age 20 and never had a
>chance to get married? We can have an ENTIRE debate
>on the meaning of that commandment alone, so you can
>not really use it to support your argument.
You pose an objections to the term commandment. However, it is well accepted in most legal interpretations that a commandment is an edict to obey. In a court it may be analyzed as it is contained in a contract as it was imposed on either party in a contract. In the case of God, most Christians accept the notion that a commandment is what must be obeyed and a sign of their devotion to Him. Secondly, my terms used were synonomous with one another (commanded men and law), thus the term stands in my argument. If you need to debate the term we can do that.
>In reality, your circumstantial argument has more
>holes than swiss cheese, due to the debatable nature
>of scriptural interpretation.
First of all it is not circumstantial. In this case the statements are documentable statements from the accepted authority.
Second - name a hole. Do you mean commandment? Do you mean is Christ perfect? Do you mean man has to marry to...? Your objections should be explicit. In my argument I clearly stated that Christ creates perfect laws (I did not necessarily state commandments but from my perspective they are synonomous). I added that if the law giver is perfect, then his laws are perfect. Given that he must obey perfect laws. That is what is to be refuted.
>THATS WHY DEBATES are best limited to PROVEN fact, not
>ANALOGIES, HYPOTHESIS, and ASSUMPTIONS.
Name an assumption, analogy or hypothesis that is not acceptable in what I offered and be specific and we can work on the objections.
>Debate Score: (out of 5 possible)
>Well I can't score it because you are not debating the
>same topic :) But I'd give the edge to LV (-1 point
>for his illogical conclusion). Quiz you get a couple
>points for your "circumstantial" case but not enough
>to win anything nor enough to convince any unbiased
>observer IMO. Neither of you has proven anything either way. Just thought I would point that out.
Finally, the actual score is 1. I presented an argument and 2. LV presented a challenge. I am not going debate the results of whether I met his challenge or not. We can however debate what I presented as an argument in that because Christ is perfect, the laws He creates are perfect and given they are perfect and He is perfect He must obey the perfect laws He has created in order to remain perfect.
Now, when that claim is refuted you can score me. however, even in that, debate is an art, and skills are demanded for the presenation of issues and debates are therefore subjective. Trust me I have seen a host of contracts that shouldn't pass civil trials but because of loop holes and e/o these contracts stand.
Grasshopper, Quiznos and Mormon 210 all in one.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [> [>
Re: Was Christ Married? -- Unbiased, 09:29:52 03/21/06 Tue
Neither of you has a persuasive argument here. And true you can "win" a debate by many means.
Your logic equation falls apart to paradox, since Christ has a dual nature. You never address how to deal with the paradox so your equation is invalid.
Here is another example where the dual nature creates a paradox:
A = God made the law : thou (man) shalt not kill
B = Christ is God
C = Christ is man
D = God is allowed to kill, and has done so many times OT
E = Man is not allowed to kill.
Conclusion: Christ is allowed to kill? (A+B=D?)
Conclusion: Christ is not allowed to kill? (A+C=E?)
You need to either expand your definitions or change your equation before you have a valid argument.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Was Christ Married? -- Quizno210hopper, 17:15:18 03/21/06 Tue
Actually to kill in your equation is the paradox. In that Christ commanded (as an example) David to kill the Palestinians in war to protect Israel (the basis having value), yet Christ did not command David to kill Uriah to cover his (David's) sin with Bethsheba. In the sense that Christ is the giver of the commandment He is also the judge of the application of that commandment.
My argument doesn't have this paradox becuase in the case of man, we have the commandment to protect and the the commandment not to kill but in the process of protection we might have to kill.
Hopper
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Was Christ Married? -- Unbiased, 07:49:29 03/23/06 Thu
You have proven my point with your statement:
"In the sense that Christ is the giver of the commandment He is also the judge of the application of that commandment."
So since Christ (God) is the giver of the commandment for men to marry, he is also the judge of the application of that commandment and can exempt Himself from it.
THERFORE your equation is not absolute and therefore invalid in supporting your contention that Christ was married.
Additionaly, there is no real need to prove your equation wrong (I just wanted to do it for fun) since:
1) As Veritas pointed out, you have never actually addressed the debate topic and instead created a forumula to prove the plausibility of Christ getting married. So even if I didn't blow up your formula, it does not matter. Your formula does not actually answer the question. No matter what logical approach you use, it only serves plausibility and does not prove the actual. In other words you are wasting time. I don't know why though. It was a simple question after all.
2) You completely missed my point. Your equation actually DOES suffer from paradox in that Christ (God) commanded MEN to marry. But Christ IS BOTH God and Man and does not "fit" into your limited definition of HIS nature (you only apply the definition to his humanity). The PARADOX exisits in that God did not command God to marry. He commanded MEN to marry. So by 1/2 Christ's nature He is commanded (by himself) to marry, but the other 1/2 of His nature He is NOT commanded to marry. A SOLID FORMULA MUST ACCOUNT FOR ALL VARIABLES AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. But regardless, its a moot point since all you did was evade and postulate a plausible circumstance proving nothing.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Was Christ Married? -- Quizno210hopper, 14:25:17 03/23/06 Thu
>You have proven my point with your statement:
>
>"In the sense that Christ is the giver of the
>commandment He is also the judge of the application of
>that commandment."
And given a particular circumstance (in this case to protect the life of His chosen people) Christ invoked the commandment to kill.
>So since Christ (God) is the giver of the commandment
>for men to marry, he is also the judge of the
>application of that commandment and can exempt Himself
>from it.
You make a errant assertion in summary you make the claim that because Christ commanded David to kill Palestine in war for the purpose of protecting His children, He therefore must be allowed the type of variance in marriage. In order to establish precedence the relationship of killing to marriage needs to bridge the valid purpose variable in your precedence. In other words you will need to provide for me a scriptural case that Christ commanded not to marry for a greater purpose. Until then we can assume that they are not equal objectives and a precedence can not exist.
>THERFORE your equation is not absolute and therefore
>invalid in supporting your contention that Christ was
>married.
Your finding is first of all incomplete, though you have provided a possible objection to my equation, as I stated above your assertion is unsupported in the case of marriage because precedence is not established. So based on this objection, the equation stands.
>Additionaly, there is no real need to prove your
>equation wrong (I just wanted to do it for fun) since:
Again, you simply made errant claims to precendence which I soundly refuted.
>1) As Veritas pointed out, you have never actually
>addressed the debate topic and instead created a
>forumula to prove the plausibility of Christ getting
>married. So even if I didn't blow up your formula, it
>does not matter. Your formula does not actually
>answer the question. No matter what logical approach
>you use, it only serves plausibility and does not
>prove the actual. In other words you are wasting
>time. I don't know why though. It was a simple
>question after all.
Again, LV never presented an argument, he simply provided a challenge to prove he is wrong that there is no proof/evidence of the marriage of Christ. I stated that I did not know of written evidence to the fact that Christ was married and therefore I had to establish the relationship with circumstantial evidence. Which I have done.
>2) You completely missed my point. Your equation
>actually DOES suffer from paradox in that Christ (God)
>commanded MEN to marry. But Christ IS BOTH God and
>Man and does not "fit" into your limited definition of
>HIS nature (you only apply the definition to his
>humanity). The PARADOX exisits in that God did not
>command God to marry. He commanded MEN to marry. So
>by 1/2 Christ's nature He is commanded (by himself) to
>marry, but the other 1/2 of His nature He is NOT
>commanded to marry
again you can not make this claim without precedence
A SOLID FORMULA MUST ACCOUNT FOR
>ALL VARIABLES AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. But
>regardless, its a moot point since all you did was
>evade and postulate a plausible circumstance proving
>nothing.
Christ has no paradox. He is perfect, whether man or God He, if the scriptures are correct, is perfect (both man and God). He would follow all the commandments that He gave to man in order to be the perfect offering. The biology of man is to procreate. In the Garden Christ and His Father commanded Adam and Eve to procreate. Christ's natural man would therefore have to comply with the commandment given by himself to man. In order to protect His perfection as a God He would need to do that under particular guidelines which he has created (the commandment to marry-LDS folks prefer to term it as eternal marriage directed under the priesthood and sealed for time and all eternity). Thus if He is to remain perfect in the flesh, He would have to procreate. To remain perfect in the Law, He would have to marry. There is no paradox. The human side of Christ must be perfect as well as the God side of Christ.
Hopper
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
