This is going nowhere -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ 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):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:34:44 03/21/06 Tue
Author: Lord Veritas
Subject: This is going nowhere
In reply to: Quiznos 's message, "Re: All this for nothing" on 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.
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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]