Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did it ever occur to you, that many people DON'T CARE what the bible says?
In regards to the rights of Americans, there is absolutely no room for the inclusion of your religion in the discussion. Why is this so difficult to understand for you people? Your religion is YOUR religion. It is not mine, nor is it other Americans. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but you may not expect the rest of us to abide by it.
So go ahead, argue the merits of Sodom and Gomorrah until you're blue in the face, it's still irrelevant.
Never have I argued the merits of the Sodom and Gomorrah account, nor have I mentioned my own religion, nor have I included any of my own religious beliefs in my posts. I don't care at all whether you adhere to my religious beliefs, whatever they might be. You can do what you want with your life. I simply don't care what you do. You are of no consequence to me, one way or the other. Is that hard to understand? If so, which part are you having trouble with?
Rather, the point under discussion is whether the Bible teaches strongly against homosexuality, or not. It does, clearly -- see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the New English Bible. To say otherwise is the oldest trick in the homosexual apologist's bag, and it's used insidiously to spread their philosophy among people who really don't know anything much about the Bible but have some respect for it.
This will move all the way to the supreme court and they have signaled they will not only take the case but rule that it violates the 14th amendment as well.
Did it ever occur to you, that many people DON'T CARE what the bible says?
In regards to the rights of Americans, there is absolutely no room for the inclusion of your religion in the discussion. Why is this so difficult to understand for you people? Your religion is YOUR religion. It is not mine, nor is it other Americans. You can believe whatever the hell you want, but you may not expect the rest of us to abide by it.
So go ahead, argue the merits of Sodom and Gomorrah until you're blue in the face, it's still irrelevant.
I absolutely agree !!! Great post !!!! 1 billion reps to you!!
Also, God did not write the Bible, man did, and it is 2000 years old, I'm sure it has been a bit "altered" from time to time.
anyone ever think of that.
and also.
the bible is not everyone's religion, and come to think of it, religion is, was, and will always be, the problem of the world, as it has been since day one.
Negative claims cannot be proven. Only affirmative claims.
In the case of a murder trial, the prosecution is making an affirmative claim, that the defendant is guilty of murder. It is the prosecution's job to prove that claim. The defense's job is not to prove that the defendant is innocent. The defense's job is to attack the affirmative arguments made my the prosecution.
You can make negative claims, but you cannot PROVE them. Any argument to PROVE a negative claim is a logical fallacy, because there is always room for doubt/error.
Arguments are evidence offered to support an affirmative claim, and counter-evidence to discredit the affirmative's evidence. That's point/counterpoint.
Please contact your instructor in your logic course to have this information verified.
Mistake, I never said the instructor made the claim I am making, did I? I said I took a logic course and went further to explain my view.
If you believe Jupiter does not exist, you cannot make such claim? Are you prohibited to say "I Looked at the orbital route where the claim Jupiter exists and I can prove it does not.", then proceed to show photos, video, etc. and go from there?
What stops you from such reasoning, a rule of logic? To me it is a convenient way to copout of certain arguments. I you do not believe there is a God and you are restricted but the logic principle you state, then never express your claims if they are negatives, never say "God does not exist".
The bottom line to me is this, you make ANY TYPE of claim, prove it. Take care.
and God did not write the Bible, man did, and it is 2000 years old, I'm sure it has been a bit "altered" from time to time.
anyone ever think of that.
and also.
the bible is not everyone's religion, and come to think of it, religion is, was, and will always be, the problem of the world, as it has been since day one.
You know, I am starting to think that some of you are just plain dumb.
The question is not about the validity of the Bible.
The question concerns whether a particular teaching appears in the Bible.
Can you not understand the difference between these two concepts?
When it comes to the very specific area of things existing, the line is pretty clear cut: Positive claims carry the burden of proof. The teapot orbiting Saturn is the classical example. Are you willing to entertain the idea of a teapot orbiting Saturn until proven otherwise?
The defense will tend to present positive evidence of a different version of events. As in, "My client was at the ballgame at the time you claim he murdered someone, here's the security tape proving it".
I think you mean the defense, and that is the default position - the prosecution has to prove their version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, remember? (The reason it never happens is that prosecutors don't go to trial unless they think they have good evidence.)
"My wife does not love me" is a positive assertion, and it can clearly be argued. It's no different from stating "the glass is empty" as "the glass is not full".
"Man did not walk on the Moon" is a positive (albeit silly) assertion, and can of course too, be argued. "Prove to me that there was no movie set made to depict the Moon" is asking for proof of a negative, though. How can that be proven?
It depends on whether you're arguing the positive assertion "God does not exist" or the more neutral assertion "God's existence is unproven". But one thing the believer cannot logically do is saying "God's existence is true until proven false". Just like with the teapot or the defendant's guilt - burden of proof is with the positive assertion.
Thanks for the response. I think I replied to another writer and my reply may be similar to your message.
To make my point clearer I summarize it this way: You make ANY TYPE of claim I do not see a problem with expecting proof whether the claim is negative or positive.
Take care.
Mistake, I never said the instructor made the claim I am making, did I? I said I took a logic course and went further to explain my view.
If you believe Jupiter does not exist, you cannot make such claim? Are you prohibited to say "I Looked at the orbital route where the claim Jupiter exists and I can prove it does not.", then proceed to show photos, video, etc. and go from there?
What stops you from such reasoning, a rule of logic? To me it is a convenient way to copout of certain arguments. I you do not believe there is a God and you are restricted but the logic principle you state, then never express your claims if they are negatives, never say "God does not exist".
The bottom line to me is this, you make ANY TYPE of claim, prove it. Take care.
I didn't say the instructor made any claims.
I explained why you cannot prove a negative claim, that only an affirmative claim can be proven. And I suggested you contact your instructor to verify my explanation.
As I stated, people can and do make negative assertions. But they cannot be proven.
Evidence proves that something happened or something exists. There is no evidence that something never happened or something never existed. The vastness of the universe creates possibility. In the face of that, of possibility, you cannot prove a negative.
And it's not a rule of logic. It's part of the very foundation of logic.
There's no way to prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting Saturn. The burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive claim.
Yes there is. Granted it would be a very difficult task but I can be done. That example is much easier than using logic with the realm of the existence of God though. The Saturn example requires actual physical actions so it can be done.
I would not waste my money or time trying to prove there isn't a teapot though. Take care.
Rather, the point under discussion is whether the Bible teaches strongly against homosexuality, or not. It does, clearly -- see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the New English Bible. To say otherwise is the oldest trick in the homosexual apologist's bag, and it's used insidiously to spread their philosophy among people who really don't know anything much about the Bible but have some respect for it.
Have some respect for it? If you had any respect for it, you'd follow it to the letter, not cherry pick what you want as a means to validate your bigotry. Did you see anybody work last Sunday? Are you wearing blended fabric? Did you enjoy any shellfish lately?
The only thing you know about the bible is what you want to know about it. That's about it and that's about as disrespectful to a "Holy Book" as you can be.
Yes there is. Granted it would be a very difficult task but I can be done. That example is much easier than using logic with the realm of the existence of God though. The Saturn example requires actual physical actions so it can be done.
I would not waste my money or time trying to prove there isn't a teapot though. Take care.
You cannot prove that no teapot is circling Saturn.
Even if you could observe all the space around Saturn at the same time (you can't), someone could still argue that the teapot is an invisible teapot.
Proof, evidence, exists because something happened. Proof/evidence is part of an outcome of an event. If something didn't happen there isn't any proof/evidence/outcome.
But my inability to find proof/evidence/outcome doesn't prove an event didn't happen. Proof/evidence/outcome can be fleeting or destroyed over time. Proof/evidence/outcome can be difficult, even impossible to find. I don't have any evidence that Sally fell off her bike on May 8, 1974, but it could have happened. But I cannot PROVE that it didn't happen. The lack of evidence is not conclusive of a non-event. Because events do happen that don't leave evidence behind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
