It is ad-hominem, which is against forum rules.
Being a president of an American bible society doesn't make you a scholar or a great mind.
In my opinion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The whole Bible is not from God
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Being a president of an American bible society doesn't make you a scholar or a great mind.
In my opinion.
Done, see post #90.
As per post #90 the OP may be making an unsound argument, but it is not employing any fallacy to go from her unshared premises to reach her conclusion derived from those premises.
In my opinion.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nope. I just answered your question.
It's fallacious. It's post hoc justification. Today I have a my own moral principles, and I claim whatever in the Bible that does not suit my moral standards are not Gods word. The other things I like are Gods word.
Absolutely fallacious. You have just worded it "unsound".
Tell me. Can you put the argument in premise by premise format and make the deduction without falling into a single logical fallacy?
Please go ahead and show your syllogism to substantiate your assertion.
Thank in advance.
This is just ignoring the clarification provided in post #90
Premise1 God is loving and just
Premise 2 There are parts of the Bible that are not loving and not just
Conclusion: Those parts are not from God.
Feel free to point out the fallacy.
In my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I was only responding to your comment.
You missed the second conclusion. How do you justify the other parts, other than the so called unloving and unjust parts in the Bible are God's words?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
O earth doesn't love you it's reactive.
Heavens doesn't love you its reactive.
We love each other by mutual human experience and choice of the use of human words. As human explanations.
So you choose to hurt me. I'm very loving. My human words explain what you did. You caused me to hate you by your actions by your words you chose. My words tell me also. I own feelings. You deserved to be hated not loved.
If I love your evil human activity I lie.
Human loves human hates are just some human descriptions of my thoughts feelings motivations.
In human life.
On earth.
Total earth statements taught by just egotist human men saying it's science terms. By human explanations. Hence as a human doesn't pre exist creation you lied.
God didn't cause you to love hate. Human man says we shared mutual love. Now you hate by truth of my causes.
Yet a human is naturally kind caring meek mutual loving. Has life partnership loves everyone as brother or sister as family.
What part of a human written book is God?
None of it actually.
Heavens doesn't love you its reactive.
We love each other by mutual human experience and choice of the use of human words. As human explanations.
So you choose to hurt me. I'm very loving. My human words explain what you did. You caused me to hate you by your actions by your words you chose. My words tell me also. I own feelings. You deserved to be hated not loved.
If I love your evil human activity I lie.
Human loves human hates are just some human descriptions of my thoughts feelings motivations.
In human life.
On earth.
Total earth statements taught by just egotist human men saying it's science terms. By human explanations. Hence as a human doesn't pre exist creation you lied.
God didn't cause you to love hate. Human man says we shared mutual love. Now you hate by truth of my causes.
Yet a human is naturally kind caring meek mutual loving. Has life partnership loves everyone as brother or sister as family.
What part of a human written book is God?
None of it actually.
Starlight
Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
@danieldemol wrote this:
Premise1 God is loving and just
Premise 2 There are parts of the Bible that are not loving and not just
Conclusion: Those parts are not from God.
This is the truth!
Premise1 God is loving and just
Premise 2 There are parts of the Bible that are not loving and not just
Conclusion: Those parts are not from God.
This is the truth!
You can't, but if that is the conclusion you are objecting to - that the loving and just parts are from God - then it brings us back to the question of why it is better to have a different understanding of words that are not demonstrably of God.
In my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
That's irrelevant to your persistence. You came up with a very lame understanding of hermeneutics, and you created a new argument for me, which is a strawman, and you tried your best to use your misunderstanding of philosophical hermeneutics and trajectory hermeneutics which I said was better than making a fallacious argument etc etc etc just to start some argument with a quick google search of terms. Now you are creating a new argument. I didnt say "it is better to have a different understanding". You are just creating strawman after strawman like a cherry picker for bread. I said it is a better argument to at least address, not that its better.
Now you should justify the OP which you called "unsound" but is not "fallacious".
Prove your syllogism is not fallacious, and prove that the rest of the text is Gods word which is the argument of the OP with out getting into any fallacy.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
If I am ignorant of information that seems to be evaded in either fine gentlemen’s biographical information, I would appreciate being directed to where I might find it. Is this something you could help me out with.
The information I seem to be able to find is that they both had law degrees. I found nothing about biblical or history degrees for either one.
I happily admit I was ignorant of the American Bible Society, so I looked them up on Wikipedia.
While it lists several prominent Americans (particularly in it’s early years) they neglected to mention Mr. Adams. Oh well, that’s neither here nor there.
It does say their purpose is to distribute bibles.
I’ll happily grant you that Mr. Adams was apparently a religious man and is reported to have read the bible daily.
As for Mr. Marshall, according to Wikipedia;
“Marshall was not religious, and although his grandfather was a priest, never formally joined a church. He did not believe Jesus was a divine being,[160] and in some of his opinions referred to a deist "Creator of all things." He was an active Freemason and served as Grand Master of Masons in Virginia in 1794–1795 of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free, and Accepted Masons of the Commonwealth of Virginia.[161]”
So, since I still stand unaware of either gentleman having any expertise in biblical scholarship and until such information might come to light, I’ll stand by my earlier contention that neither one should be considered an authority on the subject.
In conclusion; in response to your posting
I still describe it as a bald assertion followed by a very weak appeal to non authorities.
I can't prove it is not fallacious, I can only invite people to identify any fallacy in it. So far the person invited to identify the fallacy has been utterly unable to.
In my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
then drop it.
You have no capacity of understanding it. Thats since you are aiming to argue and are bringing one false accusation after another.
So since your aim is that, you have lost your capacity to understand the fallacy. Do a quick google search again like you did for the word hermeneutics and made the most bizarre statements ever made in the history of this universe. Cheers.
Of course before you identify the fallacy in my syllogism I can't understand the unidentified duh.
But try identifying the fallacy in it, you might be pleasantly surprised.
In my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You did not completely represent the OP. you never will.
No problem. Can you give your syllogism to prove that God is loving and just? That's your first premise. This has to be based on the Bible. Otherwise you are providing an external critique. Which means it's your emotions. You are giving an emotional assertion.
Now, can you provide your logical P1, P2, P3, Q syllogism to prove that one author wrote both parts, the so called good and bad, and that this author got Gods words which were "good" from God, and the other parts which were "bad" were either made up, or he got it from some other source? E.g. the devil? Or do you have any other explanation for that? Or are you claiming they were different authors? Based on what analysis?
Let's see your explanation.
No need to as I already acknowledged that the conclusion that the loving and just parts of the Bible are from God is unjustified.
I never claimed to have one that proves that, hence the reason I described them as premises which are at the very least not demonstrably sound. But that doesn't mean that a fallacy was committed to get from the premises to the conclusion. Hence the syllogism is valid but not sound.
I think its an emotional assertion even if it comes from the Bible, but since you asked for it to be based on the Bible consider deuteronomy 32:3-4
'Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.'
Or how about psalm 89:14;
'Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;
love and faithfulness go before you.'
I wouldn't do that because I dont think we can demonstrate that any of it comes from God. We can only demonstrate that *if* God is loving and just, *then* those parts of the Bible which are not loving and just definitely don't come from God.
So to sum up, you can fault the premises, but have so far been unable to fault the conclusion of my syllogism given the premises.
In my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No problem. Can you give your syllogism to prove that God is loving and just?[/quote]
I never claimed to have one that proves that, hence the reason I described them as premises which are at the very least not demonstrably sound. But that doesn't mean that a fallacy was committed to get from the premises to the conclusion. Hence the syllogism is valid but not sound.[/QUOTE]
Invalid response. try and respond with a valid response to what I asked. Otherwise, the argument is fallacious. I never said the syllogism is invalid or its not logically possible. This must be the eleventh or 15th strawman you are bringing in because you just wish to argue.
Nice. So internally, the bible says God is good. Internally, its an internal contradiction that you are addressing. That's a good argument if that is what you are doing. But that's not your argument. So you have to show why there is an internal contradiction between lets say Genesis and Deuteronomy. Is it two different authors? Yes. It is indeed two different authors.
Right. Then don't make bogus arguments just to feel you achieved something.
The whole argument is fallacious. Its post hoc. Today I don't like parts of it. So that day God didnt reveal the part I don't like. The other parts are Gods words because I like them. nonsensical argument.
How did you arrive at Premise 1?
And, for extra credit:
Is something just because it is ordained by God, or is it ordained by God because it is just, and how did you arrive at this conclusion?
Appeal to authority, ignoring the Jefferson (another "authority") Bible.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I did not really give an analogy, I gave the way we read a fictitious novel and suggested that you should read it the same way. You do think it is fictitious after all.
In this way you could judge this God in the fictitious stories as a character in a novel.
But you don't do that and don't seem willing to do that, to judge the Bible God fairly as He is portrayed in the Bible, taking into consideration whom He is said to be and you do not seem to want to consider individual stories in the context they are in and in the context of the whole Bible.
You judge God as if He is portrayed as just another man in the Bible.
I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say -- it certainly makes no sense to me. If the God of the Bible is fictional, then what do I care? I can put Harry Potter down and go the rest of my day without worrying about being hit by an Avada Kedrava curse, because it's fiction.
You do not take God to be fictional -- you say your yourself, in words and in how you portray him. Here's an example:
If you do not think God is fictional, and you think that He is the God of the Bible, then how can you have asked me, as you did: "Where do you say that God in the Bible is not being loving and just?" To which I answered: