Forget the 23rd Psalm, what about Deut 25?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry ghastly one your analogy is logically fallacious and a reductio ad absurdum because it vainly attempts to treat playing badminton the same as potentially sterilizing someone by grabbing their scrotum, as if they were synonymous. haw! haw!

You think people from da street don't talk Latin and read philosophy, sigh.

You think reductio ad absurdum is an informal logical fallacy?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I can see that, but you have to remember, the Torah was written some 3500 years ago.

I don't think any books were written 3500 years ago. Try 2500 years ago.
So we have:
Torah: 2500 years ago.
New Testament: 2000 years ago.
Yet the Torah can mostly be ignored as ancient nonsense targeted at those barbaric ancients but every word of the New Testament is relevant today and speaks to you personally.
I don't think the age argument is enough to explain the distinction.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You think reductio ad absurdum is an informal logical fallacy?

i did not mention anything about formal or informal. Again you seem simply to have made that up, and yes its logically fallacious.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Warning woman not to yank a man's scrotum is a 'man made' warning if ever i've heard one. Wouldn't surprised me in the slightest if Deut 25 had continued by instructing a women to have her other hand cut off if she ventured into a man's shed.

yeah yeah so you say and yet we only have your word! another appeal to authority, that being your own. Again you make an absurd analogy and try to shoe horn it into your world view. I have made the only logical , balanced and reasonable evaluation of the crime and its punishment, without recourse to wild speculation, absurd analogies or pandering my own opinions as if they have some efficacy beyond which I imbue them with.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah yeah so you say and yet we only have your word! another appeal to authority, that being your own. Again you make an absurd analogy and try to shoe horn it into your world view. I have made the only logical , balanced and reasonable evaluation of the crime and its punishment, without recourse to wild speculation, absurd analogies or pandering my own opinions as if they have some efficacy beyond which I imbue them with.

Wasn't your "wired, da moon' analogous in nature, or do you think I am literally 'wired to the moon?' 🙄

There was nothing logical, balanced or reasonable about your explanation for the 'crime' in Deut 25 and were yourself in the ludicrous position of trying to defend an ancient, profoundly unjust, man made text, imbuing it with a juxtaposition of divinity. (When it truth ancient man just didn't like having his scrotum yanked).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Wasn't your "wired, da moon' analogous in nature, or do you think I am literally 'wired to the moon?' 🙄

There was nothing logical, balanced or reasonable about your explanation for the 'crime' in Deut 25 and were yourself in the ludicrous position of trying to defend an ancient, profoundly unjust, man made text, imbuing it with a juxtaposition of divinity. (When it truth ancient man just didn't like having his scrotum yanked).

listen up Dweezil! You had these values prior to your evaluation of scripture and that is why you now seek to impose them upon the verse where none exists in the text leading to an idea thats biased, devoid of both substance and reason and a vain appeal to your own authority. I on the other hand being free of prejudice, noble minded and willing to ascertain the facts concluded that the crime fits the punishment and may even be viewed as a mercy because if it was like for like then sterilization would have been proscribed a much more serious matter or a women in Israel for which barrenness was seen as the greatest reproach.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
listen up Dweezil! You had these values prior to your evaluation of scripture and that is why you now seek to impose them upon the verse where none exists in the text leading to an idea thats biased, devoid of both substance and reason and a vain appeal to your own authority. I on the other hand being free of prejudice, noble minded and willing to a ...[text shortened]... more serious matter or a women in Israel for which barrenness was seen as the greatest reproach.

Can you please elaborate on you being free from prejudice and bias?

(No elaboration required on 'noble minded' as presume you were just jesting).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Can you please elaborate on you being free from prejudice and bias?

(No elaboration required on 'noble minded' as presume you were just jesting).

I just did, i came to the scripture merely attempting to ascertain why the punishment was as it was. My motive was simply to understand, I did not impose some kind of exegesis where none was explicit in the text. I did not view the verse through some kind of distorted lens declaring afterwards my own prejudices, its man made, clearly taboo was to blame etc etc No jesting, just pure unadulterated objectivity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I just did, i came to the scripture merely attempting to ascertain why the punishment was as it was. My motive was simply to understand, I did not impose some kind of exegesis where none was explicit in the text. I did not view the verse through some kind of distorted lens declaring afterwards my own prejudices, its man made, clearly taboo was to blame etc etc No jesting, just pure unadulterated objectivity.

You are not being very objective sir about your objectivity.

I stress here that i am not questioning your sincerity. I accept you believe what you believe. You are mistaken however when you say you, 'came to the scripture merely attempting to ascertain why the punishment was as it was. My motive was simply to understand,"

Truth is, you came to scripture already in the belief that it is the word of God. You were never going to objectively conclude that the 'punishment' was unjust. You were always going to seek to justify it. - I'm sure, if you put down your Babycham and think about it for a moment, you will agree that this is not objectivity. - As an atheist i come to scripture as a carrier of bias, but as a theist you do the same. You surrendered your objectivity when you embraced your faith, just as you surrendered your manliness when you started wearing a 'big girl's blouse.'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You are not being very objective sir about your objectivity.

I stress here that i am not questioning your sincerity. I accept you believe what you believe. You are mistaken however when you say you, 'came to the scripture merely attempting to ascertain why the punishment was as it was. My motive was simply to understand,"

Truth is, you came to ...[text shortened]... ur faith, just as you surrendered your manliness when you started wearing a 'big girl's blouse.'

Ouch busted again! 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think any books were written 3500 years ago. Try 2500 years ago.
So we have:
Torah: 2500 years ago.
New Testament: 2000 years ago.
Yet the Torah can mostly be ignored as ancient nonsense targeted at those barbaric ancients but every word of the New Testament is relevant today and speaks to you personally.
I don't think the age argument is enough to explain the distinction.

No. The Torah was written by Moses somewhere between 1250 BCE and 1500 BCE. Not 500 BCE. Moses was long, long dead by then.

There is a bigger time difference between the two than just 500 years. Of course you would spin it that there's not so that your argument can appear to have validity.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Surely God transcends time?

God does, but man does not. The Bible was written for man, not God.

Originally posted by Suzianne
God does, but man does not. The Bible was written for man, not God.

Ancient man or modern man?

Originally posted by Suzianne
God does, but man does not. The Bible was written for man, not God.

Sounds like God should send some new dude (or dudette) over to write a 21st-Century version.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i did not mention anything about formal or informal. Again you seem simply to have made that up, and yes its logically fallacious.

You seem to be a bit confused. Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical device that is not necessarily fallacious. It can be used to point out a flaw in someone's reasoning by showing that the reasoning leads to absurd consequences. Example:

John: I am against abortion, because life is sacred.
Richard: but bacteria are also life, so you are against killing bacteria.

Richard has shown through reductio ad absurdum that John should make his objection to abortion more precise since presumably John does not feel bacteria are sacred. Richard commits no fallacy here, formal or informal.

The distinction between formal and informal fallacies is related to whether or not the logic in question is formal. An example of a formal logical fallacy is:

All cows are mammals. John is a mammal. Therefore, John is a cow. (this is actually a very common fallacy, if not in precisely this formulation)

An example of an informal logical fallacy is:

It has been raining all week. Therefore, it will rain again tomorrow.

There is no formal logic rule that says anything about weather patterns. To determine that the reasoning is fallacious, you need to know that there is no causal relation between it raining on one day and it raining on the next. Therefore it is an informal fallacy (of the hasty generalization kind).