I Think We All Know What Happened at Gold Spa

1776

Member
No, polyginy (polygamy is technically an incorrect term) is regulated by the deity of the bible... if you believe the bible to be the word of God. The same with slavery. Rules are presented, but the practice is never prohibited/banned/declared a "sin".

It makes no rational sense that the bible deity would be ready to call something a sin without any ambiguity, but then get cold feet about calling another action a sin.
There is no ambiguity. It simply requires enough wisdom to read and consider the full context rather that conveniently snipping verses to make an incomplete narrative.

Genesis 2:24 lays the foundation declaring a man CLEAVE to his wife and become ONE. This principle is repeated throughout the bible. (Deuteronomy 17:14, 17) (1 Timothy 3:2) (1 Timothy 3:2-12) (Ephesians 5:31) (1 Corinthians 7:2) (Mark 10:7)

The Bible makes no apologies for the fallibility of man...that's the POINT....to highlight the sinfulness and disobedience of man and to highlight CONSEQUENCES illustrating man's need for a savior. Rather than promoting polygamy, the examples of polygamy in the bible include detail regarding the consequences to individuals, family and society.

As for "regulation"...regulations shouldnt be seen as promoting or condoning the behavior. Much like the cultural acknowledgement of slavery, indentured servitude, it simply recognizes that man was created with free will, and within the context of society turning from God and reaping what it sows, provide some degree of protection to those involved. (Note that virtually all of these 'regulations' come from man in Mosaic Law...not from God directly.)
 
Last edited:

Bob1

Well-known member
Actually, you are the one using the Scottsman fallacy by conveniently generalizing the term Christian to include most anyone who throws out the label. The Bible is very clear about the defining qualities of a true believer and clearly warns about the preponderance of false converts, heretics, etc.

Sexual repression is toxic? I suppose you would say that pedophilia and beastiality are acceptable, healthy and natural? No, your definition of "natural" is likely tainted by prevalence of shallow Freudian, Kinseyan, philosophical ideals...secular humanism, naturalism, moral relativism. A healthy, natural view of sex acknowledges not only the fulfillment of desire, but the acknowledgement of its purpose including healthy individual and family bonding and the responsibilities of procreation.

I didn't claim any link. I simply claimed a correlation. The increasing rates of mental illness, psychotropic medication dependency, suicide, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, poverty, etc all correspond with sexual liberation.
No, I am using the No True Scotsman fallacy correctly. Christianity is a wide umbrella with many groups falling under it. Various factions and denominations claim various details and points of disagreement. However, NONE of you can objectively prove that you have the "correct" version of Christianity (if such a thing even exists). You just argue amongst yourselves and declare those you disagree with to not be "true Christians". Therefore, I have correctly applied the fallacy to your protests concerning the spa killer.

Yes, sexual repression is toxic. Yes, my definition of natural sexuality is scientifically and secularly defined... because those are the correct means of defining it. As for pedophilia or beastiality, those are irrelevant outliers. Fundamentalists/conservative Christianity is repressive in this regard. It tells people that they are "sinful" and/or "dirty" for having normal, natural sexual desires and for fulfilling them in any manner if they are single. THAT is a toxic and unhealthy ideology.

Your correlation claim isn't founded and doesn't count for much. There are similar positive correlations with being sexually liberated. And areas known for high levels of conservative religiosity are correlated with higher rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc.
It's also interesting to note that societies associated with high levels of sexual repression are correlated with higher levels of violence and aggression.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
There is no ambiguity. It simply requires enough wisdom to read and consider the full context rather that conveniently snipping verses to make an incomplete narrative.

Genesis 2:24 lays the foundation declaring a man CLEAVE to his wife and become ONE. This principle is repeated throughout the bible. (Deuteronomy 17:14, 17) (1 Timothy 3:2) (1 Timothy 3:2-12) (Ephesians 5:31) (1 Corinthians 7:2) (Mark 10:7)

The Bible makes no apologies for the fallibility of man...that's the POINT....to highlight the sinfulness and disobedience of man and to highlight CONSEQUENCES illustrating man's need for a savior. Rather than promoting polygamy, the examples of polygamy in the bible include detail regarding the consequences to individuals, family and society.

As for "regulation"...regulations shouldnt be seen as promoting or condoning the behavior. Much like the cultural acknowledgement of slavery, indentured servitude, it simply recognizes that man was created with free will, and within the context of society turning from God and reaping what it sows, provide some degree of protection to those involved. (Note that virtually all of these 'regulations' come from man in Mosaic Law...not from God directly.)
There is all sorts of ambiguity in scripture.

No, scripture doesn't present polyginy as a negative thing, just like it doesn't present slavery as sinful. You are reading YOUR ideology into the text.

Regulatings things clearly demonstrates that the biblical authors (or the biblical deity if you prefer) didn't regard those things as sin.
 

1776

Member
No, I am using the No True Scotsman fallacy correctly. Christianity is a wide umbrella with many groups falling under it. Various factions and denominations claim various details and points of disagreement. However, NONE of you can objectively prove that you have the "correct" version of Christianity (if such a thing even exists). You just argue amongst yourselves and declare those you disagree with to not be "true Christians". Therefore, I have correctly applied the fallacy to your protests concerning the spa killer.
Not at all. Your hubris overwhelms your logic. You insist on using a wide definition of 'Christianity' normalized by a secular culture which lumps in various cults and deist groups. The fact that these groups claim to be Christians and the fact that you aren't capable or willing of reading the scripture for yourself, doesn't change the fact that the scriptures are very clear that Christians are those who accept Christ as the messiah and further acknowledge salvation is available through faith alone.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Yes, sexual repression is toxic. Yes, my definition of natural sexuality is scientifically and secularly defined... because those are the correct means of defining it. As for pedophilia or beastiality, those are irrelevant outliers. Fundamentalists/conservative Christianity is repressive in this regard. It tells people that they are "sinful" and/or "dirty" for having normal, natural sexual desires and for fulfilling them in any manner if they are single. THAT is a toxic and unhealthy ideology.
Your definition, as you just stated/admitted, is restricted by your naturalistic and secular worldview which you incorrectly try to conflate with science. Most people dont actually have a clear understanding of science, and have accepted the illogical secular notion that science IS naturalistic by definition. Naturalism is a philosophical construct, much like deism, which itself cannot be 'proven' or validated via empirical science. It is simply another lens through which people choose to view the world. (Generally, naturalism often presents problems to secularists....male homosexuality for example makes little sense in the evolutionary, naturalistic model as it struggles to rationalize procreation and the biological purpose of excretory and reproductive systems.
Your correlation claim isn't founded and doesn't count for much. There are similar positive correlations with being sexually liberated. And areas known for high levels of conservative religiosity are correlated with higher rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc.
It's also interesting to note that societies associated with high levels of sexual repression are correlated with higher levels of violence and aggression.
Aside from your continued dependence upon lazy generalizations about 'Christians', you clearly missed post #14 in response to Pixie who at least tried to present a reference to such a claim. I dismantled the methodology and even cited the researchers' OWN DISCLAIMER in the Discussion of Results: "It would be a statistical and logical error to infer from our results, "Religious teens get pregnant more often." Such an inference would be an example of the ecological fallacy"
 

1776

Member
There is all sorts of ambiguity in scripture.
There is some...more often, skeptics attribute their intellectual laziness and lack of context to ambiguity.
No, scripture doesn't present polyginy as a negative thing, just like it doesn't present slavery as sinful. You are reading YOUR ideology into the text.
The Bible rarely identifies specific acts as "sinful" because there would be an exhaustive laundry list and focusing on a list reinforces the hopelessness of salvation by laws, works and deeds. The Bible insists that sin is our natural state of separation from God and conscience is by nature a good alarm. Scripture is replete with stories that clearly indicate by context that the negative consequences of sin are evidence and reminder enough.
Regulatings things clearly demonstrates that the biblical authors (or the biblical deity if you prefer) didn't regard those things as sin.
You missed the point again. Those arent God's regulations. The whole narrative of the Old Testament is man's rejection of God's governance, instead seeking kings and laws of their own. God presented the 10 commandments to illustrate how incapable man is of being righteous...man simply moved on and wrote its own laws and regulations. As a result, despite the ever expanding laws/regulations, the Jews experience generations of consequence as they drifted further from God and further into idolatry, war, famine, poverty, etc.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
Not at all. Your hubris overwhelms your logic. You insist on using a wide definition of 'Christianity' normalized by a secular culture which lumps in various cults and deist groups. The fact that these groups claim to be Christians and the fact that you aren't capable or willing of reading the scripture for yourself, doesn't change the fact that the scriptures are very clear that Christians are those who accept Christ as the messiah and further acknowledge salvation is available through faith alone.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Your definition, as you just stated/admitted, is restricted by your naturalistic and secular worldview which you incorrectly try to conflate with science. Most people dont actually have a clear understanding of science, and have accepted the illogical secular notion that science IS naturalistic by definition. Naturalism is a philosophical construct, much like deism, which itself cannot be 'proven' or validated via empirical science. It is simply another lens through which people choose to view the world. (Generally, naturalism often presents problems to secularists....male homosexuality for example makes little sense in the evolutionary, naturalistic model as it struggles to rationalize procreation and the biological purpose of excretory and reproductive systems.

Aside from your continued dependence upon lazy generalizations about 'Christians', you clearly missed post #14 in response to Pixie who at least tried to present a reference to such a claim. I dismantled the methodology and even cited the researchers' OWN DISCLAIMER in the Discussion of Results: "It would be a statistical and logical error to infer from our results, "Religious teens get pregnant more often." Such an inference would be an example of the ecological fallacy"
Still trying to play the No True Scotsman fallacy, eh? Christianity is full of various groups, sects, and denominations. They all CLAIM to be correct but none of them can PROVE they are correct. You are simply engaging in the hubris of shifting the goal posts of what "Christianity" is in order to exclude those you disagree with or those whose actions you find disagreeable.

The natural and secular definitions are the only scientific ones. You give way to religious definitions, which aren't scientific in the least. They are simply based on mythology, superstition, and your BELIEF (as opposed to facts).

It remains a fact that conservative fundamentalist religious areas in America tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than less religious areas. Of course, we have a pretty good suspect as to why... the demonstrable failure that is abstinence-only education (it doesn't prevent terns from engaging in sexual activity and it leaves them misinformed regarding birtg control/protection measures that exist).

Aside from that, it's very amusing the way you dismiss Pixie's points, all the while claiming (without any evidence) that the cause of the Atlanta killings, and apparently just about every issue in society, is the result of "sexual liberation".
That is clearly not the case.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
There is some...more often, skeptics attribute their intellectual laziness and lack of context to ambiguity.

The Bible rarely identifies specific acts as "sinful" because there would be an exhaustive laundry list and focusing on a list reinforces the hopelessness of salvation by laws, works and deeds. The Bible insists that sin is our natural state of separation from God and conscience is by nature a good alarm. Scripture is replete with stories that clearly indicate by context that the negative consequences of sin are evidence and reminder enough.

You missed the point again. Those arent God's regulations. The whole narrative of the Old Testament is man's rejection of God's governance, instead seeking kings and laws of their own. God presented the 10 commandments to illustrate how incapable man is of being righteous...man simply moved on and wrote its own laws and regulations. As a result, despite the ever expanding laws/regulations, the Jews experience generations of consequence as they drifted further from God and further into idolatry, war, famine, poverty, etc.
There is a lot of ambiguity in scripture... more often than not, believers like to pretend that THEIR interpretation is the "correct" understanding.

The bible makes a big deal out of identifying a ton of acts as sinful (some of them are quite dumb) and clearly fails to identify a host of others as sinful, despite the fact that modern Christians consider them sinful (slavery, genocide, taking captured virgin girls "for yourself").

Uhmm... yes, they are the biblical deity's regulations. Are you trying to say the bible isn't the word of God? A whole lot of other Christians are going to disagree with you on that point.
Regardless, you are just special case pleading with your second two paragraphs... and also indirectly demonstrating you embrace the No True Scotsman fallacy by implying that your understanding of scripture is the "correct" one.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Actually, you are the one using the Scottsman fallacy by conveniently generalizing the term Christian to include most anyone who throws out the label.
That's not what the fallacy is/means. At all. Someone who concedes that anyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian - isn't engaging in any informal fallacy. Sorry.

The Bible is very clear about the defining qualities of a true believer
Oh indeed, and for the most part, those defining qualities are almost completely subjective - or otherwise rule out 95% of the people who claim to be Christian.

Besides: Christians aren't perfect, just saved.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
That's not what the fallacy is/means. At all. Someone who concedes that anyone who calls themselves Christian is Christian - isn't engaging in any informal fallacy. Sorry.


Oh indeed, and for the most part, those defining qualities are almost completely subjective - or otherwise rule out 95% of the people who claim to be Christian.

Besides: Christians aren't perfect, just saved.
They have an excuse for everything and play those bagpipes at the drop of a bonnet.
 
Top