Elementary logic to explain why God's laws aren't relative

[jack_hawkins]

Where have I ‘accepted’ anything? Use of examples from another religion says absolutely nothing about my own beliefs. To say that incest is morally wrong yet was permitted in the past is not just inconsistent, but hypocritical and morally relativist

let’s go through some elementary argument and logic skills shall we? you accepted for the basis of your argument that Adam and Eve existed, then used that to attack the Bible
you then make some illogical statements
how can something even be hypocritical and morally relativist at the same time? HUH?

It’s not confusing, unless you can’t see the logic – and considering you’ve massively misread just about my entire post, it appears to be that way. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t even talking about Adam and Eve, but their children

No, the problem is there is no logic. I don’t accept your argument because I don’t acceot your premises. The idea that laws can’t change because otherwise they are relativisitic is a non sequitur - plainly.

Given the following:

• according to God’s law (not just Moses’), incest is wrong
• God’s law is ‘natural law’, written on the human heart
• natural law is immutable
• incest occurred in the early Old Testament with implicit or explicit permission from God

What are we left with? A tumbled-down house of cards. God contradicted his own natural law in permitting incest. To say that the law came later is meaningless, as natural law is held unchangeable – it is timeless and has always existed.

Like I say I don’t accept your premises, so I don’t accept your conclusions. On what basis do you say that all the laws in the OT are natural laws? Thus your argument collapses

seem unable to realize that I am in no way confused or doubting, given your remarks here and elsewhere; ah well, such is the mark of one lost within a morass of confusion and denial himself. I can’t help you escape that, but you might do well to stop lashing out at and insulting those of us who aren’t stuck in your private hellish swamp. You’ll only sink faster.

OOH!
How can an agnostic believe in a “private hellish swamp”? Agnostic equals confused. You can’t make your mind up. Richard Dawkins is pretty scathing about agnostics, quite rightly - it is the ultimate form of fence-sitting.
I am mildly amused about your feat of transference in calling me confused and in denial tho.

Banning incest is not part of the natural law. What is the purpose of such prohibitions? Avoiding genetic disease of course. It could be theorised that early on, the fall hadn’t had time to cause recessive disorders so prohibitions on incest were not required. In any case, we don’t know that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had incestuous marriages as such.
So your argument has failed

 

[Mirdath]

let’s go through some elementary argument and logic skills shall we? you accepted for the basis of your argument that Adam and Eve existed, then used that to attack the Bible

Yes, accepting the premises to argue that an opponent’s conclusion is invalid is a common debate tactic. Might I suggest you try a course or two in rhetoric and logic yourself?

how can something even be hypocritical and morally relativist at the same time? HUH?

When the hypocrite claims to be morally absolutist.

No, the problem is there is no logic. I don’t accept your argument because I don’t acceot your premises. The idea that laws can’t change because otherwise they are relativisitic is a non sequitur - plainly.

What premises?

Like I say I don’t accept your premises, so I don’t accept your conclusions. On what basis do you say that all the laws in the OT are natural laws? Thus your argument collapses

Are you claiming that divine law is not natural law now? That’s a rather un-Catholic position. Laws of sexual morality are generally supposed to fall under the umbrella of ‘natural law’, aren’t they? If you’re going to say otherwise, I’m sure there are many posters here who’d disagree rather vociferously.

How can an agnostic believe in a “private hellish swamp”? Agnostic equals confused. You can’t make your mind up. Richard Dawkins is pretty scathing about agnostics, quite rightly - it is the ultimate form of fence-sitting.

Metaphor. If you can’t grasp basic concepts of English, I’m not sure how you can be capable of reasoned, serious debate; admittedly I’m still waiting to see any of that from you.

Banning incest is not part of the natural law. What is the purpose of such prohibitions? Avoiding genetic disease of course.

Yet banning homosexuality is? Splitting hairs between Catholic views on sexual acts like that makes no sense. It’s been exhaustively pointed out to me here that the ban on incest is a part of natural law.

It could be theorised that early on, the fall hadn’t had time to cause recessive disorders so prohibitions on incest were not required. In any case, we don’t know that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had incestuous marriages as such.
So your argument has failed

Genetics does not work that way. And the children of Adam and Eve did not exactly have an option other than incest, unless you count livestock. Cain’s wife in the land of Nod doesn’t count either, as Catholics accept that Adam and Eve were the two progenitors of humanity. She’d have had to have been his sister, his niece, or an ape.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Genetics does not work that way

ooh, on what basis do you claim to know anything about genetics???
let’s start on that before moving onto logic…
as for the rest of your snarling ad hominems, that shows your argument is weak

anyway back to genetics - what’s your particular objection to my point? “genetics doesn’t work that way” - that is an amazingly meaningless statement which reveals no knowledge of genetics at all - again a rebuttal rather than a refutation…

 

[Mirdath]

ooh, on what basis do you claim to know anything about genetics???
let’s start on that before moving onto logic…

High school biology. Anyone who remembers even the slightest bit of the chapters on genetics would be able to tell you’re talking gibberish on par with the greatest stoners ever known.

 

[jack_hawkins]

High school biology. Anyone who remembers even the slightest bit of the chapters on genetics would be able to tell you’re talking gibberish on par with the greatest stoners ever known.

more ad hominems…
getting nasty now - you’ve quite a snarling style but I won’t stoop to your level
yes, high school biology
as opposed to a medical degree

I would still like an answer as to what you mean by “genetics doesn’t work like that”?
I would like to find out what you mean so I can point out the known science for you:thumbsup:

 

[Mirdath]

more ad hominems…
getting nasty now - you’ve quite a snarling style but I won’t stoop to your level
yes, high school biology
as opposed to a medical degree

I would still like an answer as to what you mean by “genetics doesn’t work like that”?
I would like to find out what you mean so I can point out the known science for you:thumbsup:

You postulate that the fall of humanity from Eden caused genetic deterioration – but that there was a delay between the fall and the beginning of this deterioration. Further, the problems caused by the fall manifested themselves only in recessive genes, so no accounting for dominant conditions.

I really don’t know where to start. Have you looked into Scientology? You could be right at home there, with theories like this.

 

[jack_hawkins]

yes, if you believe that man was created perfect then there would be no genetic disorders
nwo you make a puzzling comment about dominant disorders - which seems to indicate you don’t understand the point I’m making
you misstate what I have said (which is clearly above) and say that I think only recessive disorders have occurred - please read my posts properly
if you understood genetics at all you would realise why recessive single gene disorders are particularly a problem with consanguineous marriages
it seems that you don’t understand genetics tho
what about polyglutamine disorders? know anything about them?

 

[Mirdath]

you misstate what I have said (which is clearly above) and say that I think only recessive disorders have occurred - please read my posts properly

Like so? It could be theorised that early on, the fall hadn’t had time to cause recessive disorders

it seems that you don’t understand genetics tho
what about polyglutamine disorders? know anything about them?

As far as I know, they aren’t particularly relevant.

I guess I’m giving up on the possibility of you making sense. Have fun.

 

[Everstruggling]

as for the rest of your snarling ad hominems, that shows your argument is weak

You call all agnostics confused fence sitters, and then object to other people using ad hominem attacks? Interesting.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Like so? It could be theorised that early on, the fall hadn’t had time to cause recessive disorders

As far as I know, they aren’t particularly relevant.

I guess I’m giving up on the possibility of you making sense. Have fun.

so in other words, you don’t know anything about genetics so you are running away from the argument
the fact you say that polyglutamine disorders aren’t relevant confirms that you know very little about genetics
do you know what a polyglutamine disorder is? (without doing an internet search that is)

 

[jack_hawkins]

You call all agnostics confused fence sitters, and then object to other people using ad hominem attacks? Interesting.

well that’s not actually an ad hominem, unless you use the very loose definition which I don’t
in any case compared with the snarling responses from Mirdath (plus the accompanying nonsense about a science he/she doesn’t understand) makes that comment look extremely mild:thumbsup:

 

[Everstruggling]

well that’s not actually an ad hominem, unless you use the very loose definition which I don’t
in any case compared with the snarling responses from Mirdath (plus the accompanying nonsense about a science he/she doesn’t understand) makes that comment look extremely mild:thumbsup:

I admit they are some what different. If I were to call all Catholics “people who are too lazy to think for themselves”, it can hardly be compared to telling an individual “I’m not sure how you can be capable of reasoned, serious debate”.

I admit that saying that you were “spouting gibberish on par with the greatest stoners ever known” is more serious, but that came later in the conversation. I disagree with some of your arguments, but they weren’t gibberish certainly.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, perhaps I am just too much of a confused fence-sitter, but I think that Catholics might object if I call them “mindless sheep who need to be told how to act”.

I don’t think I’ll start doing it though. I think my arguments can stand without insulting the intellectual capacity or honesty of Catholics. Do you really need to have those kinds of comments in your posts?

 

[jack_hawkins]

yes, you’re right my comments were hasty - and directed not at agnostics as a whole
anyway to get back on track
genetics provides a reasonable explanation for the Biblical laws on incest, contrary to Mirdath’s assertions
he/she doesn’t understand the genetics eg
bottlenecks
founder factor
and doesn’t even understand why I mentioned recessive conditions as opposed to dominant
these concepts will help the Biblical laws to make sense

 

[Everstruggling]

sorry I thought you were going to add some useful insight into the relevance of genetics to the Biblical laws on incest
do you have any facts relevant to the thread at all?
any comments on I don’t know imprinting perhaps?
bottlenecks?
founder factor?
just wondering…

1. You brought up ad hominem arguments twice before I posted. If you thought it was irrelevant, why did you post it?
2. Applying genetics to the garden of Eden renders as “useful insights” as applying game theory to Cindarella or discussing the morality of pi.
3. Your understanding of genetics might be first rate, but your understanding of natural law, theology, and logic don’t compare.
4. Your comment about agnostics was incredibly rude. Why not just admit it.

 

[jack_hawkins]

oh dear, you want to play tedious games do you? very sad
I did ask for insights into genetics - you have none so you are not contributing anything worth reading
that is the logic that suffices for me
my grasp of theology, logic, argument etc is more than enough to deal with you and mirdath - nuff said:thumbsup:
I would ask you for supposed examples but that would serve no purpose
just forget egos and say something useful?