In Your Mind You Know

robbie carrobie


Ok, these are the two problems I am having with what you are basically saying here:

Firstly, obviously, I do not deny that certain social behaviour/attitudes have some very obvious beneficial social effects -such as the attitude of “do not do to others that you would not want others to do upon yourself” etc.
-you or I might even be able to PROVE that those behaviour/attitudes have significant beneficial social effects.

But, and this is where possibly we might begin to disagree, I do NOT need to look this up in the Bible (nor any kind of book) to know these obvious facts and nor do I need to look this up in the Bible to BOTH want to apply and to actually apply these socially beneficial behaviours/attitudes.
All I have to do instead is use my OWN REASON to see that it would be socially reasonable to have those social behaviours/attitudes (and thus I do have those behaviours/attitudes) -no Bible nor any other book nor any deity or god nor any superstition required.
I didn’t get my social behaviour/attitudes from the Bible but rather from my INDEPENDENT mind using my OWN REASONING (that, only when applied in this case, takes into explicit account my own emotions) and that was and always will be the case until I die.

Secondly, I have studied enough about logic to know that it is logically impossible to deduce a moral proposition from an amoral proposition (I believe this fact in logic was actually proven by philosophical arguments by certain famous philosophers).
So, therefore, you cannot logically deduce from:

1, social behaviour/attitude X has beneficial effects.

That:

2, social behaviour/attitude X is moral right.

-and that is true no matter HOW beneficial the effects of X are!!!
Thus nothing can be PROVEN to be morally right/wrong (note that circular arguments, whether moral or amoral, are ALL logically flawed so cannot count as proof).
Therefore, logic determines that the Bible (and any other book or person for that matter) CANNOT logically “prove” nor logically “demonstrate” in anyway by “works” nor “written accounts” nor “applied moral principles” nor by any other means what the “moral truths” or the “correct moral principles” are.
So it logically CANNOT be true that the “moral truths” are a “proven, discernible and observable” fact from the Bible as you suggested.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"women do not preside as teachers! why not? because she is to be an example of submissiveness"

" the head of women is man"

"[...]demonstrate her submissiveness and her acknowledgment of man’s headship."

so i guess it is righteous that the woman is subservient to man, bow to his will, accept his decisions, etc.


"Many women of ancient times ha ...[text shortened]... dy naked. So don't tell anyone this is just something i share with you and you alone.

zhalanzi, you misunderstand he arrangement, for when a man exercise his headship as Christ, in a loving and self sacrificing way, putting the interests of his wife ahead of himself, then it is easier for his wife to respect the arrangement and be submissive, this does not mean that she is not free to express herself, that her opinions need not be heeded, quite on the contrary, it is beautiful and practical, for every ship cannot have two captains, for one will sail this way and another that, but because you are filled with modern secular ideas, you think it archaic, but let me reassure you, if he neglects or abuses this arrangement, failing to love, feed and cherish his wife and family, he is worse than a faithless one (no offense guys) and she is free to extricate herself and separate, but if he conscientiously makes an effort to be like Christ, this will probably never arise, and compare this to the new found liberalism, 1 in 3 marriages in the uk end in divorce, 1 in 5 for the united states, thus secularism is found wanting once again while the answer has been before them all along, oh senseless ones when will you realize!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]robbie carrobie


Ok, these are the two problems I am having with what you are basically saying here:

Firstly, obviously, I do not deny that certain social behaviour/attitudes have some very obvious beneficial social effects -such as the attitude of “do not do to others that you would not want others to do upon yourself” etc.
-y ...[text shortened]... “moral truths” are a “proven, discernible and observable” fact from the Bible as you suggested.[/b]

So you cannot use scientific reasoning to justify moral propositions in the Bible (nor anywhere else).

i thought i just did!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you cannot use scientific reasoning to justify moral propositions in the Bible (nor anywhere else).

i thought i just did!

how so?
Just give one specific and detailed example of a proof of a specific moral proposition compete with its proof that you got from the Bible so that I can logically analyse it (and point out its logical flaw it MUST logically inevitably have).

have you studied logic?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
zhalanzi, you misunderstand he arrangement, for when a man exercise his headship as Christ, in a loving and self sacrificing way, putting the interests of his wife ahead of himself, then it is easier for his wife to respect the arrangement and be submissive, this does not mean that she is not free to express herself, that her opinions need not be he ...[text shortened]... again while the answer has been before them all along, oh senseless ones when will you realize!

you also misunderstand. this arrangement was made by a man for men. even god is referred to as HE. if a man of an iq of 60 behaves in a loving and self sacrificing way, should he be allowed to teach women of strength and intelligence? if a woman has knowledge, should he not pass it on to a gathering of kind men? should a woman not teach male children?(and not even girls as paul says).

you are right, a ship cannot have two captains. so how is the captain chosen? by his gender or aptitude?

loving slavery is still slavery. a man who loves his slaves and treats them as such is still a slaver and commits an immoral act. a woman should and must be allowed self determination. as does any human being.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
how so?
Just give one specific and detailed example of a proof of a specific moral proposition compete with its proof that you got from the Bible so that I can logically analyse it (and point out its logical flaw it MUST logically inevitably have).

have you studied logic?

how can you refute a moral proposition with logic, if it itself is not based on logic?, as you are claiming, for i can site artistic license or hyperbole or anything and your logic has no jurisdiction for its premise is not logic. i have already given you a moral proposition, if we love our neighbor as ourselves, there would LOGICALLY, be no war, knock yourself out on that if you will, if this is not good enough i will provide a detailed analysis of a biblical account, with supporting evidence, that shows why the account and its moral application must have as its basis logic.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you also misunderstand. this arrangement was made by a man for men. even god is referred to as HE. if a man of an iq of 60 behaves in a loving and self sacrificing way, should he be allowed to teach women of strength and intelligence? if a woman has knowledge, should he not pass it on to a gathering of kind men? should a woman not teach male children?(and n ...[text shortened]... an immoral act. a woman should and must be allowed self determination. as does any human being.

baseless assertion, if it was made by man its fruit would be flawed as a consequence of imperfection, yet in its application it works when applied in contrast to the new morality as envisioned by liberalism and others. where are you getting this idea that a women cannot teach her children or discuss spirituality with others, for i have pointed out that your original objection was instigated primarily to keep order in the congregation arrangement in respect of the headship principle, that is all, nothing more. if you want to disregard the principle, established by Christ, who set the example himself of submissiveness then who am I to dissuade you? its is not a question of gender nor of aptitude, for aptitude has nothing to do with being loving and self sacrificing has it? its not slavery, what are you talking about? if she does not like the arrangement or feels that it is being abused then she is free to separate, please lets not get into sensationalistic journalism by banding about words like slavery, its a loving arrangement and simply stipulates different roles, but if you would like to site some statistical evidence to the contrary, that the new liberalism is working better for families, then please, be my guest!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how can you refute a moral proposition with logic, if it itself is not based on logic?, as you are claiming, for i can site artistic license or hyperbole or anything and your logic has no jurisdiction for its premise is not logic. i have already given you a moral proposition, if we love our neighbor as ourselves, there would LOGICALLY, be no war, kn ...[text shortened]... ing evidence, that shows why the account and its moral application must have as its basis logic.

…how can you refute a moral proposition with logic, if it itself is not based on logic?, .…

I deduce from this above misconception of logic that that the answer to my question: “have you studied logic?” is a definite “no”; and I also deduce that you haven’t been paying attention to what I have clearly said because, if you had, you would realise that I have said “I have studied enough about logic to know that it is logically impossible to deduce a moral proposition from an amoral proposition”.
Therefore, it is impossible to “logically refute a moral proposition with logic” (and I didn’t deny this -read what I actually said) for exactly the same reason why it is impossible to “logically prove a moral proposition with logic“! -it is because it is logically impossible to deduce a moral proposition from an amoral one.

…if we love our neighbour as ourselves, there would LOGICALLY, be no war,
...…

Correct -and I didn’t say nor imply this extremely obvious fact!!! But the problem is that this is NOT a moral proposition!!!! but a amoral one! -it does NOT say we "morally should" love our neighbour as ourselves”; it JUST says that if we apply the social attitude of “love our neighbour as ourselves” then there would be the very beneficial social result of “there would LOGICALLY, be no war”. So, here is the problem, how do you deduce from this using LOGIC that the moral proposition “we morally should love our neighbour as ourselves” is true? The answer is, of course, you cannot and therefore you did not.

….if this is not good enough i will provide a detailed analysis of a biblical account, with supporting evidence, that shows why the account and its moral APPLICATION must have as its basis logic...…(my emphasis)

The moral APPLICATION would be totally irrelevant to this argument. But what I would like you to do is “provide a detailed analysis of a biblical account, with supporting evidence, that shows why the account and its moral PROPOSITION (AND NOT its “application&rdquo😉 must have as its basis in logic”
-if you do EXACTLY that for me and thus show how you can “apparently deduce” a moral proposition from an amoral proposition, then, and only then, will we will be getting somewhere.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…how can you refute a moral proposition with logic, if it itself is not based on logic?, .…

I deduce from this above misconception of logic that that the answer to my question: “have you studied logic?” is a definite “no”; and I also deduce that you haven’t been paying attention to what I have clearly said because, if you had, you would rea roposition from an amoral proposition, then, and only then, will we will be getting somewhere.[/b]

why is loving ones neighbor not a moral proposition, for if i had quoted the verse in its entirety, you would see, by your own definition that it must be, for it states,

After the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they came together in one group. And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets - Mattew 22:34-40

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
baseless assertion, if it was made by man its fruit would be flawed as a consequence of imperfection, yet in its application it works when applied in contrast to the new morality as envisioned by liberalism and others. where are you getting this idea that a women cannot teach her children or discuss spirituality with others, for i have pointed out t ...[text shortened]... the contrary, that the new liberalism is working better for families, then please, be my guest!

it is an arrangement that doesn't put the best person in charge, simply the most male in charge. how is that fair in any way? it is not, therefore god didn't say it therefore man made it up.

how can it work? if a man mistreats a woman, that woman is free to do what? find another man to rule over her again?

"where are you getting this idea that a women cannot teach her children"
paul. should i repeat his words? woman must be subservient to man. period. how in the world is that fair. if the husband is stupid and woman is not, should the woman listen to the husband?

oh you mean use the statistic of divorces among christian couples compared to divorces of non-christian families? are you kidding me? you don't see anything wrong in this endeavor? when a divorce happens, that family is not christian because it is forbidden. so it is logical divorces happen only in christian families. not to mention the fact that if a woman allows the man to rule over her unquestionably, then it is doubtful she will consider divorce.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is an arrangement that doesn't put the best person in charge, simply the most male in charge. how is that fair in any way? it is not, therefore god didn't say it therefore man made it up.

how can it work? if a man mistreats a woman, that woman is free to do what? find another man to rule over her again?

"where are you getting this idea that a wome ows the man to rule over her unquestionably, then it is doubtful she will consider divorce.

oh Zahalanziiiiii, it is not a question of the best person, both have equal value in the eyes of God, it is simply a matter of arrangement, it does not mean that he is a dictator, for that would not be Christ like, it does not mean that she is not free to express herself, for that would not be Christ like, it does not mean that she does not have self determination, for if her husband violates Gods law she has every right to separate, Paul said nothing of the sort, my goodness, how many times must i state this, it was within a congregational context, only when the congregation met, for the simple sake of decorum and unity! she is free to express herself in her entirety everywhere else, in her home, with her neighbors, her relatives, anywhere, but all things in the congregation must take place decently and by arrangement, men have the responsibility to teach, that is all, its just a responsibility, that is all, of course in the case of a single parent family the women presides over her own household and she then , in the absence of a male, has the responsibility to teach her family, but in the congregation, when it meets together, for the simple sake of unity and decorum, this responsibility is given to men, not to all men, but only to those who are qualified to teach and who are exemplary in their life course.

these divorces are generally the result of neglecting the headship arrangement, for if a man truly exercises his headship in a Christ like and loving way, why would his wife want to leave him? would she not respect him him even more for being selfless and considerate? and if a mans wife respects him, does he not feel more inclined to love and cherish her?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh Zahalanziiiiii, it is not a question of the best person, both have equal value in the eyes of God, it is simply a matter of arrangement, it does not mean that he is a dictator, for that would not be Christ like, it does not mean that she is not free to express herself, for that would not be Christ like, it does not mean that she does not have self ...[text shortened]... erate? and if a mans wife respects him, does he not feel more inclined to love and cherish her?

"it is not a question of the best person, both have equal value in the eyes of God, it is simply a matter of arrangement"
so between 2 categories of people, god chooses one simply as a matter of arrangement. something totally random as if choosing to wear red or blue socks. so god, the ultimate being in the universe, the pinnacle of wisdom, assigns tasks randomly. yep, sounds perfectly reasonable.

it doesn't matter how many times you state whatever you state, paul did say it. a woman shall not teach, a woman shall be humble even if she doesn't deserve it, a woman must obey man because she is responsible for the original sin and therefore for all the sorrows in the world.

this is the skinny mate. did paul say it or not. and what he meant doesn't count either. if so, one would be permitted to question the entire bible as what is meant as opposed to what it is written, a thing you do not allow me to do. which is it? you cannot have it both ways.

" this responsibility is given to men, not to all men, but only to those who are qualified to teach and who are exemplary in their life course."
why? why can't a woman have this responsibility unless all the males in the community die?
"only to those who are qualified to teach and who are exemplary in their life course" if you go by this premise, of course you will find one that is more qualified and more decent than the others. in a community of thieves and murderers, one is less of a bastard than the others.

"if a man truly exercises his headship in a Christ like and loving way, why would his wife want to leave him?" incompatibility, lack of love, not wanting to be subservient to a man less intelligent than her, etc.

prittybetta once said that if her husband wanted to bury all of their savings under a rock, it would not contradict with Jesus teachings and she would be glad to obey him. She also said god would provide for her children in this case.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"it is not a question of the best person, both have equal value in the eyes of God, it is simply a matter of arrangement"
so between 2 categories of people, god chooses one simply as a matter of arrangement. something totally random as if choosing to wear red or blue socks. so god, the ultimate being in the universe, the pinnacle of wisdom, assigns tasks r ...[text shortened]... be glad to obey him. She also said god would provide for her children in this case.

of course it matters what Paul meant, his counsel was primarily for the setting up and orderly running of the congregations, why should it not be organized? for when we look at the typical natural nation of Israel it too was incredibly organized, why should Gods people be any less organized in the christian area, the fact remains that the context shows what Paul meant, and you do not like this, for it supersedes and negates all the negative arguments that you were calling forth, yet once again a proper and thorough understanding of the principles in context helps dispel mere delusion and myth!

a women can have this responsibility if there are no males or the males present are unable to officiate or are prevented due to being unqualified in some way, (the qualifications are clearly given in scripture), but she must, as a sign of 'authority', do so with a head covering, to show that she recognizes Gods headship arrangement and be an example to the angels. this last point is worthy of note, for the angels themselves are head of nobody, thus a womens respect of the arrangement is an encouragement to them to remain subject to God, thus it is not a mere office of servitude as you wrongly suggest, but a privilege!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is loving ones neighbor not a moral proposition, for if i had quoted the verse in its entirety, you would see, by your own definition that it must be, for it states,

After the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they came together in one group. And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: “Teacher, which is th ...[text shortened]... as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets - Mattew 22:34-40

…why is loving ones neighbour not a moral proposition,
….

When I am using the word “proposition” in this context, I am referring to “proposition” as defined in formal logic.
In formal logic, propositions are declarative sentences that are either true or false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

Obviously the ACT of loving ones neighbour is not a declarative sentence.

But to say:

“the ACT of loving ones neighbour is morally right”

IS a proposition and it is a moral proposition.

So, do you at least accept that it has been proven in logic that you cannot logically deduce a moral proposition from an amoral proposition?

-if yes, then how, for the example, do you /can you logically deduce (either from the Bible or from any other source) that the moral proposition:

“the ACT of loving ones neighbour is morally right” is true?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] …why is loving ones neighbour not a moral proposition,
….

When I am using the word “proposition” in this context, I am referring to “proposition” as defined in formal logic.
In formal logic, propositions are declarative sentences that are either true or false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

Obviously the ACT of lov ...[text shortened]... rce) that the moral proposition:

“the ACT of loving ones neighbour is morally right” is true?[/b]

Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?, can you not say it plainly and without affectation? for it seems to me that you are concerned with semantics and trying to differentiate the difference between an act and its definition as a moral proposition and an entity that is not an act and is therefore not a proposition, if you can give an example, then i may fully grasp what it is you are seeking to establish!