Originally posted by pcaspianThe philosopher Wittgenstein noted that most everyday concepts do not have necessary and sufficient defining conditions, but that different exemplars of a concept, of varying degrees of prototypicality, blend gradually into one another, and merely exhibit a degree of family resemblance.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]You know the drill by now. Please state in clear language what you believe to be the
1. Necessary conditions, or
2. Sufficient conditions
for committing a sinful act of sodomy.
Cribs, you concerned about whether you committed a sin ? It if hurts like hell, it probably wasn't meant to go there.
Just my 2c.
pc[/b]
W. gave the example of the concept "game". Are all games fun? No: think competitive sport. Are all games between multiple players? No: think solitaire. However, games still constitute an identifiable class, in the absence of necessary and sufficient defining conditions. The same analysis can be applied to many other everyday concepts.
I suggest that sodomy is inherently a fuzzy concept too, just like a game (which is ironic, given that it involves disdaining fuzz). So people may not naturally have necessary and sufficient criteria in mind when using the concept. So they would have to explicitly redefine the concept to come up with those criteria, meaning that the criteria they state would not map on exactly to those that they use.
(Who would have thought that sodomy could be such a philosophically fertile topic of discussion!)
Originally posted by wibI thought that this would be a hot topic among the Bible crew, but it has not turned out that way. I thought we'd all learn a thing or two about what acts are sinful in the eyes of God but, alas, I was mistaken.
So what conclusions have been reached here in regards to sodomy? Is it completely in the eyes of the beholder?
I think that all we've really learned are a few new terms to describe the same old acts.
That's better than nothing, I suppose.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesTrue.
I thought that this would be a hot topic among the Bible crew, but it has not turned out that way. I thought we'd all learn a thing or two about what acts are sinful in the eyes of God but, alas, I was mistaken.
I think that all we've really learned are a few new terms to describe the same old acts.
That's better than nothing, I suppose.
I'm surprised the fundmentalists didn't chime in also. I suppose they're very busy trying to save a dead woman.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm not concerned, I'm just curious. I'm not ashamed to state for the record that I have met more than one of the proposed sufficient criteria for being a sodomite. In my eyes, I have not sinned by doing so.
The term 'sodomy' was not originally used in the Bible. In Lev, homosexual relations are referred to as 'man lying with man as man lies with woman'... or something along that line.
As such I'd venture sodomy is not the correct term, but rather any sexual relations between man and man.
The Bible is rather specific regarding relations between man and woman whilst she was menstruating. This could be specific to Levitical Law as hygene was rather lacking in those days. I dare say the same would apply to anal sex. But then are you basing your views on sin on the Mosaic laws ?
pc
