Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Who is "the author"? Comments were made by several people, and those that weren't are still qualified by references. I don't think you read it very carefully if you think it was all one person!

And just how many Greek scholars translate the passage your way, anyway?

Finally, this is an ad hominem fallacy. The validity of an argument is not changed solely by who proposes it, no matter his or her knowledge or ignorance.



You could have given us verse numbers instead of wasting screen space.



Granted.



How does that conclusion follow the premises, when the very meaning of the words referring to homosexuality in the passage are disputed. That is, does it denounce all homosexuality or specific homosexual behaviors? (Jeez, you're making me ask the same questions over and over and over and over and over.) I also pointed out that it may well be the case that homosexuality as we know it today could hardly be considered to exist in the society in question. Therefore, it may well be the case that you're the one twisting the words here.



I'm not, really, I'm talking about something "smaller". Specific versus general. It's not really so much as groups as it is behavior here. The question is, for the 1024th time, what behavior?

- Kef

TOTPD

I was saying Paul was talking about something bigger. I know that you are talking about something smaller already. I was proving that the section about homosexuality was connected to all the words before it that are obviously denouncing something. I was proving that homosexuality was that 'something' it was denouncing (among other things).

_________________
My Blog

The vast majority, seeing that that is how the Bible is translated in almost all cases. The value of an argument is changed by who proposes it. This is because if the person in question has actually studied Greek, they are in a better position to criticise current translations that are made by many Greek scholars.

_________________
My Blog

Be clearer, then. I had great difficulty just figuring out what you were trying to say.



You proved nothing because you still haven't shown how this shows what kind of behavior. (You're also conveniently ignoring my idea that homosexuality as we know it didn't really exist then, in which case it could not be condemned )

OK, let me make an analogy with a more classic example of ambiguity of sexual matters in the Bible. Have you heard of the Sin of Onan? (This is going to be a little sexually explicit, but it's relevant to the argument and, hey, it's in the Bible.) This passage is from Genesis:



This raised a question: what does "spilling his seed" mean? Did it mean, er, pulling out, or, uh, touching himself? Most (but not all) scholars today take the former interpretation, but many before took the latter.

I suggest the Romans passage is ambiguous in a similar sense. You say that what it says is clear, just as scholars have said that the passage about Onan is clear for centuries (I hope we can agree it is not).



Wrong-o. I told you, this is a logical fallacy. Look up "ad hominem". The article I linked to says two things:

• The validity of the argument is not changed by who proposes it
• Therefore, an argument that somebody has no standing to say [whatever] is also invalid.

Consider the argument, not who proposes it. If the argument was made out of ignorance, then find the wrongness in the argument itself, not the speaker. This is a very basic and generally accepted principle of logical argument, which Interruptor Jones definitely can attest to, and others possibly can as well. Play by the rules.

- Kef

Thanks for that, I like distroying myths too, but I like it more when it crushes someone's spirit.^_^ jk.

Wow, this debate between fatpie and furrykef is heatin' up! *gets some popcorn*

_________________
Spaceballs: The Sig

That's a great cartoon!! I'm going to show it to all my internet friends. Thanks for sharing it w/ us!

yours,
soce

_________________
Hot!

I think it did. Historical accounts prove that homosexuality was huge at that time. Maybe it wouldn't be exactly the same, but the basic principles would be similar.



Why? If they haven't got a clue about what they're talking about, should I still listen to them? Should I value the words of a drunk as highly as the words of a world leader (excluding George dubbya (Sarcasm... sometimes))?

What I meant was that arguments have more credibility if the person who proposes them has studied what they're talking about. If I proposed that Einstein's theories were wrong with little scientific knowledge, my argument would have less credibility than if it was proposed by a professor in that field who had spent many years studying his arguments in depth. I may still be right, but I would have less reason to be listened to than the professor. What I am saying is that as I cannot see that the person/people who wrote the information on the website you keep referring to has/have actually studied Greek before criticising the most widely used translation of a particular passage, it is less possible that their arguments have any grounding. Also, if they refuse to show evidence for their arguments, and only propose things out of the blue, it is less likely they have any evidence.

_________________
My Blog

Ad Homenem is primarily intended to discourage discounting someone's claims based on who they are, but rather looking carefully at their arguments.

Furrykef: I think you mean "appeal to authority," which is the exact opposite. Appeal to authority means trusting someone's claims because of who they are rather than analysing their arguments.

But we do this all the time. Atheists typically discount the Bible as a historical document because of its religious emphasis. What's his face did that a lot in that epilepsy thread. On the other hand, he kept making appeals to authority to that Gospel of Thomas, which, as Joey pointed out, offered absolutely no insight into the subject.

Now while I certainly discourage ad homenem argumentation, I do have to point out that there is a certain authority given to expertise. For example, you don't ask a plumber about medical issues, now do you? No, you ask a doctor. In the same way, you don't ask an atheist questions about biblical exegesis, you ask a theologian. Here at Concordia, I am surrounded by theologians who are far more qualified than most on the subject of biblical exegesis. In fact, considering that they trained me, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject. Therefore, when it comes to biblical exegesis, I feel like I know what I'm talking about, just as I expect a doctor to know what he's talking about when he examines me.

Does that mean I am infallable? No. But it does mean that you will need some pretty strong arguments in order to convince me I am incorrect on a certain topic. Furrykef, you have presented me no reason to accept my interpretation of those biblical passages as incorrect. You in fact made such an appeal to authority by citing a web site. To be honest, I am more inclined to trust my own training in this matter than to some web site (besides, I couldn't even link to it. for some reason the firewall won't let me view it). What makes you think I should accept the authority of this web site over my 8+ years of theological training?

As I understand it, Kef, your argument against my interpretation is essentially, "Prove that 'is' means 'is.'" That kind of semantic argument is what undermines the whole use of language. 1 Cor 6:9 clearly states that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of heaven. If you like, I could present you with a 10 page exegetical analysis of the passage. On second thought, I won't; those things are hard, and believe me I've done enough of them. That is, unless you are willing to submit one of equal length supporting your own interpretation.

Incidentally, the Greek word for "homosexual" (arsenochoites) means simply "a man who beds other men". This definition is from the Bauer/Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Your argument that homosexuality of the first century is different from modern homosexuality doesn't change the essential meaning of this text.

_________________

Good, show me one.

The rest of my post is a response to Didymus.

I meant fatpie's argument was an ad hominem in that it was basically "This guy has no standing to say this".

Anyways, I don't really see my link as an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would have been, "this website says this, therefore, you are wrong". I did not say that; I have pointed out repeatedly (including, once, accidentally in one of the atheism threads -- sorry) that my argument is not that fatpie is wrong (or that you are, for that matter), but that he might be wrong. The page goes into great detail over quibbling over interpretations. That there are so many suggests something to me, and the validity of those arguments has not been disproven (granted, not necessarily proven). Is that fallacious reasoning? (By the way, if you are so much more qualified, then refuting counterarguments should be easy enough, right? )

fatpie: Didymus sets a good example here. I still don't see all my individual points being addressed here, but he's doing a much better job of trying to get to the bottom of the matter, despite misunderstanding my purpose here.

- Kef

Thank you, Kef. I appreciate the compliment.

My rule of thumb is that when arguments get unfriendly, it's time to abandon them. Because at that point, continued argumentation will only alienate your opponent, not convince them you are right. I'd rather lose an argument and gain a friend than win an argument and gain an enemy. But that doesn't mean I won't present my case. And I must admit I don't always live up to this.

_________________

I have to point out that although I have not myself seen any historical accounts, I do know about them. I know that the practises of Nero were no less than shocking in this area and he was not the first, by any means. Didymus has had 8 years of theological training. I have had none. I am simply attempting to argue a position with knowledge that I think is enough for this passage.

OK, maybe I was a bit deceptive then saying I have had no theological training. My father is the pastor of a church and For the last 5 (approx. years my brother has been becoming a theological genius, no seriously. If you don't believe me, look at his blog: 40 Bicycles. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to get at is that I am no Biblical scholar. I just know what is meant by the passage in question and am seeking to show why it means that, though my arguments may not be the best. I think Didymus is a good few years older as well .

_________________
My Blog

A very good point, I did try earlier, but I couldn't keep to it.

Errr... Do you want to round it off?

_________________
My Blog

This is what I have a problem with. It seems to me you already decided what it means -- and therefore what to believe -- and now you're looking for every justification for it and ignoring or fighting off every refutation, rather than waiting and considering all the evidence before considering your belief.

It's human nature to do that sort of thing, as I pointed out in another post, but I don't think it makes it any less wrongheaded. "Good" beliefs and behaviors can be acquired in that fashion (e.g., philanthropy), but so can "bad" ones (e.g., Naziism -- not to call you a Nazi of course). Even if you can't find a decisive answer for yourself, you can ask lots of people about it.

By the way, I don't see this discussion itself as too unfriendly, as fiercely as I make my arguments sometimes. I never really insulted fatpie (if I have done so inadvertently, I apologize), as much as I may belittle the arguments themselves (which I don't do without justification).

Finally, I think the last few pages of this thread should be split off, since I didn't really intend to threadjack it when I took issue with fatpie's initial statement. This was originally about the legality of marriage, after all. ^^;

- Kef

I don't see what the problem is with gay marriage.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

Easy. Because gay marriage means gay people are going to hook up and [BLEEP] each other, which is just downright nasty, isn't it?

Oh, and the Bible "condemns" it.

- Kef

But, um.. gay people already do that.

_________________

Oh yes, but of course if you refuse to acknowledge a "problem" and sweep it under the rug it will just go away, right? Good lord, no, we can't legitimize it.

El Snarko strikes again!

Oh yeah, I forgot to address this (mostly because I skimmed over it):



Umm... what Caligula, Nero, et al. did is not at all comparable to what's happening today.

- Kef

Kef, I'm having trouble seeing one of your distinctions of nuances: You state that we can't tell if the Bible is condemning homosexuality or just specific homosexual acts. I'm not seeing the difference really. Is the difference someone who has homosexual tendancies but doesn't actually engage in homosexual acts, as opposed to someone with or without the tendancies who engages in those acts?

I'm just trying to understand what you meant better.

It's the difference between all acts and certain (meaning definitely not all) acts.

I think that anyone doing stuff with anyone else is nasty!! It should not be done in public! But hey, if I don't have to watch, then go for it.

_________________
Hot!

I think it's taken as read that the law wouldn't stretch to include public sex.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

OH MY GOD YOU SAID THE SEX WORD

OK. Last silly post. I promise.

I dont think people will force you to watch gay porn.

I'm all for it. If to people love each other, its irrelevant what gender they are to me.

_________________
Proudly raised by a cup of coffee

You mean what sex they are. It's possible to be biologically male but fulfill a female gender role, and vice versa, hence the term "transgendered" to describe such people. ("Transsexual", by contrast, refers to somebody who wants to change sexes to match that gender.)

Just a nitpick.

{censor'd}

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Actually, you're not keeping an open mind in the slightest. Homosexual PDA is no more nasty than heterosexual PDA (which can be kinda nasty sometimes), and your statement only illustrates just how closed-minded you are. And all it's "telling the little kids" is that homosexuality is okay, which is exactly the message that needs to be sent. Granted, I don't want to see anybody humping eachother in public, not even the prettiest straight couple, but clearly you need to work on your comfort levels if you're going to live in society with the rest of us.



"Supposed to be"? This is one of those frivolous made-up ideals. It's kind of like saying "every middle-aged man is supposed to have a full head of hair". Maybe you think it'd be nice, but it has never been the how things are and it never, ever will be.

And FYI, homosexuality is already "close to home" for every one of us. Someone in your family is probably gay. A few people in your neighborhood are very likely gay. Deal with it.

_________________

And who the frag are you to define "the way things are supposed to be"? Don't take that personally -- I like you -- but, um, I think you need to rework that one.

- Kef

I thought this was interesting: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=6/3/2004

_________________
My Blog