Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
P -> Q
¬ Q -> ¬ P
Or the universe implodes.
Nice try, but it's an invalid concept, as it fails the test of material implication.
Example:
All animals that are poodles are dogsContraposition:
All animals that are not poodles, are not dogs.So your theory is not only flawed, it's a fallacious argument. And if you really knew anything about propositional logic, you were already aware of that.
Again, what happened to honesty?
Regards,
-- Druweid
Nice try, but it's an invalid concept, as it fails the test of material implication.
Example:
All animals that are poodles are dogsContraposition:
All animals that are not poodles, are not dogs.So your theory is not only flawed, it's a fallacious argument. And if you really knew anything about propositional logic, you were already aware of that.
Again, what happened to honesty?
Regards,
-- Druweid
^ That.
Furthermore saying a marriage blessed by G-d is a marriage is a tautology, as it's just saying a marriage is a marriage. While not a fallacy, it's not exactly proving anything.
Interesting, since my example of a contrapositive was modeled after your example.Argument
All animals that are poodles are dogs
An Actual Contrapositive
All animals that are not dogs, are not poodles.
And whatdya know - true thang. Tis always true matey (unless of course the initial statement is false) - cuz it be the contrapositive!
Please, spare me the convoluted logic. Your entire argument is still worthless for lack of any reasonable basis or actual facts.TaleSpin said:It's not different with God; if you aren't joined by God, you aren't married. You know this, you just want to pretend otherwise.
You claim this answers my question? Fine, then all I have to do is provide biblical proof of a marriage having occurred without God's blessing, eh?(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.So, by all means, please list one, JUST ONE biblical text that clearly shows marriage without God's blessing is not a marriage.
This is wrong on two counts:The trouble isn't really one of logic or rationality - it's a desire to simply not accept reality. When the Bible says that marriage is when "God HATH" "joined" something "together;" then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "God" as actor is just as an essential element in that sentence as "joined." Just as it is not a marriage if nothing is being joined, it is equally not a marriage if the authority who joins people in marriage isn't the one doing it.
Interesting, since my example of a contrapositive was modeled after your example.
So by your own admission, YOUR contrapositive should read;
"all people that are not married are not joined by God"
Hey! You're right, the contrapositive does work out. I apologize for my error and thank you for your clarification.
Please, spare me the convoluted logic. Your entire argument is still worthless for lack of any reasonable basis or actual facts.
Back to the question at hand:
You claim this answers my question? Fine, then all I have to do is provide biblical proof of a marriage having occurred without God's blessing, eh?
Ezra 9:2 (NIV): "They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness"What's this? Unfaithfulness to God, and yet still considered married??
Nehemiah 13:27 (NIV):"Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"
Wicked and unfaithful, and God is joining these unions??
1 Corinthians 6:16 (NIV):"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”"Soooo, does God bless a union with a "harlot?" Or was the marriage made legitimate by the physical union?
And finally,
Leviticus 21:7 "They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God"So, if it is specifically prohibited in the Jewish Law, that which is most revered as God's word, why is it still considered "married?"
Now, I asked you for one scripture, you failed. I supplied four to support my position, and I can quote more if you wish. Your games of pseudo-logic are childish and without merit. The only thing you've proved is a willingness to sacrifice truth in support of your own personal opinion. Jump up and down screaming "I'm right, I'm right" all you want, you're convincing nobody.
Regards,
-- Druweid
Since, instead of a McDonald's Manager, I could also go to an Agnostic Justice of the Peace, this argument is (surprise, surprise) yet another logical fallacy, i.e., a false dilemma.This isn't a difficult concept... if you find it difficult then here is a little homework for you (its going to require some reason by analogy). Go find a mcdonalds manager and ask them to "marry you" to a friend - THEN when you fill out your taxes this year, put them down as your spouse and see how quickly the government comes back at you with various threats of legal action for not having a legitimate authority "join" the two of you.
The trouble isn't really one of logic or rationality - it's a desire to simply not accept reality. When the Bible says that marriage is when "God HATH" "joined" something "together;" then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that "God" as actor is just as an essential element in that sentence as "joined." Just as it is not a marriage if nothing is being joined, it is equally not a marriage if the authority who joins people in marriage isn't the one doing it.
This isn't a difficult concept... if you find it difficult then here is a little homework for you (its going to require some reason by analogy). Go find a mcdonalds manager and ask them to "marry you" to a friend - THEN when you fill out your taxes this year, put them down as your spouse and see how quickly the government comes back at you with various threats of legal action for not having a legitimate authority "join" the two of you.
It's not different with God; if you aren't joined by God, you aren't married. You know this, you just want to pretend otherwise.
Since, instead of a McDonald's Manager, I could also go to an Agnostic Justice of the Peace, this argument is (surprise, surprise) yet another logical fallacy, i.e., a false dilemma.
-- Druweid
I blamed no one. I showed the err in your logic.You can't read. If P then Q, if not Q then not P. That's what I wrote and that's what you incorrectly responded to, it looks like a poster even quoted me. Evidently you don't like that since you're once again blaming me for your mistake. Anybody capable of pressing "back 1 page" will catch you.
But they still called it "marriage," didn't they?TaleSpin said:Woooow you've lost the plot. You're giving evidence against yourself... they took women outside what God wanted (thus called "unfaithfulness) for them which became their undoing for going against God. They can take for wife whatever pleases them, if it's not what God wants it's not a marriage, it's a sin. As you can plainly see from these examples.
First, it's not an allegory, it's a metaphor, if you're going to pretend to be educated, get a dictionary. Second, the purpose of a metaphor *by definition* uses symbolism to establish similarity. Since I was making a comparison of marriage-to-scripture, any similarity has logical bearing.TaleSpin said:1 Corinthians 6: 16 is an allegory for joining the body of Christ. Read the whole thing - or at least give us the privilege of seeing it all.
14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Are you still going to tell me this is a dissertation on marriage?
I have made your errors plain. You're still just stating your opinion, only more loudly.TaleSpin said:I showed you scripture; it saying a marriage is between a man and a woman joined by God. Here it is again if you have forgotten.
(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
You ignored it, proceeded to err in reason, not liking that I called out your mistake, you lied (see above); provided scripture that reinforces my point and another one that was talking about joining with God - and had nothing to do with marriage.
Reiterated:
You are fighting ever so ardently for the exact thing you think I am; just on the flip side of the coin. You're running around screaming about how intolerant the evil Christians are for insisting marriage means *GASP* marriage, so that you can whine your way into forcing us to accept such nonsense as "Gay Marriage" etc - your beliefs.
Same tactics, different football team. You're just angry your team is losing.
I have some very sad news for you... everything you hate about religion you exhibit in Atheism. Ya know:
You're not "tolerant" nor "enlightened" and "problem" of your attachment to religion isn't actually fixed you've merely converted to a new one. Same boat, different flag.
- The nearly militant solipsism;
- The prejudism;
- Using legal systems to enforce your beliefs onto others;
- The laundry list of mean celebrities associated with your belief
- The fact it's actually an unconfirmed belief; rather than something rational and self evident
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?