Would it be sin?!?

[thereselittleflower]

I will no longer discuss logic with you until you learn what it really is.

And this response is another example of logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem, attack the person instead of the argument .. .

This logical fallacy is typically engaged in when one finds themselves backed into a corner regarding their own argumentation from which they are having great difficulty extracating themselves, and rather continuing to engage on the arguments, attention is deflected away from the arguments to the person.

The argument is logially fallacious and fails to deal with the issue I have raised . . the logically false double standards in UB's arguments.


.

 

[praying]

A few years ago, the entire population of the world could fit in homes of 2000 sq feet divided in families of 4 with an acre I believe of land and all fit inside the state of Texas . . .

I quite simply do not believe this.

You are saying that TExas has at a minimum of 300,000,000,000/4 acres of land. 7.5 billion acres.


Wait I was way off, there 6.6 trillion people.

 

[Benedicta00]

I quite simply do not believe this.

You are saying that TExas has at a minimum of 300,000,000,000/4 acres of land. 7.5 billion acres.

Texas is huge.

 

[christsblood]

Ignoring the medical information God has put in your lap would be a sin. Being pregnant and finding out your child may have a disorder and aborting would be sin. Preventing a child from dieing or having a disorder is not. People should make their own call though. If they would have guilt over that decision then they should try other things.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Forgive me, you are taking that verse out of context, it was about going to church and women are "set aside" (saved) to give birth... and that has no bearing on the childbearing women's faith and salvation.

Well, the word "saved" means:

1b) to save in the technical biblical sense

1b1) negatively

1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance​

1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

Saved IN childbearing, does not mean WHILE childbearing . .

It means the action of being saved is accomplished THROUGH childbearing . . . ie childbearing is the CHANNEL OF being saved:

"IN":

G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
​

.

 

[praying]

Texas is huge.

Trust me it ain't that huge.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And this response is another example of logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem, attack the person instead of the argument .. .

This logical fallacy is typically engaged in when one finds themselves backed into a corner regarding their own argumentation from which they are having great difficulty extracating themselves, and rather continuing to engage on the arguments, attention is deflected away from the arguments to the person.

The argument is logially fallacious and fails to deal with the issue I have raised . . the logically false double standards in UB's arguments.


.

you are mis-using this one as well.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

I have not attacked you personally to discredit your argument regarding contraception. I challanged your knowledge of logic.

 

[KJVisTruth]

Well, the word "saved" means:

1b) to save in the technical biblical sense

1b1) negatively

1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance​

1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

Saved IN childbearing, does not mean WHILE childbearing . .

It means the action of being saved is accomplished THROUGH childbearing . . . ie childbearing is the CHANNEL OF being saved:

"IN":

G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
​

.

I disagree. "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of the fact." The fact is women give birth, and by necessity, are saved (set aside) in childbearing. They are saved (spiritually) IF they continue in faith. Childbearing is not even a channel of salvation, theres only ONE way to Heaven, and thats through Jesus.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I quite simply do not believe this.

Do your own calculations then.

You are saying that TExas has at a minimum of 300,000,000,000/4 acres of land. 7.5 billion acres.


Wait I was way off, there 6.6 trillion people.

Umm .. the world population is in the BIlLLIONS. . . not trillions.. .

So, according to your own calculaitons, there is more than enough land in Texas for each person on the face of the earth to have more than an acre of land if everyone was put into the state of Texas .. . .





Why don't you believe me?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I disagree. "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of the fact." The fact is women give birth, and by necessity, are saved (set aside) in childbearing. They are saved (spiritually) IF they continue in faith. Childbearing is not even a channel of salvation, theres only ONE way to Heaven, and thats through Jesus.

In spite of what fact?

See the preceeding verse and put it in context:

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

In spite of the fact that:
"the woman .....was in the transgression.....she shall be saved by the channel of childbearing . . . . "


.

 

[sunlover1]

You're splitting hairs and making judgments that are not Biblical.

NFP is practiced to keep from becoming pregnant. Any other claims are totally irrelevant.

Basically, you're coming up with fancy, holy-sounding ways to say that your form of birth control is better than other forms of birth control.

this is true.
If one truly wanted to leave the choice in God's hands, they'd just keep business as usual. No calendar, no worries.

I had three babies in about two and a half years, after having had a bunch of kids already.
I prayed as Rachel or Leah did for GOD to please close my womb.
But I said IF it's not your will, then that's fine too.

This is the "form" of birth control I used for six years.
He kept me from becoming pregnant.
He is faithful.
I didnt watch the calendar.
His will not ours.
ANY other way, you're still choosing your will.

But thats' what I chose, doesn't mean it's what you have to do to please God.
Maybe he gave you the choice to use your brain and modern devices as well.

 

[praying]

Do your own calculations then.



Umm .. the world population is in the BIlLLIONS. . . not trillions.. .

So, according to your own calculaitons, there is more than enough land in Texas for each person on the face of the earth to have more than an acre of land if everyone was put into the state of Texas .. . .

World POPClock Projection

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 02/05/07 at 20:14 GMT (EST+5) is


6,574,441,864
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html


That would be 6.5 trillion.

Why don't you believe me?

Becuase it sounded and is absolutely absurd.

 

[thereselittleflower]

you are mis-using this one as well.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

I have not attacked you personally to discredit your argument regarding contraception. I challanged your knowledge of logic.

UB is continuing a line of argumentation that involves several Logical Fallacies . .

His challenge Ignores facts in evidence and thus is logically false.

His challenge was not a challeng but an attempted statement of fact, which assumes facts not in evidence.

His attempted statement of fact was regarding the PERSON rather than the arguments and thus is the logical fallac of Ad Hominem:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.​

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."​

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
​

This is also the logical fallacy known as Poisonng the Well:

Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.​

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
​

.

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB is continuing a line of argumentation that involves several Logical Fallacies . .

His challenge Ignores facts in evidence and thus is logically false.

His challenge was not a challeng but an attempted statement of fact, which assumes facts not in evidence.

His attempted statement of fact was regarding the PERSON rather than the arguments and thus is the logical fallac of Ad Hominem:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.​

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."​

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
​

This is also the logical fallacy known as Poisonng the Well:

Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.​

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
​

.

Lol.

You done yet?

 

[thereselittleflower]

World POPClock Projection

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 02/05/07 at 20:14 GMT (EST+5) is


6,574,441,864
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html


That would be 6.5 trillion.

Ahhh . . no.

Look at your number again

That would be 6 Billion, 574 Million, 441 Thousand, 864.

No Triilions there . . .


.

 

[christsblood]

Ahhh . . no.

Look at your number again

That would be 6 Billion, 574 Million, 441 Thousand, 864.

No Triilions there . . .


.

I am willing to say your right on this having seen the number posted.

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB is continuing a line of argumentation that involves several Logical Fallacies . .

His challenge Ignores facts in evidence and thus is logically false.

His challenge was not a challeng but an attempted statement of fact, which assumes facts not in evidence.

His attempted statement of fact was regarding the PERSON rather than the arguments and thus is the logical fallac of Ad Hominem:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.​

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."​

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
​

This is also the logical fallacy known as Poisonng the Well:

Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.​

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
​

.

show me where I attacked you to discredit your position on contraception.

If so, I commited those fallacies.

I can point out where I challanged your knowledge of correct application of logical fallacy, however.

 

[praying]

Ahhh . . no.

Look at your number again

That would be 6 Billion, 574 Million, 441 Thousand, 864.

No Triilions there . . .


.

You are correct, it's my cats fault. He is on my desk. In my way.

Serioulsy though I stand corrected. That is two ephianinies in one day.


However I sitll question whether 6.5 billion/4 could all fit in Texas with one acre of land each. I couldn't find how many acres of land make up Texas though .

 

[Uphill Battle]

Texas is 171904640.01699144 Acres.

 

[praying]

Where did you find that or did you calculate it?