Desperate measures

[Tribesman]

I noticed this in a debate...
Yes, let us quote Jesus [Luke 22:36]: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” That certainly sounds like a suggestion to arm one’s self.
....and was wondering , is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hey, twas the anti-gun debater who recommended looking at the words of Jesus.

Who am I not to oblige them? :beam:

CR

[Caius]

I think he said the right words in the wrong order or something...

[Tribesman]

Who am I not to oblige them?
Ahem , the question was....
is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?



I think he said the right words in the wrong order or something...
No most versions have similar wording and ordering , but a line of scripture without context is pretty meaningless and to attempt to use a single line to make a point is a sign of failing

[woad&fangs]

Rabbit used the quotes of famous people to make his side seem more respectable. I countered with my own respectable people. I just didn't realize that Gandhi and Jesus were actually on his side:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: .

I burst out in laughter when I saw those quotes. Next time I'll make sure about a historical figures beliefs before I drag them into a debate:laugh4:

Edit: I do believe that the scripture was taken out of context but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what Jesus meant by that statement yet.

[Ice]

I noticed this in a debate... ....and was wondering , is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?

It would have to depend on the topic of debate and the people debating.

I would say yes and no.

[Tribesman]

Edit: I do believe that the scripture was taken out of context but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what Jesus meant by that statement yet.
Well while only one Gospel has that actual line it along with two others follow on with the events and the theme , and they certainly don't correspond with .... That certainly sounds like a suggestion to arm one’s self.
...in reality the opposite is true .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In order for Jesus to be numbered among the transgressors the transgressors have to transgress. I.e. his diciples, when armed, become armed rebels. 22.38 makes it clear they only had two swords between the lot of them, and remember what Jesus said to Peter when he used one.

[Odin]

I noticed this in a debate... ....and was wondering , is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?

Yes, because scripture as assumed to be a testament to god can only be verified by ones own faith, not a scientific process. Its validity in a debate is subject to both participants sharing it, and interpreting it in the same vein.

On the flip side, a scientific process cannot be presented to dispute ones faith as a falacy, perhaps the stories that seeded said faith, but not the persons belief in it.

[Husar]

Swords <> guns!

[Don Corleone]

Come on Tribesamn. I know you have an axe to grind with CR, but this is low.

One of the favorite arguments of the Left is to co-opt scripture, and justify everything from not being able to defend yourself to outright Marxism. All CR did was answer in the same vein of a charge levelled at him, and you need to start a separate thread, just to name-call (desparate, I think was the word you used) ?

You can do better. This is beneath you.

[Husar]

What Don says is actually true, and it's not the first time you did that, Tribes.
I'll always love you but this needs to stop. ~;)

[Boyar Son]

To some yes.

But me no:sweatdrop: :yes:

Because in every debate some brings out religion or uses Christianity as an ex. and when I say something back with another religion ex. I'm called "desparate"...

take the grave digging debate for ex.

[Odin]

What Don says is actually true, and it's not the first time you did that, Tribes.
I'll always love you but this needs to stop. ~;)

Well this is one way to look at it ( :laugh4: ) and yes it lacks originality on his part given the history, however it dosent negate the fact that religion was used in a formal debate format.

In the context of the debate, CR certainly made a point with a decent reference to a popular mythos, but its still an infrence to something that isnt based on a fact. That makes it a valid critique IMHO.

However in reflection, perhaps it would be better to have a formal rebutall thread to debates after they have occurred with Sigurd presiding.

[Don Corleone]

Well this is one way to look at it ( :laugh4: ) and yes it lacks originality on his part given the history, however it dosent negate the fact that religion was used in a formal debate format.

In the context of the debate, CR certainly made a point with a decent reference to a popular mythos, but its still an infrence to something that isnt based on a fact. That makes it a valid critique IMHO.

However in reflection, perhaps it would be better to have a formal rebutall thread to debates after they have occurred with Sigurd presiding.

Come on Odin, be fair. Wadlinger said "Jesus would be opposed to handguns". CR answered him with a direct quote indicating maybe Jesus wouldn't be, and you ding CR for it?

And using terms like myth to describe somebody's current belief system is rude. You know, I could talk about freedom and self-determination as cute, but childish and ultimately small-minded ideals, but even if I felt that way, I'd respect your views enough to find more polite language.

But hey, a bunch of troglodytes staring at shadows on the wall are we, and such is our lot. Myths it is, I suppose.

[Devastatin Dave]

This is beneath you.
Is that even possible?

Wow, first post in weeks and its in a Tribes thread... who woulda thunk it...
Oh I almost forgot....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

Of course it's possible. Tribesman, despite his sarcasm and caustic wit at times, is actually a pretty sharp fellow and rumor has it, gracious (I've even seen it once or twice). If I thought this was all he was capable of, I would have tired of calling him on it long ago.

And by the way, not your classiest move either, Dave.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The answer to the Question posited in the original post would be, for me:

It depends on the audience.

For certain audiences, bringing forth a biblical reference that is both argumentatively apt and that follows the generally accepted exigesis of that passage would be a powerful point.

Conversely, for an audience largely populated with detractors of organized religion, it would be viewed as a sign of weakness -- they interpret such a referant as being "faith" based and therefore invalid prima facie.

For a mixed audience, this type of reference would likely carry no more, and no less, weight than would the citing of a "proverb" or other aphorism.

In terms of argumentative debate -- warrant, claim, evidence, etc. -- the use of any aphorism is of little value as there is no provable/verifiable component; regardless of the religiosity of that aphorism.

Backroom discussion, as you may have noticed, do not follow the formal rules of argumenation to any great degree.:cheesy:


Tribes: your OP question is a bit leading -- your phrasing seems to point to a desired answer. Don C may be a little more annoyed about it than I, but his critique is valid.

[Odin]

Come on Odin, be fair. Wadlinger said "Jesus would be opposed to handguns". CR answered him with a direct quote indicating maybe Jesus wouldn't be, and you ding CR for it?

I didnt ding anyone, I answered a question tribes asked. Wadlinger would be covered in my initial answer as well, unless they both subsribe to the same belief system, I didnt see that mentioned.

Thats an axe you should grind with Tribes.


And using terms like myth to describe somebody's current belief system is rude.

Perhaps it is, it wasnt my intent to be rude, it was my intent to be generous. When I say its a
popular mythos one might infact agree based on the definition.

1. the underlying system of beliefs, esp. those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group.

2. The pattern of basic values and attitudes of a people, characteristically transmitted through myths and the arts. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mythos) [/QUOTE]



You know, I could talk about freedom and self-determination as cute, but childish and ultimately small-minded ideals, but even if I felt that way, I'd respect your views enough to find more polite language.

If you find my generous terminology inpolite there really isnt much I can say, other then that wasnt the intent. If you want to go down the road of religion with me, you'll find a solidly jaded indivdual who has a plethera of historical evidence to support the inherent hypocritical flaws in its premise to application.

I dont begrudge others thier path to finding god in thier life, some need stories to affirm something they cant logically explain, as you say "myths it is". The path to god has many branches the ones sullied by mans interpretation of what is expected from the devine are easily applied given the long history of editing, revision, and application.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rabbit used the quotes of famous people to make his side seem more respectable. I countered with my own respectable people. I just didn't realize that Gandhi and Jesus were actually on his side:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: .

I burst out in laughter when I saw those quotes. Next time I'll make sure about a historical figures beliefs before I drag them into a debate:laugh4:

Edit: I do believe that the scripture was taken out of context but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what Jesus meant by that statement yet.

I smiled when I saw who you brought up.
:beam:

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

It is rather obvious that CR did not base his arguments on faith. It was in fact only one line and only in response to a faith based answer from the other poster. This thread is in fact nothing more than the usual pathetic snipe we've come to expect.

Don's right, who's the desperate one? :shame:

[Tribesman]

Could you clarify your answer the question posed Don ?

is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?
That was all that was asked .
And your response....One of the favorite arguments of the Left is to co-opt scripture, and justify everything from not being able to defend yourself to outright Marxism....does appear to be in the affirmative .

[Ser Clegane]

is quoting a line of scripture generally viewed as an act of desperation when it comes to attempting to show justification for a position ?

OK - I will now just ignore the fact the the quote from the other debate is not a very suitable lead for your question Tribesman as it was directly asked for (and therefore already shows that quoting scripture cannot generally be viewed as an "act of desperation" - but can as well be the appropriate response to a question).

Apart from that that I would answer your question with a clear "it depends" ~;)

If religion and therefore the scripture that is linked to it is a (or the) fundamental pillar of your moral system, then quoting this scripture seems to be a very appropriate way to support your point - assuming that the debate is on a topic where "morals" are relevant (if e.g., Navaros would quote scripture to support his view on a topic I would not consider this to be desperate but rather valid and consistent).

There are of course situations where quoting scripture might look a touch desperate, e.g., if you would say something along the lines of
"scripture says the world was created in a week and therefore your more scientifically biased view on creation is wrong and I am right - end of discussion"
- but I would dare to say that this a pretty rare line of argument to be observed here ~;)

[HoreTore]

- but I would dare to say that this a pretty rare line of argument to be observed here ~;)

I'll assume you just meant that one line... Because similar arguments are quite common here I'd say :laugh4:

[Ser Clegane]

I'll assume you just meant that one line... Because similar arguments are quite common here I'd say :laugh4:

If you apply a broader definition to "scripture" that goes also beyond religeous texts you are probably correct :beam:

[HoreTore]

If you apply a broader definition to "scripture" that goes also beyond religeous texts you are probably correct :beam:

Statistics, reports, vague quotes, analyzes done on something else, books nobody has ever heard of, etc etc... :smash:

[Ronin]

People will sometimes refer to works of literature in order to help them make a point....this is nothing new and I don´t see anything wrong with that.

Now...if some people choose to quote a "magic" book because they think that gives their argument some extra weight...well...that again is their prerogative...just don´t expect me to judge it on anything else then the words themselfs that are written down.

Some people will quote the bible, some people will quote the koran.....hey...I´m pretty parcial to quoting Calvin and Hobbes....so it´s all good in the hood! :book:

"I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal."
-Calvin

[macsen rufus]

I won't go into whether or not this was directed at the CR/Waldinger debate, but in the general sense in which I initially read the question, I would say "yes" - excepting that instance where scripture has a specific bearing. In arguments over morals, say, fine - quote scripture, as I accept that many people derive their moral code from it, but so quoting also understand that your argument has no validity to anyone who does not subscribe to said scripture. "Jesus said...", "Duh! I'm a Buddhist..." sort of arguments get us nowhere, after all.

You CAN validly say "I believe xyz because the scripture says xyz". You CANNOT say "You must accept xyz because the scripture says xyz".

But generally, quoting scripture is desperate as it is an appeal to authority - it says "I've got no more arguments, but THAT BIG GUY OVER THERE says (whatever he says)". It is effectively ceasing to debate from a personally held position just to say "I agree with him".

And I'm totally with Odin on the use of the word mythos - it is a perfectly good and 100% accurate description of religious stories, in its proper context. It makes as much sense as objecting to someone calling scriptures "a book".

[Husar]

To Tribes' original question, no, I wouldn't say so.
Scripture is a way to spread knowledge or information in general and quoting it isn't desperate. In one way or another most of our knowledge comes from scripture or things other people told us (which they may also have written down in scripture), our brains add a bit of our own logic usually but in the end we handle a whole lot that didn't originate in our own brains so quoting scripture or whatever is quite fair.

That said, your particular example is almost hypocritical IMO since when you take swords to mean guns then you also have to take arms to mean nukes and thus the second amendement etc. blabla.

Also Don's last post is entirely correct again. :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The quote had validity. Someone stated that Jesus would have "probably" been pro-gun control, CR stated a contrary interpretation with a little more weight in the same area.

Any statement that is deemed to be misleading or short sighted should be countered in an informal debate forum. If I were to say that Indiana Jones was based on the life of Biblical archaeologist Vendyl Jones (due to extreme similarities) and someone knew that Spieldberg and Lucas verbally denied this in more than one interview, they should speak up. We can likely never know the truth, because Lucas and Spieldberg may just be trying to cover their butts from a lawsuit, but It holds documented validity regardless of its weight in the overall discussion.

In addition, a number of people oppose gun ownership BECAUSE they believe violence in general to be a terrible thing BECAUSE Jesus was against violence. Same with Christian vegetarians or Christian Tee-To-tallers. If they try to say that Jesus was a vegetarian or that he didn't drink, they are countered by scripture.


Anyway, I like to hear little known facts, analogies, and euphemisms when I visit this forum, especially when the topics veer off a bit.

[Geoffrey S]

In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.

[Gregoshi]

In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.
Geoffrey obviously agrees with me that the octosquid threat is a hoax dreamt up by End-of-the-World-ers desperately groping for something since the Cold War ended. :yes:

[Geoffrey S]

I'll readily admit that I don't think the Scriptures make mention of Octosquids, no...

[Odin]

Geoffrey obviously agrees with me that the octosquid threat is a hoax dreamt up by End-of-the-World-ers desperately groping for something since the Cold War ended. :yes:

Odd, I thought that was all resolved when Bush won a second term. :wiseguy:

[Husar]

If they try to say that Jesus was a vegetarian or that he didn't drink, they are countered by scripture.
I once had a priest say at a marriage that he didn't believe Jesus made wine and that it was probably just grape juice and that we all shouldn't drink alcohol etc. I thought it was bollox of course, he just wanted to drive his own agenda. :sweatdrop:

[Gregoshi]

Odd, I thought that was all resolved when Bush won a second term. :wiseguy:

That second term made George an OctoBush.

On that awful note (and before the lynch mob arrives), exit, stage left... :eeeek:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I once had a priest say at a marriage that he didn't believe Jesus made wine and that it was probably just grape juice and that we all shouldn't drink alcohol etc. I thought it was bollox of course, he just wanted to drive his own agenda. :sweatdrop:

Priests are generally not allowed to abstain from alcohol all the time. They need a special dispensation to drink "mustum" rather than table wine during Mass. INTERESTING FACT ALERT

NORMS FOR USE OF LOW-GLUTEN BREAD AND MUSTUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
August 22, 1994.

In recent years this dicastery has followed closely the development of the question of the use of low-gluten altar breads and <mustum> as matter for the celebration of the eucharist.

After careful study conducted in collaboration with a number of concerned episcopal conferences, this congregation in its ordinary session of June 22, 1994, has approved the following norms, which I am pleased to communicate:


I. Concerning permission to use low-gluten altar breads:

A. This may be granted by ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate.

B. Conditions for the validity of the matter:

1) Special hosts <quibus glutinum ablatum est> are invalid matter for the celebration of the eucharist.

2) Low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread, that there is no addition of foreign materials and that the procedure for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread.


II. Concerning permission to use 'mustum':

A. The preferred solution continues to be <communion per intinctionem>, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

B. Nevertheless, the permission to use <mustum> can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

C. By <mustum> is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

D. In general, those who have received permission to use <mustum> are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of <mustum>, while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.

E. In the very rare instances of laypersons requesting this permission, recourse must be made to the Holy See.


III. Common Norms

A. The ordinary must ascertain that the matter used conforms to the above requirements.

B. Permissions are to be given only for as long as the situation continues which motivated the request.

C. Scandal is to be avoided.

D. Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders.

E. Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

F. Concerned episcopal conferences shall report to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments every two years regarding the application of these norms.


With warm regards and best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect

[Husar]

Ohoh, maybe I shouldn't use the term "priest" that loose but it was sort of a protestant priest. :sweatdrop:

[Tribesman]

Priests are generally not allowed to abstain from alcohol all the time. They need a special dispensation to drink "mustum" rather than table wine during Mass. INTERESTING FACT ALERT

An interesting side topic , priests having to cover several parishes for Mass and the proposed introduction of a zero alcohol limit for driving .


In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.
That is a good answer .


The quote had validity. Someone stated that Jesus would have "probably" been pro-gun control, CR stated a contrary interpretation with a little more weight in the same area.

That however isn't a good answer since the flaw is in the use of a single line from a passage wheras the passage carries a different weight entirely .

[Papewaio]

Wordplay and partial quotes are fairly standard for a debate. If it was a scientific lecture it wouldn't be up to par, but for a bit of verbal fun it was spot on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That however isn't a good answer since the flaw is in the use of a single line from a passage wheras the passage carries a different weight entirely .

I don't think it is a big deal that the quote was out of context. As in most things in the bible, it is debatable whether the line was literal (sell what you've got and go buy a sword) or figurative (get rid of what you've got and earn the courage and strength to follow God)

People always say "out of context" when they disagree. The bible was meant to be read out of context. Some of Jesus' disciples carried swords. This is not really disputed, is it? I'm sure that they never wanted to use them. I feel the same way about guns. The problem is when you live by the sword.

[IrishArmenian]

Quoting scripture out of context is generally something that should be avoided when debating non-religious issues.