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?

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 .

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

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.

[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.

[Husar]

Swords <> guns!

[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 .

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

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.


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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[Ser Clegane]

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[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!

"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".