See this index.
On Making an Argument
Almost any traditional form of Christianity (whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Mormon, or whatever) can mount a very deadly attack on… ‘the other guy’.
In other words; once you have accepted a coherent set of theological premises; you can use these as an effective basis to attack any other religion, denomination – or no religion.
So long as you stick to your own premises, and refuse to acknowledge these premises as being metaphysical assumptions that you-yourself have chosen to adopt — you can easily impress yourselfat the rigour and vigour of your own deadly dialectic!
You can even convince yourself that effective argument from your chosen-but-denied-assumed premises is a validation of these premises; meaning they must be true (i.e. necessarily true for all Men, at all times and places).
You can impress and convince yourself, perhaps; but it does not impress other people; because they do not share your chosen-premises, and they can see your baseline assumptions for what they are.
So, this kind of Trad Christian may be smug and confident; but to anyone else outside the assumptions he will appear a deluded fanatic: someone who attacks all the time because he must; and he must always attack because has no effective defence.
— Bruce G. Charlton, “‘Trad’ Christians“
One of my skills is being able to clearly see the axioms—underlying baseline metaphysical assumptions—that people do not know, or admit, they hold. This isn’t especially difficult, but it is fairly uncommon. In the case of proponents of Christian Patriarchy, I understand their axiom…
This is the explicit view of Christian Patriarchy expressed many times on this forum: that Christian complementarians, egalitarians, and feminists do not read the Bible for what it clearly says in plain language, but is in fact rebellion to the Word of God. — comment on “Men’s Altruistic Idealism in an Age of Apostasy”, Sigma Frame blog.
…which can be best reformulated as follows:
Claim A: My interpretation of scripture is clear and if you think it means something else, you are rebelling against the Word of God.
Some variation on this belief is common. The general claim is that “Complementarians, Egalitarians, and Feminists read the Bible and twist what scripture is plainly teaching in order to avoid its obvious conclusion, whether it be Paul’s obvious commands that women are to be silent, wear veils, ask their husbands on spiritual matters, submit in everything, etc. Rejecting Christian Patriarchy is deferring to femcentrism instead of God’s Word.”
So, say I have some claim A—like that above—that I want to disprove. One standard method of deductive proof is to start by accepting A, and then reasoning logically and deductively until you reach the conclusion ¬A. If you show that…
A → ¬A
…, you have a logical contradiction, which disproves the original claim A.
The best chance to refute a fanatic’s axiom is to show that it leads to logical flaws, that is, is an incoherent theological belief system.
To use this method, I must accepting the claim as if it were true. This is precisely what I did in the thread (and many others like it): I assumed that the interpretation of scripture can be clear and plain and that rejecting the clear and plain meaning for a more complex or nuanced explanation is rebellion against the Word of God, even though I don’t believe this personally. I did so because they believe this.
Readers then notice me making Claim A and accuse me of believing that A is true. This is, of course, correct: I start by assuming A—their own axiomatic belief—is true! But they can not see the trap that they have set for themselves even as they demonstrate the contradiction.
I can’t tell you how many times in various ways that I have been told that Christian Patriarchy is plainly, obviously, and overwhelmingly stated throughout scripture and history and that my own views are twisted sophistry or worse, proof of ignorance. Or, as Charlton put it, their views are “necessarily true for all Men, at all times and places.” After I wrote this…
“[Claim A] is the explicit view of Christian Patriarchy expressed many times on this forum: that Christian complementarians, egalitarians, and feminists do not read the Bible for what it clearly says in plain language, but is in fact rebellion to the Word of God.”
…Jack, owner of the blog, responded with:
It’s tragic to see RamMan commit a category error (assuming Christian Patriarchy is the same as Christian complementarians, egalitarians, and feminists) and thereby destroy the good faith of his argument.
I invite anyone to accept the claims I present as if they are true and use reason to determine if those claims hold up. This is a good faith argument that cannot be destroyed by personal attacks, contempt, distraction, or projection. Indeed, this is how people have—in the past—convinced me of my own error. But when someone treats their preferred exegetical method as exclusively available to them and excludes others from its use, they typify the bad faith argument.
See, I never said that Christian Patriarchy, Complementarian, Egalitarian, and Feminist groups were the same, for that would be stupid and absurd: they plainly hold differing and conflicting beliefs, as evidenced by my pointing out in that very comment that they each think their many of their own interpretations are exclusively correct, often obviously so. And so, I said that, paraphrasing, “the Christian Patriarchy group assumes that their viewpoints reflect the plain language of the Bible and that Bible interpretations by the other groups represent a rebellion against God, a willful failure to accept what is plainly true.”
So how did Jack respond? He said that his group is right and the other groups are wrong: his group is in a different category from everyone else. He couldn’t have proven my point any better. Proponents of Christian Patriarchy really do think that their interpretations of scripture are in a completely different category from the interpretations of scripture made by Complementarians, Egalitarians, and feminists. You can freely criticize the latter, but if you question the former, you rebel against God himself.
I reasoned from their own viewpoint to a contradiction of Claim A. They saw that “my” argument failed. They failed to see that this actually disproved their viewpoint, complaining instead about the way I argued. They failed to see that their own exegetical methods are no better than the people they deride. Instead, they demonstrated how not to argue.
How Not to Argue
One frustrated commenter said:
“Why are you going there with him Oscar? He told you, he’s not making an argument, but thinks he’s only playing the non-involved role of repeating scriptures, like a Bible app. That means, in his mind, your arguing makes as much sense as it does to argue with Bible Hub.”
My argument required accepting the false premise as if it was true and then reasoning to a contradiction. To do this, I had to cite the very scriptures that they claim are the authoritative, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. There was no room for my own opinion. They were not arguing with me, for my opinions were nowhere to be found. Rather, they were indeed arguing—ineffectually—against the Word of God. In doing so, they effectively disproved their own argument. Without a proper defense, all they could do was attack my method.
“he must always attack because has no effective defence” — Charlton
The commenter continued:
We all come here to share our viewpoints to grow, but there is only one person who thinks he is only being shaped by a clinical adherence to what the word says. I think this is the source of a lot of the extreme difficulty people have communicating with Derek.
One cannot grow if one cannot reason through an argument that disproves those viewpoints. A good argument must resist the urge to bring up irrelevant points—such as my own opinions—that would distract from the very real challenge to their own views that my argument presented. In a way, I am being clinical. Logic—pointing to the truth—has no room for emotion, which can only distract and deflect. I refuse to make an argument that includes irrelevant details.
The commenter continued:
He implies the rest of us don’t read the Bible for what it says, but he does, and even to the point, it’s not his argument when you disagree with him.
First, Claim A is not my claim. If only they could see that they are projecting their own failings onto me, then they could begin to find the truth by rejecting the failing they think they see in me. I’m merely a mirror. They only believe that the Bible is the Word of God when they cite and interpret it, but not when I do. When I cite and interpret the Bible, it is just a machine spitting out a bunch of meaningless combinations of words in a misused or nonsensical manner. They never stop to think if this applies to them.
Second, I thus agree with the commenter that ¬A is true and that therefore, by logical contradiction, A is indeed false. Because A is false, all those dependent claims to interpretative and theological superiority by the Christian Patriarchy are also false.
Third, nobody owns an argument. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits. If you disagree with the argument, you are never disagreeing with the person who made it. If you find yourself disagreeing with the person and not their argument, then you’ve shown quite clearly that you are not there to grow your viewpoints, but to be contentious for no gain. Trying to discredit the person arguing—often by ad hominem—is never valid.
Axioms of Belief
I originally wrote “Axioms of Faith” in response to a very similar problem where a different commenter took issue with my application of logic and reason. I retorted that the commenter was placing an authority over the authority of scripture, as, you’ll note, I also did above in this very article.
The commenter did not want to accept my argument, so I exposed their underlying axiom of belief. As above, Jack took issue to this approach and said:
“You’re overreaching your assumptions here.”
But I was not overreaching, and I explained why.
It is extremely uncomfortable for a person to have their personal axioms challenged. Doing so is likely to get a person personally attacked. People are much happier when you challenge views on the periphery of their beliefs, because at the end of the day they can just fall back on their axioms. A challenge to their core—such as adherence to Roman Catholicism—will be taken as a personal attack, even though it isn’t one. This is why Sigma Frame has a comment policy that encourages censorship for “Vehemently attacking religious faiths, of any variety.”
Challenging axioms is generally off-limits, but it is what I do. Recall from “Axioms of Faith” the response of Jack to my “attack”:
Meanwhile, we do have some readers here who are going through literal hell at this exact moment. Do you have any good word for these men?
I’ll say again what I’ve said in the past in various forms: you can’t help someone out of their errors until you’ve first dismantled their false axioms of belief. Trying to fix their peripheral beliefs will be of minimal benefit. This is why I spent so much time criticizing the Roman Catholic sacraments on that and this blogs. The acceptance of false axioms completely invalidates the good work they are trying to do for suffering men.
They must first lead Roman Catholics to faith and only then can they help them in their relationships. For nearly 400 years after the cross of Christ, non-Christians were forbidden from taking part in the ministry of Christ. They could not even tithe. The early church understood, as we no longer do, that one’s axiom must be Christ before any good can be done.
Throwing down bad axioms is hard.
Logical Fallacies
Throughout the last few blog posts, I have been responded to various claims by Sharkly, which includes a lengthy back and forth discussion at the Spawny’s Space blog. At one point during the discussion there, Sharkly asserted a claim:
X → Y
But I had noticed that elsewhere he had made the claim…
Y → X (converse)
…and…
¬X → ¬Y (inverse)
In doing so, Sharkly had committed, among other things, the fallacy of the inverse. This made his argument logically invalid, full stop. If he then takes that invalid argument and uses X to show Y while also using Y to show X, this is circular reasoning. Asserting a proposition and its converse is a fallacy, as Sharkly clearly did. Sharkly’s argument became circular when he had tried to use both X and Y to prove Y and X (respectively). That he did this on separate occasions and in separate places does not change the fact of it being circular. Nor did he deny that he made those claims, he merely denied that he made the claims together in a single argument, which doesn’t eliminate the circularity of his belief.
So, Sharkly had three rational choices: fix his line of reasoning, abandon his line of reasoning, or abandon one of his conclusions. He chose to double down instead:
The truth usually comes full circle. [..] Just because two statements together can be labeled as circular, does not make a logical fallacy, if you’re not trying to use them both to prove each other. [..] The truth just works in both directions on that.
But the point here is that Sharkly, when faced with this, agreed that his view was circular, but denied that it was fallacious. This is known as special pleading, an informal fallacy also known as a double-standard. For those paying close attention, the reason his Sharkly belief isn’t a formal fallacy per se is because he is declaring his beliefs to be axiomatic. An axiom is a type of circular reasoning—like a definition or tautology—that isn’t considered fallacious per se, because it is only used as a proof-less given in an argument: it is a self-evident claim that isn’t subject to debate. Sharkly’s holds his views about God, men, and women axiomatically, that is without rational proof or rational argument. He just wants everyone to agree with him.
“You can impress and convince yourself, perhaps; but it does not impress other people; because they do not share your chosen-premises, and they can see your baseline assumptions for what they are.” — Charlton
How can one ever hope to win an argument when the people you are arguing with don’t accept that the laws of logic apply to themselves? It is impossible. When an axiom is a matter of blind faith, they are nearly impossible to throw down.
Now, recall up above how I disprove an argument by accepting its core claim and that this leads people to argue against my argument not realizing they are arguing against their own core claim? The same thing happened with Sharkly. He made this statement…
The matchless image of God clearly makes men the superior vessel.
…to which I responded…
The matchless image of God clearly makes humanity the superior vessel.
…and noted that he was using circular reasoning (which is based on his axiom regarding the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘adam). He responded by saying…
LOL By your own style of assessment that then makes your above declaration circular reasoning.
…which is, of course, absolutely correct. By assuming his axiom, I made an argument that was as equally circular as his argument: both of us had assumed the conclusion of what we were arguing in order to prove that conclusion to each other. By arguing against my argument, he was arguing against his own argument and the axiom upon which it is based.
I believe he thought I was being dishonest or cheating or playing word games or something similar. The reality is that I had disproved his argument using his own argument against him. He refused to accept the correction, because he appears to hold his views axiomatically: on faith. It’s hard to dislodge blind faith. I know that he values truth, but many other people belief is even more important than truth, which is why disproving arguments is so hard.
And in case you think I’m arguing in bad faith when I wrote about the Patriarchal Axiom…
Claim A: My interpretation of scripture is clear and if you think it means something else, you are rebelling against the Word of God.
…all you need to do is read what Sharkly just said:
“You rebel against the truth. You prefer the new lie.”
I rest my case.
Some of this stems from the age we live in. In the later 1970’s (I was about eight, 1978), I was with other boys in the surrounding area…..we found ourselves at ol “Mr. Wood’s barns” down on Bakersville Road. The barns were old, huge and very ornate but run down. They had lattice work around the entablatures, slate roofing, and it was a complex of storage barns, milking for cows…..pens for animals……it was once a very proud looking structure. Built in the Victorian age. Over 100 years old…..well, a few of the boys decided it would be fun to throw rocks at the ornate glass windows on the upper levels and break them. Did I throw rocks and break glass? No. But I was there. In fact, it was only one boy who did so out of eight of us.
Well, ol “Mr Wood” snuck up behind us with his rifle. He did not point it at us, but he did take our names. He told us to “get off his property” after that.
That night, Mr. Wood came to all of our homes in the evening to have a chat with each our parents. I got a spanking from my dad after he left, as did all us boys from our dads that night. We spoke about it on the bus that Monday morning.
*Still, in the 1970’s a boy in the country you could still have consequences for just being around the wrong people / wrong crowd even though “you didn’t do anything wrong”. My father expressed his deep disappointment with me after the spanking for trespassing / not asking permission to go on his land, let alone his barns and for not leaving the second the first rock was picked up.
*I was convinced even after that I didnt do anything wrong. I was trespassing? So what? Everyone cut across people vast tracks of wooded hills, streams, pastures. It was the country.
*I was convinced that “group punishment” was ineffective, even back then. All of us got punished by our dads for the actions of one
When I was a “practicing” christian, on Dal’s forum and others I was told I was not a real one because my tradition did not partake in the “lords supper” nor did it baptize. Didnt matter, that the thief on the cross wasnt baptized……didnt matter. I wasnt a christian. I wasnt a christian because I did not eat my “crackers n grape juice” on Sunday like at many countless protestant christian churches, nor did I take wine a piece of bread convincing myself it was actual blood, and the body of jesus. I wasnt a christian according to many. I didnt revere Mary, nor did I have painted “icons” in my home on north facing walls…..
I was going to hell, or was going to be “separated” because I didnt accept the practices of the popular christian posters, with no question. Every counterpoint I made was granted with a Stefan Moyleneux replay of “Not an argument” (which means shut up, despite any merit it could have)
Christians have had never ending and endless scriptural squabbles since the times of Augustine. Many today will “group punish” a whole group over the actions of one.
And, finally….most have an “exception” clause to their past behavior (or current) to justify any and all un-christlike behavior, attitude and action towards their fellow men. “So what?” is their reply, they will accuse you of legalism while doing the same exact thing to most other people.
Christian really are for the most part miserable, and they dont like most people
I had problems with stubborn fundamentalism in the 90s, but I’m not old enough to speak of the 70s. That said, even in the early days of the internet people didn’t flip out quite so much when you challenged their views. It’s definitely gotten worse.
Pingback: Manosphere Q&A
I’ll just cut and past this section of my reply again from over at Spawny’s Space:
Derek,
LOL You’re the one who is doubling down on claiming that it is “circular reasoning” for me to believe that the masculine “image of God” can be key to both why men are to rule and why women aren’t. It isn’t my flaw that you get to flinging “Logical Fallacy” names at people which you lack the understanding to correctly utilize.
Circular reasoning is mutually dependent proofs: “A must be true because B is true; and B must be true because A is true.”
Like when Archie Bunker is asked why he thinks that Meathead is dumb, and Archie replies “Because Meathead is a Polack!”
Then when Archie is asked how he knows that Polish people are dumb, Archie replies, “Because Meathead is dumb, and he’s Polish!”
Meathead = dumb because Polish.
Polish = dumb because Meathead.
That’s circular reasoning.
Masculine image of God = part of why men rule & why women don’t
or
Masculine image of God = why men pray uncovered & why women shouldn’t
That’s not circular reasoning. It’s biblical truth I am trying to show to you.
————————————————————
“He subsequently wanted to quit the discussion.”
No. What I said was:
“Derek, I’m running out of time to keep refuting your silliness.”
I’m not sure how you have the time to keep posting all your many arguments and accusations in rapid-fire succession. I certainly don’t have adequate time to refute them all as “point by point” as I’d like to. I have many other duties I have to attend to besides trying to repeatedly correct a willfully obstinate arguer.
I have tried to explain to you about three times already that you have improperly assessed what I’ve written as being a logical fallacy because you have declared it “circular reasoning”. And then you’d seemingly like to try to toss out everything I’ve said and feel free to not answer my questions because you act like “naming and claiming” a logical fallacy is some magic charm that makes you the automatic and total winner of any argument.
To give another analogy what you’re doing is like sitting in math class and the teacher says, “two is less than four”. Then a week later he says, “four is more than two”. And then you suddenly jump up and exclaim he’s using circular reasoning, because his whole field of mathematics is just a lie that builds upon itself, so you don’t need to listen any further nor answer the questions he had asked you.
You say I wanted to quit the discussion, but all I was doing was explaining that I don’t have the time to keep explaining the same stuff over and over again to the willfully obstinate.
Derek you aren’t automatically the winner of an argument because you ignorantly label your opponent as using “circular reasoning” when you still seem unwilling to understand the difference between the logical fallacy of “circular reasoning” and people merely saying things at different times that reflect concepts that works in both directions as a logical two-way street.
———————————————————————–
You then running off here to your own site and continuing to make the same accusation that I’ve just addressed for the fourth time now, and pretending like I can’t contend with your logic is just your own refusal to fair mindedly consider what I’ve tried to explain to you.
I don’t have time to go on too much longer about this particular case of your obstinate denial wherein you improperly have tried to construe my statements into “circular reasoning”. So that you can then publicly dismiss all my other biblical teachings as having come from an untrustworthy and illogical source.
Just because I don’t have time to refute all of your accusations as fast as you can make them, doesn’t make me the ideological loser. It might appear that way, but the discerning will see that I have had reasonable answers to all your queries, whereas you dodge many of mine while firing off more salvos of accusations.
According to Roberts Rules of Order for debates once you’ve asked a question or leveled an accusation, you yield the floor to allow the questioned or accused a chance to answer. Although I don’t expect that decorum on the internet, that type of rule is to prevent a person from just making a string of accusations or questions and then leaving the other person looking as if they don’t have adequate responses just because they haven’t been given adequate time to respond to each accusation or query individually.
——————————————————————–
Much of what you ask me has already been addressed on my website, if you have the time to look for it.
I may be wrong, but it seems like you believe that the sexes are roughly equal in rank. Anyhow, if so, and you’ve got so much time, here are a dozen points for you to play with, copied and pasted form my site:
1) Ephesians 5 teaches us that husbands image Jesus Christ, while wives image the church. So the sexes are clearly not equal.
2) Women are told to be in subjection.(1Peter 3:1-2) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
3) Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.(1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
4)Women are not to usurp authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
5) Women are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
6) Women are to cover their heads in prayer, but men should not.(1 Corinthians 11:3-9) So the sexes are clearly not equal when coming before God.
7) Man was created preeminently in God’s image, while woman was secondly created from man’s flesh and bone.(Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18-24) So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.
8) The husband is to be the head,(1 Corinthians 11:3) and the wife the helper.(Genesis 2:18) So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.
9) Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,(Leviticus 15:19-27, Leviticus 18:19, Ezekiel 18:5-6, Ezekiel 36:17) So the sexes are clearly not equal. Nor does that periodic uncleanness fit the image of God.
10) Women are natural defilers. (Revelation 14:4) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
11) We are clearly told that women are the “weaker vessel”.(1 Peter 3:7) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
12) We are told specifically that women are to be shamefaced. (1 Timothy 2:9) So the sexes are clearly not of equal glory and status.
If they’re not all answered with unassailable logic when I wake up tomorrow, I’ll declare that you lack the intellect to answer all my questions. See how that works?
Sharkly,
That’s because I have moved on. You lost your own argument all by yourself. I don’t want any credit for it. You are not doing yourself any favors by continually denying the circular reasoning, nor does it help you to repeat the claim that I don’t know what it is, when I do. I’ve suggested that you reevaluate your belief in response to your logical errors, but you’ve chosen not to.
You are so close to understanding. That’s called an axiom, which is indeed non-fallacious circular reasoning. There is a whole section in this post you are replying to that discusses this exact thing.
I don’t have to jump up and exclaim anything, because I know what my metaphysical assumptions are.
When you used circular reasoning, your argument immediately imploded on itself and my duty to you ended after I pointed it out. It would be illogical of me to continue arguing against an argument that you had already defeated. I am, in fact, obstinate about not making futile arguments. You can’t goad me into picking it back up. If you want me to help you fix your broken argument, I’d do that, but you have to admit that it is broken first.
So I’ll join your uncle, Dominic Bnonn Tennant and Kentucky Headhunter in yielding the floor.
I prefer to make long arguments on my own site where I don’t have to bother the normal readers of Spawny’s Space and where other readers might benefit. You are free to be here.
I don’t know why you are so upset about this. If your refutation of my claim is so good, then anyone else reading it will be able to make that same conclusion for themselves. They can even pipe up and weigh in here if they want.
You don’t need me to change my mind. I would change my mind if I needed to, but nothing you’ve said has altered what happened in the past, nor can any argument you make moving forward change the past. You either go back and fix your mistake, or you don’t. It is up to you.
It is, in part, an illusion. I’ve been posting on this blog at a high rate recently because I’ve been burning through my backlog of drafts and prewritten material. Even with so much already written, I’m barely able to keep up. Still, when I can I’m copying-and-pasting material to use in my replies.
I don’t have enough time, which is why the other day I drafted one of my replies to you when I took a 30-minute nap. I even “write” articles while taking a shower. Is there a spare moment? I’m using it.
I thought these were the same things, and I’m not the only one. It was a perfectly reasonable conclusion. But it was wrong.
I try to hold to the Principle of Charity, and I failed to do that when I assumed you were trying to run away. You have my apology. I have altered this article to remove that claim and edit out some other (probably) offensive remarks. I mean this genuinely: if you think I’ve worded anything in my articles that is a personal attack, I will go back and attempt to edit it so that it is charitable to you. I have no desire to attack you personally, though I understand how this might come out in what I write.
I also agree that not having time to respond doesn’t make you an ideological loser. I’m not going anywhere. I often take months to reply to stale threads, so if you take two years to respond, I’ll still be here.
I actually know nothing about these. I don’t subscribe to artificial debating standards that I don’t agree to. I’m not going to agree to be held to that standard of “decorum” when I didn’t agree to it.
Peace,
DR
“When you used circular reasoning, your argument immediately imploded on itself and my duty to you ended after I pointed it out.”
That’s what I’m refuting and pointing out to people. (5 times now) That you are quick to unilaterally declare things to be “circular reasoning” that no fair-minded person would classify as “circular reasoning” or constituting a logical fallacy. And then as a result you declare that all the truth I’ve shared has somehow imploded, and that you have no duty to answer my questions because you’ve already declared yourself to be the winner, based upon your stretching the definition of the logical fallacy of “circular reasoning” to even encompass things that are not even reasonings, but are mere statements, and that are not presented as being dependent on each other, but merely arising from the same source.
“I don’t know why you are so upset about this.”
I’m replying based upon my principles, not because I’m upset. For every time that you declare that the truth of God which I’ve tried to share is a fallacy or “circular reasoning”, if I am able, and have the time, I’ll refute your continuing attempt at deception and point out your stubbornness in maintaining your foolish misapplication of the term “circular reasoning” (which you clearly still don’t understand) in your attempt to nullify God’s truth. My response is an automatic correction feature, like with a machine. As many times as you spout your foolish claim that it is “circular reasoning” to say that the image of God could be a factor in both why men rule and why women don’t, if I am able, that many times I’ll call out and expose your silliness. It is entirely up to you how many times I’ll need to address and correct that foolishness. At some point perhaps you’ll recognize that you’ve become like a chicken fighting itself in a mirror. Trying to one-up me on who says the last word on that.
Five times now—since I stopped debating?—you’ve indeed had the last word.
You and I may both be Anabaptist and so share a certain kinship, but I’m still just a random person on the internet. You can’t one-up me, and I can’t one-up you. There are no points to score because nobody is keeping score. I’m just not that important.
If anyone is fighting a mirror, it isn’t me. I don’t fight people, I debate ideas. You raise interesting ideas, which is why I keep responding… well that and I’m an extrovert who likes being social. That list of 12 items is indeed sufficient bait—if that was your intention—to keep me going (and, perhaps, distracted) for a while.
I am blunt and open more-or-less to a fault. I am without guile. I can’t even imagine what you think I’m hiding. There is no deception at all.
Any person who has been following along here or at Spawny’s Man-Up or RomCom comment sections can see by clicking those links, precisely, without deception, exactly how our conversation went down. I’ve made my case publicly and you’ve made your case. I believe I am correct, you believe you are correct.
I recommend that you too embrace the Principle of Charity.
“I can’t even imagine what you think I’m hiding.”
The deception is that you keep wrongly calling my statement to be “circular reasoning”, even when it does not qualify as such.
A few times now, I’ve seen you write that my early church Bible-based view that women are not the image of God, is unpopular, and cite people who have disagreed with me about it. In my mind that is a sales technique that is used to influence fickle women and others for whom conforming to society is more important than the actual truth.
You and Bnonn, neither of whom are educated in biblical languages, can console yourselves in your agreement, that somehow I must be wrong, because otherwise God’s holy patriarchy would be the only family structure that is truly fitting. Egalitarianism and Complementarianism are both undermined by what I teach. However, my uncle who has a doctor’s degree in Biblical languages and has spent his career as a biblical languages professor, admits, “there is no specific verse that states that ‘women are made in God’s image’”. And I believe the man can quote most of the Bible in both (KJV) English and its original biblical language.
You yourself recently admitted:
“The vagueness of the Hebrew language means that we should all be less dogmatic about its meanings. It isn’t like English where strictly literal connotations are easily inferred. In Hebrew it is common for a phrase to have a double or even triple meaning.
…
Nailing down Hebrew is well nigh impossible, and it is probably wrong to try to nail it down like we would in English. Hebrew is more…. living? In any case, if you think I misinterpreted something in this way, feel free to point out my error.”
Well, that’s what I have been doing at my website. Not specific to you, but to all who believe the post c. 350AD church’s new Feminism. And I find it telling that in spite of your admitted inability to nail down Hebrew grammatical implications, yet you’ll declare that my uncle is wrong for not providing you with a more solid backing for females being in the image of God when he can’t show that ever being clearly stated by any Bible text.
Consider that the early church was far closer and more familiar with the source of the New Testament and they agreed that women were not in the image of God. The burden of proof should lie upon those introducing new Feminist doctrines. Yet you manage to dogmatically claim to know I’m wrong despite it being “well-nigh impossible” for you to nail anything down in Hebrew. Except your Feminism, that is. LOL It’s unshakeable!
…are both non-biblical terms, abstractions that reflecting extra-biblical ideas.
And other experts of Hebrew have said things completely different. If you think an argument from authority will sway me, you are badly mistaken. Where is the reasoning? Show me the money.
See, even I will readily agree that there is no verse that reads, precisely, in those exact literal words “women were made in God’s image”. And so what? If you ask a loaded question, you get a loaded answer. But Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2 explicitly say that male and female were made in the image of God, and no loaded question can bypass this fact.
Did you ask him if he believes that the Bible clearly states that females were made in the image of God? Don’t ask him to show you, just ask what he believes is clearly true in his expert opinion. The question you did ask him is not the same thing as this.
I believe your view is the one that was introduced. That’s the point of my discussion on survivorship bias.
I usually wouldn’t present an argument from authority, but sometimes you answer a Feminist according to their folly. You had countered me with: Bnonn and I (two knaves at translating Hebrew) claim the Feminists must be right, so that settles it, you are wrong and too stubborn to listen to our naïve pontificating about Hebrew poetry.
I just figured that since my uncle knows far more about the language than the both of you put together, you might get my point. That he is not dogmatic where you unlearned youngsters are, being so bold in your claims where you utterly lack knowledge.
I do want to respond to your claim that, the fact that no early church fathers wrote except to say that women weren’t the image of God, somehow proves that the church believed the opposite, but I’d like to do that on the other post, and after I’ve had a little time to go back through Irenaeus’ compendium, “Against Heresies”, which refutes all the known heresies of his time, according to Irenaeus. One way or the other, if two opposing beliefs existed, Irenaeus would have labeled one of them the heresy. Don’t cha think? So far the heresies I’ve read about don’t even seem to qualify as “Christian” heresies but are religious syncretism of polytheistic and gnostic beliefs. It is quite a lengthy book, for the early church era.
Perhaps I lack knowledge, but as far as I know, I’m not in error. I stand to be corrected by an expert, if it comes to that. But as I said, make sure you ask your uncle the right question. Did you ask him if he believes that the Bible clearly states that females were made in the image of God? I don’t actually care if he admits that a particular wording exists, as that is the wrong question to ask.
You linked to a site where “professorGBFMtm2021” said:
I already asked GUNNER,RAY,FEERIKER&REDPILL LATECOMER
HERE to set sharkly straight …
BUT your help I would GREATLY appreciate it too,HUNTER!
And that individual posted similar elsewhere. However nobody ever contacted me to set me straight about who that individual really is. And I presume that is because none of them know for sure either. I received a few hundred emails from that person before I broke off contact with them by politely expressing that I had come to see their emails as an intentional waste of my time. I really do believe that they are trolling the “Christian manosphere” with their crap posting. They have shown they can clearly do better when threatened with being banned. Here is a quote from their very first contact with me:
“P.S.I’M EVILZ MGTOW …
THAT AGREES WITH YOUR ONLY MINZ CREATED OFFICIALY IN GODS IMAGE!HOW IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SO-CALLED RED-PILLED MINZ LIKE DALROCK TO SEE?I understand our MENNONITE FRIEND DEREK NOT UNDERSTANDING BUT RED-PILLERZ EVEN DALROCKZ AND ATHOL KAYZ PURPILLING SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THIS!THANK YOU!”
After I recently called the person out as a troll again at Spawny’s Space, they seem to have shifted their core belief as if they now believe you, who stuck up for them and asked me to be tolerant of their intentional gibberish posting. LOL This person seems to try to identify themself with whomever will help lend them some credibility to their “GBFM” sock-puppet persona. Do you know them?
I see them as trying to discredit the “Christian manosphere” which they participate in. Perhaps in a way that makes them a fellow traveler with you. However at least you’re honest about your intentions. But I believe perhaps you’ll owe me an apology after you figure their deception out.
Anyhow, I’m not going to hold it against KH that he was trying to sympathize with his sole commenter on that post. And he is right, in that I’ve made up my mind about “professorGBFMtm2021”. I have no use for the troll. However, just because I’ve now completely written off that one gay-porn-posting fake-retard as a troll, doesn’t mean what you seem to imply, that I can’t be reasoned with.
Oh, changing the subject, eh? I linked to two comments:
…and…
…which both say more-or-less the same thing.
Even if I did, I wouldn’t reveal it. I’ve had a few anonymous and pseudonymous people reveal their identities to me, but I won’t dox anyone. Even telling you if I do or do not know them is too much information.
Ideas, not people.
I don’t think so. I didn’t care about the Essjay controversy, so why would I care if an anonymous person is revealed? I have mostly contempt for arguments from authority. Didn’t I once joke that Dalrock was probably a feminist prankster from California? That doesn’t stop me from referencing his work.
Ideas, not people.
Perhaps a fellow traveler in the way that two people meet on the road, and despite different backgrounds, travel alongside the road for a while before parting ways. Yes, probably that.
I’m big on personal discernment. I really do not like judging other people, which is why I advised you not to do so. I also said something similar regarding a certain doctor of feelings, if you recall that. With this whole circular reasoning thing, I’m content with myself that I have made a correct judgment on the ideas at hand. Anything more would push too far into a judgment of person, and I have no desire to be your judge. You can be your own judge, thank you very much.
Ah. You wanted the “money quote”, but not the context.
I have no intent to dox “professorGBFMtm2021” that wasn’t my intent. Although they themselves seem rather intent to try to reveal certain other folks’ secret identities. (Jack, BGR, Vox, Etc.)
I think you missed my point, that you are willing to judge me and lecture me about how I deal with an intentional deceiver, when you yourself likely don’t even know who they are or what they’re up to. But instead seem to have fallen for their act, or perhaps have joined in on it. My friends don’t post gay porn links. It ain’t rocket science.
But as you say, that is a different subject.
I didn’t mean it so strongly as you took it. It was just a piece of advice that reflected how I personally have chosen deal with the situation. I meant nothing more or less than it. This time it was just my opinion, and I don’t feel strongly about you doing something different.
In Christ there is no male or female. It’s not about rank or equality, per se. These are not categories that I concern myself with on real-life day-to-day basis. Unity supersedes the others and makes discussions of rank or equality of minimal practical interest. Rank or equality/inequality only come into play if unity has failed, and rank or equality/inequality cannot produce unity.
Brother, it wouldn’t phase me if you did. In any case, I’m stuck indoors recovering from an Ocular Migraine, so I might actually be able to answer some of them. No promises though.
Pingback: Intelligence, Education, and Covid: Part 3
Pingback: Sharkly on Women, Part 4
Pingback: Utilitarian Racism
Sharkly’s recent comment here is the perfect illustration that proves my point.
First, Sharkly claimed that correct theology is whatever is the simplest explanation.
Second, Sharkly seals the deal by claiming that any non-simplistic explanation (that disagrees with whatever he thinks) must be incorrect.
Thus, Sharkly proves my point:
I almost exactly predicted the substance of Sharkly’s comment, including the bit about feminism:
Sharkly thinks he is engaging in reasoned debate, but he merely demonstrated his own metaphysical assumptions that he—mistakenly—thinks are based on logic, reason, and scripture, rather than blind faith. Sharkly is extremely willing to condemn me to the pit of Hell because I don’t agree with his opinion, his arbitrary metaphysical assumptions.
As Charlton noted, it’s impossible to reach a person who cannot admit their own metaphysical assumptions are just that: metaphysical assumptions.
Remember how I said above:
Sharkly’s axiom is plain to everyone but himself. So I’ve focused on disproving his claim from within his accepted framework. I did so here. There Sharkly made a claim and I proved that it led to a contradiction, thus proving by contradiction that it is false that only men are made in the image of God. I was able to do this without attacking his axiom directly. But because his axiom logically leads to a provably false belief, Sharkly really does have to reject his metaphysical assumption. That’s the way to do it.
Of course, he won’t give it up. But he has no logical excuse not to do so.
Sharkly believes that the Bible plainly teaches that only men are made in the image of God. Yet it appears that he may be the only person alive out of billions who believes this. If this viewpoint is so plain and obvious, why is he the only one who believes it? This is logically self-defeating: a think cannot be actually plain to see if it isn’t plain to see. If we apply Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that Sharkly is wrong and that everyone else is right.
Pingback: Ambiguity in the Bible
Pingback: On Suffering
Pingback: The Disadvantage of Authority