@Taishō, why is that quote a logical fallacy?

If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell, isn't it the most heinous act of callousness not to do all that is in your power to help them find Jesus?

the purpose of these "debates" are not to convince the other side, but it isn't useless.

-For one it serves you as it forces you to think and form an opinion on an issue, allowing you to better understand the issue and elaborate sharper arguments everytime the issue is brought up.

-It also provide people reading the threads, that are undecided or have no clear opinion on the issue, to educate themselves by reading both side of the argument, and then use their critical thinking (hopefuly), to form an opinion; opinion wich then they could defend when the issue is brought up in another context than the warlight forum. Also it may give an incentive to the reader to actually research the question, as they read the arguments they can verify them if they think it is interesting.

-And last, the people starting these threads can't be let unopposed, the horrendousness of their ideas needs to be exposed everywhere.

If I believed in God, I would crawl across my country on broken glass to tell one person about hell. You do not do this, so you do not believe in God either.

-British critic of Christians

@Taishō, why is that quote a logical fallacy?

If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell, isn't it the most heinous act of callousness not to do all that is in your power to help them find Jesus?

Assuming that to believe in God you must crawl across a country on broken glass to tell one person about hell.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A. (Affirming the Consequence, if I'm not mistaken)

I didn't talk about the moral justification behind the claim, I simply said it was a logical fallacy. Also, it's a Christian's responsibility to spread the faith through word and deed, but not their responsibility to convert you.

This thread is completely unnecessary this topic has already been strained and debated to its limit, we get it some people think Homosexuality is right and some think it is wrong, stop bringing it up Tyrion.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A

This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

an illogical statement would be
if A{true} => B{true} then B{true} => A{true}

no, no, no

the british quote is referring to he would, IF HE HAD TOO.

it isn't a logical fallacy; it's pointing out an unlikely possibility.

A)
The real reason I believe gay sex is medically wrong is because of the higher risk of HIV/AIDS spreading through sexual intercourse (i.e. Oral/Anal)


Do you live in the 80s?
Do you think homosexuality was OK 40 years ago?
Seems to me that here you "disagree" with oral and anal sex, not homosexuality

:P

No, I was born in 2001. I never lived in the 80's.

not sure i can disagree with a type of sex; I've never had sex of any kind.

The title is politically incorrect, however, those who read this thread will be provided with a variety of different viewpoints. Even if no one on this thread yields their point of view, others will draw their own conclusions and perhaps even take the time to inform themselves on the issues being brought up here.

Politically incorrect?

You can't say anything in america without offending SOMEONE.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A


This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

an illogical statement would be
if A{true} => B{true} then B{true} => A{true}

You're right, it's called Contraposition.

I stand corrected. It's called a false premise, which compromises the truth value, though has no impact on the logical validity.

Oops :P

Do you live in the 80s?
Do you think homosexuality was OK 40 years ago?
Seems to me that here you "disagree" with oral and anal sex, not homosexuality


:P

No, I was born in 2001. I never lived in the 80's.

It seems the only "argument" you have against homosexuality is because of aids.
In the 80's, when aids appeared (before that, aids didn't exist/wasn't a relevent issue), people thought aids was only a homosexual desease.
You say you are against homosexuality because aids spread through oral and anal sex (as if these type of sex were only of homosexual nature). So here the logic would say that you are actally against anal and oral sex, because of aids transmission, not homosexuality.(and you should then also be against vaginal sex, for the same reason)
Btw, studies have shown that the risk of being infected through oral sex is very low compared to vaginal and anal sex (although studies does seem to indicate that the risk of transmission is higher for anal sex than vaginal sex)

"In a nutshell", aside from the faith argument against homosexuality, you didn't provide any (reasonable) argument against homosexuality

Edited 4/12/2015 01:18:46

Because there isn't
Thats what Im trying to say.

Its a moral issue, so people should shut up about it.




________________________________________________________________________________________________



On another note, there IS evidence why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

It's simply repressed for political correctness.

Hello

This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

Yes, both statements are semantical equal (similar truth table).


However:
1) Following statement is a tautology: "Nonsense" ==> "Any other statement"

2) If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell
--> The negation of "to believe" is something like "to not believe" and not "to sin".

A practicing homosexual who changes his mind (=repents) about his homosexuality will quit his homosexual activities as a result of his changed mind. I know that some very mainstream branches of "Christianity" want to sell you this as the gospel. However this certainly is no gospel (= good news) but extremely shitty news without any hope. I'm sure that the good news is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish butt have eternal life." I would bite my tongue before asking an unbeliever to repent about his homosexuality but instead I'd like to ask every homosexual + straight guy to change his mind about the Son.

:P

Your arguement is invalid.

God doesn't exist, because God doesn't allow homosexuality?

god doesn't exist noob

God doesnt exist, why?

cause i said so noob

xD

troll

A{is homosexual}
B{is a believer}
C{is granted eternal life in Heaven}


hypthesis 1:
{But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.(Revelation 21:8)}

hypothesis 2:
{For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish butt have eternal life.}

hypothesis 3: A ∩ B ≠ {∅}

if hyp 1,2,3 are true, then

if A{true} OR B{false} then C{false} (1)

if B{true} then C{true} (2)


if A{true} AND B{true} => C{false} (1) and C{true} (2)



Therefore, at least one hypothesis must be wrong (unless logic doesn't apply to the Bible). Wich hypothesis is wrong Norman?

Edited 4/12/2015 03:24:46

2 is false, as in ur hypothetically, there is no "door" D

http://www.sadanduseless.com/2015/04/gay-marriage/#1KoOC0q5Uvoso7fD.01

Hypothesis one:

:P

i will address why your points are wrong tomorrow Ska2d2.

right now its midnight here, and im fucking tired