@Evangelicalhumanist While preparing a reply to your posts 176 and 174, (again demonstrating your continued sliding down the rabbit hole of irrational argumentation and logical fallacies, e.g. when you state: I “can't very well continue with our "reasoned debate" because “the reason is simply this: you accept as a veritable fact something that I am utterly convinced is almost entirely fiction.”), then you dumped post 179.
Examples were to be your illicit logical premise (“if "only the Spirit of God can free a person's mind and heart," and if that Spirit has 1) not freed mine (mind and heart) and 2) is omnipotent (as I am not), then you are going to have to accept that it is His choice, and not mine. In which case, you would have to consider me perfectly justified -- by God -- in my positions.”) which also included the “Cherry-Picking Fallacy” “
(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness).” This was demonstrated by only presenting the Determinist view and ignoring the Compatibilist view (my view) regarding the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.
“When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.” (logicallyfallacious.com) Also equivocation, red herrings, etc. But before I was ready to reply, you foisted in this post – 179, demonstrating an amazing incapacity for a coherent, rational, interaction dealing honestly with your opponent.
The thesis is “Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.” If you knew “religion” was involved then why enter in when “But until you show me how the Bible is the truest source, I see no reason why I should consider your arguments based on it as anything more than your own personal preference -- and that is clearly not "reasoned argument."?
Your purpose, as you proved throughout, was not to engage in a logical debate but simply to throw venomous barbs at the Biblical position.
Below is a simple exegetical rendering of the Hebrew and Greek words in question.
Genesis 2:21 Hebrew
ויפל יהוה אלהים ׀ תרדמה על־האדם ויישן ויקח אחת מצלעתיו ויסגר בשר תחתנה׃
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
Strong’s 6763 [e] miṣ-ṣal-‘ō-ṯāw, מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו of his ribs Noun
וַיִּבֶן֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
Strong’s 6763 [e] haṣ-ṣê-lā‘ הַצֵּלָ֛ע the rib Noun
Septuagint Greek
Genesis 2:21-22
21 καὶ ἐπέβαλεν ὁ θεὸς ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Αδαμ καὶ ὕπνωσεν καὶ ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν
πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσεν σάρκα ἀντ’ αὐτῆς
22 καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν
πλευράν ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Αδαμ εἰς γυναῖκα καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸν Αδαμ
πλευρῶν of his ribs
πλευράν rib
BDAG p.668 a: side.
Strong’s 4125: used elsewhere in the New Testament translated “side”.
NIDOTTE: p.811: side, side chamber, rib. Willem A. VanGemeren Gen.Ed.
Louw and Nida Vol.1 p.99; 8.41: either side of the trunk of a body, ‘side of the body’
GEINT p.1142 [4433] a rib, a side of the body. Mounce and Mounce
Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in either the Old or New Testament does it refer to a rib or a side as a “penis bone”. So your “story” is not “based on the Bible” but reflects your wildly ignorant, deeply entrenched, emotional detestation of the Christian faith. And perhaps a reaction to a more personal and embarrassing issue for which there is medication.
If I were to hold your feet to the fire and expect some expert support for your obscene assertion (for which there is none) you would, once again, retreat to your preplanned escape tool and smile and exclaim “it was only a story”.
To which I ask: WHY?
Why would you inject such a perverse, completely misrepresentational fable into, what should be, an honest, civil, knowledgeable debate? To someone with a modicum of reasoning ability, who has followed your responses to my positions, it is obvious. You cannot refute the argumentation with a reasoned, honest, meaningful, direct response. So you descend into degenerate subterfuge.
You state: “The ancient Jews knew all of this. They knew one thing more: that human males still have just as many ribs as human females. So, we still have all our ribs, but we're definitely missing a "bone" or "support" or "strut."
I couldn’t say if the ancient Jews knew “that human males still have just as many ribs as human females.” But we do know that today. To which I say ‘So What?’ What kind of nonsense is that? If your right leg was removed does that mean all of your following children would be born without a right leg? Really? Seriously?
“The baculum is an extra-skeletal bone, which means it is not attached to the rest of the skeleton but instead floats daintily at the end of the penis. But what about humans? If the penis bone is so important in competing for a mate and prolonging copulation, then why don’t we have one? Well, the short answer to that is that humans don’t quite make it into the “prolonged intromission” category. So what makes us different? It’s possible that this comes down to our mating strategies. Human males (generally) have minimal sexual competition as females typically only mate with one male at a time. Perhaps the adoption of this mating pattern, in addition to our short intromission duration, was the last straw for the baculum.” “The baculum is an extra-skeletal bone, which means it is not attached to the rest of the skeleton but instead floats daintily at the end of the penis.” Not close to your: “human males have a scar between their scrotum and anus called a "raphe."” babble. Why Humans Have No Penis Bone scientificamerican.com This is science’s explanation.
Let’s look at the conclusion of your “story”.
“There's just one example of why I consider the Bible to be wonderfully interesting as an historical/cultural/religious artifact, but useless in terms of its explanatory power for anything real.”
Your “story’ is now,
VIOLA, magically become an “example”. Story: Story is a tale that is made up for entertainment or a retelling of something that occurred or a piece of gossip that is being spread. Example: something selected to show the nature or character of the rest; single part or unit used as a sample; typical instance.
What a grand expression of deceptive rhetoric. When your communication skills repeatedly couch its language in logically fallacious argumentation, equivocation and outright duplicity you automatically concede any claim to actually participating in a genuine/authentic debate. And when one uses vulgar language, insults, and highly emotional vitriol one further demonstrates that they possess an obdurate, depraved mind.
“so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.” 2 Tim.3:8
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited
and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth,” 1 Tim.6:3-5
Romans 1:
18”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice;
they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
And this last post of yours is revelational of something that must be entertained. All things considered, an added explanation of your unsound reasoning is - perhaps you have a condition. My occupation brings me into contact, on a daily basis, with elderly people whose cognitive faculties are greatly diminished. Some of whom are younger than you and even I. I see it very personally in my 82 year-old mother. Add to that I’m a certified counselor and in my experience and estimation it has become evident that you may need help readjusting your thought and emotional skills. Hopefully you have loved ones nearby to assist you towards a more rewarding and sober, discerning and prudent future. Because of this other apparent impediment I no longer intend to exchange arguments with you at this time but wish you the best.
