Featured Christian Profanity

When peter was denying Christ...he began cursing like the unsaved so they would not think he was a disciple;

 

caution...Pastor Martin does not hold back :thumbs:

 

AN ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE goes something like "scripture doesn't condemn a word, therefore I am permitted to use it".

I'm done arguing against a professing believer about the use of ungodly filth.

 

An argument from silence is called an "Informal Fallacy" and is not an accepted form of reasoning in any academic setting.

http://fallacies.sciencedaily.com/l/94/Argument-from-silence

 

I don't think it is necessary to listen to hours upon hours of sermons that I do not even know to begin with are going to be exegetically sound.

Don't send me to do the work for you. Make your own arguments- here- succinctly.

What is incumbant upon you is to show how the word "darn" is acceptable but how these verses outright condemn the d word.

That is your challenge. If you cannot do it, brother, your point is not valid.

Now let me clarify. I am against Christians going out here and saying cuss words in the public arena. The weaker brother principle, the testimony of Christ and a host of other things make that very wrong to do.

I am saying that if you don't have the Bible properly exegeted then you cannot say it is wrong across the board in every circumstance. Period.

Even our favorite Calvinists HAVE TO ABIDE BY this principle. Paul Washer, Richard Baxter- they have to make CASES, exegetical CASES for what they purport.

We do not get to make Calvinist popes out of them.

 

So then you can condemn as sin things that the Scripture does not condemn as sin by either precept or principle?

And you're done arguing because you can't. You can't make an exegetical case.

 

To "curse" there means to call down the direst of evils upon someone, brother.

It does not mean to say the s word for poo-poo.

It simply does not.

 

In this thread is another type of fallacy called a "Misplaced Burden of Proof":


Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).



http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

Luke. Pastor martin is completely sound....offers an introduction the
n builds upon it

 

Actually I'm done due to the command of not answering a fool according to his folly. This is the dumbest thread I've seen in a while.

 

It doesnt apply to a legal argument.

In other words, if you are going to accuse me of breaking the law, you have to point out what law I have broken.

If I point out that you have not pointed out a single law I have broken, you do not get to say, "Well, he is using the old "argument from silence" to defend his case!!"

You'd be laughed out of court!


The same applies here. the burden of proof IS on the one claiming something is wrong.

When you claim something is wrong you have to prove it.

When you claim something is unChristian then you have to SHOW it in the bible.

 

I didn't start it. I'm sure you meant that as an insult to me because you hate me because you hate people who constantly defeat you in debate. But the fact of the matter is that I did not start this thread.

 

Never said you started it, oh false accuser of the brethren. I don't care about 'winning' anything. You are the Charlie Sheen of this board, you can have that title.

 

There are two arguments being made in this thread.

1. This type of language is acceptable to God that we use at least in private settings.

2. That this type of language is not acceptable at any time.

In this thread when you personally have argued #1 (which is your position) then in order to do so you have done it using the two fallacies I have listed with sources.

So it is false that you are simply defending yourself from indefensible arguments. You in fact have made an argument for the use of this language and in fact have not just defended yourself against false arguments.

So yes they do apply to your arguments for this type of language. Why it is necessary to have to explain this I do not know.

 

Do you have an argument to make?

If not... why are you still here?

 

You have the fallacies right, you are just not applying them right.

I say it is legal to chew bubble gum.

You say it illegal.

I say, "Show me the law that says it is illegal."

You say "FALACY! FALLACY!!"

All fallacies do not always apply to all issues.

It is not a fallacy of burden of proof when there ACTUALLY IS a burden of proof.

Yes. I also think it is not a sin to chew bubble gum.

How should I go about proving that one?

The burden of proof is automatically on the one who says it IS a sin.

 

The is only true if you are simply defending against another's argument. But that is not the case here. The problem with your argument here is you are fallaciously acting like you have not made an argument. That is incorrect you have and it is based on fallacies. Your argument is not simply against another argument. Your argument is for a specific position and stands on its own aside from any other argument.

I am dealing with your arguments not anyone else.

 

It is based on Sola Scriptura.

What you have to do to undermine my position is undermine sola Scriptura or show exegetically IN SCRIPTURE where it is wrong.

Now, take the challenge and you'll be done with this silly argument you are trying to make.

Show me how I am to prove that it is NOT A SIN to chew bubble gum.

Do you believe it is a sin to wear blue jeans?

SHOW ME HOW IT IS NOT A SIN.

 

I don't need to because you have not proven your case. You have used the fallacious argument from silence. Therefore there is nothing to prove wrong. You have not yet proved anything right, true, or correct. Neither have you used any scripture to support the use of this language as acceptable to God. But there has been plenty of scripture used by a number of people in this thread that you just simply dismissed rather than showing any careful consideration of.

 

It is not that you don't NEED to. It is that you CAN'T you can't apply this rule you are trying to force on me to ANY reasonable discussion of something that is considered to be sin.

You either HAVE Bible for it or you don't.

If you don't then you have no right to say it is sin.

You do not get to speak for God where God has not spoken.


Do you believe it is a sin to wear blue jeans.

I GUARANTEE YOU that you will not DARE go down this road because you know where it ends.

It ends showing you how stupid your argument is.

If I am wrong- try it.

Is it a sin to wear blue jeans?