Paula

“Chris”:

P –> Q reads “If P, then Q”, which means P necessarily implies or causes Q. Yet P is the point under debate and thus cannot be used as a premise. And your using P where you should be using Q isn’t helping to clarify your argument at all. (i.e., using the term P4) I realize you’re trying to use P to designate “patriarchy” and E for “egalitarian”, but at least give the conclusion some other designation than making it look like another premise. If you want to impress everyone with what you’re learning in logic class, you need to be more careful. And no, I have not misunderstood your argument, but you surely have misunderstood ours.

I called PMS conceited. If you took it personally, that’s fine, but it’s no ad hominem on my part.

Although I’m sure Cheryl will easily handle your “causal gar” question, again you seem to try to put the conclusion in the premises. Paul appeals to the OT but not for the reason you assert.

I suppose at this point I should also address the straw man portion of that first post. That is, “Chris” has attempted to construct an argument egals do not make and then burn it down, using the term “modus tolens” which is basically modus ponens in reverse.

E1 is a disputed point and thus not one egals make. Instead, we say that Paul is not appealing to the OT for the purpose PMS (patriarchy/ male supremacism) alleges. We say Paul appeals to the OT on the matter of deception, not authority, and more appropos to this argument, that he isn’t talking about ALL women at all; he is talking about A WOMAN who is teaching falsehood, and this because she had been deceived. Thus the appeal to Eve’s deception is completely natural in the context of false teaching. Authority is not in view; neither is true teaching forbidden to women. But, alas, I despair of the PMSers to ever grasp this point of our argument.

E2 is correct as stated. But E4 misstates our conclusion; we say not that 1 Tim. 2:12 has been misunderstood, but that the PMS interpretation of it has been a deliberate error perpetuated for most of church history by those who take pride in male flesh and think God is really a respecter of persons.

We also observe the fallacious statement to the effect that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof” in the statement “… [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong” . “Chris” hopes we haven’t noticed the attempt to get us to say we overlooked something, because that is a much easier straw man to burn. The fact remains that E2 is a true statement; no one can find scripture to show it to be false. The burden of proof is on PMS to find it, not on egals to simply concede the point PMS wishes us to hand them on a silver platter. If our argument is too strong for them, let them find their own rebuttal.

“Chris” goes on to build on this foundation of sand by trying to make the baseless P1 assertion equal to the E2 premise which no one has refuted.

In the end, “Chris” has done all this for no reason, since the matter of two witnesses has not been addressed at all. It was a diversion from the start. “Chris” simply wishes to redefine the terms from establishing laws to applying them, yet ironically, it is PMS that insists upon saying Paul is making a new law here.

Yes, it’s all been very entertaining, but merry-go-rounds get boring.