Does *the Bible Itself* "Use" Guilt by Association (GBA)?
Statements about the use of guilt-by-association (GBA) have abounded on SI during the time that I have been on SI.
Using the search facility, I have found 22 pages of hits for the words “guilt by association” in the comments on SI, with the earliest comment going back to 2009! This data by itself points to the importance of statements on SI about the use of GBA.
Of course, the most important question about this matter is whether the Bible itself “uses” GBA or not.
Poll Results
Does *the Bible Itself* “Use” Guilt by Association (GBA)?
Yes, the Bible “uses” GBA. Votes: 1
No, the Bible does not “use” GBA. Votes: 1
Unsure Votes: 2
- 63 views
[Bert Perry]What’s preposterous is your continuing misrepresentation of things that I have said. Your garbage statement (“To argue that the people of Christ had no reference for Cain is just plain absurd [bold added] “) that is set forth as showing what I have supposedly asserted is another false representation that you have made that has no basis in anything that I have said.The notion that the example of Cain in Jude 1:11 is guilt by association is preposterous—as we would find even today among graduates from elementary Sunday School, people who had (like Jude’s predominantly Jewish messianic audience) had Genesis 4 drummed into their heads from early youth. So to argue that the people of Christ had no reference for Cain is just plain absurd. It’s not a guilt by association, it’s a metaphor comparing Cain’s murder of Abel, and possibly future life of sin, with the people creeping into the church to destroy it.
I have never said that they had “no reference for Cain.” This is utter nonsense.
I have known all along that were multiple things that Scripture reveals about the sinfulness of Cain but have chosen not to talk about them in my comments. What I have said, however, has been that in Jude 1:11 there is no specification given for what “the way of Cain” was to which these sinful people were being associated.
Bert Perry wants to assert concerning “the way of Cain” that “it’s a metaphor comparing Cain’s murder of Abel, and possibly future life of sin, with the people creeping into the church to destroy it.” Of course, this is just Bert Perry’s assertion and nothing more.
Scripture, however, reveals multiple ways that Cain was a sinful man. He was a false worshiper. He was of the devil. What Bert Perry has said in his comments, however, implies that he thinks that he knows that these aspects of Cain’s sinfulness are not in view in Jude 1:11 and other aspects are.
It’s very likely that Bert Perry and others of his ilk would scream loudly about “eisegesis” if I had set forth the position that the point of comparison is clearly that these people were also false worshipers who were of the devil. Scripture, however, leaves completely unspecified what point(s) of likeness or similarity are in view in Jude 1:11 so I have not done any such thing.
You are entitled to set forth your opinion. You are not entitled to misrepresent me in any way.
My ongoing research about GBA has led me to some interesting information about GBA from a legal standpoint. Consider especially the following paragraph from this source:
Guilt by Association Debate
Provided that what this source says is true, we learn the following facts:
1. Debate about GBA “has raged on for decades in terms of its fallacies (hence the term “association fallacy”) and whether it is truly fair.” This shows that I am far from being the only one who has disputed various perspectives about this subject.
2. There is no universal consensus about GBA that it is always something that is wrong.
Raising the issue of whether Scripture itself “uses” GBA or not is a perfectly legitimate subject, and there is not anything illegitimate about wanting to examine the subject in detail.
[RajeshG]Rajesh, of the two sides that you pointed out in your link, are you in agreement with one of the two sides and not the other? If so, which of those sides do you agree with?My ongoing research about GBA has led me to some interesting information about GBA from a legal standpoint. Consider especially the following paragraph from this source:
Provided that what this source says is true, we learn the following facts:
1. Debate about GBA “has raged on for decades in terms of its fallacies (hence the term “association fallacy”) and whether it is truly fair.” This shows that I am far from being the only one who has disputed various perspectives about this subject.
2. There is no universal consensus about GBA that it is always something that is wrong.
Raising the issue of whether Scripture itself “uses” GBA or not is a perfectly legitimate subject, and there is not anything illegitimate about wanting to examine the subject in detail.
Or is your position a third side that isn’t reflected in either of those two sides?
You are aware that a legal definition of guilt by association differs from a philisophical or logical definition, and that there’s a wee little difference between “this is what the Yoruba were doing 400 years ago” and “this is what was found in the glove box of the car you were riding in last week”, right? You’re aware that the “guilt by association” there is not for a deductive proof, but rather to provide sufficient evidence for an investigation and an indictment, right? And that the defendant here had ample opportunity to demonstrate that he was not in fact trafficking cocaine in a court of law, right?
I’m guessing you’ll see just as much significance in this as any of the other objections you’ve been told to your theories over the past few years here. I might as well be debating a sea lion.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]I can say the same things about your claims. You claim you’ve engaged in “legitimate” guilt by association, but claiming it does not make it so.Scripture shows that establishing guilt by association can be legitimate or it can be illegitimate. You have not proven that your claims about certain arguments of mine are valid charges that I have engaged in guilt by association fallacies. You have claimed that they are but claiming it does not make it so.
When people misrepresent someone’s positions and arguments and then use their own misrepresentations as evidence against a person to claim that he has used GBA fallacies, that is highly unethical. I am not saying that you have done this, but it certainly has been done against me on SI.I’ve usually found that when I unintentionally misrepresent someone, it’s because I haven’t understood them completely. That’s why I try to ask questions to keep myself from misrepresenting. In fact, in the very post that you have just responded to with this paragraph, I had asked you a question. Did you even bother answering the direct question I asked you? No, you didn’t.
I asked my question because you had said “claims do not constitute proof,” and then you had decried the “Unproven charges of using GBA fallacies” that had been leveled against you. So, I posted a direct quotation from you in which you stated that “guilt can legitimately be established without having to define what that guilt specifically was.” If you truly believe that guilt can be established without having to define what the guilt is,” then I can charge you with using GBA fallaciously without having to define what the guilt is? Can’t I? I’m just trying to inderstand the implications of your own words about how guilt gets established.
[Kevin Miller]I do not have an established position on this subject beyond what I have already posted from my analysis of the Bible. This is a new subject for me that I have never studied before, and I am continuing to research it.Rajesh, of the two sides that you pointed out in your link, are you in agreement with one of the two sides and not the other? If so, which of those sides do you agree with?
Or is your position a third side that isn’t reflected in either of those two sides?
The point of this link is to provide evidence for the specific points that I made about the debates that exist over GBA; it was not meant to communicate something more than that, especially anything specific about my position.
[Kevin Miller]So what? That means we are at an impasse; it does not mean that you have proven your claims.I can say the same things about your claims. You claim you’ve engaged in “legitimate” guilt by association, but claiming it does not make it so.
More importantly, I am not interested in further discussion of whether you or anyone else thinks that I have done something or not.
This thread has a stated subject. If you are not interested in further discussion of the stated subject, you are free to stop commenting on the thread.
Whether you choose to stop or not, I am going to ignore any further comments by you or anyone else that do not concern the stated subject of the thread—does Scripture itself “use” GBA.
Earlier in this thread, I showed that there are great debates about GBA in a forensic (legal) context among people who as far as we know are not approaching the subject from a biblical standpoint.
Knowing that there is such disagreement about the subject in secular writings, it certainly is valid and necessary for believers to examine forensic contexts in Scripture to see what it reveals about the dealings of God with sinful people that pertain to the debates about GBA in forensic contexts.
Because God is the ultimate Judge of all, anytime He renders judgment on any sinful people, what He does is clearly done in a forensic (legal) context.
God authorized Jude to pronounce a divine woe on sinful people without giving him any specific information to declare that specified their guiltiness in association with Cain (Jude 1:11). Because Jude set forth the guilt of certain sinful people in part by associating them in a completely unspecified manner with a known sinner, we see that in Jude 1:11 Scripture indeed does reveal the “use” of GBA in a forensic context.
According to this article from ICR, the Noahic Flood happened about 2472 BC. Using 75 AD as the date for the writing of the book of Jude, we determine that the Flood happened approximately 2550 years before the writing of Jude.
Noting that the Flood happened in 1656 AA (After Adam), we can be confident that Cain lived at least 3000-3500 years before Jude wrote Jude 1:11. The Spirit’s directing Jude to use GBA to associate sinners in Jude’s time with a named sinner who lived at least 3000-3500 years ago shows that the amount of elapsed time is irrelevant concerning Scripture’s valid “use” of GBA in Jude 1:11.
Elapsed time is not a relevant consideration for determining whether guilt that is established by association is legitimate or not.
This morning several new passages that I had not considered before came to my mind for their relevance to the issue of Scripture’s “use” of GBA. One was Genesis 20:1-18.
When Abimelech took Sarah, God sternly warned Him:
Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
Here, God warned Abimelech that if he would not restore Sarah, others who were his would also surely die even though they themselves would not have had done anything unrighteous that was directly related to what Abimelech had done.
In fact, later in the account, we learn that God had already judged others in his household for his actions even before he had warned Abimelech about the impending deaths of all his household if he would not restore Sarah:
Genesis 20:17 So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. 18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.
God had already afflicted others in Abimelech’s household who as far as we know had not participated in his sin.
This passage shows that God did afflict others who were associated with Abimelech and even promised that those others would die if he would not heed God’s warnings.
Job was suffering and Job’s friends knew that God sends suffering to evildoers, so they associated Job with the evildoers.
In Job 4:7-8, Eliphaz says “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.”
In Job 8:20, Bildad says, “Surely God does not reject one who is blameless or strengthen the hands of evildoers.:
In Job 11:14-15, Zophar says, “if you put away the sin that is in your hand and allow no evil to dwell in your tent, then, free of fault, you will lift up your face; you will stand firm and without fear.”
We know, however, that Job was not an evildoer, in spite of the association that his suffering put him in. This account in Job shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
In Acts 28, the residents of Malta saw Paul get bitten by a snake. They associated this circumstance with divine judgment and thus associated Paul with evil. Verse 4 says ‘When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live” ‘
Then when Paul didn’t die, they associated Paul with divinity. Acts 28:5-6 says, “But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.”
We know, however, that Paul was neither a murderer at that time or a god. This account in Acts shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
The king of Gath associated certain actions with insanity. David used those actions to get thrown out of the king’s presence. I Samuel 21:12-15 says:
David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard. Achish said to his servants, “Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me? Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?”
We know David was not an insane madman. This account shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
[Kevin Miller]No, the accounts in Job show that particular “association” in that case was “not an accurate reflection of reality.” It does not in any way prove the truthfulness of the false notion that guilt by association is inherently and always a fallacy.Job was suffering and Job’s friends knew that God sends suffering to evildoers, so they associated Job with the evildoers.
In Job 4:7-8, Eliphaz says “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.”
In Job 8:20, Bildad says, “Surely God does not reject one who is blameless or strengthen the hands of evildoers.:
In Job 11:14-15, Zophar says, “if you put away the sin that is in your hand and allow no evil to dwell in your tent, then, free of fault, you will lift up your face; you will stand firm and without fear.”
We know, however, that Job was not an evildoer, in spite of the association that his suffering put him in. This account in Job shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
[Kevin Miller]No, this account about Paul only shows that particular “association” in that case was “not an accurate reflection of reality.” It does not in any way prove the truthfulness of the false notion that guilt by association is inherently and always a fallacy.In Acts 28, the residents of Malta saw Paul get bitten by a snake. They associated this circumstance with divine judgment and thus associated Paul with evil. Verse 4 says ‘When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live” ‘
Then when Paul didn’t die, they associated Paul with divinity. Acts 28:5-6 says, “But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.”
We know, however, that Paul was neither a murderer at that time or a god. This account in Acts shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
[Kevin Miller]No, this account about David shows that particular “association” in that case was “not an accurate reflection of reality.” It does not in any way prove the truthfulness of the false notion that guilt by association is inherently and always a fallacy.The king of Gath associated certain actions with insanity. David used those actions to get thrown out of the king’s presence. I Samuel 21:12-15 says:
David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard. Achish said to his servants, “Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me? Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?”
We know David was not an insane madman. This account shows that association is not an accurate reflection of reality.
[RajeshG]But it IS an instance of guilt by association in the Bible, and that is what this thread is discussing. Isn’t it? The instances of when it is used as a fallacy are definitely important in order to be getting a more complete picture of GBA in the Bible. It doesn’t make sense to just be discussing your contrived version of CBA.No, the accounts in Job show that particular “association” in that case was “not an accurate reflection of reality.” It does not in any way prove the truthfulness of the false notion that guilt by association is inherently and always a fallacy.
[Kevin Miller]I never said that they are not important or should not be discussed. My response was to what I perceived from your wording that conveyed to me that your intention was to imply that these examples show that it is inherently and always a fallacy.But it IS an instance of guilt by association in the Bible, and that is what this thread is discussing. Isn’t it? The instances of when it is used as a fallacy are definitely important in order to be getting a more complete picture of GBA in the Bible. It doesn’t make sense to just be discussing your contrived version of CBA.
What you call “contrived” is nothing of the sort. You have offered no discussion of the clear example that I showed from Genesis 20; instead, you offered counterexamples. I responded to them, but you have yet to respond to what I showed about Jesus’ calling Peter “Satan” or to Genesis 20.
[RajeshG]These examples do not show GUILT by association. They show that sometimes one person’s sin can have consequences that affect others, but suffering those consequences does NOT show that the sufferers share the same GUILT.This morning several new passages that I had not considered before came to my mind for their relevance to the issue of Scripture’s “use” of GBA. One was Genesis 20:1-18.
When Abimelech took Sarah, God sternly warned Him:
Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
Here, God warned Abimelech that if he would not restore Sarah, others who were his would also surely die even though they themselves would not have had done anything unrighteous that was directly related to what Abimelech had done.
In fact, later in the account, we learn that God had already judged others in his household for his actions even before he had warned Abimelech about the impending deaths of all his household if he would not restore Sarah:
Genesis 20:17 So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. 18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.
God had already afflicted others in Abimelech’s household who as far as we know had not participated in his sin.
This passage shows that God did afflict others who were associated with Abimelech and even promised that those others would die if he would not heed God’s warnings.
David’s feigning to be a madman at Gath is an invalid example of GBA because there is no issue of guilt involved in being a madman. People who are believed to be insane are not held responsible for their wrongdoing—which is the opposite of being regarded as or dealt with as being guilty of that wrongdoing.
[Kevin Miller]The AHD definition of consequence: “That which logically or naturally follows from an action or condition; an effect; result.”These examples do not show GUILT by association. They show that sometimes one person’s sin can have consequences that affect others, but suffering those consequences does NOT show that the sufferers share the same GUILT.
The closing of the wombs in this account was neither a logical nor a natural thing that followed what Abimelech did. The passage says that “the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.”
Similarly, God’s warning that all his household would die if he did not restore Sarah to Abraham was not just a promise that a logical or natural thing would follow his refusal. They would experience the same divine judgment that he would in spite of their not having done the wrong.
Guilt by association means specifically that a person is assumed to be guilty simply because of his similarity to another person who is known to be of bad character. It is a clear fallacy when it is used in deductive logic, and when we are talking about inductive logic, there is some validity if it is hedged in terms of probability.
As a deductive fallacy, it would read like this:
Your sister is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian.
Therefore, your sister must be a Nazi.
Two true premises, one false conclusion.
In Genesis 20, Abraham’s logic follows similar patterns.
Abimelech is a king. Kings take other mens’ wives and kill the husbands.
Therefore, Abimelech will take Sarah and kill Abraham.
On the flip side, God’s response to Abimelech is not due to an association of Abimelech, but rather based on what he did. So as we discuss whether Scripture commends guilt by association, let’s please use the actual definition of the fallacy. There is no sense in “refuting” the claim that something is a fallacy by using another kind of argument altogether—that would be the “straw man” fallacy, for reference.
We also need to consider, as we contemplate whether the Bible uses guilt by association, all the times where Jesus does NOT acknowledge guilt by association arguments made by people like the Pharisees. I think He’s trying to tell us something there. A basic principle in Biblical exegesis—really all of literary analysis—is that the obvious explains the obscure. Let’s not invert the path here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]As I have already explained earlier, I am not limiting my research to how the Bible conforms to or confirms the human logical formulation of guilt by association fallacies. I am examining what the Bible reveals about the concept of guilt that is established by association—regardless of what form it takes.Guilt by association means specifically that a person is assumed to be guilty simply because of his similarity to another person who is known to be of bad character. It is a clear fallacy when it is used in deductive logic, and when we are talking about inductive logic, there is some validity if it is hedged in terms of probability.
As a deductive fallacy, it would read like this:
Your sister is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian.
Therefore, your sister must be a Nazi.
Two true premises, one false conclusion.
In Genesis 20, Abraham’s logic follows similar patterns.
Abimelech is a king. Kings take other mens’ wives and kill the husbands.
Therefore, Abimelech will take Sarah and kill Abraham.
On the flip side, God’s response to Abimelech is not due to an association of Abimelech, but rather based on what he did. So as we discuss whether Scripture commends guilt by association, let’s please use the actual definition of the fallacy. There is no sense in “refuting” the claim that something is a fallacy by using another kind of argument altogether—that would be the “straw man” fallacy, for reference.
We also need to consider, as we contemplate whether the Bible uses guilt by association, all the times where Jesus does NOT acknowledge guilt by association arguments made by people like the Pharisees. I think He’s trying to tell us something there. A basic principle in Biblical exegesis—really all of literary analysis—is that the obvious explains the obscure. Let’s not invert the path here.
Concerning Abimelech, I am not saying anything to the effect that the guilt of Abimelech was established through association. The aspects of that account that are relevant to my study concern God’s dealings with the others in his household because of what he did even though the passage does not say that they played any part in what he did that was wrong.
Unrighteous king Saul was seeking to slay David. Learning of how Ahimelech had aided David (1 Sam. 22:9-10), Saul misjudged that he had conspired with David against him (Saul):
1 Samuel 22:11 Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s house, the priests that were in Nob: and they came all of them to the king. 12 And Saul said, Hear now, thou son of Ahitub. And he answered, Here I am, my lord. 13 And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast enquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?
Ahimelech, however, was completely innocent and did not know anything about what David was doing. Ahimelech even testified directly to Saul of his complete innocence:
1 Samuel 22:14 Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king’s son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house? 15 Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.
Saul refused to listen to him, and because he had unjustly “used” GBA to associate him with David’s supposedly conspiring against him (Saul), he ordered his execution:
1 Samuel 22:16 And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father’s house.
Through the agency of Doeg, Saul put him to death and 84 other priests from Nob (1 Sam. 22:18). Doeg also killed many others in Nob (1 Sam. 22:19).
Looks like a great example of why guilt by association fallacies (don’t forget that fourth word, Rajesh!) lead to needless strife, sin, and death via murder. It boggles the mind that anyone would seriously indulge this form of bad logic in theological discourse.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
God commanded the use of GBA in cases of murders by an unknown person:
Deuteronomy 21:1 If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley: 5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
God directed that the elders of the city that was measured to be the closest to the location where the murdered person’s body was found had the obligation to deal with their being determined to be the people who had to take necessary steps to deal with their guilt by association for the murder.
Obviously, God knew whether anyone in the nearest city to the victim had actually murdered him or not. He could have supernaturally revealed the identity of the unknown murderer in such cases.
God, however, chose not to do that. Instead, He ordained that GBA be used to hold accountable the city nearest to the slain and ordained that they must take steps to deal with their being held guilty by association—whether or not the unknown murderer was actually in or from their city or not.
This passage that is clearly about forensic matters shows that GBA is not inherently and always only a fallacy. God Himself commanded the “use” of GBA by His people in Israel in the way that this passage relates.
….that it was not guilt by association at all. Come on, Rajesh, these things have definitions. Use them. The guilt of the nearest town is not in the murder, but in failing to do their duty to solve the murder. There is no guilt by association whatsoever in this example.
Still waiting, by the way, for you to address the fact that Christ does not honor the guilt by association fallacies when the Pharisees and others use such arguments against Him. If you wanted to demonstrate that guilt by association is permissible and not a fallacy (good luck, the Venn diagrams are against you), what you would really need to do is show a case where Christ accepts them.
Since He does not, you’re pretty much out of luck here. You’re putting a lot of effort into justifying such rhetorical techniques, and I’m guessing it’s because you’re starting to realize that without guilt by association (fallacious) arguments, your case against modern music simply falls apart.
I’d suggest an easier route; acknowledge the fact that informal logic does serve as a good guide to when your arguments are valid or fallacious, understand that the previous arguments you’ve been making are fallacious.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]You are reading something into the passage for which there is not even a hint. If the issue had been their failure “to do their duty to solve the murder,” God would never have accepted their claim without rebuking them for not having done their duty.….that it was not guilt by association at all. Come on, Rajesh, these things have definitions. Use them. The guilt of the nearest town is not in the murder, but in failing to do their duty to solve the murder. There is no guilt by association whatsoever in this example.
Still waiting, by the way, for you to address the fact that Christ does not honor the guilt by association fallacies when the Pharisees and others use such arguments against Him. If you wanted to demonstrate that guilt by association is permissible and not a fallacy (good luck, the Venn diagrams are against you), what you would really need to do is show a case where Christ accepts them.
Since He does not, you’re pretty much out of luck here. You’re putting a lot of effort into justifying such rhetorical techniques, and I’m guessing it’s because you’re starting to realize that without guilt by association (fallacious) arguments, your case against modern music simply falls apart.
I’d suggest an easier route; acknowledge the fact that informal logic does serve as a good guide to when your arguments are valid or fallacious, understand that the previous arguments you’ve been making are fallacious.
Deuteronomy 21:7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
The passage does not have anything to do with any such imaginary failures. It has to do with divine direction for how they were to handle cases where a murder had taken place that they were unable to solve.
Your attempt to explain away the force of the passage is telling. As for your other statements, I do not have anything to repent for. You on the other hand have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said, and I have proven that you have done so and yet you have not acknowledged your unethical behavior.
[RajeshG]Ah, but the guilt by association fallacy does not always involve wrongdoing type of guilt. Suppose someone saw you wear a suit to church and thought “Rajesh must be really rich to afford such a nice suit.” They would be making assumptions about you, thinking you are guilty of being rich, by associating the owning of nice clothes with people who have lots of money. Now, there is no “wrongdoing” in being rich, so a person could be “guilty” of being rich without having done any wrongdoing. The word “guilty” is being used in the same sense as “regarded as.”David’s feigning to be a madman at Gath is an invalid example of GBA because there is no issue of guilt involved in being a madman. People who are believed to be insane are not held responsible for their wrongdoing—which is the opposite of being regarded as or dealt with as being guilty of that wrongdoing.
In the same way, the king thought David was guilty of being a madman. even though there wasn’t any wrongdoing in regards to being a madman. The king was wrongly “regarding” him as a madman just because of David’s actions.
[Kevin Miller]Based on what I have seen in the Wikipedia article on association fallacy and the other articles that I have read on the subject, such as this one and this one, I do not think that either your original example about David or your example about wearing a suit to church, etc. is a valid example of the guilt by association fallacy.Ah, but the guilt by association fallacy does not always involve wrongdoing type of guilt. Suppose someone saw you wear a suit to church and thought “Rajesh must be really rich to afford such a nice suit.” They would be making assumptions about you, thinking you are guilty of being rich, by associating the owning of nice clothes with people who have lots of money. Now, there is no “wrongdoing” in being rich, so a person could be “guilty” of being rich without having done any wrongdoing. The word “guilty” is being used in the same sense as “regarded as.”
In the same way, the king thought David was guilty of being a madman. even though there wasn’t any wrongdoing in regards to being a madman. The king was wrongly “regarding” him as a madman just because of David’s actions.
[RajeshG]It seems rather hypocritical of you to complain about my use of guilt by association when you yourself have admitted that you “have expanded the understanding of the concept of guilt by association…” as you come up with “legitimate” examples of it in the Bible. In your course of study of guilt by association have you found any outside articles that support your “legitimate” version of it?Based on what I have seen in the Wikipedia article on association fallacy and the other articles that I have read on the subject, such as this one and this one, I do not think that either your original example about David or your example about wearing a suit to church, etc. is a valid example of the guilt by association fallacy.
[Kevin Miller]A key difference between what I have done and what you are doing is that you have made statements that in effect show that you claim that your examples are valid examples of GBA fallacies that you think are in keeping with the “established” definitions of those fallacies.It seems rather hypocritical of you to complain about my use of guilt by association when you yourself have admitted that you “have expanded the understanding of the concept of guilt by association…” as you come up with “legitimate” examples of it in the Bible. In your course of study of guilt by association have you found any outside articles that support your “legitimate” version of it?
Reading carefully the articles that claim to speak authoritatively about what GBA fallacies are according to the “established” definitions of them, it seems plain that your examples of David at Gath and wearing a suit in church do not meet the criteria according to those “established” definitions. They are therefore invalid examples of such fallacies.
Obviously, these two examples that you have given are examples of faulty reasoning, but they are not examples of GBA fallacies.
I, on the other hand, have not claimed that the examples from the Bible that I am treating directly concern such fallacies according to their “established” definitions.
The concepts of guilt and association considered separately are fully biblical concepts that do not need any justification for their use.
I am in the process of showing that the concept of establishing guilt by association, both righteously/rightly and unrighteously/wrongly, is something that is “used” in Scripture.
[The following is from my latest post on my blog (with some variations from the actual post).]
When God judged His people with a famine, David inquired of Him and learned that it was because Saul killed some of the Gibeonites:
2 Samuel 21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
David then consulted with the Gibeonites about the matter and asked what he could do to atone for Saul’s wrongdoing:
2 And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) 3 Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?
The Gibeonites told him that they wanted to execute 7 descendants of Saul. David agreed to do so.
4 And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. 5 And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, 6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them.
David spared Mephibosheth, who was lame in both feet, which makes it very unlikely that he had participated directly in the slaying of the Gibeonites:
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’S oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.
David handed over two sons of Saul and 5 grandsons of Saul to be put to death by the Gibeonites:
8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
God approved of what David as the king did by “being intreated for the land,” which clearly implies that He ended the famine as a result of what David had done:
2 Samuel 21:14 And the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son buried they in the country of Benjamin in Zelah, in the sepulchre of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was intreated for the land.
The passage does not say anything about God’s revealing supernaturally to David which living descendants of Saul had personally participated in the unrighteous killing of the Gibeonites. The passage also gives no indication of David’s making a very thorough inquiry and investigation to make sure that he only delivered up descendants of Saul who were actually guilty by having directly participated in the wrongdoing.
Rather, David seems to have used guilt by association in selecting the seven descendants of Saul who were executed to atone for Saul’s wrongdoing.
As the Spirit has framed this account, it seems clear that David righteously “used” GBA in this forensic context to deliver over 7 descendants of Saul to be put to death by the Gibeonites.
In His perfect wisdom, God has not given us exhaustive listings of all things that are sinful:
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Instead, He instructs us that there are other things that are like the sinful works of the flesh that are named in this passage.
When any human logical or theological formulations lead God’s people in effect to insist that the Bible must specify by name and explain in detail everything that is sinful, accepting such formulations results in God’s people being led astray into accepting many things that are sinful.
Christians must reject false notions that lead them to deny divine revelation that teaches them that there are unnamed sinful works of the flesh that are like those that are named.
Making legitimate associations between what is named in Gal. 5:19-21 and practices that are not named is essential!
Discussion