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
- 37 views
In my ongoing study and analysis of the data about the use of the words “guilt by association” on SI, I have found one comment so far where someone has affirmed that “the Bible clearly uses it.”
Scripture explicitly says that Cain was “of that wicked one.”
1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
When the Spirit and the apostle John made this statement, it is obvious that neither one of them was using GBA fallacies to wrongly “associate” Cain with the devil.
Note carefully that Scripture never defines what “of that wicked one” means in 1 John 3:12 concerning Cain. Scripture also neither explains how or when Cain came to be of the devil nor provides any specific details about in what way or ways Cain was of the devil.
The only information provided does imply that his murdering Abel was at least in part due to his being of the devil, but we are not given any further information.
Through this teaching, the Spirit plainly teaches us that making an undefined, unexplained designation of someone as being of the devil is *not* automatically an instance of fallaciously using GBA!
[RajeshG]Since the statement following “who was of the wicked one” is “and slew his brother,” than we can’t really say that the designation is undefined and unexplained. The sin of murder explains the connection. This isn’t an instance of guilt by association, It an instance of guilt by participation in evil.Scripture explicitly says that Cain was “of that wicked one.”
1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
When the Spirit and the apostle John made this statement, it is obvious that neither one of them was using GBA fallacies to wrongly “associate” Cain with the devil.
Note carefully that Scripture never defines what “of that wicked one” means in 1 John 3:12 concerning Cain. Scripture also neither explains how or when Cain came to be of the devil nor provides any specific details about in what way or ways Cain was of the devil.
The only information provided does imply that his murdering Abel was at least in part due to his being of the devil, but we are not given any further information.
Through this teaching, the Spirit plainly teaches us that making an undefined, unexplained designation of someone as being of the devil is *not* automatically an instance of fallaciously using GBA!
[Kevin Miller]Knowing that he was “of that wicked one” is not information that was needed for us to know of his guilt by participation in evil. There was no need to mention his being of the devil for us to know that he was guilty of the sin of murder.Since the statement following “who was of the wicked one” is “and slew his brother,” than we can’t really say that the designation is undefined and unexplained. The sin of murder explains the connection. This isn’t an instance of guilt by association, It an instance of guilt by participation in evil.
I John 3:12 indisputably links him with the devil and no information is given about how he became “of that wicked one” or what all that designation means. As I see it, your connecting those two phrases is one possible reading of the text, but the text as it stands does not require that we understand that he killed his brother because he was of the evil one and as a manifestation of his being of the evil one.
Maybe, he did kill his brother because he was of the devil, but the wording of 1 John 3:12 by itself does not seem to me to require us to hold that understanding. It does seem to imply a connection, but that is not the same thing as saying that it definitively makes that connection.
Also, John goes on to explain why he killed his brother and does not say it was because he was of the devil; rather, he says that it was because his deeds were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
[RajeshG]I appreciate you accepting my understanding as a “one possible reading of the text.” I never claimed it was a required one, and I’m sure you admit that God can mention information without having a particular “need to mention” that information.Knowing that he was “of that wicked one” is not information that was needed for us to know of his guilt by participation in evil. There was no need to mention his being of the devil for us to know that he was guilty of the sin of murder.
I John 3:12 indisputably links him with the devil and no information is given about how he became “of that wicked one” or what all that designation means. As I see it, your connecting those two phrases is one possible reading of the text, but the text as it stands does not require that we understand that he killed his brother because he was of the evil one and as a manifestation of his being of the evil one.
Maybe, he did kill his brother because he was of the devil, but the wording of 1 John 3:12 does not require us to hold that understanding.
Also, John goes on to explain why he killed his brother and does not say it was because he was of the devil; rather, he says that it was because his deeds were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
Also, the fact that John goes on to explain Cain’s guilt shows that Cain was guilty in his own right and not simply because of guilt by association. Personally, I can’t think of any Bible passages in which guiltiness is ascribed solely due to similarity or proximity to something that displeases God rather than being guilty in it’s own right. The fact that I can’t think of any doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, so I’m marking “unsure” in the poll, since I’m open to considering passages that seem to make such a point.
[Kevin Miller]When I spoke of “need to mention,” I was only speaking from our perspective as far as our knowing that he was guilty of murder. I completely repudiate any idea that anyone might hold that God mentioned that information (that Cain was of the devil) as “filler,” incidental information, etc.I appreciate you accepting my understanding as a “one possible reading of the text.” I never claimed it was a required one, and I’m sure you admit that God can mention information without having a particular “need to mention” that information.
Also, the fact that John goes on to explain Cain’s guilt shows that Cain was guilty in his own right and not simply because of guilt by association. Personally, I can’t think of any Bible passages in which guiltiness is ascribed solely due to similarity or proximity to something that displeases God rather than being guilty in it’s own right. The fact that I can’t think of any doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, so I’m marking “unsure” in the poll, since I’m open to considering passages that seem to make such a point.
God linked him directly with the devil and wanted us to know that information.
Scripture does “use” GBA, as my latest blog post shows:
“The Way of Cain” - A Clear Example of Biblical “Use” of Guilt by Association
Writing about ungodly people who had infiltrated the people of God, Jude declared the following:Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
In this statement, Jude pronounced a divine woe on these evil men for their sinfulness, including their having gone in the way of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. Clearly, this part of his statement thus makes known an aspect of their wickedness for which they had incurred this declaration of God’s judgment on them.
We must also not fail to notice that the Spirit inspired Jude to issue this condemnation of these people without defining in any way what comprises “the way of Cain.” In fact, we are not given any information in Scripture by which we can know what this sinfulness of these wicked people actually was that resulted in this inspired statement that explicitly associated them with the wickedness of Cain.
God clearly condemned these people for being wicked, and He did so by associating them with one or more unspecified aspects of the wickedness of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. This passage therefore certainly shows that Scripture does “use” guilt by association to speak about the wickedness of people without explaining or showing how their wickedness was the same or similar to the wickedness of another sinful person with which they were associated!
[RajeshG]In Luke 15:1-2, the Pharisees tried using GBA against Jesus ‘Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” ’ We know that Jesus wasn’t doing anything wrong, but the Pharisees wanted to condemn him of being guilty of “something” just because he was eating with sinners. This guiltiness in the eyes of the Pharisees was due solely to an association and not to any actual wickedness.Scripture does “use” GBA, as my latest blog post shows:
“The Way of Cain” - A Clear Example of Biblical “Use” of Guilt by Association
Writing about ungodly people who had infiltrated the people of God, Jude declared the following:
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
In this statement, Jude pronounced a divine woe on these evil men for their sinfulness, including their having gone in the way of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. Clearly, this part of his statement thus makes known an aspect of their wickedness for which they had incurred this declaration of God’s judgment on them.
We must also not fail to notice that the Spirit inspired Jude to issue this condemnation of these people without defining in any way what comprises “the way of Cain.” In fact, we are not given any information in Scripture by which we can know what this sinfulness of these wicked people actually was that resulted in this inspired statement that explicitly associated them with the wickedness of Cain.
God clearly condemned these people for being wicked, and He did so by associating them with one or more unspecified aspects of the wickedness of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. This passage therefore certainly shows that Scripture does “use” guilt by association to speak about the wickedness of people without explaining or showing how their wickedness was the same or similar to the wickedness of another sinful person with which they were associated!
In Jude 1:11, the wicked people are condemned for having actual wickedness in their own right. We are given descriptions of their wickedness as being similar to other Bible character’s wickedness, but it is still their own wickedness. They are not innocent people being accused of guilt solely because they have a connection of some kind to someone else. They are proclaimed as guilty because they themselves are actually guilty. Therefore this is “guilt by participation” in evil rather than guilt by association.
[Kevin Miller]In Luke 15:1-2, the Pharisees tried using GBA against Jesus ‘Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” ’ We know that Jesus wasn’t doing anything wrong, but the Pharisees wanted to condemn him of being guilty of “something” just because he was eating with sinners. This guiltiness in the eyes of the Pharisees was due solely to an association and not to any actual wickedness.
In Jude 1:11, the wicked people are condemned for having actual wickedness in their own right. We are given descriptions of their wickedness as being similar to other Bible character’s wickedness, but it is still their own wickedness. They are not innocent people being accused of guilt solely because they have a connection of some kind to someone else. They are proclaimed as guilty because they themselves are actually guilty. Therefore this is “guilt by participation” in evil rather than guilt by association.
No, it is not just guilt by participation. The passage does speak explicitly of two aspects of their guilt by specifying what they actually were doing that was like what Balaam and Core did, respectively, but the passage speaks of one other aspect of their guilt by associating them with Cain but not by specifying what that aspect of their guilt was. Yes, they were guilty of that other aspect as well by actually engaging in it, but their guilt in that respect was established by associating them with Cain and not by stating what sinful thing(s) that they had done that was/were like Cain.
The passage shows that there are valid uses of establishing guilt by association—guilt by association therefore is not necessarily always a fallacy. Moreover, guilt can legitimately be established without having to define what that guilt specifically was and without having to explain exactly what that guilt was.
If we don’t know precisely what is meant by saying that someone went “the way of Cain”, isn’t the intellectually responsible thing to say “I don’t know” instead of accusing God of using bad logic, specifically guilt by association? One could quibble, certainly, and claim that “well if the Bible uses it it must not be bad logic” (that would be a tautology), but to be blunt, if we claim that the Bible uses guilt by association fallacies, that suggests wrongdoing by no less than the Holy Spirit, and one would fall on the wrong side of Matthew 12:32.
That’s a pretty big deal, IMO.
Regarding the text in question, I’d argue it’s clearly metaphorical speech that uses the historic word pictures of Cain, Korah, and Balaam to illustrate the significance of those who were working to subvert the church. Cain killed his brother as those who subvert the church destroy the faith of many. Balaam worked to curse God’s people—that’s an obvious parallel as well. Korah worked to subvert God-ordained leadership, just as those who subverted the church undermined Godly leadership.
So the parallelism and the historic context, not to mention the fact that four millenia separate Cain from those rebuked by Jude, as well as the fact that assuming guilt by association is more or less blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, tell us that the proper interpretation of Jude 1:11 is that those who were working to destroy the church were emulating, at least metaphorically, the actions of Cain.
Side note; for someone who denies ever using guilt by association fallacies, Rajesh, you’re spending a fair amount of time defending the (false) notion that guilt by association is not a fallacy at all. You’ve got your link to Aniol’s defense of his GBA usage and now this. Very interesting.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]You’re making my point for me here, Rajesh, by admitting they were guilty. These were not some innocent people being wrongly accused by Jude of wickedness due to some peripheral connection to Cain. They had a “way” of wickedness that made them guilty. The use of Cain’s example was Jude’s way of specifying what their “way” was like. It’s an illustration describing that wicked way. Guilt isn’t being applied here because of association but because of actual guilt, which means that guilt by association isn’t being used.No, it is not just guilt by participation. The passage does speak explicitly of two aspects of their guilt by specifying what they actually were doing that was like what Balaam and Core did, respectively, but the passage speaks of one other aspect of their guilt by associating them with Cain but not by specifying what that aspect of their guilt was. Yes, they were guilty of that other aspect as well by actually engaging in it, but their guilt in that respect was established by associating them with Cain and not by stating what sinful thing(s) that they had done that was/were like Cain.
The passage shows that there are valid uses of establishing guilt by association—guilt by association therefore is not necessarily always a fallacy. Moreover, guilt can legitimately be established without having to define what that guilt specifically was and without having to explain exactly what that guilt was.
[Kevin Miller]No, I am not making “your” point because I have been saying from the beginning that they actually were guilty:You’re making my point for me here, Rajesh, by admitting they were guilty. These were not some innocent people being wrongly accused by Jude of wickedness due to some peripheral connection to Cain. They had a “way” of wickedness that made them guilty. The use of Cain’s example was Jude’s way of specifying what their “way” was like. It’s an illustration describing that wicked way. Guilt isn’t being applied here because of association but because of actual guilt, which means that guilt by association isn’t being used.
In this statement, Jude pronounced a divine woe on these evil men for their sinfulness, including their having gone in the way of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. Clearly, this part of his statement thus makes known an aspect of their wickedness for which they had incurred this declaration of God’s judgment on them.
We must also not fail to notice that the Spirit inspired Jude to issue this condemnation of these people without defining in any way what comprises “the way of Cain.” In fact, we are not given any information in Scripture by which we can know what this sinfulness of these wicked people actually was that resulted in this inspired statement that explicitly associated them with the wickedness of Cain.
God clearly condemned these people for being wicked, and He did so by associating them with one or more unspecified aspects of the wickedness of Cain [underlining = italics in original]. This passage therefore certainly shows that Scripture does “use” guilt by association to speak about the wickedness of people without explaining or showing how their wickedness was the same or similar to the wickedness of another sinful person with which they were associated!
Notice also what I have underlined in my own quote above that begins this comment.
What’s happening is that you are either failing to pay attention to what I actually have been saying or something else is going on …
My point from the very beginning has been that they were actually guilty of sinning in some unspecified way that was “the way of Cain,” but their guiltiness in that respect was not being established by direct statement—rather it was established by directly associating them with Cain.
This passage refutes the notion that people can only be declared guilty of sinfulness if their actual sinfulness is directly stated as to what it is. Scripture shows that people’s actual guilt can be established through association and not specification of what that guilt was. That is what I am talking about when I say that Scripture does “use” guilt by association.
[Joeb] im still probably has more hair than I did Love you Jim.
I’m old baldy. Love you too man!
Rajesh, as I read what you’re writing, I’m not convinced that you really understand either the guilt by association fallacy, or the significance of using it in interpretation of Scripture. The basic structure of the fallacy is:
Person A says B is true.
Person A is linked to objectionable characteristic C.
Thus, because person A is linked to objectionable characteristic C, B must be false or objectionable.
Now let’s view this in light of Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We see that every person doing any thing has some objectionable characteristic, and hence we can apply guilt by association arguments to anything.
The even nastier reality to using guilt by association argument is that we will then tend to justify ourselves (“the guilt by association to aristocratic fornication isn’t big enough to act on, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is”), and then we will necessarily get into vicious fights about what level of uncomfortable associations justifies separation.
So really, if we indulge guilt by association fallacies (e.g. “The roots of rock & roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo”), we are setting ourselves up for a LOT of strife. You can see this in the debates in Rajesh’s earlier posts. One person points out the logical consequences of the theory, and the other is pretty much obligated to say “I didn’t mean that” or argue that somehow, THIS sin isn’t enough to justify separation, but THAT sin is.
If we claim that God does this in Scripture, we are, again, too close for comfort regarding Matthew 12:32. Remember that (2 Peter 1:20) the Holy Spirit is the superintendent of Scripture—linking Him with guilt by association fallacies is a LOT closer to “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” than I care to go!
Brothers, this is deadly serious stuff here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]False again. I have never claimed or said in any way that either Scripture or God has used “guilt by association fallacies.”Rajesh, as I read what you’re writing, I’m not convinced that you really understand either the guilt by association fallacy, or the significance of using it in interpretation of Scripture. The basic structure of the fallacy is:
Person A says B is true.
Person A is linked to objectionable characteristic C.
Thus, because person A is linked to objectionable characteristic C, B must be false or objectionable.
Now let’s view this in light of Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We see that every person doing any thing has some objectionable characteristic, and hence we can apply guilt by association arguments to anything.
The even nastier reality to using guilt by association argument is that we will then tend to justify ourselves (“the guilt by association to aristocratic fornication isn’t big enough to act on, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is”), and then we will necessarily get into vicious fights about what level of uncomfortable associations justifies separation.
So really, if we indulge guilt by association fallacies (e.g. “The roots of rock & roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo”), we are setting ourselves up for a LOT of strife. You can see this in the debates in Rajesh’s earlier posts. One person points out the logical consequences of the theory, and the other is pretty much obligated to say “I didn’t mean that” or argue that somehow, THIS sin isn’t enough to justify separation, but THAT sin is.
If we claim that God does this in Scripture, we are, again, too close for comfort regarding Matthew 12:32. Remember that (2 Peter 1:20) the Holy Spirit is the superintendent of Scripture—linking Him with guilt by association fallacies is a LOT closer to “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” than I care to go!
Brothers, this is deadly serious stuff here.
What I have shown from Scripture is that God has spoken of and condemned the guilt of certain evil people by directly associating them with another sinful person without defining or explaining specifically in any way what their sinfulness exactly was that was the same as or like that of the sinful person with whom He associated them.
That is what I have been talking about when I have said that Scripture “uses” guilt by association.
I believe I finally understand Rajesh’s reasoning.
CCM is associated with rock music which is associated with the occult!
Is that correct Rajesh? Please answer. PLEASE.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
….when you persuade some philosophy professors that guilt by association is not, in fact, a fallacy. I am taking it that you are freely admitting that you and your sources use guilt by association freely, but that you do not believe it is a fallacy.
For reference on reasons why it is indeed a fallacy, see my comment from 8:45 this morning, which also explains why guilt by association is Biblically untenable, as Romans 3:23 (and a bunch of other places) point out that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Going further, even the Savior became a victim of guilt by association arguments when the Pharisees argued that His association with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 11:19, etc..) meant that He was sinful. Debunking the Pharisees is easy if one follows the logicians; it becomes very difficult if one believes that guilt by association is acceptable logic.
For my part, I’m going to go with the position of logicians since the classical age and agree that guilt by association is bad logic, and I’m going to further note that Jude’s messianic Jewish audience, who grew up in synagogues learning about passages like Genesis 4, needed no primer on what the sins of Cain were. In fact, we might find that if Jude had wasted precious papyrus on explaining that (as well as the sins of Korah and Balaam), his audience might have been offended.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]I do not admit any such thing that I have used or use any fallacious reasoning freely. I also have not said anything about guilt by association being legitimate when it is used fallaciously.….when you persuade some philosophy professors that guilt by association is not, in fact, a fallacy. I am taking it that you are freely admitting that you and your sources use guilt by association freely, but that you do not believe it is a fallacy.
You are the one who has fallaciously used guilt by association repeatedly against me by “freely” linking me illegitimately to certain people of whom you have very negative opinions, especially Dr. Garlock.
What the biblical data shows is that there is at least one instance in Scripture where inspired Scripture does establish and condemn the guilt of certain sinners partly by associating them in an undefined manner with another sinner. It doesn’t matter that you do not like what this biblical data shows.
[Bert Perry]Searching for my mentioning (Scott) Aniol’s name at all in this thread produces zero hits yet Bert Perry here speaks about my having a “link to Aniol’s defense of his GBA usage.”Side note; for someone who denies ever using guilt by association fallacies, Rajesh, you’re spending a fair amount of time defending the (false) notion that guilt by association is not a fallacy at all. You’ve got your link to Aniol’s defense of his GBA usage and now this. Very interesting.
Either back up your claim with direct quotes and links where I have done this or be shown again to be a person who once again has used an unethical tactic.
[Bert Perry]I have never said anything of this sort: “The guilt by association to aristocratic fornication isn’t big enough to act on, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is.”The even nastier reality to using guilt by association argument is that we will then tend to justify ourselves (“the guilt by association to aristocratic fornication isn’t big enough to act on, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is”), and then we will necessarily get into vicious fights about what level of uncomfortable associations justifies separation.
Putting quotes around this statement means that you are setting this forth as a direct quote of something that I have actually said. If you do not provide documentation with links to where I have ever said this, you will be proven again to have used a straw man and very deceitfully so because of your use of quotation marks in a way that says this was a verbatim statement that I have made.
I have deleted this comment because I do not want to have this thread diverted any further than it already has been from a study of whether Scripture itself uses GBA.
[RajeshG]When I first made the following statement, I did not provide a link to back it up so I am repeating it here with a link:You are the one who has fallaciously used guilt by association repeatedly against me by “freely” linking me illegitimately to certain people of whom you have very negative opinions, especially Dr. Garlock.
You are the one who has fallaciously used guilt by association repeatedly against me by “freely” linking me illegitimately to certain people of whom you have very negative opinions, especially Dr. Garlock.
Rajesh, regarding your first response, please do me the favor to read and respond to the whole paragraph. The point is that you are not of the opinion that guilt by association is a fallacy, and my response is that you’re going to have a tough time persuading the experts of this. I think that’s a fair characterization of the situation.
Regarding the question of whether you’re saying “the guilt by association with aristocratic fornication isn’t enough to justify separation, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is”, no doubt you have not put it in so many words, but you did recommend Mr. Brennan’s work, which recommends European musical traditions despite the known issues with many western composers while arguing that music from African traditions is off limits, even if it’s remote from those direct African influences, due to pagan religions of Africa.
That’s fair as well, and your vehemence in arguing the point really demonstrates another point of mine, that guilt by association arguments generate needless strife because we’re all sinners. Hence there will always be vehement debates over which set of guilty assocations are significant enough to act on. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Regarding Mr. Garlock, if you look closely, you will see that I’ve never argued that your ideas are wrong because they resemble Garlock’s. I have argued that both of you are wrong because your arguments are built off guilt by association, and because guilt by association is a toxic, poisonous, sinful fallacy that generates a ton of needless strife.
And Aniol? I am not finding what I was referring to, but you know what? My main point was that you’re devoting a lot of energy to supporting your use of guilt by association, and I think you’ve made that point very well. Thank you.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Regarding the question of whether you’re saying “the guilt by association with aristocratic fornication isn’t enough to justify separation, but the occultism of Yoruba religion 300 years ago is”, no doubt you have not put it in so many words …
And Aniol? I am not finding what I was referring to …
So you are admitting that you fabricated a statement and passed it off as something that I said and you are also admitting that you dropped a name of someone else in another comment and falsely claimed that I supported their use of GBA.
Have you no shame? Do you not know what dishonesty is?
Stop doing this against me now!
A believer must not come to God’s Word and seek to force it to conform to his notions about logic. All human formulations of logic must me made subservient to divine revelation.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Whether Scripture “uses” guilt by association legitimately in any manner or not is something that cannot be predetermined by human logical formulation. If Scripture does not conform to that human formulation in that regard, what the Scripture reveals is what is right.
Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Instead of saying what He said, Jesus could have said,
Mark 8:33*(alt) But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Comparing these two statements shows that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter remains unchanged—if the word “Satan” is left out—in terms of the explanation directly given for the rebuke. Because Jesus, however, did address Peter by calling him “Satan,” we can be certain that God wanted everyone who was present on that occasion and every reader thereafter to link Peter in some manner with Satan in what Peter did.
Why did Jesus do what He did? In what way was Peter linked to Satan on this occasion?
[RajeshG]I noticed that you used the word “partly” in this explanation. That word “partly” makes in a big difference in this conversation.What the biblical data shows is that there is at least one instance in Scripture where inspired Scripture does establish and condemn the guilt of certain sinners partly by associating them in an undefined manner with another sinner. It doesn’t matter that you do not like what this biblical data shows.
The normal idea of “guilt by association” is that the guilt is being assumed completely and entirely due to the association and not to any established basis of evidence. When an actual basis of evidence for guilt is present, then guilt by actual guilt has happened and not guilt BY the association. In the passage you mentioned, God may not define for us readers the specifics of the guilt, but we know God doesn’t condemn someone without them actually being guilty. God is using the example of Cain to partially describe the guilt to us, but that doesn’t mean God condemns these people BECAUSE OF the association but because of their own guilt.
I know you realize that, and that’s why you used the word “partly” in your sentence, but once you acknowledge the “partly,” then you have stopped talking about normally understood GBA, which has a standard definition, and you have inexplicably expanded the definition of GBA to include guilt described with illustrations or metaphors. Doing so makes me suspect that you don’t actually understand what standard GBA is.
[Kevin Miller]You have not been paying attention and you are continuing to do so. I have maintained from the beginning that they were actually guilty of sinning in some undefined way that God said was the way of Cain.I noticed that you used the word “partly” in this explanation. That word “partly” makes in a big difference in this conversation.
The normal idea of “guilt by association” is that the guilt is being assumed completely and entirely due to the association and not to any established basis of evidence. When an actual basis of evidence for guilt is present, then guilt by actual guilt has happened and not guilt BY the association. In the passage you mentioned, God may not define for us readers the specifics of the guilt, but we know God doesn’t condemn someone without them actually being guilty. God is using the example of Cain to partially describe the guilt to us, but that doesn’t mean God condemns these people BECAUSE OF the association but because of their own guilt.
I know you realize that, and that’s why you used the word “partly” in your sentence, but once you acknowledge the “partly,” then you have stopped talking about normally understood GBA, which has a standard definition, and you have inexplicably expanded the definition of GBA to include guilt described with illustrations or metaphors. Doing so makes me suspect that you don’t actually understand what standard GBA is.
I have not “inexplicably expanded the definition of GBA to include guilt described with illustration or metaphors [bold added].” I have expanded the understanding of the concept of guilt by association because the Bible reveals that God has condemned people for guiltiness by associating them with the sinfulness of other wicked people.
What God did established direct connection between those sinners and Cain; they did sin in one or more ways such that they and one or more aspects of their sinfulness were fully legitimately associated—and without any specification provided—with Cain and one or more aspects of his sinfulness.
You want to assert that the phrase “guilt by association” must be used only when speaking about what has been defined through fallible human logical formulation as “guilt by association fallacies.” The Bible proves you wrong and shows that Scripture does “use” guilt by association in a legitimate way that is not fallacious.
Does this apply to these ‘conversations?
https://twitter.com/jrpeet/status/1418735906572406789/photo/1
[RajeshG]I’m not sure why you are accusing me of not paying attention. I’ve been saying the whole time that you are admitting these people have actual guilt. That has been part of my point, that you are admitting these people have actual guilt.You have not been paying attention and you are continuing to do so. I have maintained from the beginning that they were actually guilty of sinning in some undefined way that God said was the way of Cain.
I have not “inexplicably expanded the definition of GBA to include guilt described with illustration or metaphors [bold added].” I have expanded the understanding of the concept of guilt by association because the Bible reveals that God has condemned people for guiltiness by associating them with the sinfulness of other wicked people.Umm. All I see here is that you deny expanding GBA in your first sentence, and then you admit expanding it in your second sentence.
What God did established direct connection between those sinners and Cain; they did sin in one or more ways such that they and one or more aspects of their sinfulness were fully legitimately associated—and without any specification provided—with Cain and one or more aspects of his sinfulness.One or more aspects of their sinfulness were legitimately illustrated by Cain’s sinfulness. That is much more specific than a mere “association,” but I can tell that you are just not catching the semantic difference, so I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
You want to assert that the phrase “guilt by association” must be used only when speaking about what has been defined through fallible human logical formulation as “guilt by association fallacies.” The Bible proves you wrong and shows that Scripture does “use” guilt by association in a legitimate way that is not fallacious.Well, I see the confusion has arisen because I thought you were using the statement “The Bible uses GBA” as some sort of defense of your own use of the fallacy of GBA. That’s what we were charging each other with after all - the fallacy of GBA. You said Bert used this fallacy when he associated your arguments wrongly with Garlock’s arguments. I charged you with using the fallacy when you associated the music of Christian composers wrongly with the music of occultists. In these particular cases, it is not exactly the same arguments and it is not exactly the same music, so the guilt of one should not be used to condemn the other.
You then started talking about the Bible using GBA, so I mistakenly thought we were still in the same conversation, instead of you having switched over to a meaning of GBA that isn’t what we were talking about.
[Kevin Miller]The conversation is not over. The biblical data that pertains has not been accounted for concerning whether the Bible itself “uses” GBA. Whatever the Bible says is so, regardless of what fallible human logical formulation may assert.Well, I see the confusion has arisen because I thought you were using the statement “The Bible uses GBA” as some sort of defense of your own use of the fallacy of GBA. That’s what we were charging each other with after all - the fallacy of GBA. You said Bert used this fallacy when he associated your arguments wrongly with Garlock’s arguments. I charged you with using the fallacy when you associated the music of Christian composers wrongly with the music of occultists. In these particular cases, it is not exactly the same arguments and it is not exactly the same music, so the guilt of one should not be used to condemn the other.
You then started talking about the Bible using GBA, so I mistakenly thought we were still in the same conversation, instead of you having switched over to a meaning of GBA that isn’t what we were talking about.
[RajeshG]But it seems that the GBA you are describing that the Bible uses is not the same GBA that is the logical formulation, so i don’t see these Biblical examples/illustrations as applying to discussions of the logical formulation. The Biblical examples are certainly not a defense for someone who is using the fallacy.The conversation is not over. The biblical data that pertains has not been accounted for concerning whether the Bible itself “uses” GBA. Whatever the Bible says is so, regardless of what fallible human logical formulation may assert.
[Kevin Miller]You have not proven anything about my using a fallacy. You have made claims, but claims do not constitute proof. Unproven charges of using GBA fallacies have been a favorite talking point on SI for some of those who defend Christian use of rock music in worship, and they have done so by using GBA fallacies themselves. That practice must come to an end.But it seems that the GBA you are describing that the Bible uses is not the same GBA that is the logical formulation, so i don’t see these Biblical examples/illustrations as applying to discussions of the logical formulation. The Biblical examples are certainly not a defense for someone who is using the fallacy.
…comes in Matthew 11:19, where Jesus comments that He had come eating and drinking, and the Pharisees had called him a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners. Now since Jesus WAS a friend of the same, so the second phrase is definitely guilt by association, and the first phrase arguably is as well—the Pharisees are trying to link Jesus’ willing eating and drinking with the riotous eating and drinking of others.
Now if this were a valid logical technique, one would expect Jesus to say “well, that’s fair, I’d better change my tune”, and since the Pharisees were accusing Him of sin, we’d be lacking a Savior. That is of course not what He did, but rather said “wisdom is justified by her children.” He does not acknowledge any truth in the Pharisees’ guilt by association arguments, and this pattern is repeated quite a bit through the Gospels—the Pharisees accuse Him of sin by association, and He consistently rejects their claims.
It’s not laid out in as many words, but as the logicians would expect, Jesus is telling us that guilt by association arguments are fallacious. God is NOT honored when someone uses these associations to impugn others.
One side note; I’m noticing that someone is moderating/removing certain of my comments without informing me why. It seems a little bit one-sided that Rajesh can accuse me of being a liar, and my responses are deleted. I’d appreciate it if the moderator would show this courtesy of contacting me.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]I reject your characterization of it as “illustrated.” There is no specificity at all to it other than they are directly linked to Cain. An illustration where the point of similarity is unknown would be a worthless illustration.One or more aspects of their sinfulness were legitimately illustrated by Cain’s sinfulness. That is much more specific than a mere “association,” but I can tell that you are just not catching the semantic difference, so I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
Jude 1:11 is not guilt by illustration—it is guilt by association with a named sinner.
[RajeshG]But Rajesh, in the ninth post of this very thread, you ended your comments by saying, “guilt can legitimately be established without having to define what that guilt specifically was and without having to explain exactly what that guilt was.” Are you saying now that the charges DO have to be defined?You have not proven anything about my using a fallacy. You have made claims, but claims do not constitute proof. Unproven charges of using GBA fallacies have been a favorite talking point on SI for some of those who defend Christian use of rock music in worship, and they have done so by using GBA fallacies themselves. That practice must come to an end.
[RajeshG]But the similarity is known by God and that’s good enough for me.I reject your characterization of it as “illustrated.” There is no specificity at all to it other than they are directly linked to Cain. An illustration where the point of similarity is unknown would be a worthless illustration.
Jude 1:11 is not guilt by illustration—it is guilt by association with a named sinner.
[Kevin Miller]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.But Rajesh, in the ninth post of this very thread, you ended your comments by saying, “guilt can legitimately be established without having to define what that guilt specifically was and without having to explain exactly what that guilt was.” Are you saying now that the charges DO have to be defined?
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.
If “Simplicity is truth’s most becoming garb “, Rajesh’s arguments are wearing the ugliest apparel ever made. I am constantly amused by his inability (or unwillingness) to answer simple questions with simple answers.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
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.
And again, where guilt by association is clearly used with reference to Christ, He does not dignify this fallacy by accepting the logic of the Pharisees. He rather rejects it every single time, and it’s not like they didn’t give Him plenty of opportunities.
Rajesh, I don’t know what your issue is, but you are breaking just about every rule of exegesis I have ever heard or read. You blithely ignore the rules of logic, neglect every rule of context that can be used, read things into the text that clearly are not there, and read things out of the text that are clearly to be understood from the cultural context. I don’t know whether this is an issue of faulty training at BJU, your “pastor” training you to ignore what you learned, or what, but this is really, really bad.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion