# Tang



## T.A.G. (Nov 22, 2009)

What do you think of TANG?

Do you think that John Frame made a convincing argument against it?
What do you think were his strengths and weaknesses in his argument?

Do you think Michael Martin made a convincing argument against TAG?
What do you think were his strengths and weaknesses in his argument?

For those who do not know what I am talking about or just for those who need a refreshment on the argument you can go to reformed.org and look up the debate in the apologetics section.


----------



## nicnap (Nov 22, 2009)

I think Tang is delicious, and wish it would make a come back.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Nov 22, 2009)

nicnap said:


> I think Tang is delicious, and wish it would make a come back.


----------



## Andres (Nov 22, 2009)

I thought it was only for astronauts?


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 22, 2009)

When it is made too strong, it is absolutely repellent. Otherwise,


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 22, 2009)

Although I really like Tang, and miss the stuff. It is a great example of how man cannot reverse engineer food and come up with anything even remotely as healthy as what God created. (Hint: if it says it is 'healthy' on the label it is probably not.)


----------



## TimV (Nov 22, 2009)

From Frame



> God could not will that cruelty is good, for cruelty is not good; it is incompatible with God's own nature.



God could not will that genocide is good, for genocide is not good; it is incompatible with God's own nature.

God could not send a lying spirit, for lying is not good; it is incompatible with God's own nature.

Comments?


----------



## Ivan (Nov 22, 2009)

MLCOPE2 said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> > I think Tang is delicious, and wish it would make a come back.



It's gone?


----------



## baron (Nov 22, 2009)

I thought we were going to talk about swords since there were post concering Martial Arts. Tang was also a Dynasty in China.



Sword Construction 101



Parts of the European sword:


Most of these terms may be familiar. Not all swords have a Fuller or Ricasso. The Fuller is a groove down the middle of the blade, sometimes called a blood groove, though that's not what it is for. Adding a Fuller lets the sword-maker remove steel from the blade, making it lighter, without reducing it's strength (like an I-beam). A Ricasso is a dull part of the blade just above the hilt that could be gripped in addition to the hilt to give more control, or for fighting in close quarters. Kind of like choking up on the bat in baseball. 

What is a tang?
A sword's "tang" refers to the part of the blade that runs through the handle. 

Full Tang Swords
For a sword to be functional, it must be strong and a full tang provides this. A full tang sword is made from a solid piece of steel thick and at least half as wide as the blade itself. In essence, the blade IS the handle, it just has wooden side pieces or a leather wrap attached for a better and more comfortable grip. This is the strongest sword tang available (and most expensive). 


1. Let's examine the hilt of this fine sword by Cold Steel.

2. Here is an "x-ray" of what the blade and full tang might look like inside the hilt. The tang is made by removing a small amount of steel from the edges of the blade; just enough to fit the blade into the hilt. There are different mehods of attaching the hilt to the tang. See below.

The strongest but most difficult method of attaching a full tang to the hilt would be to have the pommel shaped from the tang itself during the forging process. So the pommel, tang and blade are all the same piece of steel. 

A more common method of attaching a full tang to the hilt is to make a small threaded area at the end of the full tang. The pommel can then be drilled and tapped and screwed tightly onto the tang.


1. Another method of attaching a full tang to the hilt is by "peening" it. It is passed through a hole in the pommel and then hammered down like a rivet.

2. Then the protruding tang would be filed down and polished to match the rest of the pommel. 

Many of the decorative swords on the market are designed for display purposes only. Because of this, they don't need to be functional or strong, and so most have what is called a "rat-tail tang", where a thin piece of metal, usually no more than 1/4" to 1/2" wide, runs through the handle and connects to the pommel.

Graphical example of a rat-tail tang. Note weld at the crossguard where the rat-tail is attached to the blade. This is a weak spot where a decorative sword will usually break if struck against something.

Four examples of welded on, rat tail tangs....

Learn more about sword maintenance and safety on our Sword Care page....

Learn more about Battle Ready Functional Swords on our Sword 101 page...

Thanks for shopping with BladeSeller
Copyright © BladeSeller, 2008

I will have to look it up never heard about it before.


----------



## T.A.G. (Nov 22, 2009)

TimV said:


> From Frame
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the main thing I was trying to figure out as well...hopefully someone will be able to give a serious response


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 22, 2009)

The Reformed have a transcendantal basis for morality? The Triune God of the Bible.

What did Michael Martin give as the atheist's transcendantal basis for morality?

I'll check out the debate again. I haven't read it in years.

Maybe putting up the TANG argument shows that atheists like Martin don't understand TAG, which can be a problem with clever and sophisticated arguments like TAG.

Maybe they understand TAG too well, but want to pretend that they don't by throwing up the ironic smokescreen of TANG. If so TAG has done its work and you can only pray that the realisations that it has prompted in atheists like Martin will be used by the Spirit to penetrate their hearts.


----------



## T.A.G. (Nov 23, 2009)

TimV said:


> From Frame
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No responses still?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 23, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > From Frame
> ...



I think Frame is talking about God's revealed preceptive will rather than His decretive will.

God does not command us to be cruel, to commit genocide or to lie. 

If you want to give counter examples from the Bible, they all have a moral justification. E.g. Inflicting pain or death in justice, the destruction of the Canaanites, the Hebrew midwives lying to Pharaoh.

Obviously also these things happen in God's decretive will, with or without moral justification.


----------



## Edward (Nov 23, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > From Frame
> ...



No background, no context, and no link? What did you expect?


----------



## T.A.G. (Nov 24, 2009)

Edward said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



Your dog is so adorable

anyways, sorry i was not sure if I was allowed to post a link on this forum I am new 

But that is why I put the directions on my first post about going to reformed.org and going to the apologetics sections etc.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 08:47:06 EST-----



Richard Tallach said:


> T.A.G. said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



Do you mind explaining a little bit more 
I am not sure I am following you.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > T.A.G. said:
> ...



I mean that if Tim V is saying that this is a weakness in Frame's argument, I don't think so.

That is, God does not command us to be cruel, that is engage in meaningless and unjustified and unjust violence, because such behaviour is not moral, being incompatible with God's character. God does not engage in meaningless and unjustified and unjust violence to His creatures.

The only Q then, is why does God permit by His eternal decree that such violence will happen in His universe. God has sufficient moral reasons for these things, and a sufficient overarching moral reason compatible with His character for decreeing that sin should happen with all the cruelty that came in its wake. See e.g. Greg Bahnsen "Always Ready", Chapter on "The Problem of Evil" for this.

It would be different if God commanded cruelty of mankind or his people. Or lying or genocide. I think Tim V may be implying that there is a weakness in Frame's argument because God has commanded such things of mankind and His people.

But where such things have been and are commanded by God, they have always had a moral justification. 

E.g. Someone may be "cruel" to a terrorist in order to save lives and this may accord with God's revealed will, whereas ordinarily "cruel" behaviour does not. I think the word "cruel" tends to be associated with unjustified violence, so I would say that there may be times when it is in accordance with God's revealed will to inflict pain and violence on certain of our fellow men.

E.g. We have the destruction of the Canaanites. This was a unique one-off situation. God knows fully why the destruction of these particular nations by Israel was justified in the circumstances. This has been discussed elsewhere on the PB.

E.g. In certain limited circumstances certain students of biblical ethics believe that lying is justified. See e.g. Jochem Douma's "The Ten Commandments:Manual for the Christian Life" on the Ninth Commandment.

Also there may be cases where people have forfeited the right to truth by their wickedness, and God "sends a lying spirit" (angel or demon?) to further lead them into destruction by their own wickedness. See the case of Ahab and Micaiah's explanation of what was going on in Heaven in I Kings 22 and II Chronicles 18.

None of this undermines T.A.G., although it will be used by atheists who know their Bible's well, or not so well, to try to undermine T.A.G. by implying that the Bible doesn't teach an absolute standard of morality and that the character of, what we believe to be the Personal and Absolute, God of the Bible, cannot be a standard of absolute morality.

Of course the secular humanists, whether atheist or agnostic, have nothing else to put in God's place but chance and determinacy, which are a completely inadequate basis for morality of any kind.


----------



## Edward (Nov 24, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> But that is why I put the directions on my first post about going to reformed.org and going to the apologetics sections etc.



I go to the apologetics page of that site, find a couple of articles by Frame, a couple of mentions of Martin, nothing when I look for TANG, and learn nothing from the search or the discussion here. I obviously have nothing to contribute to the debate. But perhaps discussion would be a bit more robust if the issue was presented in a more robust fashion.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2009)

Here's the link:-

Reformed Apologetics


----------

