[Didymus Much]

Re: Salutations

...There are only a few central theological truths that are actually necessary for salvation, discernible by any lay person.

So you acknowledge that those who have never been exposed to the Word (say, a member of an isolated tribe) are doomed from the start?

What about children? Do you agree with the True Christians(tm) that those who die before realizing how much God righteously hates them for the sins of their ancestors, and beg forgiveness for actions not their own, also deserve eternal Hellfire?

What of the mentally handicapped? As they are incapable of much understanding at all, surely they must be excluded from God's Perfect Presence? And as they are not saveable, wouldn't it be the humane thing to put them out of their misery?

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

Here's the glaringly obvious reasons I am guilty of neither argument:

In order to be guilty of argumentum ad hominem, one must be presenting an argument in the first place. What I did to Hammer rather than present an argument, was casually dismiss his notion. To be blunt, I don't consider it worth my time arguing against such a pre-Copernican claim. Hence, you were arguing against a non-argument and as such I can't meet the criteria for a tu quoque fallacy. You can't use an indirect red herring after all if you weren't even presenting an argument in the first place.

What I was referring to, as opposed to your apt but fundamentally misguided assumptions, was hypocrisy. I have a litany of ad homs slung against me by several members and I get charged with it for what was clearly a casual dismissal? Your condescension and critique of my reasoning abilities only demonstrates your own vanity, not some righteous crusade.

You have a generally unpleasant demeanor, mister. In the face of our earnest, well-intentioned rebukes, you do exactly the opposite of what a True Christian should do; instead of showing gratitude for our attempts to save you from an eternity of agonizing sodomy in the pits of hell, you strike vexatiously at us, using Baby Jesus as a proxy, and vomit your acrid, bloody, mucus-infused bile directly onto His rosy cheeked, tear streaked countenance! Then you start whining and flapping your hands like some kind of retard, accusing us of "ad hominem"(which sounds pretty gay) attacks against you!

You know, every time you twist scripture for your own perverse gratification, it increases the girth of satan's constantly burdgeoning erection....do you want to be even marginally responsible for the many trillions of rectums that will be torn asunder by that pulsating monstrosity?

[Didymus Much]

Re: Salutations

...The violence and vindictiveness of your heart contradicts the same texts you revere.

How so?

If you can name a more violent and vindictive text in common circulation than the Old Testament, please do so.

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Salutations

Hahahahaha, spoken like a "true" Christian. The violence and vindictiveness of your heart contradicts the same texts you revere.

Our's is an angry God, stern and unyielding, cruel and yet just. I imagine the Devil has a special place in Hell for the false theologians. You can all sit with the politicians and talk volumes of nonsense, all day long; forever, while you roast at 1000 degrees.

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

This man is full of contradictions and talks in circles like every Jesuit we have ever caught. He would likely admit it quick if we could lay hands upon him.

Hahahahaha, spoken like a "true" Christian. The violence and vindictiveness of your heart contradicts the same texts you revere.

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Salutations

Here's the glaringly obvious reasons I am guilty of neither argument:

In order to be guilty of argumentum ad hominem, one must be presenting an argument in the first place. What I did to Hammer rather than present an argument, was casually dismiss his notion. To be blunt, I don't consider it worth my time arguing against such a pre-Copernican claim. Hence, you were arguing against a non-argument and as such I can't meet the criteria for a tu quoque fallacy. You can't use an indirect red herring after all if you weren't even presenting an argument in the first place.

What I was referring to, as opposed to your apt but fundamentally misguided assumptions, was hypocrisy. I have a litany of ad homs slung against me by several members and I get charged with it for what was clearly a casual dismissal? Your condescension and critique of my reasoning abilities only demonstrates your own vanity, not some righteous crusade.

This man is full of contradictions and talks in circles like every Jesuit we have ever caught. He would likely admit it quick if we could lay hands upon him.

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Now, Brethren, this is again a good example of a fallacy, this time the tu quoque (in many sources one of the indirect ad hominem types). Instead of assessing one's own misgivings, the opponent tries to avoid responsability by turning the accusation around. However, this does not remove the original ad hominem committed by this person at all. Certainly, it is quite possible to discuss the rhetoric of Mr Hammer separately (in his case, the apparent harsh language is necessary to guide sinners towards understanding their own depravity), but that is an argument does is irrelevant when it comes to the ad hominems of this poster.

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Now, Jesus can say this, because He is above criticism and sin. For the others, the tu quoque is a fallacy. In addition, your previous statement included the assertion that the Firmament was something else than understood by Mr. Hammer. If this is the case, you should have discussed the Firmament and not Mr. Hammer. Similarly, over here, it is your ad hominem that was scrutinized. The guilt is not diminished by others doing the same thing. The situation is similar to the one where you could murder and sodomize boys because "the catholics do it also". Even if someone else does it, it is still wrong if you do it.

I'm curious if we'll see some other fallacies in the near future.



Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Here's the glaringly obvious reasons I am guilty of neither argument:

In order to be guilty of argumentum ad hominem, one must be presenting an argument in the first place. What I did to Hammer rather than present an argument, was casually dismiss his notion. To be blunt, I don't consider it worth my time arguing against such a pre-Copernican claim. Hence, you were arguing against a non-argument and as such I can't meet the criteria for a tu quoque fallacy. You can't use an indirect red herring after all if you weren't even presenting an argument in the first place.

What I was referring to, as opposed to your apt but fundamentally misguided assumptions, was hypocrisy. I have a litany of ad homs slung against me by several members and I get charged with it for what was clearly a casual dismissal? Your condescension and critique of my reasoning abilities only demonstrates your own vanity, not some righteous crusade.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Salutations

We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary.

... that is a hilarious criticism considering the ad homs spewed on this site, including those used by Hammer against myself in this thread. So who is guilty sophistry after all? It appears to be you and Hammer, monsieur.

Now, Brethren, this is again a good example of a fallacy, this time the tu quoque (in many sources one of the indirect ad hominem types). Instead of assessing one's own misgivings, the opponent tries to avoid responsability by turning the accusation around. However, this does not remove the original ad hominem committed by this person at all. Certainly, it is quite possible to discuss the rhetoric of Mr Hammer separately (in his case, the apparent harsh language is necessary to guide sinners towards understanding their own depravity), but that is an argument does is irrelevant when it comes to the ad hominems of this poster.

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Now, Jesus can say this, because He is above criticism and sin. For the others, the tu quoque is a fallacy. In addition, your previous statement included the assertion that the Firmament was something else than understood by Mr. Hammer. If this is the case, you should have discussed the Firmament and not Mr. Hammer. Similarly, over here, it is your ad hominem that was scrutinized. The guilt is not diminished by others doing the same thing. The situation is similar to the one where you could murder and sodomize boys because "the catholics do it also". Even if someone else does it, it is still wrong if you do it.

I'm curious if we'll see some other fallacies in the near future.



Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

This is a great point from the pedagogical point of view as it illustrates perfectly a common argumentative fallacy, the ad hominem. Instead of tackling the actual issue, the characteristics of the Firmament and the Biblical support thereof, this person decides to attack by character assassination. Thus, appeal to person or ad hominem. Why is it a fallacy? Because no matter Mr. Hammers qualifications or character, it is the actual (Scriptural) evidence that determines if he can understand the Bible or not (he can).

To avoid this fallacy, this person could simply present the data and the Scripture and not mock another person. This is the direct ad hominem. We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary. Ultimately and fortunately, this will only benefit Mr. Hammer.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

There are some notions that I'm not willing to dignify with a response. As for the charge of ad hominem, that only applies if you are indeed making an argument. What's more, that is a hilarious criticism considering the ad homs spewed on this site, including those used by Hammer against myself in this thread. So who is guilty sophistry after all? It appears to be you and Hammer, monsieur.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Salutations

I guess we've got a guy who can't even understand the first few verses of Genesis, if that's what he thinks "firmament" is.

This is a great point from the pedagogical point of view as it illustrates perfectly a common argumentative fallacy, the ad hominem. Instead of tackling the actual issue, the characteristics of the Firmament and the Biblical support thereof, this person decides to attack by character assassination. Thus, appeal to person or ad hominem. Why is it a fallacy? Because no matter Mr. Hammers qualifications or character, it is the actual (Scriptural) evidence that determines if he can understand the Bible or not (he can).

To avoid this fallacy, this person could simply present the data and the Scripture and not mock another person. This is the direct ad hominem. We'll look at the indirect ones in due course if necessary. Ultimately and fortunately, this will only benefit Mr. Hammer.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Propianotuner1 , you have already been caught in lies. You stated originally that you back the teachings of Calvin. Yet, you then say, nope.



Leviticus 19-11 - "You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

You are also a "Free Baptist" aka, a cult -

http://godsbreath.net/2009/12/03/church-of-christ-cult/

Go ahead and find where I actually supported Calvin.

From Hammer:

No, we cannot bind the influence of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion...because those stars are set IN the firmament, dummy, not outside of it.Genesis 1:16-17

Given your mental handicap, I don't feel that it is sporting for me to keep publicly trouncing you like this....its getting kind of pathetic. I'll keep you in my prayers, sinner.

I guess we've got a guy who can't even understand the first few verses of Genesis, if that's what he thinks "firmament" is.

[Mike Miller]

Re: Salutations

Propianotuner1 , you have already been caught in lies. You stated originally that you back the teachings of Calvin. Yet, you then say, nope.



Leviticus 19-11 - "You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

You are also a "Free Baptist" aka, a cult -

http://godsbreath.net/2009/12/03/church-of-christ-cult/

[Witch Hammer]

Re: Salutations

That's interesting given this:

Job 38:31-33


31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Guess you folks don't know your bibles nearly as well as you would like to think.

No, we cannot bind the influence of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion...because those stars are set IN the firmament, dummy, not outside of it.Genesis 1:16-17

Given your mental handicap, I don't feel that it is sporting for me to keep publicly trouncing you like this....its getting kind of pathetic. I'll keep you in my prayers, sinner.

[Propianotuner1]

Re: Salutations

Wait! The smoking gun that proves this man's falsehood was right in front of us this whole time, and I might have missed it but for Jesus having just removed the scales from my eyes! Curse me for a slow witted hamite!



Straight from satan's photoshop. A mockup of the devilish fiction that the atheists refer to as a "nebulae"....a supposed "thing" that exists "out beyond the firmament"!... In "outer space"!!

Heresy!

That's interesting given this:

Job 38:31-33


31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Guess you folks don't know your bibles nearly as well as you would like to think.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Salutations

I believe in a simple soteriology/theology-of-salvation, which has no requirement that you perfectly understanding theology. There are only a few central theological truths that are actually necessary for salvation, discernible by any lay person.

Kindly post the Scripture that backs up your claim. We are not likely to blindly accept the word of a false Christian blasphemer.