On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT), rogue <rogue719@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On May 13, 8:41 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Red herring (diverting the issue). Rather than proving the point, this
>> fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then
>> proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears
>> a superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. Don’t let that
>> fool you! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the
>> argument. [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let Us Reason : An
>> Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book
>> House, 1990]
>>
>> Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing
>> irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
>> For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to
>> higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof
>> over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this
>> question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response
>> to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There
>> is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.) [Glen
>> Whitman, Associate Professor; California State University, Northridge]
>>
>> Red herring. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a
>> logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when
>> a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by
>> introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating,
>> and effective, fallacies to observe. [Tim
Holt;http://www.logicalfallacies.info/]
>>
>> Red herring. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the
>> subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some
>> side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held
>> accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other
>> senators who have done far worse things.” [Dr. L. Kip Wheeler; Carson-
>> Newman College]
>>
>> Red herring. A "red herring" argument is one which distracts the
>> audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some
>> irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at
>> least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By
>> extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are
>> logically irrelevant to the conclusion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/]
>>
>> Red herring. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic
>> is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
>> basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the
>> argument and to another topic. [Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere; Florida A&M
>> University]
>>
>> Red herring. A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a
>> bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the
>> track of considering only relevant information. Example: Will the new
>> tax in Senate Bill 47 unfairly hurt business? One of the provisions of
>> the bill is that the tax is higher for large employers (fifty or more
>> employees) as opposed to small employers (six to forty-nine
>> employees). To decide on the fairness of the bill, we must first
>> determine whether employees who work for large employers have better
>> working conditions than employees who work for small employers.
>> Bringing up the issue of working conditions is the red herring.
>> [Bradley Dowden; California State University, Sacramento]
>>
>> Red herring . Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention
>> to another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't
>> believe in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the
>> legislature." [Dr. J. P. Craig; University Of Iowa]
>
>JERRY
>You obviously don't understand what a red herring is, do you, Carl?
>
>That's ok, I do. And I also understand you using the phrase to
>deflect from your failure to sup****t any kind of point. Like the one
>below:
>
>On Apr 1, 5:07 pm, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 12:58 am, rogue <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > JERRY
>> > Carl, I read the whole thing and didn't see anywhere that you have to
>> > believe in the Trinity to be saved. Is there another reason not
>> > posted in here that makes you think someone who doesn't believe in
the
>> > Trinity is teaching "heresies" and will go to hell?
>>
>> And as usual, we see "rogue" clinging to a false accusation. "rogue"
>> claimed to have "personally witnessed" that I made such a statement
>> when the fact remains I never wrote anything but don't confuse
>> "rogue" with the facts when he has a good lie. "rogue"'s dishonesty,
>> arrogance and hatred of Christians has been duly noted. "rogue" is not
>> interested in truth but rather more interested in dealing in
>> provocation, fabrication and obfuscation. God warned us of those like
>> "rogue" and we, as Christians, should pray for them but not be lured
>> into the Godless chatter they desire so much.
>>
>JERRY
>Actually, you have, then refused to respond when I posted the quote
>and dodge JC when he continually confronted you with it.
>
>C'mon, Carl, we aren't children and we can find the quote and post it
>again if you like. Heck, I can put it in a word doc on my desktop and
>post it as a response to every new thread you start if you like.
>
>I hate liars, Carl, and you have rationalized and dodged responding to
>the quote you made multiple times.
>
>> > >> > CARL
>> > >> > If you had bothered to read the articles, they contain the sola
>> > >> > scriptura
>> > >> > evidence from the Bible which teaches the Trinity. But you run
away
>> > >> > from it
>> > >> > in cowardice. Typical. I pity you, my friend. YOU WILL SUFFER
THE
>> > >> > CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR HERESIES IF YOU DO NOT REPENT (emphasis
mine). I
>> > >> > will be praying for
>> > >> > you.
>
>> JC
>> I would like to know what this is about.
>
>> > >> > JERRY
>> > >> > So, my assumption from that statement is that someone who
rejects the
>> > >> > Trinity is not saved and will be damned. Would that be a
correct
>> > >> > assumption from this statement?
>
>> JC
>> Here is a perfectly good chance to clarify. And here is the original:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/577f8e4d999d8af2?dmode=s...
>Carl - Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:08:41 -0400
>
>JERRY
>So, Carl, you can answer now, or we can force your own words down your
>throat from now on.
>
>I'm game. ;-)
Jerry,
Carl has proven himself to be a disgrace to God and the Lord Jesus
Christ through his continual falsehoods.. He is not a true Christian
(disciple of Jesus Christ); only a pretender. He is an idolator who
denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He also denies that Jesus
came in the flesh which makes him antichrist. His own man gods
Ankerberg and Weldon whom Carl quoted wrote:
Must we believe in the Trinity in order to be saved?
Prior knowledge of the Trinity, especially in its theological
formulation, is not necessary for a person to be saved. But once
saved, it is vital for Christians to know the true nature of the God
who has so graciously pardoned them. This explains why the Church has
always recognized the im****tance of a proper understanding of God and
maintained that those who reject the scriptural view of God, as long
as they do so, cannot be saved.
Carl, himself, in the same post lied saying:
If you had bothered to read the articles, they contain the sola
scriptura evidence from the Bible which teaches the Trinity. But you
run away from it in cowardice. Typical. I pity you, my friend. You
will suffer the consequences of your heresies if you do no repent. I
will be praying for you.
As a skeptic or an atheist you do not need to confess or believe the
doctrines of the Bible. Carl pretends to be a Christian - a disciple
of the Lord Jesus Christ - and is expected to be believe the doctrines
in the word of God.
Carl has proven himself to be a deceiving liar. Professing himself to
be wise he became a fool. His mind is reprobate unwilling to separate
truth from error.
However, that said there is something else in the post from Carl that
you reference. Carl wrote:
It's "sola scriptura" which is latin for "scripture only" and the
Trinity is taught via sola scriptura. I've proven it that way as has
numerous other Christians. Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon have done it
as well yet you are unable to handle their articles on the subject so
you would rather run away and deny their excellent article which
proves quite well the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
He lied when he said "I've proven it" because he has done no such
thing. He did quote a bunch of verses and lied about what they said;
but neither he or his head gods have proved the trinity to be true to
fact. His use of the word "biblical" instead of "scriptural" is in
itself evidence that he is dishonest. Bibles have been falsified by
their editors to promote the doctrine of the trinity. The Hebrew and
Greek do not sup****t the doctrine.
Compare his behavior to Christ's. Would Christ have cut and pasted
quotes of men or passages without context. Whether you believe in
Christ is not relevant - Carl is held to the standard of the book he
promotes and that book which speaks of Christ presents Christ as a
real man; not an effeminate emasculated twit like Carl who hasn't the
courage or strength of character or love to deal face to face man to
man with others. He is a coward who hides behind the skirts of his
false teacher man gods; a non-scholar who doesn't understand the book
he quotes from; and a limp wristed castrated eunuch whose arguments
are always dependent on one thing, his "because I say so."
While you and I do not see eye to eye on many things; you have more
integrity and honor in your little finger than Carl has in his whole
body. He is a proven ignorant fraud. Your tactics and strategies may
not be scriptural or "Christian" but your behavior is more Christ like
than Carl's. Your very nature is more Christ like than Carl's. He
talks down to you when he should be sitting at your feet trying to
learn something (not the scriptures :)) from you. Anyone can learn
something from another. Carl hasn't matured enough to learn that. He
can only learn what his man gods teach him and that's the way it must
be because he is their apostle who demands wor****p as the mediator
between men gods and men. He pretends to be a Christ. He is not.
BB
|
