On May 13, 6:38 pm, Bible Bob <bible...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:50:46 -0700 (PDT), rogue <rogue...@[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=92t 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.logicalfallac=
ies.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, =93Senator Jones should not be held
> >> accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are
other
> >> senators who have done far worse things.=94 [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 =93win=94 an argument by leading attention away from
t=
he
> >> 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
th=
e
> >> > 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
a=
way
> >> > >> > from it
> >> > >> > in cowardice. Typical. I pity you, my friend. YOU WILL SUFFER
TH=
E
> >> > >> > CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR HERESIES IF YOU DO NOT REPENT (emphasis
min=
e). 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
reject=
s the
> >> > >> > Trinity is not saved and will be damned. Would that be a
correc=
t
> >> > >> > 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=3Ds..=
..
> >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.
JERRY
I tend to shy away most of the time from the word "Lied" as I truly
believe that Carl, Chuck, Vera, you, Dave and others do not
intentionally lie when you offer your opinion on the text. People are
people and when they read the book, they bring to the words whatever
has happened to them that day. It's the perception filter that we all
have. Given a different day, different cir***stances, better mood,
better fed, whatever, a reading of the same text will offer a
different viewpoint in their own eyes.
when I was directing theatre I used to tell my cast and crew not to
read reviews until the show was over. The reasons for that are
multiple, but one of the biggest was that the reviewer will give you
an opinion of his/her experience in the theatre that evening.
However, that experience is not just based on the show they see but
their date (if there is one), the meal they had beforehand, any car/
money/work-related problems that are in their head when they walk in
the door, even down to someone taking their parking place in the
parking lot before they come in. No one walks in the door completely
unaffected by their environment, and so their perception is already
skewed, either favorably or unfavorably.
Quick example: We took our production of "Driving Miss Daisy" to
tournament one year. For pre-show music I used a CD of Tommy James
tunes, all of them very upbeat since the show was primarily a comedy
(or dramedy with some very funny moments, depending on your
viewpoint). The audience was primarily theatre people.
I was out by the door and watched people coming in. They got as far
as the door, heard the music and *danced* into the theatre in groups
of twos and threes to find their seats. They were already favorably
inclined to what we had to show them.
We won that tournament. :-) I strongly believe that getting that
audience into that favorable mood before the show started helped
immensely with winning.
Getting back to my point: Carl, Chuck, Vera, etc are not lying in
what they say in these forums. However, most of the things they
believe are often based upon opinions they hold regarding the text,
many of which they can't sup****t with anything other than opinion.
Chuck continuously harps on John 8:24 as proof that you have to
believe in the Trinity to be saved, not because the verse says that,
but because Chuck chooses to invest the verse with his belief that
this is the true meaning of the verse. Hence, he doesn't lie and he
thinks his opinion is not only obvious and evident but that if I don't
agree with his interpretation it's because I am intentionally being
obtuse just to provoke him. (if I were a psychiatrist, I could spend
pages on that alone, but I'm not, so I won't) ;-)
Yet, I think you would be hard pressed, reading the entire chapter and
that particular verse in context, to say that this interpretation is
self-evident and obvious.
> BB
> 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."
JERRY
Carl is not Christ-like in many ways but he believes he is
"ministering" to the newsgroups the same way that John Wolf did. He
offers the opinions of men who he considers respected authorities
rather than his own opinions. Perhaps he doesn't trust his own
scholar****p, or perhaps he enjoys employing the logical fallacy of the
argument from authority. Or perhaps Carl is genuinely trying to share
something he found interesting and wants to discuss, though I don't
see Carl discussing so much as either slapping people on the back who
agree with him and disrespecting people who don't. Just my
observations.
> BB
> 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.
JERRY
Actually, I have no "tactics or strategies," though I note that not
only you but also Carl and Chuck think so. All I want is to get the
other person to actually commit to a statement/position so I can see
if that statement is true or not (and most of the time they are not).
(And thank you for the compliment)
> BB
>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.
JERRY
Oh, c'mon. The nature of Usenet debate is adversarial. I talk down
to Carl, Chuck and Vera as well when I feel that they are talking down
to me (and sometimes BEFORE they talk down to me, though I am trying
to improve on that)
> BB
> 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.
>
JERRY
Oh, I think Carl isn't trying to pretend to be Christ, but his actions
don't fall into the realm of anything "christ-like" in my opinion
either. He's just someone trying to make his mark, have an impact. I
suspect he's got a lot of self-image issues as well, which is one of
the reasons he doesn't trust his own knowledge of the text and has to
depend on the opinions of others whom he considers more "expert" than
himself. Actually, I feel kinda sorry for him as a person.
Sometimes.
|
