Logical fallacies hijack discussion

[mjrhealth]

straw man fallacy

Like I said.

 

[OzSpen]

Well you could ask, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, even Saul met Jesus after His resurection, they never had a bible.

In all His Love

When you claim that Saul (of Tarsus) did not have a Bible, you don't understand that the OT was the Bible of the Pharisees.

Matt 5:21-22 (ESV): '“You have heard that it was said to those of old, z‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable ato judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that beveryone who is angry with his brother will be liable ato judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire'.

z Ex 20:13 Dt 5:17
a Dt 16:18

Jesus quoted from the OT as indicated by these references.

You have created another straw man logical fallacy, thus hijacking this discussion. Throughout this discussion, I have noticed that you have not attempted to address the topic of the OP. You are constantly inserting your own view that is not related to the topic (a red herring fallacy) or you have created a false view of the other person's position (a straw man fallacy.

When are you going to engage with the topic of the OP?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Lets see,

John wrote a whole book called revelation," he never had a bible" oh and than there is.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

Guess where revelation comes from, its not the bible.

In all his love

You miss something here. John had the OT in Hebrew available to him. When the Book of Revelation was revealed to John, John was one of the privileged apostles to be used by God to write the NT Scriptures. Such a revelation to write Scripture is not given to you and me or anyone else since the close of the NT at the end of the first century.

As for Matt 16:17, I think you had better do your homework on that verse. Some of the earliest MSS do not include Mark 16:9-20, so these verses are not regarded as being in the NT canon of Scripture.

mjr, what is the topic of the OP? It is not the topic of your post, so you have given us another red herring logical fallacy, thus demonstrating the truth of the title of this thread, 'Logical fallacies hijack discussion'. Your use of a red herring fallacy has hijacked discussion again.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Like I said.

What on earth does that mean? You were responding to my statement about a straw man fallacy.

Why do you refuse to engage with the topic of this thread, especially in light of your continuing fulfillment of the title of the OP. You hijack the thread topic with your responses.

 

[mjrhealth]

What is the issue, people dont agree with you so out comes teh big words. I can guarantee there are people out there who have studied the bible longer than you, probably being to Israel to visit all the " sacred sites", studied all the texts , read all the books, learnt all the languages, and when they died, didnt know God. God really isnt that complicated, He isnt hidng away, Hes not lost, neither is Jesus they are just waiting on those willing to let them in.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

But you see, you have to believe you can hear His voice, if you dont that well. No logic in that is there.

In all His Love

 

[Butch5]

Well you could ask, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, even Saul met Jesus after His resurection, they never had a bible.

In all His Love

Abraham spoke with Jesus, as did Moses, The prophet got direct revelation from God and they had the writings of Moses.. The apostles had direct teaching from Jesus and they had the Bible. So, how would you know about God without the Bible

 

[OzSpen]

What is the issue, people dont agree with you so out comes teh big words. I can guarantee there are people out there who have studied the bible longer than you, probably being to Israel to visit all the " sacred sites", studied all the texts , read all the books, learnt all the languages, and when they died, didnt know God. God really isnt that complicated, He isnt hidng away, Hes not lost, neither is Jesus they are just waiting on those willing to let them in.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

But you see, you have to believe you can hear His voice, if you dont that well. No logic in that is there.

In all His Love

This is another red herring logical fallacy.

Please get back to the topic of the OP. To this point I have not seen you address any of the content of the OP, so in this thread you are regularly hijacking this thread by your irrelevant comments, i.e. irrelevant to the topic. That's what makes them red herring fallacies.

Why don't you quit doing this?

 

[ewq1938]

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

You are guilty of using the above by insulting my intelligence. It was not a use of sarcasm but insult of character (one's intelligence).

1. Person A makes claim X. (God the Father is described in scripture as having a body)
2. Person B makes an attack on person A. ("that is the use of an anthropomorphism. Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?")
3. Therefore A's claim is false. (based on the assumption that A is not intelligent enough to understand what anthropomorphism is.)

 

[Barrd]

I see the conversation is moving right along....

Oh...for Ewq's benefit, I will explain...that was sarcasm.

 

[FHII]

For what its worth, I agree with Ewq. Passing off an attack as merely sarcasm is Bullspit. Perhaps we need a new fallacy catagory. I hope that Ewq is really just bring up the fact that the new fallacy police are guilty as well (which is ok as long as long as they confess it) and not as thin-skinned as it appears.

 

[ewq1938]

I see the conversation is moving right along....

Oh...for Ewq's benefit, I will explain...that was sarcasm.

Ah, so it's sarcasm when you imply someone is stupid....got it, thanks.

 

[ewq1938]

For what its worth, I agree with Ewq. Passing off an attack as merely sarcasm is Bullspit. Perhaps we need a new fallacy catagory. I hope that Ewq is really just bring up the fact that the new fallacy police are guilty as well (which is ok as long as long as they confess it) and not as thin-skinned as it appears.

I appreciate the support....the only one so far but I'll take it. :)

 

[mjrhealth]

The apostles had direct teaching from Jesus and they had the Bible. So, how would you know about God without the Bible

Its amazing isnt it, that God who created the world, the stars, teh heavens and all teh animals and man, seems to be powerless to save people. And no they didnt have the bible it wasnt even "compiled" is the correct term yet. Saul who became Paul met Christ after His resurrection on teh road to damascus, "why are you persecuting me" He said, and Saul was considered a pharisee of pharsees a very learned man yet he had it all worng. Than we have the bible says. Joh_15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

but it seems that man declares, without man God can do nothing. My eldest son gave His life to Jesus one night reading a book whilst living in france im in australia, he has never read a bible. Oh how we limit God so

 

[mjrhealth]

Please get back to the topic of the OP. To this point I have not seen you address any of the content of the OP, so in this thread you are regularly hijacking this thread by your irrelevant comments, i.e. irrelevant to the topic. That's what makes them red herring fallacies.

But you see it is all about this topic. people dont agree wtih you so it must be a fallacy. Nice easy way to say they are deceving you. devil is good at that. i thought christianity was about God and jesus??

 

[OzSpen]

You are guilty of using the above by insulting my intelligence. It was not a use of sarcasm but insult of character (one's intelligence).

1. Person A makes claim X. (God the Father is described in scripture as having a body)
2. Person B makes an attack on person A. ("that is the use of an anthropomorphism. Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?")
3. Therefore A's claim is false. (based on the assumption that A is not intelligent enough to understand what anthropomorphism is.)

That's a straw man fallacy.

If I had said, 'What a stupid, idiotic fool you are', that would be an insult on your character. That is not what I stated and I would never say that.

The title of this thread is 'Logical fallacies hijack discussion'. That's what you have done when you don't know the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and the use of sarcasm.

 

[OzSpen]

Of course I know what it means [anthropomorphism]. Oz knows I know what it means. His question to me was an intentional insult.

I didn't refuse to answer your question I merely asked that you answer mine first because that is the appropriate way a discussion with questions should be conducted.

The scriptures describing the Father's body have nothing to do with anthropomorphism. That is contextually obvious.

He used an ad hominem, that cannot be debated or disputed. He used it because his position was scripturally weak and such attacks are an easy choice to fill in what is lacking.

I did not (and still do not know) that you understand what anthropomorphism means because you refuse to understand how they are used to describe God's character and actions.

I did not use an ad hominem fallacy. I was humouring you with sarcasm. Do you get it?

You have used Genesis 1:26-27 to try to prove that God has a human body.

In these two verses we have the double description that the man (adam) will be made by God ‘in our image, after our likeness’. These terms ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God do state that human beings are patterned after God, but that does not state that God is a physical being, just as a human being is physical. HOWEVER, verse 27 affirms that ‘man’ made in the image of God included ‘male and female’. To require that human features be attributed to God, which will they be, male or female? Or, is God a hermaphrodite, having both male and female sex organs (Oxford dictionaries)? This is a ridiculous and blasphemous conclusion but would seem to be what your view entails. In pursuing your view, are you suggesting that God is male-only or female-only in his physical body or hermaphrodite? I hope you are seeing the blasphemous dimensions of making God a physical being. That's why I have shown you that God having a physical body is an heretical doctrine from the 4th century by the Audians, repeated by the cult of the Mormons, and now promoted on this forum by you.

Does God have a physical body? No, because he is spirit (John 4:24) and whenever language of hands, feet, and other aspects of the body are used to describe God in Scripture, the writers are using figures of speech known as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, which include ‘the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour or emotions to a god, animal, or object (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v anthropomorphism).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

But you see it is all about this topic. people dont agree wtih you so it must be a fallacy. Nice easy way to say they are deceving you. devil is good at that. i thought christianity was about God and jesus??

If you want to talk about a topic relating to revelation, no Bible for Saul of Tarsus to use, then start another topic. You are again hijacking discussion with your red herring logical fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

For what its worth, I agree with Ewq. Passing off an attack as merely sarcasm is Bullspit. Perhaps we need a new fallacy catagory. I hope that Ewq is really just bring up the fact that the new fallacy police are guilty as well (which is ok as long as long as they confess it) and not as thin-skinned as it appears.

This is an ad hominem personal attack on me.

 

[FHII]

This is an ad hominem personal attack on me.

LOL! Oh, I get it! This is satire! The use of humor or irony to show how rediculous we've all become! Not meant to be taken seriously, but to be laughed at! Good one Oz!

 

[OzSpen]

For what its worth, I agree with Ewq. Passing off an attack as merely sarcasm is Bullspit. Perhaps we need a new fallacy catagory. I hope that Ewq is really just bring up the fact that the new fallacy police are guilty as well (which is ok as long as long as they confess it) and not as thin-skinned as it appears.

Bull what??