GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

[thereselittleflower]

So what else is new concerning us "defective" Protestants.

Please enlighten me . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Please enlighten me . . .

Only if ya promise not to send this little guy to me.

ChrisBot

 

[tulc]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to sunlover1 again

I got her for both of us bro!
tulc(likes to help!)

 

[Uphill Battle]

I diagree . . I find that facts have been repeatedly ignored and undermined by those engaging in polemics and unsubstantiated claims in response. . . .

problem is, TLF, in EVERY argument, you quote RCC dogma as "fact." you know we don't accept it as such. You say "hey, it's Fact that Jesus instituted the RCC as the one true church.". We don't see it as fact. When you post the sparse biblical passages that the RCC uses to support it, you claim THAT as fact. The only fact, is that the scripture exists, and that we disagree on what it means.

just because you've written it in TLF's big book o' facts, doesn't behoove us to accept it as fact.

and you talk about polemics? Every argument coming from you is a polemic nightmare as well. It's RCC party line, every last bit.

(if you, of course, offer an argument beyond "not much of an argument here....")

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I got her for both of us bro!
tulc(likes to help!)

She is a ray of LIGHT to CF.

you must spread some reputation around before giving it to tulc again

 

[tulc]

you must spread some reputation around before giving it to tulc again

'fraid I can't help you there bro'!
tulc(besides, I've always found that guy to be pretty annoying!)

 

[thereselittleflower]

I do love that story

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to sunlover1 again

I love that story too, and the bible calls it an "ass":

Balaam arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again: And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?

Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee.

The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee.

But he said: Never.

Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground. And the angel said to him: Why beatest thou thy ass these three times? I am come to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse, and contrary to me: And unless the ass had turned out of the way, giving place to me who stood against thee, I had slain thee, and she should have lived.
​

The full story is in Numbers 22-24.

Quite an amazing story - as I said, if God can inspire an assto speak, He can inspire anyone . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

'fraid I can't help you there bro'!
tulc(besides, I've always found that guy to be pretty annoying!)

I love the way you "annoy".

Btw, do you see a little yellow exclamation mark below this post of mine?

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Only the Peter [aka as the Pope] has authority over the RCC.

 

[thereselittleflower]

problem is, TLF, in EVERY argument, you quote RCC dogma as "fact." you know we don't accept it as such.

What does your acceptance or none acceptance of a fact have to do with whether something is a fact or not?

Facts, like truth, are facts regardless of whether you accept them or reject them.

You say "hey, it's Fact that Jesus instituted the RCC as the one true church.". We don't see it as fact.

How does what you see make it fact or not fact?

It doesn't. You are free to accept or reject facts since God gave us free will to do so.

That doesn't make it any less a fact.

Truth is not relative upon your acceptance or rejection of it.

When you post the sparse biblical passages that the RCC uses to support it, you claim THAT as fact. The only fact, is that the scripture exists, and that we disagree on what it means.

Again, facts are no relative and do not depend on your acceptance of them to be facts, or your rejection of them to not be facts.

Proposing truth/facts are relative to one's acceptance or none acceptance of them is not a logical proposition.

just because you've written it in TLF's big book o' facts, doesn't behoove us to accept it as fact.

That is different than claiming they are not facts.

Whether you accept them or not does not change their factual nature or the truth.

So far your argument has been based on the relativity of your acceptance as somehow determining if what we believe is factual and true.

It's not.

and you talk about polemics?

Where are the polemics in my posts UB?

Pointing out lack of substance and polemics is not engaging in polemicis, it is simply point out what is there.

Every argument coming from you is a polemic nightmare as well. It's RCC party line, every last bit.

I don't think polemics means what you think it means . . .

(if you, of course, offer an argument beyond "not much of an argument here....")

LOLOL!

 

[thereselittleflower]

When you have nothing to add just call it unsubstantiated claims and more polemics...

I can't help but notice that several of my posts were totally ignored to engage on the personal attack above . . . . which of course, was false as a shown below . .

Yes he does, with the force of one who clearly understands he is the leader of the universal Church with real authoirty and power, ie the pope, sitting in the See of Peter the first Pope, disobedience to whom is a serious matter and nothing short of sin.

I agree, if someone comes to this with the assumption of sola scriptura as the basis of their paradigm, it would seem strange.

But if one let's go of that assumption, then it all comes together very nicely and logically.

God never expects that we set aside our reason and right use of logic. When applied correctly they help us discover what our assumptions are and whether they are valid or not.

That's what I had to ask myself about Luther . . a very good question . . it started me on the path that led me into Catholicism. It was a very worthy question to ask and pursue.

No, of course he isn't saying this . . but have they done more than the Catholic Church? No, no way.

Jesus promised the Apostles personally that the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into the ALL TRUTH.

If it was exactly waht Jesus said, then it was ALL TRUTH, nothing less.

If it was ALL TRUTH, then all was revealed that is necessary for faith and morals in this life. THIS is what we refer to as "The Fullness of Truth."

Since the Fulness of Truth was given to the Apostles, there is nothing left to be revealed that we need for this life regarding truth in faith and morals.

There is a great deal of myth that surrounds the inquistion created and fabricated by the Church's enemies during the Reformation.

Much of it has been debunked and exposed as fraud, exagerration, and fabrication.

The BBC, about 10 years ago, created a documnetary doing just this.

In fact, when the Spanish Inquisition was critically and objectively examined, it was found that most of what we have been led to believe through popularist history was ctually false.

In fact, what they discovered was the Spanish Inquisition was ahead of its time in the ways of judicially protecting human rights, care of prisonors, fairness of treatement and rendering justice.

In fact, the Spanish Inquisition's jails were a model for others to follow for many years to come. They were clean, offered clean water, decent food, clothing and bedding, and a systemtatic and effective hearing process with legal representation for the accused.

In fact, people caught in the secular system were in danger of dying before ever reached trial, which might be never, from bad food and water, disease, etc.

In fact, many would try to force their case to be transferred to the inquisitional system because they were assured of a fair trial in addition to the benefits above. They would get out of the death trap of the secular system.

In addition to all this, the tales of execution, burning at the stake and torture are fabrications and/or exagerations.

The truth is, the protestant inquistions killed and brutally tortured 100 to 1000 times more than all of the Catholic inquisitions put together.

So, if the Spanish Inquisition is holding you back, then there is no real reason for it to hold you back any longer.


The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, .........

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.


What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html
​

And that's just the witch burnings in protestant areas . . . . that is only the beginning . . . .

No, you claimed it was inaccurate . . you never proved it.

If God can inpsire an ASS to give His word to the prophet Balam, and Saul, His enemy, to prophecy like the prophets, then He can inspire anyone,

Inspiration has nothing to do with pecaability, ie sinfulness.

Peter was inspired to write scripture. He also sinned when he acted contrary to Church teaching and quit eatng and living like the gentiles when the judiazing jews came to where he was. Peter acted the part of the hypocrit.

That didn't stop God from inspiriting him to right scripture.

The point is, the Papacy is not a person, it is an office, and as with other offices, its validity and power and authority does not depend on the personal sinlessness of the one who occupies it.

If a very sinful person occupies the office of the president, even if he is a traitor, that does not invalidate the office of the presidency or its power and authority.

So the authority and power of the office continues regardless of the worthiness of the one occupying it.

Oh? Then why didn't they approve also the other books that were already in use?

Why did they leave those books out even though they were already in use?

Yep those books were already in use by the time of those councils, so it seems rather clear that the councils did more than simply give their stamp of approval to books "already in use". . . . .

Yeah, I noticed that too . . . those are called "strawman" and we sure see a lot of those in response to our well thought out logical and resaoned arguments.

Just part of the terrain I guess.



And he is claiming it is no small sin (that's what transgression means for those who oppose Catholicism)if they disobey him.

We sin when we disobey God appointed authority, so this obviously means he is God's appointed authority we are to obey, sitting in Peter's chair.

Still waiting for responses to those as well as others . . . .

 

[simonthezealot]

I think you should take this one to the formal
debate folder.
That would weed out the distracting remarks and
maybe could get to pure truth.

Hi Sun

I'd love to take on the "known for all ages" claim regarding universal authority to task in a formal debate to any takers.

 

[simonthezealot]

Hi Sun

I'd love to take on the "known for all ages" claim regarding universal authority to task in a formal debate to any takers.

What do you say chestertonrules?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And he is claiming it is no small sin (that's what transgression means for those who oppose Catholicism)if they disobey him.

We sin when we disobey God appointed authority, so this obviously means he is God's appointed authority we are to obey, sitting in Peter's chair.

No thanks. I don't dare bring up the "P" word again.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What does your acceptance or none acceptance of a fact have to do with whether something is a fact or not?

nothing. What does proclaiming something as fact, have to do with whether something is fact or not?

Facts, like truth, are facts regardless of whether you accept them or reject them.

I agree. So therefore, it may not be a fact, even if you accept it, or it might be, even if you reject it.

but saying "this is fact" is not making it fact.

How does what you see make it fact or not fact?

It doesn't. You are free to accept or reject facts since God gave us free will to do so.

That doesn't make it any less a fact.

and again, calling it fact, doesn't make it so either. All you can forward it as, is your belief. not fact.

Truth is not relative upon your acceptance or rejection of it.

now you're just getting repetitive.

Again, facts are no relative and do not depend on your acceptance of them to be facts, or your rejection of them to not be facts.
Proposing truth/facts are relative to one's acceptance or none acceptance of them is not a logical proposition.

more repetition.

btw, if you're going to bring up logic, how about you apply Occams razor (logic) to the passages, and find out if the most logical outcome of reading the passages, is that they mean that one organzation will have dominion over Christianity, with a titular head with infalliblity powers.

the RCC position doesn't pass the logic test on those passages, yet you are claiming logic.

That is different than claiming they are not facts.

Whether you accept them or not does not change their factual nature or the truth.

So far your argument has been based on the relativity of your acceptance as somehow determining if what we believe is factual and true.

It's not.

even more repetition. I've already made my rebuttal to this.

Where are the polemics in my posts UB?

Pointing out lack of substance and polemics is not engaging in polemicis, it is simply point out what is there.



I don't think polemics means what you think it means . . .

Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.

yes, you are. As we all are. yes, I know what it means.

LOLOL!

oh, are you going to claim you don't use that little hand wave a great deal? Again, I invite you to reread your own posts.

 

[thereselittleflower]

nothing. What does proclaiming something as fact, have to do with whether something is fact or not?I agree. So therefore, it may not be a fact, even if you accept it, or it might be, even if you reject it.



but saying "this is fact" is not making it fact.


and again, calling it fact, doesn't make it so either. All you can forward it as, is your belief. not fact.


now you're just getting repetitive.

more repetition.

btw, if you're going to bring up logic, how about you apply Occams razor (logic) to the passages, and find out if the most logical outcome of reading the passages, is that they mean that one organzation will have dominion over Christianity, with a titular head with infalliblity powers.

the RCC position doesn't pass the logic test on those passages, yet you are claiming logic.

Now all you are doing is flipping my response to your argument of non acceptance of fact into an strawman attack on our beliefs.

No one every said that "simply because" we say something is a fact, that this makes it a fact.

I never arguned that. So your response is one big stramwan.

You claim that the Catholic positon doesn't pass the "logic test" but you have yet to prove this . . mostly all I see in your responses are claims. I can't remember the last time I saw any actual evidence in your responses to us . . .

Until you have something more than claims, I see no point in taking such a claim as you made above seriously . . .

even more repetition. I've already made my rebuttal to this.

The rebuttal contains no evidence . . . just claims . . . not much of a rebuttal if you ask me.

Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.

Please provide the source of your definition.

Here are defnitions and they don't match yours very well:

The art or practice of disputation; especially, the use of aggressive argument to refute errors of doctrine
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm

the branch of Christian theology devoted to the refutation of errors
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Polemics /pəˈlɛmɪks, poʊ-/[puh-lem-iks, poh-] is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "" or beyond reproach.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics​

yes, you are. As we all are. yes, I know what it means.

I don't think so . . . .

oh, are you going to claim you don't use that little hand wave a great deal? Again, I invite you to reread your own posts.

It would serve you far better if you tried to defend your claims with actual evidence . . I can't think of one post of yours in this thread that has any actual evidence to support your claims against the Catholic Church . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It would serve you far better if you tried to defend your claims with actual evidence . . I can't think of one post of yours in this thread that has any actual evidence to support your claims against the Catholic Church . . .

You mean we haven't done that already?

No thanks. I don't dare bring up the "P" word again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now all you are doing is flipping my response to your argument of non acceptance of fact into an strawman attack on our beliefs.

No one every said that "simply because" we say something is a fact, that this makes it a fact.

That seems to be a popular word here.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Now all you are doing is flipping my response to your argument of non acceptance of fact into an strawman attack on our beliefs.

it's not an attack on your beliefs at all. It's pointing out that you can't make something fact, by claiming it as such.

No one every said that "simply because" we say something is a fact, that this makes it a fact.

oh, really? because I never stated that something wasn't fact, because I didn't believe it! Care to take your double standard down a notch?

I never arguned that. So your response is one big stramwan.

I really, really wish you wouldn't use logical fallacy arguments. You don't understand them, and you don't use them the way they are meant to be used.

You claim that the Catholic positon doesn't pass the "logic test" but you have yet to prove this . . mostly all I see in your responses are claims. I can't remember the last time I saw any actual evidence in your responses to us . . .

you never see evidence, unless it has Nihil Obstat engraved on it. I wasn't the one bringing up the evidence in this thread. Do you KNOW what Occams razor is? (I'll give you time to google it.) It is a progression of logic. RCC interpretation of key passages violates the premise. IF you are going to use logic as your argument, you have to come to grips with this.


Until you have something more than claims, I see no point in taking such a claim as you made above seriously . . .

The rebuttal contains no evidence . . . just claims . . . not much of a rebuttal if you ask me.

I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Your "not beliving it is a fact doesn't make it not a fact" has been rebutted. accept it or not, I don't care. It's coming from an opposing viewpoint to your own, so I'm damn sure I know what you'll consider it.

Please provide the source of your definition.



Here are defnitions and they don't match yours very well:

The art or practice of disputation; especially, the use of aggressive argument to refute errors of doctrine​

www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm​

the branch of Christian theology devoted to the refutation of errors​

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn​

Polemics /pəˈlɛmɪks, poʊ-/[puh-lem-iks, poh-] is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "" or beyond reproach.​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics​

www.dictonary.com. I'm sure you can read it for yourself. EVERYTHING we do on here, when we debate, is polemic. You use it as an insult and accusation, but it's really no such thing.
I don't think so . . . .

It would serve you far better if you tried to defend your claims with actual evidence . . I can't think of one post of yours in this thread that has any actual evidence to support your claims against the Catholic Church . . .

whatever, TLF.

of course you can't think of one post with "actual evidence."

I don't spout RCC party line "evidence" so you will never see it. Neither do anyone else who posted evidence in this thread.

I've news for you. You are not automatically right. Your opinion is not more valuable than others. You have no authority to proclaim what you believe as unwavering truth, and everyone else as neccessarily wrong.

and for the love of everything good, LEARN to use logical fallacies properly, if you are going to use them at all.

(now you can start chirping about "ad hominem" It will be funny to watch you misuse that one as well.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

here. This should help.


It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move on; there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition's arguments. Here are a few strategies I've found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner:

• State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy." Why? Because it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition's viewpoint as "fallacious" for rhetorical effect. Stating the fallacy's Latin name helps, because some people just aren't sure something's a fallacy unless Aristotle or some other authority called it one. Say something like, "The opposition points out that the voters supported X by a wide margin in last year's referendum. But this is just the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to public opinion!"
• Tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. But be careful -- you have to do this without sounding pedantic. You should state the fallacy's meaning as though you are reiterating what you assume your intelligent judge already knows. To continue the example above, say, "It doesn't matter how many people agree with you, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right." There, now you've defined for everyone what's fallacious about argumentum ad populum.
• Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect. Preferably, the example should also be an unfavorable analogy for the opposition's proposal. Thus: "Last century, the majority of people in some states thought slavery was acceptable, but that didn't make it so!"
• Finally, point out why the logical fallacy matters to the debate round. "This fallacious argument should be thrown out of the debate. And that means that the opposition's only remaining argument for X is...."

"evidence"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't spout RCC party line "evidence" so you will never see it. Neither do anyone else who posted evidence in this thread.

Also, the RCs will be happy to know I do not view the Pope/papacy in Revelation.

http://christianforums.com/t7164949-do-not-weep-the-great-city.html#post46609001
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City