Top Ten List of Anti-Catholic Debate Tactics
(Tactics most often used by "Evangelicals" and "Fundamentalists" in Catholic forums).
1. Change the subject. Change the subject and change it often. (Catholics have answers to every angle you can present, so the longer you stick to a given topic, the more evidence they are able to produce to oppose you and the often greater silent majority is reading all those arguments too, storing up more and more answers which oppose you so don't stick with any given topic for too long).
2. Always put the Catholic on the defense, don't let him/her be the one asking questions. (The person in control of the debate is the one asking the questions, never let the Catholic have control! Keep asking questions! Every time a question is answered, ask another one - but keep point #1 in mind).
3. Use the "You're as bad as we are" excuse, the tu quoque fallacy. (It is also an invalid distraction from the real subject at hand, but often works to divert Catholics into defending their own position instead of you having to defend yours (related to #2).
4. Flood your response with so much tangential information as to overwhelm the Catholic (and perhaps related to #1, get the Catholic to divert onto a tangential side-topic).
5. Once the Catholic has engaged a diversionary topic, wait a response or two then blame the Catholic for the diversion. (By this point the main point may be hopelessly lost and you've successfully dodged a potentially damaging topic to the anti-Catholic cause).
6. If you can't answer, go silent and hope the Catholic gets distracted and forgets you haven't answered yet.
7. If you're on a Catholic forum, and have gotten to a point where you can't answer, become so inflammatory that a moderator will kick you out. (Then you can claim to be a martyr and blame the Catholic moderator for your inability to answer).
8. Introduce multiple topics. (Again, related to #1 and #4, but in this case it is separate postings on different topics in hopes to distract the Catholics).
9. Don't cite your sources until challenged, then when you do - don't provide links. (Don't do anything which will make it easier for the Catholics to research the context because most of the time context supports the Catholics and not you. Once the Catholic has found your source and exposed the context, go back to tactic #1 or #2).
10. Never admit you're wrong, even in the smallest issues. If you were wrong, just move on to other topics (related to #6. It has also been suggested that this could be "never admit a Catholic is right;" and along with that it was suggested this should be #1).
(Please feel free to use the "Share It" feature to the right!)
Sounds strangely familiar. I know a guy that excels in all those techniques.
ReplyDeleteI know a guy like that, too. Familiar tactics that are used on BattleActs and Catholic Debate Forum time and time again.
ReplyDeleteI would add #11--If they mention they're a convert to Catholicism, find any way possible to call them a liar. They can't prove something so non-tangible so they will get distracted from the original topic trying to defend their conversion. As we all know, you can't defend Tradition if you've converted through the study of Scripture and history, right?
And #12--Use circular reasoning as much as possible. (ie, we know what the canon of ispired Scriptures are because they are in the Bible.) Catholics will then waste time pointing out your circular reasoning and be distracted, once again, from the true topic which I can not defend.
Both of which could probably be sub titles under your #4, #8, or #10.
Scott winks at Patty!
ReplyDelete;-)
3. Use the "You're as bad as we are" excuse. (It is an invalid distraction from the real subject at hand, but often works to divert Catholics into defending their own position instead of you having to defend yours (related to #2).
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of sthg that happens a lot in interactions between Sola Scripturists and RCs or EOx.
Here's how it goes:
RC reminds us that RCC claims to be infallible.
SSist says only Scr is.
RC tells SSist that the SSist doesn't even have an infallible canon of Scr, so can hardly say that Scr is sufficient since he doesn't infallibly know what Scr is.
SSist asks the RC for
1) an infallible canon of RCC's infallible teachings
2) failing that, a fallible list of RCC's infallible teachings
3) failing that, an infallible canon of Scr
4) failing that, a fallible canon of Scr.
The RC invariably fails on the first 3. When we get to #4, it's debatable whether the RC has an answer (Hippo or Carthage, usually), but that's the same 'predicament' the RC has charged the SSist with.
That's the point of the "you're as bad as we are" argument - it's used to defeat the RC argument. It's not used, at least as far as I remember, to advance the SS position.
Peace,
Rhology
cathmom5,
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that your #12 is just as applicable to your own position.
(See? There's another example! *I* didn't bring it up; the RC did.)
You use circular reasoning to identify RCC as the church Christ founded. And then you tell us that RCC has infallibly defined Matt 16:18 to mean that RCC is the church Christ founded. Etc.
Huh? It is NOT circular reasoning if it has a beginning and is a continuous line. The Church was founded in Matthew 16 by Jesus Christ. Why an EO would say that is false I don't understand. We were ONE until about a thousand years later. So, IF the EO claims to be THE Church founded by Christ (which was my understanding--perhaps I'm wrong) they would be in agreement with the Catholic Church on what Jesus said in Matthew.
ReplyDeleteThe difference, as I see it, between your (EO) position and the Catholic position is that we DO see you as our Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic sister. The late Pope John Paul called us the two arms of the same Body. The Catholic Church is at least attempting to the reconcile the ONE part again with the Orthodox Church. It sure would be nice if the EO laity were behind it also.
Just because it is considered Catholic doctrine doesn't make it false, Rhology. I believe that we have a LOT more in common than most laity will let on (on BOTH sides). Most of the problems I see are semantics. We agree on most doctrine and the doctrines we supposedly don't agree on seem to come down to two things, authority and the meanings of words.
We are both part of the Body. We should be working together to be a witness to the world, not fighting with each other.
Actually, cathmom, sadly since your church anathematised the Gospel of grace, we are on different sides. It's not how I wish it would be, but it is how it is.
ReplyDeleteThen, fine: It is NOT circular reasoning if it has a beginning and is a continuous line. The Scripture was given by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Why an RN would say that is false I don't understand. It has been unchanged now since it was written.
What's circular about that?
Alan,
ReplyDeleteHow about documenting where the Catholic Church has anathematized the "Gospel of Grace." We haven't.
You said:
SSist asks the RC for
1) an infallible canon of RCC's infallible teachings
2) failing that, a fallible list of RCC's infallible teachings
3) failing that, an infallible canon of Scr
4) failing that, a fallible canon of Scr.
The RC invariably fails on the first 3. When we get to #4, it's debatable whether the RC has an answer (Hippo or Carthage, usually), but that's the same 'predicament' the RC has charged the SSist with.
1) There has been no need for such a list, only those in heretical protest have asked for such a list. (Request 1 from you is a straw man - or perhaps given that you introduced this concept in a wholly different discussion, a red herring).
2) There are PLENTY of fallible lists! Dr. Ott's book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma being one of the most notable! (Request 2 from you is based upon a false notion).
3) The Canon of Sacred Scripture was infallibly defined at the Council of Trent. (Request 3 is also based in a false notion).
4) Since there is no failing on point 3, assertion 4 is moot.
I suppose I SHOULD have included the "infallible list of infallible teachings request" somewhere in the Top Ten List. The next time it is revised, it will likely make the list.
Scott<<<
I did make a comment earlier today. It never got sent posted. We are having very bad weather here right now.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Rhology, Scott corrected me on my error--thinking that you were one of our EO brothers. I mistook you for another commentor.
1) The Church teaches the Gospel message each and every day. Your accusation against the Church is false.
2) I, for one, don't agree that we are on "different sides." You don't accept the authority of His Church, I understand. I don't agree with your faith's teachings. However, we're both Christians and should be on the same side when it comes to witnessing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. The "other side" are the Muslims, Hindus, etc. who don't know and don't understand the Gospel.
3) The Church teaches that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you think otherwise, you've been ill informed. The circular reasoning is saying 'We know what books should be included in the canon of Scripture because they are in the Bible.' The Holy Spirit inspired MEN to write those books, to preserve those books, AND to choose which books to include in the Christian Bible. He did this through the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. You would not have the Scriptures you have today if it were not for His Holy Spirit filled Church.
Its been unchanged since it was written really? Do you know the history of the Scriptures at all? It didn't just drop out of the sky, as is. It took many, many men and many centuries of writing, copying, and preserving. Not changed? It changed every time a new "book" was added. They weren't all written at one go. What do you call the NT, uh, people would call that CHANGE.
What is RN? I am not a nurse. Is this some king of reference to the Catholic Church I'm not familiar with?
Hello Mr Windsor,
ReplyDeleteHow about documenting where the Catholic Church has anathematized the "Gospel of Grace." We haven't.
Do you believe that a sinner is justified before God by grace ALONE thru faith ALONE?
1) There has been no need for such a list, only those in heretical protest have asked for such a list.
OK. Then that's my answer for those who ask for an infallible Canon of Scr from Sola Scriptura. There has been no need for such a list, only those in heretical protest have asked for such a list.
That's why I use that kind of argument, the "you're in no better shape" argument - to defang these common and yet foolish arguments from the RC/EO side.
Dr. Ott's book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma being one of the most notable
1) Is it complete? Not missing one single item?
2) How do you know that?
3) The Canon of Sacred Scripture was infallibly defined at the Council of Trent
No it wasn't. At least one book was passed over in silence. That is not an infallible Canon, sorry.
cathmom5,
Yeah, sorry, I should've realised you thought I was EO. My apologies for not being clearer. I'm a Reformed Baptist.
I, for one, don't agree that we are on "different sides." You don't accept the authority of His Church, I understand. I don't agree with your faith's teachings.
I urge you to read Galatians 1:6-10 very closely, then the rest of Galatians equally closely. Your church preaches the error of the Judaisers, seeking to add works to grace for one's justification, and that is damnable.
However, we're both Christians
I'm sorry, I cannot agree with this. I am a Christian. You are a Roman Catholic.
3) The Church teaches that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you think otherwise, you've been ill informed
Yes, I know.
You would not have the Scriptures you have today if it were not for His Holy Spirit filled Church.
So you apparently agree that the Sola Scriptura claim is not circular either, in the way you mean. That's fine with me.
It changed every time a new "book" was added. They weren't all written at one go.
Obviously, I meant that the books have been in the mind of God from eternity past, and have thus never changed. God progressively revealing them one at a time does not equal "the Bible has changed".
What is RN? I am not a nurse.
Oops, I meant "RC". Fat-fingered it. Sorry about that!
Peace,
Rhology
>> sw: How about documenting where
ReplyDelete>> the Catholic Church has
>> anathematized the "Gospel of
>> Grace." We haven't.
>
> AR: Do you believe that a sinner
> is justified before God by grace
> ALONE thru faith ALONE?
sw: Your asking ME a question is not YOU documenting YOUR case. Strike ONE!
>> sw: 1) There has been no need
>> for such a list, only those in
>> heretical protest have asked
>> for such a list.
>
> AR: OK. Then that's my answer
> for those who ask for an
> infallible Canon of Scr from
> Sola Scriptura.
sw: That question has not been asked of you in this particular discussion. Strike TWO!
> AR: There has been no need for
> such a list, only those in
> heretical protest have asked for
> such a list. That's why I use
> that kind of argument, the
> "you're in no better shape"
> argument - to defang these
> common and yet foolish arguments
> from the RC/EO side.
sw: That's #3 on my Top Ten List. The "you're in no better shape" argument does not defend YOUR position, it is an invalid red herring argument. Strike THREE, YOU'RE OUT!
>> sw: Dr. Ott's book
>> Fundamentals of Catholic
>> Dogma being one of the
>> most notable
>
> AR: 1) Is it complete? (2)Not missing one single item?
sw: That's TWO questions. 1) It doesn't claim to be, nor did I claim it was.
(2) I haven't gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I would not be surprised if "one" (or more) were not included. Again, it's not intended to be the all inclusive exhaustive list - it is the "FUNDAMENTALS" of Catholic Dogma. Funny how the title pretty much tells you what it is, isn't it?
> AR: 2) How do you know that?
sw: That's really #3, for those who can count. How do I know? Um, I just answered that, the TITLE tells us what it IS.
>> sw: 3) The Canon of Sacred
>> Scripture was infallibly
>> defined at the Council of Trent
>
> AR: No it wasn't. At least one
> book was passed over in silence.
sw: (sigh) That's been answered for you numerous times, but I'll answer again. The Canon which was defined is that of "The Old Latin Vulgate" - the canon used by St. Jerome. In the DEFINITION there is no silence.
> AR: That is not an infallible
> Canon, sorry.
sw: Sorry, but the canon was infallibly declared. I'm sorry you cannot see that and do not accept the authority granted Christ's Church by Christ Himself.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
I am a Christian. The fact that you can't see that Rhology, makes me question your use of the term.
ReplyDeleteJesus said, 'You are light for the world. A city built on a hill-top cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp to put it under a tub; they put it on the lamp-stand where it shines for everyone in the house.
In the same way your light must shine in people's sight, so that, SEEING YOUR GOOD WORKS, they may give praise to your Father in heaven." (Matt. 5:14-16)
He also said, "In all truth I tell you, whoever believes in me WILL PERFORM THE SAME WORKS AS I DO MYSELF, and will perform even greater works, because I am going to the Father." AND "If you love me you will KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS." (John 14:12,15)
James wrote, "You see now that IT IS BY DEEDS, and NOT ONLY by believing, that someone is justified.
There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, WAS SHE NOT JUSTIFIED BY HER DEEDS because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?
As a body without a spirit is DEAD, SO IS FAITH WITHOUT DEEDS."
(James 2:24-26)
Read this please, cathmom.
ReplyDeleteCathmom, would you agree with the statement "We are saved by grace after all we can do"?
SW,
ReplyDeletePlease see here.
Rhology, I can't agree with a statement that doesn't make grammatical sense. So, no.
ReplyDeletecathmom,
ReplyDeleteIt does make grammatical sense - after all we can do, grace kicks in to finish the job of salvation.
Agree or disagree? On a doctrinal basis, not a grammatical one, please.
It wasn't meant as a smart aleck remark. It didn't make sense to me, even after reading it several times, and I can't just agree or disagree. If we don't speak the "same language," we certainly can't come to any agreement now can we? Even now the question is too ambiguous for me to answer. If pressed, I would say no, because on the face of it, it doesn't make sense to me if I don't know what your definition of grace is.
ReplyDeleteAs Charles Ryrie author of 'The Grace of God' said, "Within Christianity, there are differing conceptions of grace. In particular, Catholics and Protestants use the word in substantially different ways. It has been termed "the watershed that divides Catholicism from Protestantism, Calvinism from Arminianism, modern liberalism from conservatism."
[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace]
For a Catholic Christian, "[CCC 1996] Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. [46 Cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.]
"[1999] The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: [48 Cf. Jn 4:14; 7:38-39] Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself. [49 2 Cor 5:17-18]"
I hope that helps.
Responding to Alan's careless: "Scott Windsor, distracted" response:
ReplyDelete> AR: It is entirely possible
> Scott Windsor, while typing out
> his latest comment to me, was
> watching a World Cup
> footsoccerball match and could
> not think clearly through the
> buzz of those insanity-inducing
> vuvuzelas from the crowd. Had
> to be something, b/c his comment
> is a mess, as if he forgot where
> he was. It's bizarre; I
> encourage you to read it for
> yourself.
sw: And all the above is nothing more than personal jabs and attempts at one-upsmanship. (Yawn). One might question what YOU were paying attention to though, my analogy was clearly a BASEBALL analogy, and you make reference to the World Cup (Soccer/Football) - FIFA, of which I really have very little interest in beyond seeing how far the US Team makes it this time around. I'd much rather be at a D-Backs game.
>> sw: Your asking ME a
>> question is not YOU
>> documenting YOUR case.
>
> AR: Oh, I get it - you're less
> interested in a substantial case
> made than you are in rapidity of
> reply. You could stand to
> cultivate a bit of patience in
> your life.
sw: No, what I'm interested in is in civil discourse in valid and logical debate. Answering a question with a question is none of the above.
(continued below...)
(continuing...)
ReplyDelete> AR: Now, my question?
sw: Not so fast! You haven't documented yourself yet! When you do THEN you have the right to demand a response from me. Let us recap:
sw: I asked:
>>> sw: How about documenting where
>>> the Catholic Church has
>>> anathematized the "Gospel of
>>> Grace." We haven't.
You responded:
>> AR: Do you believe that a sinner
>> is justified before God by grace
>> ALONE thru faith ALONE?
sw: So, when you document where the Catholic Church has anathematized the "Gospel of Grace" - THEN you can ask your follow-up/leading question.
>>> AR: OK. Then that's my answer
>>> for those who ask for an
>>> infallible Canon of Scr
>>> from Sola Scriptura.
>>
>> sw: That question has not been
>> asked of you in this particular
>> discussion.
>
> AR: ???? That's the very
> question I explicitly identified
> as the challenge I'm responding
> to when I make these "you're in
> just as 'bad' shape as we are"
> arguments! Someone's not paying
> attention...
sw: Like saying I'm watching soccer after I made a baseball analogy? Seriously though, THE question put to YOU, Alan, is can you document where the Catholic Church has anathematized the "Gospel of Grace?" I have flatly asserted that we haven't so the burden of proof here lies with the one holding the positive (that would be you, Alan, since you explicitly state we have anathematized the "Gospel of Grace").
(continued below...)
>> sw: That's #3 on my Top Ten
ReplyDelete>> List. The "you're in no better
>> shape" argument does not defend
>> YOUR position, it is an invalid
>> red herring argument.
>
> AR: Yup, you're not paying
> attention. The astute reader,
> who actually attempts to use
> his memory and fairly represent
> the other side, will recall that
> I entered this combox for the
> explicit and express purpose of
> disputing #3. And now Mr
> Windsor crows: "Heh heh! You
> violated #3!!!!"
sw: Those are not my words! If you're going to "quote" me - do so ACCURATELY! Please do not be inventing words I did not say. You didn't "violate #3" - you USED IT! That's not a violation! Now "pay attention" the list is a list of TACTICS used by anti-Catholics! Thank you for quite amicably illustrating this for the "astute reader!"
> AR continues: Um, yes, I know
> that. I think #3 is stupid.
sw: Well, whether you think it's "stupid" or not does not change the FACT that to use such an analogy does NOT PROVE YOUR CASE and is simply a RED HERRING APPROACH, which is one of the "Common Fallacies" of rhetoric. What you're demonstrating is that you haven't a clue about valid argumentation - AND - if you did, you'd AVOID such tactics - certainly you would not boast about it!
> AR: What's really funny is that
> Windsor linked to the very same
> post in whose combox we're
> having this discussion! Sir,
> may I suggest with the most
> kindness I possibly can - you
> are embarrassing yourself.
> Pay attention, or don't comment.
sw: Perhaps you never get quoted elsewhere, but I do! If someone copies and pastes into an HTML aware document, the link will come across taking them back to this discussion. I'm fully aware of the discussion we're partaking in and it is not ME who's embarrassing himself! Perhaps before you get all snotty and smart alecky about it, you might want to bring up the fact that I linked to the main article that the combox is attached to and let me EXPLAIN it to you before you run off at the keyboard with your... well, I'll leave it at that and remain civil.
(continued below...)
>>> AR: 1) Is it complete? (2)Not
ReplyDelete>>> missing one single item?
>>
>> sw: That's TWO questions.
>
> AR: Um, yes. It sure is.
sw: I'm glad you agree. YOU are the one who numbered your questions!
>> sw: 1) It doesn't claim to be,
>> nor did I claim it was.
>
> AR: So it's not a fallible list
> of infallible doctrines of the
> RCC.
sw: The "astute reader" can see that your questions were "Is it complete?" And, "Not missing a single item?" So you were NOT ASKING ABOUT FALLIBILITY - only COMPLETENESS! I've already stated that Dr. Ott's book is a good list of fundamentals on Catholic dogma - hmmmm, sounds a LOT like the TITLE of Dr. Ott's book!
> AR: Even though before, I'd said:
>>> AR: (The RCC can't provide)
>>> failing that, a fallible list
>>> of RCC's infallible teachings
> AR: and then you answered:
>> SW: There are PLENTY of
>> fallible lists! Dr. Ott's book
>> Fundamentals of Catholic
>> Dogma being one of the
>> most notable!
sw: You skipped my response to your second question (the "astute reader" already saw that, but let me repost it again here and see if you'll acknowledge it THIS time:
>> sw: (2) I haven't gone through
>> it with a fine-tooth comb, but
>> I would not be surprised if
>> "one" (or more) were not
>> included. Again, it's not
>> intended to be the all inclusive
>> exhaustive list - it is the
>> "FUNDAMENTALS" of Catholic
>> Dogma. Funny how the title
>> pretty much tells you what it
>> is, isn't it?
Moving along:
>> sw: 2) That's really #3, for
>> those who can count.
>
Alan (being a smart alec again) responds:
> AR: Yes, that's right too!
> 2+1=3! Gold star!
sw: I was just being "astute."
>> sw: How do I know? Um, I just
>> answered that, the TITLE tells
>> us what it IS.
>
> AR: Oh, OK. Well, my Bible says
> "The Holy Bible" on the title.
> What? You want an infallible
> canon? Hey, get off my back!
> I just answered that, the TITLE
> tells us what it IS.
sw: And I repeat, as the "astute reader" likely already caught, I didn't ask you about an infallible canon in this discussion! That's simply YOUR RED HERRING (invalid argument) in this debate!
(continued below...)
Continuing...
ReplyDelete>> sw: The Canon which was defined
>> is that of "The Old Latin
>> Vulgate" - the canon used by
>> St. Jerome. In the DEFINITION
>> there is no silence.
>
> AR: Sorry, but you're simply
> wrong about that.
sw: So you assert... however, HERE is THE DEFINITION:
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session IV - Celebrated on the eighth day of April, 1546 under Pope Paul III.
sw: I stand upon what I said which is in complete agreement with the infallible definition from the Council of Trent.
> AR concludes his response: Next
> time, pay attention. You'll get
> better work done.
sw: Well, perhaps next time you'll drop the juvenile antics and try some valid rhetoric. You haven't put a dent in what I said. My "work" was just fine. So, when you get around to some serious thought, answer the challenge before you, Document where the Catholic Church has anathematized the "Gospel of Grace."
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Skipping past the silliness about baseball vs soccer...
ReplyDeleteThe reasonable interlocutor will answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes/no answer. Not all yes/no questions are yes/no-answerable, obviously, but this one is.
But since you're intent on being stubborn, I'll explain what I mean in clear terms, although it's kind of shameful that a RC apologetics blogger with as much experience as you have wouldn't know exactly where I was headed with my question.
Adding works to grace is a violation of I don't know how many clear biblical soteriological psgs, including but not limited to the entirety of Galatians, Romans 4, and Romans 11:6. When you add works to grace, it's, you know, sorta not grace anymore. It's law. Yet the Council of Trent anathematised anyone who'd hold to Sola Fide.
You didn't "violate #3" - you USED IT! That's not a violation!
Hyperbolic offense over semantics. Any reasonable reader would know exactly what you meant in your apparent daze, and what I meant by "violation".
Well, whether you think it's "stupid" or not does not change the FACT that to use such an analogy does NOT PROVE YOUR CASE and is simply a RED HERRING APPROACH, which is one of the "Common Fallacies" of rhetoric.
Um, OK. I was merely explaining to you that the whole point of my being here was to explain to you that I think #3 is stupid and why. I don't see where I used "#3 is stupid. Ergo, it's untrue." as an argument, but you're free to quote me if you can find it.
YOU are the one who numbered your questions!
Quite. And yet you for some bizarre reason decided to tell us all how many questions I'd asked. But I'm sure we all appreciate the arithmetics tutelage.
The "astute reader" can see that your questions were "Is it complete?" And, "Not missing a single item?" So you were NOT ASKING ABOUT FALLIBILITY - only COMPLETENESS!
So, if I ask for "a list" and you give me a partial list that does not include the whole set of items asked for, what good is what you gave me?
I've already stated that Dr. Ott's book is a good list of fundamentals on Catholic dogma - hmmmm, sounds a LOT like the TITLE of Dr. Ott's book!
But it's not a complete list. Where is your (complete, obviously) list?
, I didn't ask you about an infallible canon in this discussion! That's simply YOUR RED HERRING (invalid argument) in this debate!
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to my first comment in this thread. You're still not paying attention, and that's kind of sad.
Rhology Says:
Monday, June 14, 2010 8:25:00 AM
3. Use the "You're as bad as we are" excuse. (It is an invalid distraction from the real subject at hand, but often works to divert Catholics into defending their own position instead of you having to defend yours (related to #2).
This reminds me of sthg that happens a lot in interactions between Sola Scripturists and RCs or EOx.
Here's how it goes:
RC reminds us that RCC claims to be infallible.
SSist says only Scr is.
RC tells SSist that the SSist doesn't even have an infallible canon of Scr, so can hardly say that Scr is sufficient since he doesn't infallibly know what Scr is.
SSist asks the RC for
1) an infallible canon of RCC's infallible teachings
2) failing that, a fallible list of RCC's infallible teachings
3) failing that, an infallible canon of Scr
4) failing that, a fallible canon of Scr.
The RC invariably fails on the first 3. When we get to #4, it's debatable whether the RC has an answer (Hippo or Carthage, usually), but that's the same 'predicament' the RC has charged the SSist with.
That's the point of the "you're as bad as we are" argument - it's used to defeat the RC argument. It's not used, at least as far as I remember, to advance the SS position.
------------------
I don't like pasting comments, b/c I prefer to move on and actually progress conversations, but since my 1st comment has apparently not yet registered in your mind, I am obliged.
HERE is THE DEFINITION:
No response given to the article I cited. Typical.
Peace,
Rhology
> AR: Let's go back to my first
ReplyDelete> comment in this thread. You're
> still not paying attention, and
> that's kind of sad.
sw: Well, if you want to continue playing the belittling game, what's "sad" is that you WERE answered on this and it is not *ME* who is not paying attention! My first response to you dealt with your numbered points BY NUMBER! I'll not rehash those now anyone can look above (or if this is copied outside the CathApol Blog, follow the link I made) but in summary, your first 3 points were answered (and you conclusions demonstrably false) leaving your 4th point moot. On top of all that, you PROVED #3 on the "Top Ten List" to be TRUE! You used the tactic! THAT is MY point!
sw: As for your comment of:
>> sw: HERE is THE DEFINITION:
>
> AR: No response given to the
> article I cited. Typical.
sw: I will accept the responsibility of not being more clear... but THAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO THAT ARTICLE! I read it, and Carrie did not include the definition! So, I quoted, cited and linked the definition - which specifically includes as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition which destroys your allegation against me of being "wrong about that" when I specifically stated that the infallible definition had not overlooked any book in silence since it ALSO states as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, so while I could have been more clear in how that was indeed my response to Carrie's article which was your answer to my statement on the infallible definition of the Canon of Sacred Scripture, if you were "paying attention" you should have caught that.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
On top of all that, you PROVED #3 on the "Top Ten List" to be TRUE! You used the tactic! THAT is MY point!
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that.
For the 4th time, that's why I commented - to challenge #3 and explain why it's perfectly reasonable to use it and in which context. It'd be great if you could respond to that.
I read it, and Carrie did not include the definition!
Read the bolded text:
...that this question be left intact to posterity (Acts: 'be omitted and left*) as it was left to us by our Fathers." The General of the Servites, Bonucci, insisted, in his turn, ". . . that this question must surely be left intact (Acts omit this part of his statement) as, in points on which Jerome and Augustine disagree, the Church has not been accustomed to pass judgment (Acts: 'the Synod should not pass judgment, as the Church has not been accustomed to do so').”
> AR: Yes, I know that. For the 4th
ReplyDelete> time, that's why I commented - to
> challenge #3 and explain why it's
> perfectly reasonable to use it
> and in which context.
sw: I fully understand that you THINK it is perfectly reasonable to use such a RED HERRING argument. MY point is simply acknowledging your use of #3. Bully for you! You affirm it yourself and are proud of it! We can let this go now. I doubt we'll agree on the acceptability of such a RED HERRING argument, but we DO agree that you use the tactic. My work here is done.
> AR: It'd be great if you could
> respond to that.
sw: I did. You numbered your reasons, remember? I responded BY NUMBER! Look at my FIRST RESPONSE to you in this combox!
>> sw: I read it, and Carrie did
>> not include the definition!
>
> AR: Read the bolded text:
(you didn't bold anything)
> ...that this question be left
> intact to posterity (Acts: 'be
> omitted and left*) as it was left
> to us by our Fathers." The
> General of the Servites, Bonucci,
> insisted, in his turn, ". . .
> that this question must surely be
> left intact (Acts omit this part
> of his statement) as, in points
> on which Jerome and Augustine
> disagree, the Church has not been
> accustomed to pass judgment
> (Acts: 'the Synod should not pass
> judgment, as the Church has not
> been accustomed to do so').”
sw: Even without the bolding, you did not include the DEFINITION there either! Who's not paying attention?! I provided the definition, quoted, cited and linked it (above). PAY ATTENTION!
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Hello,
ReplyDeleteYes, we are done here. It's not a red herring argument; it's a tu quoque, BTW.
Well, you learn something new everyday it seems... I have not heard the "tu quoque" before, and now I have. Thanks! I appreciate that! (Truly). That being said, any argument which distracts can be a red herring so while the fallacy you have named is more precise - the one I labeled it as was not false. But again, I appreciate the learning, and will update the "List" to reflect that.
ReplyDeleteNow, it appears, you have agreed that your argument is a logical fallacy, so you're ending the discussion.
It's only a fallacy if I use it to argue that my point is true. I'm not arguing that. This is not an argument FOR my position; it's a defeater of your argument against mine. Internal critique.
ReplyDeleteSo Alan, let me get this straight, the logic of what you're saying (you're not arguing that your point is true) leads us to logically conclude that your statement of defeating my statement is false. So thanks for the concession!
ReplyDeleteThat being said - MY statement (#3 in the "Top Ten List") is only that anti-Catholics USE these tactics. All you have done is AFFIRM you USE TACTIC #3 and for some reason you think that makes the list flawed!?
Sorry, you're confused.
ReplyDeleteLet's take this in chronological order.
You say that Prots do X and therefore RCC is true b/c RCC doesn't do X.
I point out that RCC does in fact do X.
You are now supposed to stop using argument X.
That is what you're complaining about in #3. It WOULD be fallacious if I were to say "Nuh uh! Protestantism is true b/c RCC does the same thing!" but that's not what I do, not even close. I'm showing your position is guilty of the thing YOU CLAIM is a defeater for Protestantism.
Thus you should give up that argument. That's why #3 is useful. It's a "top 10 tactic" b/c it's a good one.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteYou must enjoy embarrassment! YOU pointed out that #3 has another name, which at the time *I* didn't know either. It is also known as the logical fallacy of the tu quoque! What part of "logical fallacy" sounds good to you? Yes, there IS a way it CAN be used validly, but the way YOU propose it is as a DISTRACTION from the point at hand - without actually dealing with the point at hand! You actually EMBRACE this logical fallacy!
But you know what Alan, I'm really OK with you using it and being proud of using it. The use of this fallacy doesn't make Protestantism true or false, it just makes that particular argument INVALID. It doesn't further the cause of Protestantism and does not answer the challenge the Catholic put out there, all it says is "you're as bad as we are," or can be referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black" - but it's still a logical fallacy.
Keep in mind, "the list" is NOT an argument! "The list" is a statement of tactics used by anti-Catholics! Your affirming of #3 doesn't take away from what I said - you just confirm that what I said, at least as far as #3, is absolutely TRUE!
Thank you again!
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
You're affirming of #3 doesn't take away from what I said - you just confirm that what I said, at least as far as #3, is absolutely TRUE!
ReplyDeleteIt's "Your".
Yes, and I admitted in my first comment (for those who pay attention) that I use #3. And then I explained why, and why your criticism of #3 is unfounded.
>> sw: You're affirming of #3
ReplyDelete>> doesn't take away from what I
>> said - you just confirm that what
>> I said, at least as far as #3, is
>> absolutely TRUE!
>
> AR: It's "Your".
sw: Yes, I know and caught that myself within seconds of posting the comment, deleted the comment and reposted with "Your." You must be getting emails when a post is made and you responded to the first email and not the second.
> AR: Yes, and I admitted in my
> first comment (for those who pay
> attention) that I use #3. And
> then I explained why,
sw: Thank you again for validating #3 on the list belongs there! (And really folks, I'm NOT paying him to say that!)
> AR: and why your criticism of #3
> is unfounded.
sw: Oh, I'm not criticizing #3, why would I criticize my own list? I simply stated a fact that anti-Catholics use the tactics on the list, which you affirm that you use #3. YOU also pointed out the more precise name of the common fallacy (tu quoque) and I appreciated that as well.
sw: You can keep agreeing with me all you want! Thanks again!
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Alan just can't seem to leave this one alone!
ReplyDeleteHere's the latest link to his continuing to AGREE with me on the use of #3 in the list!
James Swan replies:
ReplyDelete10. Never admit you're wrong, even in the smallest issues.
Out of curiosity, have you ever admitted you were wrong on even the smallest of issues in debates with Roman Catholics?
> JS: I've never been a Romanist,
sw: Nor have I.
> JS: so there have been times
> when I've been wrong on Romanist
> related issues- even Luther
> related issues. As to specifics,
> I'd have to sift through my blog
> entries over the years, and dig
> them out. I don't plan on doing
> this- but rest assured on an
> important matter I will concede
> to error- why shouldn't I? I'm
> just a guy with a blog.
sw: I appreciate hearing this, and I'm not asking you to dig up previous times where you've admitted to error. Keep in mind, the "Top Ten List" does not state that ALL anti-Catholics use ALL tactics. You've already affirmed the validity of at least #3 on the list, as has Alan.
> JS: I don't have a pay pal
> account set up trying to pass
> myself off as some sort of
> "Pro-apologist" that deserves
> your hard earned money. I've
> found there are some people
> pretending to be apologetic
> "authorities" that think they
> deserve donations, when in fact,
> like me, they are simply people
> with blogs or websites. I won't
> name names (you know who you
> are), but those people should
> repent of their pride and
> thievery.
sw: I have no idea what this statement has to do with #10 on the Top Ten List! You've just validated #1 on the list!
sw: The above being said, I personally have no problem with someone having a PayPal link on their website or blog! You could do it too, and I would see no fault in it at all. If people choose to support those who are supporting their beliefs - and choose to do so financially, where's the "thievery?" You've made this argument before and frankly, it's just a silly one. If someone can make some money doing apologetics work, more power to them!
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
>> sw: "As for #10 on The List,
ReplyDelete>> "pay attention" - it specifies
>> "even in the smallest issues."
>> You're changing #10 to suit
>> your needs and I'm not going to
>> play that game with you."
TUaD writes:
> Scott Windsor,
> Your original diarrhea mouth
> game of "even in the smallest
> issues" is just silly and
> ridiculous.
sw: Your apparent need to use insulting commentary is duly noted. The "Top Ten List" we're discussing, especially #10 - which you have focused on, is a concise single sentence comment. When you say "diarrhea mouth" I would take that as meaning "running at the mouth" as in a long drawn out statement. #10 on the list does not fit your insulting description, but your description speaks volumes to your character.
> TUad: Hence, I made it more
> substantive with:
>
> "Has Scott Windsor ever admitted
> he was wrong in any of his
> debates with you on something
> that was not irrelevant or not
> inconsequential?
>
> Show me ten times where you
> admitted that you were wrong on
> something that was not
> irrelevant or not inconsequential.
>
> To make it easier to begin,
> start by showing me three
> instances where you admitted you
> were wrong on something
> substantial and important."
>
> So either show everyone where
> you admitted you were wrong on
> something substantial and
> important or stop being a
> diarrhea mouth.
sw: I'm in agreement with Mr. Swan on this one (see above) and I'll not go digging through my blog or website to find examples, but rest assured - "if I am proven wrong on an important issue, I will concede to the error - why shouldn't I? I'm just a guy with a blog."
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Hmm, I am a former Roman Catholic who has been a member of a Presbyterian church for many years, and as a result I do have various types of discussions with Roman Catholics--I have never, to my knowledge, used any of those 10 tactics.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to make a list of the top 10 tactics of RC's one of them would be the use of the term-"Anti-Catholic"
That's an inflammatory term that from the start unfairly-in most cases-mischaracterizes the other person.
I am not anti-Catholic--that implies I hate Catholics. I most certainly do not--Most of my family is still Catholic and I know several others.
I'm no fan of most RC doctrine.
But I can separate that from the person.
Hi pilgrim! You know, if you don't participate in any of those tactics then perhaps you're NOT an anti-Catholic! :-) I always welcome respectful discussions and comments from non-Catholics.
ReplyDeleteSo, no more Real Presence for you?
In JMJ,
Scott<<<