Biblical Logical Fallacies?

[thecreationtutor]

You haven't found "Scriptures to back it up" unless your presentation of those Scriptures are in agreement with all the Scriptures.

I would say that's the underlining desire

 

[Elin]

I would agree! but
we can look back at OT in light of knowing Both testiments

The OT must be understood in the light of the new revelations (mysteries) given after it in the NT.

The OT cannot be the light in which new revelations (mysteries) not contained in it,
and given after it in the NT, are understood.

 

[Elin]

Psalms 51:5:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Sorry, I can't have a serious conversation with one who turns truths of Scripture into hyperbole.

That is quite alright. It is very rare that those who promote being "born a sinner" as truth will even attempt to directly engage what I write.

That's because you do not understand Ro 5:12-21 in the light of Ro 4:15,

nor do you believe Ps 51:5, preferring instead your own contra-Biblical notions to all of them.

Therefore, "engaging in what you write" is an exercise in futility.

 

[And]

If p, then q

P therefore q

If (idea x) is true, I can find scriptures to back that up

I find scriptures that back it up, therefore (idea x) is true


This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent

if you do not prove it - you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent


Don't we call this eisegesis - where we start at a premise, then we find scriptures to back said premise?

Christians dont argue
we dont need a reason to due something other than the Jesus word of God said to
thats it

taking scripture out of context is what all denominations of Babylon confusion papistry do.
they take out of context verses and out of contet stories and words that are redefined as something else than what they were defined at
and they
become lost

they will perish

so you have to be careful

best way is to read the whole BOOK

if you want to take a VERSE out of the book you should have first read the whole book

example:

people use ROMANS to prove the ten commandments are done away with

they didnt read the book

PAul says the CIRCUMCISION and the SACRIFICES are done away with
the last three verses in romans state BUT STILL WE MUST KEEP GODS LAW OF COURSE

so just read the book before you take any verses and pray

hint
if you are taking ANY verses from the Bible to prove the law of the ten commandments is done away,
well
you did not read the Bible
you used some Jesuit programmer fallacious Bible study that took verses out of context.

if you even hint the ten commandments are done away with, the argument is over.
go home
you are wrong

Bible says so


look it up



tell you what
why dont you go READ the Bible
and as you read it
do what it says?
that is called christianity

if someone is saying something against the Bible I will tell them so as I have read the Bible
and I know what we are to do
Most people who post verses up here post them out of context

Be sure
I will be here.
and you will know it

 

[Elin]

By denying free-will you are upholding the notion that sin is not a choice and therefore dispensing yourself of being personally responsible for your sin.

That is philosophical (Pelagius) reasoning, which the Bible denies.

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
and slaves are not free.

The Bible teaches that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36;
cf Jn 8:32; Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).

Your preference for your own contra-Biblical notions instead of Scripture
makes "engaging in what you write" an exercise in futility.

 

[thecreationtutor]

That is philosophical (Pelagius) reasoning, which the Bible denies.

The Bible teaches that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Gal 3:22; Ro 11:32),
and slaves are not free.

The Bible teaches that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36;
cf Jn 8:32; Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1).

Your preference for your own contra-Biblical notions instead of Scripture
makes "engaging in what you write" an exercise in futility.

lol nice

Man thinks his will is sovereign, it is not,
man thinks his will is not fallen, it is
Man apart from Christ, is a slave to sin, that doesn't sound free to me

 

[thecreationtutor]

Christians dont argue
we dont need a reason to due something other than the Jesus word of God said to
thats it

taking scripture out of context is what all denominations of Babylon confusion papistry do.
they take out of context verses and out of contet stories and words that are redefined as something else than what they were defined at
and they
become lost

they will perish

so you have to be careful

best way is to read the whole BOOK

if you want to take a VERSE out of the book you should have first read the whole book

example:

people use ROMANS to prove the ten commandments are done away with

they didnt read the book

PAul says the CIRCUMCISION and the SACRIFICES are done away with
the last three verses in romans state BUT STILL WE MUST KEEP GODS LAW OF COURSE

so just read the book before you take any verses and pray

hint
if you are taking ANY verses from the Bible to prove the law of the ten commandments is done away,
well
you did not read the Bible
you used some Jesuit programmer fallacious Bible study that took verses out of context.

if you even hint the ten commandments are done away with, the argument is over.
go home
you are wrong

Bible says so


look it up



tell you what
why dont you go READ the Bible
and as you read it
do what it says?
that is called christianity

if someone is saying something against the Bible I will tell them so as I have read the Bible
and I know what we are to do
Most people who post verses up here post them out of context

Be sure
I will be here.
and you will know it

sure, your point being?

 

[gregfl]

you gnostic clowns can blame your sin on God now,good luck with that on judgement day lol

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 

[LT]

too much flawed human reasoning here,
not enough understanding.

The Holy Spirit gives us victory over sin here on earth. By Spirit, not by flesh, we can be victorious over our chains and vices.
Being born of Adam, we still have the capacity to sin,
but being born of the Spirit, we can gain victory.

Does this mean we will ever reach a place of sinlessness?
No, but it means that we don't have to fall into the same pits over and over again.

A liar or a fool calls himself sinless. A humble Believer knows their flaws (because of the conviction of the Spirit), and depends on the Spirit to help them gain victory over them.

 

[psalm6819]

Logical Biblical fallacies???? Oxymoron. There are no fallacies in the Bible, only things that one has not researched enough or has removed from proper context.

 

[LT]

Logical Biblical fallacies???? Oxymoron. There are no fallacies in the Bible, only things that one has not researched enough or has removed from proper context.

they title and op are not about the Bible being wrong, but people using the Bible wrongly.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Logical Biblical fallacies???? Oxymoron. There are no fallacies in the Bible, only things that one has not researched enough or has removed from proper context.

not saying the bible has fallacies, people are committing fallacies with scripture

 

[thecreationtutor]

you gnostic clowns can blame your sin on God now,good luck with that on judgement day lol

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

thank you for making a claim, no one has made on here

 

[gregfl]

[h=1]Affirming the Consequent[/h] [h=2]Explanation[/h] The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A
The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A obtained then a consequence B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that this consequence B does obtain. The faulty step then follows: the inference that the state of affairs A obtains.

or how about this one?

[h=1]the texas sharpshooter[/h] [h=3]Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.[/h]



[h=1][/h]

 

[thecreationtutor]

Affirming the Consequent

Explanation

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A
The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A obtained then a consequence B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that this consequence B does obtain. The faulty step then follows: the inference that the state of affairs A obtains.

or how about this one?

the texas sharpshooter

Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.

at least reference the website you clipped and pasted that from, I at least know the stuff

funny, but that's what we are talking about, people cherry picking scripture to suit their argument

or starting at man's morality and placing it on God - then coming up with their theology, that God is second to my morality

 

[gregfl]

i had about about a dozen sites bookmarked from my early days of studying calvinism,you could just google logical fallicies,but heres what i found
logic Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies Logical Fallacies Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate Logical Fallacies | The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Master List of Logical Fallacies list Common fallacies Fallacy List Rhetological Fallacies | Information Is Beautiful Logical Fallacies Handlist Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 10 types of logical fallacies flashcards | Quizlet rhetoric The Internet Classics Archive | Rhetoric by Aristotle Classical Rhetoric 101: Logical Fallacies | The Art of Manliness example - definition and examples of examples in rhetoric and logic - argument Purdue OWL: Establishing Arguments 50 Rhetorical Devices for Rational Writing Rhetoric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rhetoric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Logical Fallacies: Table of Contents
with some rhetoric thrown in lol

 

[ob77]

If p, then q

P therefore q

If (idea x) is true, I can find scriptures to back that up

I find scriptures that back it up, therefore (idea x) is true


This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent

if you do not prove it - you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent


Don't we call this eisegesis - where we start at a premise, then we find scriptures to back said premise?

Really?.....Really? If you ask a question, should not one know what the question is, before one answers it?
Perhaps you think me an utter dolt, and you could be right, but I believe plain speaking in colloquial English, would do nicely here. Perhaps I am asking too much, as you are so much smarter than we that are unwashed, I certainly would not want to offend. If you have a specific question ask it. And, ask it in terms that normal people can understand, even though it may be beneath you. Thanks bro, you rock!

 

[ob77]

i had about about a dozen sites bookmarked from my early days of studying calvinism,you could just google logical fallicies,but heres what i found
logic Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies Logical Fallacies Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate Logical Fallacies | The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Master List of Logical Fallacies list Common fallacies Fallacy List Rhetological Fallacies | Information Is Beautiful Logical Fallacies Handlist Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 10 types of logical fallacies flashcards | Quizlet rhetoric The Internet Classics Archive | Rhetoric by Aristotle Classical Rhetoric 101: Logical Fallacies | The Art of Manliness example - definition and examples of examples in rhetoric and logic - argument Purdue OWL: Establishing Arguments 50 Rhetorical Devices for Rational Writing Rhetoric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rhetoric - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Logical Fallacies: Table of Contents
with some rhetoric thrown in lol

Geshundheit!

 

[thecreationtutor]

Really?.....Really? If you ask a question, should not one know what the question is, before one answers it?
Perhaps you think me an utter dolt, and you could be right, but I believe plain speaking in colloquial English, would do nicely here. Perhaps I am asking too much, as you are so much smarter than we that are unwashed, I certainly would not want to offend. If you have a specific question ask it. And, ask it in terms that normal people can understand, even though it may be beneath you. Thanks bro, you rock![/QUOTE/]

30 minutes of homework, and you can figure this stuff out, it's not that hard. I am just stating terms, you can look them up on your own, and then work on the concepts

What I am trying to state, is that it seems you can make the Bible say just about anything you want it too.

The problem is our slants, our bias, our agendas(if we know we have them or not)

This is classic scientific method - which is a fallacy in itself

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end is death

What I tried to say is the Bible is one message, consistent as a whole, and we should start from that point, not starting from an opinion or a feeling, then find verses that support our feelings