Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Useful example/exercise in discerning defective polemic: new section
:Thank you, Ambassador. That blessing is a real uplift. <br>I just looked in here out of curiosity to see if you had made any response. I am delighted with your willingness - ''your spirit is willing but you sometimes need sleep'' - and, ''believe me'', I have often been there! <br>When I finally finish completing my own massive project with the seventh section of [[Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)]], I would be happy to help with suggested factual history links and editorial critiques for maintaining neutrally balanced statements of any of the points that you cover. If you are as busy as I was before I retired, it may be summer 20'''18''', before you are able get around to it. Just don't get discouraged. I believe such an article will be a valuable contribution in Christian discernment of truth. But in the meantime, feel free to post on my talk page any query you have regarding Catholicism versus Fundamentalism as related to the purpose of your article. <br>If I don't immediately know the answer for you, I'll do some online queries for possible sources of reliable ''info'' facts and report back here on your own page with links for you to look at (expect several with a variety of viewpoints, sources and facts). <br>''Re'' my involvement: You do your own writing, and I'll gently ''kibitz'', without interfering, as a publishing editor might (without the aggravating irritation), or like a coach—but not like a '''''[[United States Marine Corps|Marine D.I.]]'''''!<br>Look at my [[User:Dataclarifier]] page for a listing of some of my own contributions to Conservapedia, as a reliable indication of my conservative biblical Christian commitment. (My [[User talk:Dataclarifier]] page also has two posts listing more recently created articles I've submitted.) <br>I look forward to working with you for the success of your article. May the Lord Himself with ''[[Intercession of the saints|all the court of heaven]]'' lift up his countenance upon you, bless you, and give you peace.--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you, Ambassador. That blessing is a real uplift. <br>I just looked in here out of curiosity to see if you had made any response. I am delighted with your willingness - ''your spirit is willing but you sometimes need sleep'' - and, ''believe me'', I have often been there! <br>When I finally finish completing my own massive project with the seventh section of [[Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)]], I would be happy to help with suggested factual history links and editorial critiques for maintaining neutrally balanced statements of any of the points that you cover. If you are as busy as I was before I retired, it may be summer 20'''18''', before you are able get around to it. Just don't get discouraged. I believe such an article will be a valuable contribution in Christian discernment of truth. But in the meantime, feel free to post on my talk page any query you have regarding Catholicism versus Fundamentalism as related to the purpose of your article. <br>If I don't immediately know the answer for you, I'll do some online queries for possible sources of reliable ''info'' facts and report back here on your own page with links for you to look at (expect several with a variety of viewpoints, sources and facts). <br>''Re'' my involvement: You do your own writing, and I'll gently ''kibitz'', without interfering, as a publishing editor might (without the aggravating irritation), or like a coach—but not like a '''''[[United States Marine Corps|Marine D.I.]]'''''!<br>Look at my [[User:Dataclarifier]] page for a listing of some of my own contributions to Conservapedia, as a reliable indication of my conservative biblical Christian commitment. (My [[User talk:Dataclarifier]] page also has two posts listing more recently created articles I've submitted.) <br>I look forward to working with you for the success of your article. May the Lord Himself with ''[[Intercession of the saints|all the court of heaven]]'' lift up his countenance upon you, bless you, and give you peace.--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (EST)
== Useful example/exercise in discerning defective polemic ==
Consider the following illustrative example:
Jesus is the Word of God.
Protestants call a book, the Bible, the Word of God.
Therefore Protestants have replaced Jesus with a book.
You and I know that this argument is a complete distortion of meaning.
Again:
The Bible says "''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''".
Protestants say the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore Protestants believe the Bible is God.
You and I know that this argument too is a complete distortion of meaning.
Again:
The Latin suffix ''-latry'' comes from ''latria'', "worship".
Therefore the word "bibliolatry" means "worship of the Bible".
Therefore Literalist Christians who are obviously involved in bibliolatry worship the Bible as God.
'''BUZZ'''!!! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!
The ''actual'' meaning of "bibliolatry" is different. See this link: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bibliolatry
So— ''what is being illustrated here''?
The above examples of distorted false arguments are based on hostile '''[[Polemic]]''' as a form of '''[[Propaganda]]''' using the [[Logical fallacy#Appeal to emotion|Logical fallacy of Appeal to emotion]] to make Protestants look as bad as possible. (I'm familiar with this, because when I was in college an atheist accused me of bibliolatry because I was a Conservative Baptist and a fundamentalist Christian, and he used similar defective logic.)
The fundamental problem with Hislop's book, apart from his defective methodology, is pointed out by Woodrow in his refutation. Alexander Hislop wanted to make Catholicism look as bad as possible, because he had been taught that it is evil, and he never questioned that assertion or the arguments that were used to support it. He thought he was telling the truth with his "proofs", but in fact he wasn't. It's a form of '''[[Confirmation bias]]'''.
Anything that makes Catholicism or Protestantism look bad or evil should immediately be questioned as to its accuracy or distortion, misrepresentation or misinterpretation. I discovered in my historical researches that a lot that I had been taught about Catholic doctrine had never been true, but I had trusted my teachers because I thought they were telling me the truth; it had never occurred to me that they too had been misinformed; and they too had not questioned the accuracy of what they had been taught in Sunday School about Catholics. It goes all the way back to the Reformers.
One more example: the Christmas tree.
A neighbor of mine when I was growing up was a [[Jehovah's Witnesses|Jehovah's Witness]]. According to their teachings, she compassionately warned me that a Christmas tree is an idol, based on Jeremiah 10:3-4 (KJV).
:"For the customs of the people ''are'' vain: for ''one'' cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not."
Of course, she failed to read it within the context of "3 verses before, and 3 verses after, for the context". Jeremiah is speaking of a pagan idol. She was mercifully motivated by a desire for my salvation and blessedness. But she had been given a teaching that misrepresented the intent and had been given an historical fact taken entirely out of its social and historical context misapplied to the present day Christmas tradition originally solely intended to honor God's Son Jesus Christ "''when all of nature rejoiced with new life''" (green). =
Now, in the context of 1 Samuel 16:7 "for ''the L<small>ORD</small> seeth'' not as man seeth; for '''man looketh on the outward appearance, but the L<small>ORD</small> looketh on the heart.'''" See '''[[Specious reasoning]]'''.
When you had a Christmas tree, were you taught that this tree represented the Norse god Yggdrasil (the World Tree)? Of course not! Were you told that it was an idol representing a pagan god? Of course not! What was the intention in your heart as you admired the beauty of the Christmas tree? Were you committing idolatry, or were you thinking of the birth of Jesus in the manger, and the angels singing to the shepherds of his birth with glory to God in the highest?
In the same way, in evaluating accusations against anyone, especially when charged with crime, both the motive in the heart of the accused, and the objective ''effect or result'' of the deed (or failure to act) must be evaluated objectively in accordance with the truth. What is meant? What is being done? What is the actual teaching?
The [[National Socialism|Nazis]] intended to improve the human race and utterly remove forever the root causes of poverty, insanity and disease. The means that they chose were ''intrinsically'' evil, and resulted only in ruin and death on a massive scale. "''By their fruits ye shall know them''" (Matthew 7:20)
There is a logical fallacy that argues that a superficial similarity ''proves'' substantial identity: because an orange billiard ball resembles an orange, because it is round and orange and has a 3" diameter, this proves that the billiard ball ''must be'' an orange (''good luck trying to eat it!''). ''After all, isn't it orange? isn't it round? isn't it the size of an orange? so how can you possibly deny that it is an orange?'' '''[[Sophistry]]'''. I think you see what I mean. Be diligent in rooting out the truth of any evil report. (Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 26:24-25). It might be true. It might be false. "''Admonish your friend. He may not have done it. And if he did, that he may not do it again.''"
May God richly bless you and all whom you love. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (EST)