What if on May 21st, 2011, "Christ" does "return"?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Is that it ?

Is that truly the best you can do to refute what I wrote ?

Saying an argument is a straw man argument doesnt make it a straw man argument unless you explain why it is a straw man arguement - which you have noticeably failed to do.

So rather than simply asserting that what I wrote is a straw man argument, please come down off your cloud oh high one and deign to explain to us mere mortals why you contend my argument is a straw man argument please.

If you don't know what a straw man is, it means to invent arguments your opponents are not making and then arguing against those made-up points. I simply told you that we don't make such arguments; that's all that is needed to refute a straw man. So the failure is all yours, including the added fallacy of ad hominem.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Not to mention he added the "poisoning the well" fallacy with this comment:

please come down off your cloud oh high one and deign to explain to us mere mortals

Poisoning the well

Actually the original Ad Hominem attack was you asserting ,wrongly, that I was making a straw man argument to attack you - which I wasnt I was responding to your assertions.

I then responded with an Ad Hominem attack as a response to your Ad Hominemt attack on me.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Actually the original Ad Hominem attack was you asserting ,wrongly, that I was making a straw man argument to attack you - which I wasnt I was responding to your assertions.

I then responded with an Ad Hominem attack as a response to your Ad Hominemt attack on me.

In whose logic book is exposing a fallacy a fallacy itself? I refuted your claim; that is not a fallacy. Ad hominem is "against the man", an attack on the person, whereas I aimed at your claim. Yet somehow when YOU "aim at my assertions" it magically turns into a valid argument instead of ad hominem.

Sorry, I'm not playing.

Now as regards the assertion I was undertaking an attempt to create a straw man argument - that is entirely false.

I was responding directly to your statements / contentions / assertions via various scriptural quotes concerning the date / time / process of the Tribulation and Rapture - which you based on quotes from the Bible on which to authenticate your assertions.

I was stating quite plainly that for you to assert any 'insight' into date / time of the 'apocalypse' or 'rapture' or 'tribulation' via using quotes from the Bible, and hence you are able to judge when God / Jesus intends to undertake the apocalypsem, rapture or tribulation , is illogical, fallacious and mendacious.

You cannot assert that you have an insight into Gods plan via the Bible.

The Bible is not the word of God.

It is the work of man.

Nor is the Bible the work of Jesus.

Jesus died before the Bible was written / put together / distributed.

Jesus did not write the Bible, edit the bible or autheticate a single gospel / statement made in his name in the Bible.

Nor has god ever directly authenticated the veracity of the Bible.

Therefore for you to assert that the Bible, or selective quotes in it, allow you - or anyone - to ascertain God or Jesus plan for the world is total nonsene with no logical foundation.

Comprende ?

If you cannot see that accusing someone of making up a straw man argument simply in to undermine your contentions is 'playing the man, instead of the ball' then you need to reassess your logic.

I did not make up a straw man argument.

You simply asserted I did.

This what you wrote ;

" All those who say Christian belief can be reduced to such straw men don't have a clue what they're talking about. They also make many baseless assertions (instead of "I don't believe God wrote the Bible" they say "Men wrote the Bible" and then build their straw men on that assertion). Really, this sort of thing gets old. "

I see no point by point rebuttal of the points I raised - just the allegation I created a straw man argument, which is an Ad Hominem attack on me.

Comprende ?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Now as regards the assertion I was undertaking an attempt to create a straw man argument - that is entirely false.

I said you didn't know what you were talking about, which is the exact opposite of deliberate attempts to "create a straw man argument". You made one in ignorance, meaning you did it without knowing. And now you repeat all your baseless assertions (listing things as facts when they are merely your opinions), comprende?

I said you didn't know what you were talking about, which is the exact opposite of deliberate attempts to "create a straw man argument". You made one in ignorance, meaning you did it without knowing. And now you repeat all your baseless assertions (listing things as facts when they are merely your opinions), comprende





So saying, or directly implying, that ;

1) I dont know what I am talking about

2) I am ignorant

Both of which are assertions contained in your first reponse to me, in your eyes do not equate to an Ad Hominem attack on me then ?

Is that correct ?

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

I then responded with an Ad Hominem attack as a response to your Ad Hominemt attack on me.

Now you've committed the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy:

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

"Two Wrongs make a Right" Fallacy

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

So what do you base it from?

Do you have a Jesus stamp of approval edition book?

So how about answering my points here then;

I was responding directly to your statements / contentions / assertions via various scriptural quotes concerning the date / time / process of the Tribulation and Rapture - which you based on quotes from the Bible on which to authenticate your assertions.

I was stating quite plainly that for you to assert any 'insight' into date / time of the 'apocalypse' or 'rapture' or 'tribulation' via using quotes from the Bible, and hence you are able to judge when God / Jesus intends to undertake the apocalypsem, rapture or tribulation , is illogical, fallacious and mendacious.

You cannot assert that you have an insight into Gods plan via the Bible.

The Bible is not the word of God.

It is the work of man.

Nor is the Bible the work of Jesus.

Jesus died before the Bible was written / put together / distributed.

Jesus did not write the Bible, edit the bible or autheticate a single gospel / statement made in his name in the Bible.

Nor has god ever directly authenticated the veracity of the Bible.

Therefore for you to assert that the Bible, or selective quotes in it, allow you - or anyone - to ascertain God or Jesus plan for the world is total nonsene with no logical foundation

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

Jesus did not write the Bible, edit the bible or autheticate a single gospel / statement made in his name in the Bible.

You've made yet another error.

Jesus "wrote" 7 letters to seven churches in Asia minor in Revelation chapters 2-3.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit



Do you ?

I am not asserting that I know when the Tribulation / rapture / apocalypse will happen.

You are.

Whats your proof ?

reply to post by NOTurTypical




Actually he didnt.

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

So saying, or directly implying, that ;

1) I dont know what I am talking about

2) I am ignorant

Both of which are assertions contained in your first reponse to me, in your eyes do not equate to an Ad Hominem attack on me then ?

Is that correct ?

"Ignorant" has nothing to do with intelligence. It means someone is not well learned in any given subject. It DOES NOT mean that person is incapable of learning.

It's not an Ad Hominem argument.

Now you've committed the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy:


I prefer to call it 'The Respond In Kind Response'.

Its not a fallacy, its a fact - I did respond in kind.

Ladies, ladies, please...

You are ALL very pretty in your individual ways..

Hijacking a post with petty bickering is illegal in 48 out of 50 states

Now, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Actually he didnt.

Yes, He did, it says so plainly in the text. He dictates to the apostle John what he wants Him to write to the angels of the 7 churches.

It's their "report card" from Him.

You're flat out wrong on virtually everything you claim. Where the Hell did you get your Theology and History from??

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Now you've committed the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy:


I prefer to call it 'The Respond In Kind Response'.

Its not a fallacy, its a fact - I did respond in kind.

I don't care what you choose to call it,..

It's still a fallacy.

Ignorant" has nothing to do with intelligence. It means someone is not well learned in any given subject. It DOES NOT mean that person is incapable of learning.

It's not an Ad Hominem argument





Actually its a classic Ad Hominem attack, as it is based on asserting that I am 'ignorant' in order to attack me instead of attacking my argument.

You are in no position to assess my 'ignorance' or intelligence - you do not know me.

I could be the Pope for all you know.

In fact I am very well learned on the subject, as I will prove when you ever answer or seek to rebut my points.