If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

PoeticVengeance

Have you heard of a fallacy called Appeal to Tradition

Lol, you misquoted, honey.

Quote:

Appeals to Tradition only apply when circumstances change, or the foundation of the Tradition was false. If the premise of the Tradition still holds true, it isn't fallacious.

A tradition is not viable as justification by its nature as a tradition, that's why its a fallacy.

So even if a tradition is justified it is still fallacious to use the fact that its a tradition as a basis for your argument.

Quote:

Likewise, Appeals to authority aren't fallacious unless the authority is unqualified.

Even if the author is qualified, that doesn't make the author right.

Appeals to authority also remain fallacious whenever used. While a fallacy can be used with other justifications and add to their strength, used alone it will break an argument.

That is what Servus is doing. And the Catholic Church too although not nearly as blatantly.

Quote:

That said, appeal to Tradition is more appeal to Authority than anything.

I'll agree only a little here. Its a fine distinction but they do have important differences that change their usage and effects on a debate.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

Eshmasesh

How do you think a premise which teaches that women are in any way not equal to men holds true in a society which teaches that men and women are equal?

Argumentum ad populum.

[Eshmasesh]

Ad.min can suck my balls

Eshmasesh

How do you think a premise which teaches that women are in any way not equal to men holds true in a society which teaches that men and women are equal?

Argumentum ad populum.

...isn't that the basis of an appeal to tradition too?

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

PoeticVengeance

Lol, you misquoted, honey.

********!

Quote:

A tradition is not viable as justification by its nature as a tradition, that's why its a fallacy.

Only in the case of practice. For example, I think you'll find all documentation of appeal to tradition to have some sort of practice as being fallacious. Even in the case of practice, however, it's not necessarily a fallacy.

For example.

"We've been using medicine for ages now to cure disease, and it's always worked. Therefore, we should continue to do so."

That said, when I bring up Tradition, I am bringing up beliefs and theological opinions, so technically, Appeal to tradition doesn't apply as a fallacy here, any more than bringing up Homer is.

Quote:

Even if the author is qualified, that doesn't make the author right.

Thus the reason that appeal to authority is inductive rather than deductive. Nonetheless, presuming the authority is qualifed, it is still inductively strong.

Quote:

Appeals to authority also remain fallacious whenever used.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

Eshmasesh

isn't that the basis of an appeal to tradition too?

Tu quoque

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

PoeticVengeance

Woohoo, ad homs make you smart sounding!

Woohoo, not knowing what an Ad Hominem is makes you smart sounding.

Personal insults or attacks that don't add to the debate or aid in the justification of your material.

Calling someone a Jackass would be one of those.

Quote:

Quote:

Purgatory is a horrid corruption of Sheol and another issue I have with the Catholic Church.

Prove it.

Sheol, being the original translation in such verses as Romans and used in many cases to back up the flawed misconception of Hell.

Sheol itself is an unpleasant and short term place of purification that all souls go too, based on Abrahamic Scripture and Lore. Afterwards they are considered pure, and with a messiah's guidance can enter paradise.

Without a messiah they wait for the gates to open.

Purgatory is word for word what Sheol is, but purgatory itself has no biblical backing that I can find.

Perhaps you can track down some?

Quote:

Quote:

But no, Limbo isn't Canon, and is therefore invalid by your own admissions on what is valid to the Catholic Church.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Establish it.

You yourself pointed out that anything not within Canon for the Catholic Church is wrong. (If you're Servus, and I think you are)

Therefore either that admission was wrong, or the admission that Limbo exists is wrong.

Which is it? You're trapped in a contradiction.

Quote:

Quote:

So either the babies are sent to Purgatory or heaven (its unlikely they'd be sent to hell.)

False dichotomy

Establish it.

Is there a biblical reason to believe that there is another place they would go?

Is there a biblical reason to believe that there is more places then purgatory, hell or heaven? (Of course, you'll need to prove that purgatory and hell exist Scripturally too)

Is their a Canon based reason to believe the above?

If so, prove it.

Or back the hell out.

[Eshmasesh]

Ad.min can suck my balls

Eshmasesh

isn't that the basis of an appeal to tradition too?

Tu quoque

I actually have no idea what that means surprised

[PoeticVengeance]

Ad.min can suck my balls

PoeticVengeance

Lol, you misquoted, honey.

********]

I'm not upset by it. Its not a huge issue.

Quote:

Quote:

A tradition is not viable as justification by its nature as a tradition, that's why its a fallacy.

Only in the case of practice. For example, I think you'll find all documentation of appeal to tradition to have some sort of practice as being fallacious. Even in the case of practice, however, it's not necessarily a fallacy.

For example.

"We've been using medicine for ages now to cure disease, and it's always worked. Therefore, we should continue to do so."

That said, when I bring up Tradition, I am bringing up beliefs and theological opinions, so technically, Appeal to tradition doesn't apply as a fallacy here, any more than bringing up Homer is.

That's entirely different from depending on tradition alone to make your argument, so why are discussing the nature of Appeal to Tradition if you aren't using it?

Quote:

Quote:

Even if the author is qualified, that doesn't make the author right.

Thus the reason that appeal to authority is inductive rather than deductive. Nonetheless, presuming the authority is qualifed, it is still inductively strong.

Not strong enough to work on its own.

Quote:

Quote:

Appeals to authority also remain fallacious whenever used.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Prove it.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

PoeticVengeance

Personal insults or attacks that don't add to the debate or aid in the justification of your material.

Calling someone a Jackass would be one of those.

Except not. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of relevence in which the opponent's argument in order to derive some conclusion. For example, here is a common one used against me:

Me: Homosexuality is a sin because the Catechism says so.
Some N00b: He's a troll. Don't listen to him.

That's not what is happening here. I am not saying that you are wrong because you are a jackass. I am merely saying that you are a jackass.

Quote:

Sheol, being the original translation in such verses as Romans and used in many cases to back up the flawed misconception of Hell.

Sheol itself is an unpleasant and short term place of purification that all souls go too, based on Abrahamic Scripture and Lore. Afterwards they are considered pure, and with a messiah's guidance can enter paradise.

Without a messiah they wait for the gates to open.

Purgatory is word for word what Sheol is

You are saying they are similar, and therefore the same?

Quote:

but purgatory itself has no biblical backing that I can find.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Quote:

But no, Limbo isn't Canon, and is therefore invalid by your own admissions on what is valid to the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Establish it.

It's not explicitly spelled out, therefore it doesn't exist. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I never said that if it isn't canon, it isn't true. I said that if it contradicts canon, it must be false. Limbo doesn't contradict canon, and has been purposely been left up in the air.

Quote:

Establish it.

Unborn babies are sent to Heaven or Purgatory or Hell.

According to Catholic doctrine, NONE of those are necessarily the case.

Quote:

Is there a biblical reason to believe that there is another place they would go?

Is there a biblical reason to presume that I would need a biblical reason?

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

PoeticVengeance

That's entirely different from depending on tradition alone to make your argument, so why are discussing the nature of Appeal to Tradition if you aren't using it?

Beats the hell outta me.

Quote:

Not strong enough to work on its own.

Except you are wrong. You accept appeals to authority all the time. For example, when's the last time you questioned your doctor? Or when is the last time you questioned me on what is and is not a fallacy? Or when is the last time that you've questioned Steven Hawking on physics?

The answer should be "never." Doctors spend years in Med School for that s**t, Steven Hawking is a qualified physicist (from what I understand), and I aced an introductory level logic class dealing with particularly that subject matter.

Quote:

Prove it.

It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are spouting nonsense.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

Eshmasesh

I actually have no idea what that means surprised

"Joe, homosexual sex is wrong. Bob, homosexual sex must be alright, I saw Jim boning you in the a** just last night."

[Striga]

Ad.min can suck my balls

Eshmasesh

I actually have no idea what that means surprised

"Joe, homosexual sex is wrong. Bob, homosexual sex must be alright, I saw Jim boning you in the a** just last night."

Incorrect.

Ad hominem tu quoque is the fallacy of saying someone's argument must be wrong because the person making it is a hypocrite.

For example, if I were to say that Scholasic is wrong because he uses appeals to tradition while calling other people on them.

[Ad.min can suck my balls]

Striga

Incorrect.

Ad hominem tu quoque is the fallacy of saying someone's argument must be wrong because the person making it is a hypocrite.

HOW THE ******** WAS WHAT I SAID NOT THAT?

Bill, gay sex is wrong
Jim, you are gay. What the ******** are you talking about?

[Code67095]

Where I come from, gay marriage is not exactly frowned upon. Whenever we realize there's a gay man born to our family, we would tease him... but not discourage him. We embrace him for what he is just because.

My cousin Benjo (Little Toilet), is gay... and we look forward for him to become a fashion designer, just because the women in our family wants free designer clothes through him. We don't question his sexuality but more of his worth and contribution to the family. I think that's what people should concentrate on. We are born to help others, not hurt them.

[ty_ping]

Skiddishfit

ty_ping

Dei Servus

ty_ping

If Baptism makes people perfectly equal, (One spirit one body) then why can't baptised women run the Church if they are now on equal footing with the men?

It doesn't make us perfectly equal. It gives us an equal chance of salvation and status as people in the eyes of God. But I am still a man, and you are still a woman.

But if we're equil in the eyes of God then how come women on an earthly scale have to be inferior?

What causes you to think in the Christian scope women are inferior?

Because they are not permited to hold positions of power within the church and I think are technically banned from teaching scripture in general.