Credibility without Accountability?

T2U,

Yes, please give me more examples. However, I just wanted to point out one thing from this article:

The governing office in this situation is not willing to sweep the incident under the rug, by covering for this minister and shuffling him to another parish. This situation differs from the current scandal within the RCC, and no matter how hard you try, you can't begin to compare other denominations with the RCC in this situation.

 

Thess,

Thess, I am AoG, therefore I'm very well aware of what denomination Jimmy Swaggart was.

What I said was:

I NEV-er said Swaggart was Baptist. So, skip the sarcasm and brush-up on which church father wrote what before you put your foot in your mouth AGAIN!!

 

LisaMC

Thanks for informing me but this is a Baptist board and I just wanted the board to be inform. Very little of what I write, even when I respond to you is for you because I know your mind is closed so don't take it so personal.

Blessings

 

Thess,

I think you mean, "don't take it personally. Hey--I'm not. Actually, I'm finding it amusing how you are so blatantly avoiding the thread where you dazzled us with your knowledge on Augustine.

 

Here are a whole bunch of stories of Baptist Church officials molesting children. I don't see the word defrocked anywhere. That doesn't mean they weren't. I am just wondering if anyone has proof that they always are?

http://www.reformation.com/CSA/baptistsabuse.html

Here is an interesting article in Christianity today;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/7tb/7tb090.html

Just one little excerpts from the article that might be of interest.

"NO NEW SIN: The problem of inappropriate sexual behavior among clergy is not new. A 1984 Fuller Seminary survey of ministers in four denominations—Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, and Assemblies of God—showed that 12.7 percent had engaged in sexual intercourse with a church member. The study reported that 38.6 percent had made "sexual contact" with a church member.

And in a 1993 survey of Southern Baptist pastors, 14.1 percent confessed to "sexual behavior inappropriate to a minister." "

Of course this goes on in Catholicism too. But I think you people are doing way to much finger pointing and so that is my reason for posting it.

Blessings

 

Lisa,

You were putting me to sleep. I just didn't have time for it. I will grant you one on the Stromata. My mistake. But it does give me a belly giggle when you guys try to quote Church fathers to support your positions.

 

Thess,

Sure.

Way to down-play!!!!!!!

How many times do I have to say I'm not trying to prove that anybody supports my position. Just proving undoubtedly how Augustine doesn't support yours.

 

"Just proving undoubtedly how Augustine doesn't support yours. "

Lisa dear. I wasn't downplaying anything. I didn't have enough time to spend on the thread and wasn't that interested in giving much more of my time and so made an error, that would not have occured had I devoted sufficient time. So I thought best to leave it. Since I have read City of God and Confessions and many of Augustine's sermons and so know dang well he was as Catholic as the day is long. So stop with the bravado. It is rather unbecoming of a humble Christian such as yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thess,

Yah! Whutevah!! Go tell it on a Catholic board.

U--huh.

Probably the right move. It's always good to make a graceful retreat when bested.

Well, those of us who bother to read the fathers for ourselves, know better.

Hmmm . . . maybe. Suits you rather well tho, doesn't it?

 

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

source

Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

source

Style Over Substance

Definition:
The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.
Examples:
(i) Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on
his forehead.
(ii) Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
(iii) Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed
young man?
Proof:
While it is true that the manner in which an argument is
presented will affect whether people believe that its
conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion
does not depend on the manner in which the argument is
presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion.


source

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)
It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.
The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar.


source

 

You da man, Clint.

 

Thanks, Curtis. One more, just for the record:

Ad Misericordiam: an argument that appeals to pity. For example, arguing that a hectic schedule prevented you from completing an assignment is a fallacy of relevance.

source

 

"and no matter how hard you try, you can't begin to compare other denominations with the RCC in this situation."

If you look at the extensive list of Baptist pastors that apparently have done the SAME thing,why could you not make the comparison?

 

Clint,

Do you have anything to add to these conversations other than put downs toward Catholics? Seems not.

 

Obviously Clint missed a definition which applies to he and all others who tend to do random clobbering of the Catholic Faith:

Guilt by Association: an argument that attacks an individual or group based on an association with another individual or group. For instance, if you argue that vegetarianism is best for the environment, and your opposition replies that most pot-smoking hippies feel the same way, it is fallacious. The argument wrongly attempts to associate the negative aspects of one group with another. While some pot-smoking hippies are vegetarians, not all vegetarians are pot-smoking hippies.

And not all Catholics are whoremongering, pedophiliac, dishonest, Teddy Kennedy types. And the Church is most certainly not as the pure Bride of Christ. Therefore, it would be more honest an argument to stop saying that the Church is _____________________ (whatever) because some people in it practice sins. That is guilt by association and irrelevant.

Brother Ed

 

Pointing out a fallacy in an argument is not a "put down." It is an effort to keep the thread on track for fruitful, constructive dialogue. That is far more "constructive" than allowing the topic to run helter skelter.

Hopefully, it will make us all better debators. You seem to like to use a technique of provoking emotion so that the focus of a thread gets derailed. By pointing out your fallacious "arguments," I hope to nullify their effect.

Besides, I added the comment that Swaggart now considers himself non-denominational. It was an attempt to address a single point to head off the diversion. I felt that was rather constructive. Didn't you?

 

Hi Ed, been a while.

Could you please point out where I have done this? Except for my post concerning Swaggart, I have not named any group. Or have I missed something?

 

I'm seeing both Ad Misericordiam mixed with a little Red herring here myself

Just teasing you Thess, but he makes a valid point regardless of who you are and what you believe. Stick the facts and remain logical.

 

Oh! I get it! It is you that is applying "guilt by association" to me, by grouping me with other non-catholics in this forum!

 

Hello Clint --

Things have gotten a bit hectic and I simply have too much to do. Time is at a premium.

What I was trying to say is this. Our Lord said that the kingdom (Church) would be as a field in which would grow both tares and wheat. He also said that it would be like a net in which both good and bad fish would be caught.

The flavor of many of the non catholic posts here (including some of yours) is that because the field has tares, the field itself is bad. Because the net has bad fish, the net is bad. The extension of this is that the Church itself, as an entity, is doctrinally and morally corrupt because it has had some evil people in places of leadership. I have seen that association made over and over again as people point out, sometimes with considerable glee, the sins of the people in the Church and then go on to insinuate that the Church is a corrupt institution itself.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed