Dave,
To give you an idea of some pictures to use when replying to the Triabloggers; one can imagine a football team huddled around a play book one page thick (what's the name of that movie with Adam Sandler?) or a bunch of guys in an office circling a copier, running off copies of form letters.
LOL They are a trip, aren't they?
Truly invincibly ignorant. I say this in all seriousness as this man appears constitutionally incapable of sound reasoning.
I can even recite the play:
1. Misinterpret: Give the opponent's argument an unreasonably uncharitable interpretation.
2. Straw Man: Respond to the argument interpreted in that way.
3. Accuse: When the opponent points out that his argument has been misinterpreted, accuse him of dishonesty or reversal.
See, e.g, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-from-
edge.html
"Notice that this what Dave originally posted to preface his citation of Acts 19:
Paul’s handkerchiefs cured disease and expelled evil spirits
That's it. I respond to what people write as they write it.
...
Of course, here is what Dave actually had stated:
The bones of his apprentice, Elisha, brought a man back to life:
Elijah’s mantle parted the Jordan
Paul’s handkerchiefs cured disease and expelled evil spirits
I am glad Dave has provided a helpful corrective, but in doing so he has overturned the subject/predicate relationship in his original statements. His original statements state that a mantle, a handkerchief, and bones were what did these things."
Of course, those "original words" were also in a section titled "God Uses Created Things In Order to Produce Supernatural Effects in Our Lives" and, as if that weren't enough, were immediately preceded by a sentence that said "There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus and the apostles use created things to produce supernatural effects in the lives of human beings."
See the pattern?
It's the sophistical equivalent of the playaction pass: a feint sets up the real strike. The rhetorical strike is reductio ad absurdam, but the feint is a straw man. If you're habituated to seeing a straw man (like the defense habituated to run plays), then you tend to respond by denying that you hold the premise used to construct the straw man. But the point of this argument isn't to attack that premise. The point of the argument is to set up an argument that another premise effectively provoked the creation of the straw man. That's why it works as a disguised reductio ad absurdam.
For example, in the argument above, the veiled charge is that it would be reasonable to think that a Catholic would have the superstitious belief that the things themselves did the healing, so the rhetorical effect is that even if the straw man was based on a false premise, it was reasonable to think that Catholics believe the false premise. This is vintage sophistry, and it's good sophistry, because it hides the real debate. It plays on unstated prejudices that Catholics are idol worshippers, but it doesn't comes out and speak about it directly, so one can't point to a particular argument where the appeal is made, so people don't realize that it sounds sensible only if you share the prejudice. You'll see the same sorts of arguments made regarding exegesis; the assertion of exegetical method is question-begging, but it will be used to play on the prejudice that Catholics don't *real
(cont.)
but it will be used to play on the prejudice that Catholics don't *really* respect Scripture despite having no actual discussion on the justification of exegetical method to actually ascertain whether that is the case. And of course, if you start probing into the justification, it will simply provoke assertions (again without argument in sophisitical fashion) that one is arguing like an atheist or denying the authority of Scripture, which are simply more overt appeals to the same sort of prejudice.
I suppose when there is no real reason for your position, then any old emotion will do, even appealing to the "last acceptable prejudice." It shows a great deal about Triablogue that their most successful argument (if the repeated use is any indication) is simply a well-concealed call to bigotry. I'm not giving them a moeal pass on institutional sophistry though. Maybe they really don't know what an actual argument looks like, but maybe they just don't care.
typo correction "moeal" => "moral"
Exactly Jonathon. Look at this post http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...r-ad-
litem.html
Are Catholics supposed to feel guilty about asking Dave for advice?
Bridges' counter-reply:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-from-
edge.html
is hyper-ridiculous and illogical to a degree rarely encountered in my 27+ years in apologetics and utterly unworthy of any time spent in reply.
Here is a nice touch he adds at the end (reminiscent of Eric Svendsen's notorious repeated proclamations of people as damned):
"Dave, you are obviously unregenerate, so you need to cast yourself on the merits of Christ alone and repent of your ecclesiolatry - period. I have no reason to think you are a brother, because (a) you are a false teacher and (b) you simply give no evidence that you are regenerate, and you give us no reason to think you are with every passing stroke of the pen. I make no apology for this statement. My trust, Dave is in Christ alone. I assure you that my soul is not the one in danger."
"Rome is a false church, a synagoge [sic] of Satan, and an agent of death preaching a false gospel of works righteousness. . . . she is certainly apostate, and you, Dave are her willing thrall."
Pray very hard for this man. This is the spirit of (probably unwitting and ignorant) wickedness and obstinacy. The tree is known by its fruits. I don't claim that the man is unregenerate or damned or not a Christian. I claim what I already did: that he endangers his soul by committing grave sins. He calls black white and white black: I'm not a Christian; the Catholic Church is not Christian. These are damnable lies, and we know where they derive. So he and all active anti-Catholics place their souls in serious danger, by persistently promulgating such lies.
Pray, and do penance. Offer it up for Gene M. Bridges, who has stated that he has a terminal illness. He will know the whole truth not too long from now, as will all of us. But it is better for his sake that he comes to know it sooner rather than later.
Offer it up for Gene M. Bridges, who has stated that he has a terminal illness.
Agreed. It's tragic enough that he has to face such grim consequences for his past sins. We should pray that he is spared from even worse consequences in the next life.
In case anyone is interested, here's an update in my debate with Turretinfan on holy water
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com...-parts-3-
6.html
Feel free to leave comments there and let me know what you think
Pax Christi,
Nicholas Hardesty, aka "phatcatholic"
Dave,
I sent you an email but I thought I'd leave a comment here too. Basically, the holy water debate is finally finished. Now, we're opening the floor for questions. Right now, it looks like all of the questions are for me, so I was wondering if you would make a post on your blog letting everyone know that the debate is finished and that, if they want to ask "the anonymous one" any questions, they can send them to me via email:
phatcatholicapologetics [at] gmail [dot] come
Of course, if you have any questions for him, please let me know!
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
Oops! That's supposed to be "com" not "come"
phatcatholic,
I am reading the entire debate now. Thank you for your defense of a part of the Catholic faith!
np, Paul! I thank you for your interest in this and your diligence in reading the entire thing.
Commenting by HaloScan
