ECT Ad Hominem is absolutely wrong in plain language

[Lion.of.Judah]

Latin rendition - Ad Hominem

English rendition - Absolute BS

By definition, Ad Hominem is a Logical Non sequitur and fallacy of argument; unless the attack on a person’s character is Relevant to the argument in question.

For instance, to suggest that Catholic priests are not qualified to preach the Word of Christ nor deliver his Word from the pulpit on account of their transgressions or having broken their Vow of Celibacy is a Logical Non sequitur and fallacy of argument, which is often done on purpose and is therefore a sin of itself.

Since it is a sin to give false testimony against your neighbor (Exodus 20), which is punishable by death in the lake of fire and burning sulphur (Revelation 21:8).

Strictly speaking, all people have sinned, which implies that no one at all is qualified to deliver God’s Word from the pulpit; assuming that you followed or accept this ‘argument’ at all.

Besides, the so called charge of ‘hypocrisy’ cannot be used to disqualify Catholics from teaching the Word of Christ; otherwise, all people should be disqualified if one adhered to such an ‘argument’.

IMO, such argument is based lies, twisted and rendition of Matthew 7, which serves to highlight the iniquity of its proponents who have clearly lied about the relevant Scripture.

Since by definition, Ad Hominem is intended (or unintentional) lies due to the very nature of Logical Non sequiturs, which is a fallacy of reasoning, either intentional, or unintended.

Intentional fallacies are clearly a lie; no doubt about this whatsoever.

Discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Ex opere operato is a Latin phrase meaning "from the work worked" referring to sacraments deriving their power from Christ's work (ex opere operato Christi) rather than the role of humans. The phrase is commonly misunderstood to mean that sacraments work automatically and independently of the faith of the recipient. However, in order to receive sacraments fruitfully, it is believed necessary for the recipient to have faith.In modern usage, the phrase often refers to the idea that sacraments are efficacious in and of themselves rather than depending on the attitude either of the minister or the recipient. For example, Confirmation might be held to bestow the Holy Spirit regardless of the attitude of both the bishop and the person being confirmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

 

[genuineoriginal]

to suggest that Catholic priests are not qualified to preach the Word of Christ nor deliver his Word from the pulpit on account of their transgressions or having broken their Vow of Celibacy is a Logical Non sequitur and fallacy of argument, which is often done on purpose and is therefore a sin of itself.

It sounds as if your Catholic priests are not qualified for the post, according to the Bible.

In order to be a bishop, a man must be married, have children, be experienced, and have a good moral character.

1 Timothy 3:2-7 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The priests of the church at Rome are not qualified to preach the gospel of grace to anyone because they don't know the meaning of that gospel.

 

[Truster]

"Strictly speaking, all people have sinned, which implies that no one at all is qualified to deliver God’s Word from the pulpit; assuming that you followed or accept this ‘argument’ at all".

Yes, all men are sinners, but some of us are repentant sinners.

 

[Stripe]

Ad Hominem is a Logical Non sequitur.

It's not a failure of logic. It's an informal fallacy.

 

[Clete]

Interesting title of the thread, which makes it's own form of ad hominem argument.

I disagree with much of the OP, which seems to imply that all sin is the same and is decrying an argument that is neither an ad hominem nor a non-sequitor but the clever title of the thread with it's only slightly veiled self-contradiction caught my attention.

 

[Aimiel]

Those without a viable defense for their position will often attack opponents with personal satire.

 

[Stripe]

Those without a viable defense for their position will often attack opponents with personal satire.

No they won't, you silly.

 

[Idolater]

Latin rendition - Ad Hominem

English rendition - Absolute BS

By definition, Ad Hominem is a Logical Non sequitur and fallacy of argument; unless the attack on a person’s character is Relevant to the argument in question.

Correct, especially the latter condition. If the person's character is relevant, then it is not the ad hominem fallacy.

For instance, to suggest that Catholic priests are not qualified to preach the Word of Christ nor deliver his Word from the pulpit on account of their transgressions or having broken their Vow of Celibacy is a Logical Non sequitur and fallacy of argument, which is often done on purpose and is therefore a sin of itself.

I don't believe that it's ever done "on purpose," where "on purpose" connotes deliberate consent. See below re: "intentional" vs. "deliberate."

Since it is a sin to give false testimony against your neighbor (Exodus 20), which is punishable by death in the lake of fire and burning sulphur (Revelation 21:8).

Strictly speaking, all people have sinned, which implies that no one at all is qualified to deliver God’s Word from the pulpit; assuming that you followed or accept this ‘argument’ at all.

I believe you are correct.

Besides, the so called charge of ‘hypocrisy’ cannot be used to disqualify Catholics from teaching the Word of Christ; otherwise, all people should be disqualified if one adhered to such an ‘argument’.

Agreed again. Must one be sinless in order to be qualified to preach the Gospel? If the answer is yes, then not only are none of us qualified, but neither were the Apostles.

IMO, such argument is based lies, twisted and rendition of Matthew 7, which serves to highlight the iniquity of its proponents who have clearly lied about the relevant Scripture.

Since by definition, Ad Hominem is intended (or unintentional) lies due to the very nature of Logical Non sequiturs, which is a fallacy of reasoning, either intentional, or unintended.

Intentional fallacies are clearly a lie; no doubt about this whatsoever.

All well and good, with the clarification that 'intentional' means 'deliberate,' which connotes more consciousness. We are intelligent beings, even when we are not fully aware of what we are doing, or why, so something can be intentional without necessarily being deliberate, we can be unconsciously intentional, iow. Some part of us knows what we're doing and why, but it doesn't always bubble up into our conscious awareness.

Deliberate fallacies are therefore clearly and unconditionally deliberate lies, deliberate dishonesty, duplicitous, and deliberately deceptive. But intentional but unconscious fallacies are none of these.

Discuss.

Our Lord and His Apostles castigated people sometimes, calling them names. Is this 'ad hominem?' Does this nullify the truth of what was said /taught?

 

[Idolater]

Ex opere operato is a Latin phrase meaning "from the work worked" referring to sacraments deriving their power from Christ's work (ex opere operato Christi) rather than the role of humans. The phrase is commonly misunderstood to mean that sacraments work automatically and independently of the faith of the recipient. However, in order to receive sacraments fruitfully, it is believed necessary for the recipient to have faith.In modern usage, the phrase often refers to the idea that sacraments are efficacious in and of themselves rather than depending on the attitude either of the minister or the recipient. For example, Confirmation might be held to bestow the Holy Spirit regardless of the attitude of both the bishop and the person being confirmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

Completely correct. The most significant example is baptism, which is authoritatively taught to be valid, even if celebrated by a nonbeliever, so long as it is celebrated with water, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and celebrated seriously by the baptizer. It is meant that the recipient is validly baptized; the baptizer is not baptized, in baptizing someone else.

 

[Idolater]

It sounds as if your Catholic priests are not qualified for the post, according to the Bible.

In order to be a bishop, a man must be married, have children, be experienced, and have a good moral character.

1 Timothy 3:2-7 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.​

Do you believe there are any authentic bishops today? Or, conversely, do you believe in the "cessation of bishops," which is like the "cessation of gifts (of the Spirit)?"

 

[Idolater]

... I disagree with much of the OP, which seems to imply that all sin is the same ....

Which sins are different?

Surely, Catholicism differentiates between sins according to their gravity /seriousness; do you differentiate sins along the same kind of line? Or another one?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The most significant example is baptism, which is authoritatively taught to be valid, even if celebrated by a nonbeliever, so long as it is celebrated with water, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and celebrated seriously by the baptizer. It is meant that the recipient is validly baptized; the baptizer is not baptized, in baptizing someone else.

Valid for nonbelievers in what way?

 

[Clete]

Which sins are different?

What do you mean? Virtually every sin is different than every other sin.

Surely, Catholicism differentiates between sins according to their gravity /seriousness; do you differentiate sins along the same kind of line? Or another one?

There are several different kinds of sins. Some sins are quite minor relative to others. All sins are against God and cut us off from God but that doesn't mean that steeling a grape from the grocery store is equivalent to rape or that getting intoxicated in equivalent to mass murder and that the three year old that lies to his daddy about having gotten into the cookie jar is the equivalent of Lucifer tempting Eve.

Also some sins are just sins while other sins are also crimes. Getting drunk, for example, is sinful but not necessarily criminal. Cussing is sinful but unless you're cussing out a judge or police officer, it usually isn't a crime.

You can sin against some specific person, against a group of people and even against the whole of the society in which you live. Of course all of those would also include the fact that you've sinned against God but the point is that they aren't all the same nor at the same level of severity.

One specific example that I like to cite is the sin of perjury.

God says very clearly "Thou shalt not bare false witness against your neighbor." Most people think this is synonymous with "Thou shalt not lie." but it isn't. Lying may not be a sin at all depending on what you're lying about and to whom and why but it is always a sin to commit perjury. How big a sin is it? Well, it depends!

Before I tell you what it depends upon, let me ask you a question. What would you say is the bible's (God's) punishment for perjury? You can go look it up if you want but that isn't the point. Just hold in your mind what you think the punishment for perjury should be and see whether it is close to what God's says the punishment should be. You don't even need to tell me what you thought it was, unless you just want to. The question is for your benefit not mine.

So, what should the punishment for perjury actually be? Death? Flogging? Jail time? Exile? What?

The answer is that it depends on what is at stake in the trial. If you lie in court trying to get a murderer set free then your punishment is death because that was what was at stake in the trial. If you lie in court trying to convict an innocent man of murder - same thing - the death penalty was at stake in the trial and thus the punishment for your perjury is also death. If it's a lesser charge then the jeopardy for the perjurer is likewise less. Whether it's flogging or mutilation or restitution or indentured servitude or whatever it happens to be, the just (i.e. biblical) punishment for perjury is whatever is at stake during the trial.

That's such a great example because it's one sin with many different potential punishments that all depend on its severity. Of course, the various punishments for various crimes is sufficient to prove that not all sins are the same but when you have the same sin having multiple levels of severity, it really drives the point home.

Lastly, in regards to sins themselves, including the sinfulness of criminal acts, God Himself tells us that not all sin is the same and that not all sin will be dealt with the same way.

Jesus said that those who delivered Him to Caesar had "the greater sin" (John 19:11) and in Luke 12:48 Jesus teaches that some will be beaten with few stripes and others with many because "to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."


Lastly, this idea that all sin is the same is one of many Christian clichés that ought to be avoided. It's mindless for one thing and worse than that, it implies that God is unjust.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Idolater]

Valid for nonbelievers in what way?

:AMR: I didn't say it was valid for nonbelievers.

 

[Idolater]

What do you mean? Virtually every sin is different than every other sin.

I agree.

There are several different kinds of sins. Some sins are quite minor relative to others. All sins are against God and cut us off from God but that doesn't mean that steeling a grape from the grocery store is equivalent to rape or that getting intoxicated in equivalent to mass murder and that the three year old that lies to his daddy about having gotten into the cookie jar is the equivalent of Lucifer tempting Eve.

Also some sins are just sins while other sins are also crimes. Getting drunk, for example, is sinful but not necessarily criminal. Cussing is sinful but unless you're cussing out a judge or police officer, it usually isn't a crime.

You can sin against some specific person, against a group of people and even against the whole of the society in which you live. Of course all of those would also include the fact that you've sinned against God but the point is that they aren't all the same nor at the same level of severity.

One specific example that I like to cite is the sin of perjury.

God says very clearly "Thou shalt not bare false witness against your neighbor." Most people think this is synonymous with "Thou shalt not lie." but it isn't. Lying may not be a sin at all depending on what you're lying about and to whom and why but it is always a sin to commit perjury. How big a sin is it? Well, it depends!

Before I tell you what it depends upon, let me ask you a question. What would you say is the bible's (God's) punishment for perjury? You can go look it up if you want but that isn't the point. Just hold in your mind what you think the punishment for perjury should be and see whether it is close to what God's says the punishment should be. You don't even need to tell me what you thought it was, unless you just want to. The question is for your benefit not mine.

So, what should the punishment for perjury actually be? Death? Flogging? Jail time? Exile? What?

The answer is that it depends on what is at stake in the trial. If you lie in court trying to get a murderer set free then your punishment is death because that was what was at stake in the trial. If you lie in court trying to convict an innocent man of murder - same thing - the death penalty was at stake in the trial and thus the punishment for your perjury is also death. If it's a lesser charge then the jeopardy for the perjurer is likewise less. Whether it's flogging or mutilation or restitution or indentured servitude or whatever it happens to be, the just (i.e. biblical) punishment for perjury is whatever is at stake during the trial.

That's such a great example because it's one sin with many different potential punishments that all depend on its severity. Of course, the various punishments for various crimes is sufficient to prove that not all sins are the same but when you have the same sin having multiple levels of severity, it really drives the point home.

Lastly, in regards to sins themselves, including the sinfulness of criminal acts, God Himself tells us that not all sin is the same and that not all sin will be dealt with the same way.

Jesus said that those who delivered Him to Caesar had "the greater sin" (John 19:11) and in Luke 12:48 Jesus teaches that some will be beaten with few stripes and others with many because "to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."


Lastly, this idea that all sin is the same is one of many Christian clichés that ought to be avoided. It's mindless for one thing and worse than that, it implies that God is unjust.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree with all of this Clete. And I just want you to know that it is all 100% Catholic, up to and including your example of the variable gravity of the sin of perjury. I mean they could be twins, your obviously well studied and thought out position here, and Catholicism's overall teaching, on the matter of sins. Twins are not mirror images, they do differ a bit, and characteristically for those who know them, but they are largely identical.

Great minds. (You and the Apostles.)

 

[Clete]

I agree.
I agree with all of this Clete. And I just want you to know that it is all 100% Catholic, up to and including your example of the variable gravity of the sin of perjury. I mean they could be twins, your obviously well studied and thought out position here, and Catholicism's overall teaching, on the matter of sins. Twins are not mirror images, they do differ a bit, and characteristically for those who know them, but they are largely identical.

Great minds. (You and the Apostles.)

I couldn't care less whether my doctrine agrees with Catholicism. That carries the exact same amount of weight as does the fact that most of Ayn Rand's ethics happen to be in agreement with Christian doctrine and that David Koresh could recite large portions of the New Testament from memory.

Not that I think Catholics are on par with atheists and cult leaders, that isn't the point. The point is simply that my doctrine is biblical and rational, not catholic.

Besides, I'm not at all sure you're correct anyway. I'd bet you could count on one hand the number of catholic theologians who would agree that lying isn't always a sin. In addition to that, the Catholics are responsible for a much worse idea that is prevalent in the church concerning sin which is the idea that we are condemned because of Adam's sin. The doctrine of Original Sin is the very definition of injustice on it's face. It is irrational, unjust and entirely unbiblical and so again, whether Catholics agree with me or not doesn't add an ounce to the veracity of my doctrine.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Idolater]

I couldn't care less whether my doctrine agrees with Catholicism. That carries the exact same amount of weight as does the fact that most of Ayn Rand's ethics happen to be in agreement with Christian doctrine and that David Koresh could recite large portions of the New Testament from memory.

Not that I think Catholics are on par with atheists and cult leaders, that isn't the point. The point is simply that my doctrine is biblical and rational, not catholic.

Besides, I'm not at all sure you're correct anyway. I'd bet you could count on one hand the number of catholic theologians who would agree that lying isn't always a sin. In addition to that, the Catholics are responsible for a much worse idea that is prevalent in the church concerning sin which is the idea that we are condemned because of Adam's sin. The doctrine of Original Sin is the very definition of injustice on it's face. It is irrational, unjust and entirely unbiblical and so again, whether Catholics agree with me or not doesn't add an ounce to the veracity of my doctrine.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That's fine. Good for you. I was just letting you know.

 

[Clete]

That's fine. Good for you. I was just letting you know.

Is there no one on TOL interested in engaging a debate anymore?

:yawn: