Circular Reasoning

balshan

Well-known member
Re: post #2,142

This juvenile idiom and assertion your trying to use against balshan doesn't work when it comes to teachings, doctrines, and dogma's of churches. This assertion can not be used against other churches, that do NOT do as the rcc does. It is a well known fact of what the rcc teaches is contrary to Scripture. And how rc's speak and act has been proven by photo's, video's, first hand eye witness accounts from people who are ex-rc and what has been said by rc's themselves.

You profess to believe in Jesus, but then have no problem with being disrespectful and hateful of Him and throwing Him under the bus when it suits you. You chose to use Jesus for an evil action in your post when you posted the juvenile assertion. A person who truly believes in and loves Christ is NOT disrespectful of Him. You act like this, and want us to believe that the rcc is about God and Christ. Um, no. Your real god is not Christ... but the rcc of which you identify yourself with.
Thank you.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Re: post #2,142

This juvenile idiom and assertion your trying to use against balshan doesn't work when it comes to teachings, doctrines, and dogma's of churches. This assertion can not be used against other churches, that do NOT do as the rcc does. It is a well known fact of what the rcc teaches is contrary to Scripture. And how rc's speak and act has been proven by photo's, video's, first hand eye witness accounts from people who are ex-rc and what has been said by rc's themselves.

You profess to believe in Jesus, but then have no problem with being disrespectful and hateful of Him and throwing Him under the bus when it suits you. You chose to use Jesus for an evil action in your post when you posted the juvenile assertion. A person who truly believes in and loves Christ is NOT disrespectful of Him. You act like this, and want us to believe that the rcc is about God and Christ. Um, no. Your real god is not Christ... but the rcc of which you identify yourself with.
here is the post of balshan...
That is the myth you tell yourself to justify the fact that your institution is not what it claims to be and does not have the right marks. But it does have the marks of its real founder, it is filthy, it is full of sexual immorality, it lies and is not truthful, it teaches false doctrines. (post# 2129)

the catholic church is founded by jesus christ. now you tell me who is maligning the dogma and founder of my church.

and the reason i asked ... so to you, jesus has the following attributes? (post#2412)

now, tell me where are my words (juvenile idiom and assertion) against balshan?
 

balshan

Well-known member
here is the post of balshan...
That is the myth you tell yourself to justify the fact that your institution is not what it claims to be and does not have the right marks. But it does have the marks of its real founder, it is filthy, it is full of sexual immorality, it lies and is not truthful, it teaches false doctrines. (post# 2129)

the catholic church is founded by jesus christ. now you tell me who is maligning the dogma and founder of my church.

and the reason i asked ... so to you, jesus has the following attributes? (post#2412)

now, tell me where are my words (juvenile idiom and assertion) against balshan?
The RCC is NOT founded by Jesus. You have failed over and over to prove that claim. The highlights are the evidence that saying it is founded by Jesus is a furphy. Your institution only passes one biblical test and that is the bad tree test,

You made no sense in your reply as Jesus attributes have nothing to do at all with your false claim and the poster was correct in their response to your post. That comment fails to prove the false claim made by the RCC.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Yep Ram brought up bride of christ post 2151. It is not a term I use very often but RCs love it. It would be pointless discussing it, we would just be repeating the same old, same old. I have noted Ram you made a false accusations of me diverting to bride of Christ and it wasn't me was it. You never say sorry. Got it,
let us finish post # 2035 before we go to the bride of christ.
 

balshan

Well-known member
let us finish post # 2035 before we go to the bride of christ.
I have finished with the post, you repeated your institution false claim and I proved it to be false. You introduced the bride of Christ not me. Your institution's claim to be the bride of Christ is also false for exactly the same reason.

You made the claim that I introduced the bride of Christ topic and you were wrong, with false accusations of my diverting off topic, when it was you who did so. But no apology, no surprise. Just bear false witness and move on is the RC way.
 
Last edited:

ramcam2

Well-known member
The RCC is NOT founded by Jesus. You have failed over and over to prove that claim. The highlights are the evidence that saying it is founded by Jesus is a furphy. Your institution only passes one biblical test and that is the bad tree test,

You made no sense in your reply as Jesus attributes have nothing to do at all with your false claim and the poster was correct in their response to your post. That comment fails to prove the false claim made by the RCC.
let us agree on this...

the church is founded by jesus christ. he came to this world for sinners (matt9:13, Rom. 3:23), we don’t look for a church with perfect/sinless leaders or members; instead we seek a church that teaches the truth (1tim3:15), as our Lord willed (john16:13, luke10:16).
 

balshan

Well-known member
let us agree on this...

the church is founded by jesus christ. he came to this world for sinners (matt9:13, Rom. 3:23), we don’t look for a church with perfect/sinless leaders or members; instead we seek a church that teaches the truth (1tim3:15), as our Lord willed (john16:13, luke10:16).
No we cannot agree on that because you mistakenly think that church means your bad tree the RCC and it doesn't. Your institution only passes one scriptural test and that is the bad tree test.
 

leonard03782

Well-known member
let us agree on this...

the church is founded by jesus christ. he came to this world for sinners (matt9:13, Rom. 3:23), we don’t look for a church with perfect/sinless leaders or members; instead we seek a church that teaches the truth (1tim3:15), as our Lord willed (john16:13, luke10:16).
you would not know the truth even if you tripped and fell over it with every footstep you take.
 

A new day

Well-known member
here is the post of balshan...
That is the myth you tell yourself to justify the fact that your institution is not what it claims to be and does not have the right marks. But it does have the marks of its real founder, it is filthy, it is full of sexual immorality, it lies and is not truthful, it teaches false doctrines. (post# 2129)

the catholic church is founded by jesus christ. now you tell me who is maligning the dogma and founder of my church.

and the reason i asked ... so to you, jesus has the following attributes? (post#2412)

now, tell me where are my words (juvenile idiom and assertion) against balshan?

You claim Jesus is the founder, but yet you don't know Him or follow Him. If you did, you would not have applied the highlighted statement to Jesus. You certainly did intend for the question to be an insult. There are dozens of other statements you could have made to defend your institution in a mature apologetic manner. You, yourself applied those attributes to Jesus, then asked if balshan agreed with you. And now your back peddling.

Your on an apologetic discussion board. This forum is for discussing all things roman catholic. The very purpose of apologetics is for you to come up with rational and mature responses against the objections people bring up against roman catholicism. That is the very purpose of this forum and the purpose of every forum on carm. This web site was created for apologetic discussions.

If you are so thinned skinned that you think any and every post by non-rc's is an insult, then perhaps apologetic forums are not for you.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
You claim Jesus is the founder, but yet you don't know Him or follow Him. If you did, you would not have applied the highlighted statement to Jesus. You certainly did intend for the question to be an insult. There are dozens of other statements you could have made to defend your institution in a mature apologetic manner. You, yourself applied those attributes to Jesus, then asked if balshan agreed with you. And now your back peddling.

Your on an apologetic discussion board. This forum is for discussing all things roman catholic. The very purpose of apologetics is for you to come up with rational and mature responses against the objections people bring up against roman catholicism. That is the very purpose of this forum and the purpose of every forum on carm. This web site was created for apologetic discussions.

If you are so thinned skinned that you think any and every post by non-rc's is an insult, then perhaps apologetic forums are not for you.
who applied these statements to jesus? not me.... please read post #2129 and checked who the poster is. i think you got the wrong person. why will i make that statement to my church's founder, jesus christ? i do not think your accusation makes sense.

and who are you to read what is in my heart? i do know and i do follow jesus.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
No we cannot agree on that because you mistakenly think that church means your bad tree the RCC and it doesn't. Your institution only passes one scriptural test and that is the bad tree test.
and with flying colors ((matt9:13, Rom. 3:23))
 

balshan

Well-known member
and with flying colors ((matt9:13, Rom. 3:23))
Your institution is not in those passages. Your priests/leaders 1 Cor 5:11 meansreal believer should not even eat with them.m They either did not expose sin or sinned. Those sins are the ones means we are not to associate with them. You see those verses are outweighed by other verses. It is not merciful to pretend that the sin does not exist. To put them out gives them a chance to be saved. They have harmed the sheep.

So you have nothing, no flying colours. You cannot justify the bad/evil/foul smelling fruit of your leaders.

Matt 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

2 Thess 3: 14+

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

1 Tim 1:20

Among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Thess 3:6

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Your leaders kept on sinning, they were not stopping others constantly hid that sin making them part of the sin. We are not talking about laity we are discussing leaders. Their sins harmed the sheep, these sins harmed them for their the rest of their lives, sometimes turning the sheep away from Jesus. They prove that your leaders are not apostolic and do not follow Jesus and the apostles. They prove your institution was not founded by Jesus. You have nothing at all.

Leaders are to be an example, your leaders give examples of lying and teaching false doctrines, they give an example of hiding sin, they give an example of condoning sexual immorality, in this country they give an example of defrauding the goverment and thus greed, the list of the example they give throughout the centuries is one of evil deeds. These are not leaders of the real church.

Your quote about mercy is a joke right as your leaders did not show mercy towards their victims at all, they lied about them, they deliberately tried to avoid giving them any recompense at all. So the RCC idea of penance is a joke, isn't it. I mean penance is about making right and your institution did all it could and is still doing all it can to avoid making it right at all. it did not even start to be truthful about it, until the news brought it out in the open. If you watch the movie SPOTLIGHT you will see the extreme lenths the leaders went to, to stop the press printing the truth. Read the stories in Broken rites, they give a glimpse into what the children went through.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
Your institution is not in those passages. Your priests/leaders 1 Cor 5:11 meansreal believer should not even eat with them.m They either did not expose sin or sinned. Those sins are the ones means we are not to associate with them. You see those verses are outweighed by other verses. It is not merciful to pretend that the sin does not exist. To put them out gives them a chance to be saved. They have harmed the sheep.

So you have nothing, no flying colours. You cannot justify the bad/evil/foul smelling fruit of your leaders.

Matt 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

2 Thess 3: 14+

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

1 Tim 1:20

Among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Thess 3:6

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Your leaders kept on sinning, they were not stopping others constantly hid that sin making them part of the sin. We are not talking about laity we are discussing leaders. Their sins harmed the sheep, these sins harmed them for their the rest of their lives, sometimes turning the sheep away from Jesus. They prove that your leaders are not apostolic and do not follow Jesus and the apostles. They prove your institution was not founded by Jesus. You have nothing at all.

Leaders are to be an example, your leaders give examples of lying and teaching false doctrines, they give an example of hiding sin, they give an example of condoning sexual immorality, in this country they give an example of defrauding the goverment and thus greed, the list of the example they give throughout the centuries is one of evil deeds. These are not leaders of the real church.

Your quote about mercy is a joke right as your leaders did not show mercy towards their victims at all, they lied about them, they deliberately tried to avoid giving them any recompense at all. So the RCC idea of penance is a joke, isn't it. I mean penance is about making right and your institution did all it could and is still doing all it can to avoid making it right at all. it did not even start to be truthful about it, until the news brought it out in the open. If you watch the movie SPOTLIGHT you will see the extreme lenths the leaders went to, to stop the press printing the truth. Read the stories in Broken rites, they give a glimpse into what the children went through.
i pray for the time when you can post arguments to refute the logic, meaning, and purpose of the Catholic church’s positions, instead of anti-catholic rhetorics..

peace be with you.
 

balshan

Well-known member
i pray for the time when you can post arguments to refute the logic, meaning, and purpose of the Catholic church’s positions, instead of anti-catholic rhetorics..

peace be with you.
When I see you have made a post I just groan, knowing it is more false RCC claims and ad hominems. Nothing of substance at all. My rhetoric tells the truth and those truths are the evidence that there is no logice, meaning or purpose for your instituion or its false postions.

Of course your prayers won't be answered because you are bearing false witness in them. God doesn't answer prayers that are false and against His will.

I don't want your false peace.
 

ramcam2

Well-known member
When I see you have made a post I just groan, knowing it is more false RCC claims and ad hominems. Nothing of substance at all. My rhetoric tells the truth and those truths are the evidence that there is no logice, meaning or purpose for your instituion or its false postions.

Of course your prayers won't be answered because you are bearing false witness in them. God doesn't answer prayers that are false and against His will.

I don't want your false peace.
anyway, thanks.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
This thread is supposed to be about how the Catholic Church uses circular reasoning in place of valid deductive logic. But when I went all the way back to post #1, I see that started with the assumption that the Catholic Church does in fact use circular reasoning, rather than starting by presenting an example of circular reasoning in Catholic thought. I have not read through all 2176 previous postings, but from what sampling I did do, the topic of circular reasoning was never addressed after post #1. In case anyone would like to return to the title topic, keep in mind what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning is a specific kind of faulty exercise in logic in which the proposition that is supposedly proven is in fact required to be assumed true at the beginning, thus leading to a circle that begins and ends at the same proposition. Valid logical arguments that do not rely on circular reasoning start out assuming only what everyone already agrees on and then makes deductions from there. In particular, the desired proposition (whether it be the real presence in the Eucharist, the role of free will, Marian doctrines, salvation through faith, etc.) must be allowed to be considered false in the argument until it is proven to be true. That is how to avoid circular reasoning.

Now, is there any appetite to discuss circular reasoning in Catholicism for real?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
This thread is supposed to be about how the Catholic Church uses circular reasoning in place of valid deductive logic. But when I went all the way back to post #1, I see that started with the assumption that the Catholic Church does in fact use circular reasoning, rather than starting by presenting an example of circular reasoning in Catholic thought. I have not read through all 2176 previous postings, but from what sampling I did do, the topic of circular reasoning was never addressed after post #1. In case anyone would like to return to the title topic, keep in mind what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning is a specific kind of faulty exercise in logic in which the proposition that is supposedly proven is in fact required to be assumed true at the beginning, thus leading to a circle that begins and ends at the same proposition. Valid logical arguments that do not rely on circular reasoning start out assuming only what everyone already agrees on and then makes deductions from there. In particular, the desired proposition (whether it be the real presence in the Eucharist, the role of free will, Marian doctrines, salvation through faith, etc.) must be allowed to be considered false in the argument until it is proven to be true. That is how to avoid circular reasoning.

Now, is there any appetite to discuss circular reasoning in Catholicism for real?

I understand your desire to have such a discussion but might I point out the futility in such a discussion.

Circular reason is a by product of confirmation bias. Pointing out someone's confirmation bias will only result in more confirmation bias from them to justify the confirmation bias. Same with circular reasoning. If you have someone who insists upon it, and you point it out to them, they will do nothing less than justify their circular reasoning with more circular reasoning.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Now, is there any appetite to discuss circular reasoning in Catholicism for real?
well; this is the RCC Forum, and I have yet to see any RCC'er
prove that the Church of Rome is what they claim
without using "circular reasoning"

want to give it a try;
if so, start a new thread on it

pilgrim has said
"I get tired of the lie that one can leave the Church that Jesus established, attack it from the outside and consider oneself a "true believer".
How is that not arrogance and pride?"

may be pilgim can prove to us that the RCC is
the Church that Jesus established
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Well-known member
I understand your desire to have such a discussion but might I point out the futility in such a discussion.
I find it somewhat ironic that over 2000 posts have been made in a thread about circular reasoning without anyone really wanting to discuss circular reasoning. It makes the title fairly useless.


Circular reason is a by product of confirmation bias.
Not really. Confirmation bias is the tendency to believe one side of an argument over another before the evidence has been examined, and the consequent desire to search for the evidence that confirms the bias and to ignore evidence that does not. It is not about logic. It is similar to circular reasoning however in that a proposition is favored before it has been proven.


Pointing out someone's confirmation bias will only result in more confirmation bias from them to justify the confirmation bias.
Even people with confirmation bias, when presented with unbiased evidence can form the opposite opinion. It depends on the person. People who do not trust logic and who have very strong confirmation bias are likely to respond as you say, but people who do trust logic and have an open mind, even on subjects in which they have a bias can respond positively to new information. It happens in science frequently.

Same with circular reasoning. If you have someone who insists upon it, and you point it out to them, they will do nothing less than justify their circular reasoning with more circular reasoning.
Those are people that do not think logically. I agree that for such people it is not useful to try to engage in a logical argument.
 
Top