“The Lord quoted Scripture to refute the devil, and the latter was silenced.”
Did He quote from the New Testament?
“When you have an argument rather than ad hominem”
An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. (Wiki)
It is not simply a statement that one does not like.
I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.
“and want to answer my questions”
Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.
I do, however, reserve the right to contradict you.
On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem escape from argument of the first order, a fallacy known as argument from intimidation. It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas, and instead is typically used to discredit one's opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged. Oh yes, it is ad hominem, and a doozy at that.
Irrelevant, as these writings were established upon the same basis as OT ones were, which was not via an infallible magisterium.
An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.
The problem with "You have fallen into Satan’s trap. He has muddied the waters sufficiently to lead you, and presumably many others, into misunderstanding those things," as referring to wresting “certain” proof out of Scripture for RC traditions that are not seen officially done, and as regards "what constitutes official and even infallible teaching," is that it is a bare assertion, an unsubstantiated charge presented as fact.
And thus your conclusion is begging the question, and makes a conclusive assertion as a substituted for an actual argument that serves to substantiate the conclusive assertion.
And which amounts to charging that i am in a circumstance that compels my position, which can be warranted, but is unsubstantiated. And my remark was written to a follow evangelical who has seen of what i speak, and which i can substantiate it, if you care to actually debate it.
I was using ad hominem loosely to refer to an unsubstantiated personal attack in lieu of an argument, but it may be helpful to consider the the RM (who must sometimes be a hard judging job) definition of ad hominems (though i did not flag you and rarely do invoke the RM for such)
Ad Hominems
The main guideline to posting on the Religion Forum: ”Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally....
Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal....
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent. >
If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.
Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.
That is simply example another sophist tactic that avoids dealing with what refutes Rome, as these questions deal with the foundational premise behind RC claims. You simply are calling things false but do not substantiate them. But it is best for you to avoid dealing with these issues.