I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use strawmen. Your use of them helps no one. Obviously, I am not proposing that we all pray to maple syrup.
When I asked the commenter to “definitively disprove my position,” I meant that they should disprove it by proving that it truly is in some way “extra” (which could most easily be done through the traditional, historical testimony, if my position were somehow indeed false) or “contra” (which could be done simply by using the Bible itself).
here’s a recap of your argument which you ignored
hence the strawmen
so. .
if we determine that ‘saints’ means dead Christians despite the way Paul uses it (in scripture)
and we see that they pray to God
and we impose upon them what they are praying about
we can therefore claim it is scriptural to pray TO them
that’s extra and contra scriptural
and i didn’t even mention maple syrup
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use strawmen. Your use of them helps no one. -BlogpimperMatt
...which could most easily be done through the traditional, historical testimony, if my position were somehow indeed false...BlogpimperMatt
They're dead, Jim.
Hahahahahahahaha....
There is only one Mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. The author's misquotation and declaration of the Roman error as fact adds nothing to make the point of this diatribe against Christian believers.
What is a Logical Fallacy?
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above. ...
Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
*****
Equivocation Fallacy
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.
Fallacy of Composition
The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property. This pattern of argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of division. It is not always fallacious, but we must be cautious in making inferences of this form. ...
What part of praying to God thru Jesus and Jesus alone do you not get?