"Assailment-by-Entailment"

Do you know what this fallacy is? If not, I encourage you to learn what it is so that you will not engage in it and will be able to confront it when it might be used against you.

Arguments that use this fallacy have been used more than once against me in discussions about worship music (here on SI and elsewhere). I recognized what was argued against me as faulty but now I should be able to confront it more skillfully. I also intend to be even more careful that I do not engage is this faulty practice myself.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with everything that this article or its author, etc. says.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/12/a-new-name-for-an-old-...

3209 reads
RajeshG's picture

Lord willing, in the weeks (months?) ahead, I hope to document from previous threads how at least one SI user (and perhaps more than one) has engaged in an unethical campaign against me on SI that has featured repeated claims for which no proof has even been provided. Once that documentation has been provided, it should be clear what tactics have been used to unethically target me because I have spoken out extensively against CCM both here on SI and elsewhere.

I also hope that once that documentation has been provided, steps will be taken such that this user (and other users) will not be allowed to make such claims against me anymore on SI.

Ron Bean's picture

In your multitude of posts you have failed to provide a single SPECIFIC example of what you are warning us about. Because you deal in vague generalities, multitude examples of guilt by association,  and fail to answer specific questions, you have placed yourself in the unenviable position of playing defense and trying to justify yourself. I wish you the best.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

In your multitude of posts you have failed to provide a single SPECIFIC example of what you are warning us about. Because you deal in vague generalities, multitude examples of guilt by association,  and fail to answer specific questions, you have placed yourself in the unenviable position of playing defense and trying to justify yourself. I wish you the best.

You are now officially on the record as showing that you are one of very people on SI that I had in mind who has voiced the false claims against me that must stop:
 

"Because you deal in . . . multitude examples of guilt by association . . . [bold, underlining added to the original]"

You must now prove this claim with many, very specific examples that show that I have done what you claim.

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

First, I don't agree with every argument used against your views on music.  Of course, that doesn't make your views necessarily correct, either.

I'll agree that no one can assume and claim that you believe something (that is logically entailed by something you have said you do believe) when you explicitly deny it.  However, that doesn't really help your argument when those arguing with you can see that you hold two things that are, at least by all evidence you have presented, logically contradictory.

Since things that are logically contradictory cannot both be correct, most of us tend to assume that those arguing with us must believe something that makes logical sense, hence the above type of thinking that Olson labels a fallacy.  Of course, being human, it's entirely too easy for us to hold two things that cannot both be true at the same time, so we do need to use care to not assume that one belief held by someone implies that he holds another one.  Again, though, that's still not of any real help to the one making contradictory points, and while those arguing against him cannot say that he believes something he denies, they can still decide that the inconsistencies make his point invalid.

Dave Barnhart

RajeshG's picture

dcbii wrote:

First, I don't agree with every argument used against your views on music.  Of course, that doesn't make your views necessarily correct, either.

I'll agree that no one can assume and claim that you believe something (that is logically entailed by something you have said you do believe) when you explicitly deny it.  However, that doesn't really help your argument when those arguing with you can see that you hold two things that are, at least by all evidence you have presented, logically contradictory.

What exactly are you talking about when you say that I "hold two things that are, at least by all evidence [that I] have presented, logically contradictory"? What are these "two things"?

Bert Perry's picture

Look it up.  You will not find "assailment by entailment" as a standard logical fallacy.  Olson is using a paper out of Texas A&M to put a fancy academic sounding name on a much more mundane reality; some people are taking what he says to generate a false conclusion (non sequitur) and others have just made stuff up (lying).  Reality is, contra Olson, that it's entirely fair to point out the logical consequences of a person's mode of thinking, even if they deny that.  

So what he's done is to dodge the hard work of demonstrating a non sequitur, dodge the uncomfortable work of pointing out lies, and in doing so is doing damage to the practice of logic in the process.  Poorly done, Dr. Olson, and poorly recommended, Rajesh.

Regarding your writing, Rajesh, pretty much what Ron says.  You make a lot of fallacious guilt by association arguments, and those fallacious arguments lend themselves well to pointing out the logical consequences.  There is nothing unfair to you in the least here.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding your writing, Rajesh, pretty much what Ron says.  You make a lot of fallacious guilt by association arguments, and those fallacious arguments lend themselves well to pointing out the logical consequences.  There is nothing unfair to you in the least here.

You are the chief propagator of numerous false claims about my making "a lot of fallacious guilt by association arguments." You must prove your claims with many, very specific examples where I have made such arguments or stop making these false claims!

RajeshG's picture

It is highly unethical for people to repeatedly make claims about someone's making certain statements or arguments and never provide specific evidence of that person's making those statements or arguments.

By their own statements in this very thread, Ron Bean and Bert Perry have shown that they are making very important claims about me. I repudiate those claims as having no validity.

I appeal to all honest, fair-minded users of SI to join me in demanding that either they prove their claims with very specific and clear evidence or they stop making those claims!

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh, there is no false argument about you using guilt by association fallacies liberally.  Your linking to Brennan's pen contains a number of them, linking the unsuitability of rock & roll (in your view at least) to the Yoruba, voodoo, and the like.  Here, you argue that a connection of music to pagans makes it unusable by believers.  You do the same liberally in the forum discussions of the "Golden Calf incident".  Here, you make the argument that since Jubal was the son of Lamech, that his music was tainted--this violates not only guilt by association but also the clear meaning of Ezekiel 18 and other passages that clarify that the son is not guilty for the sins of his father.  Here's where you assailed rock & roll based on a throwaway line from Chaim Witz, and an association with the same.  Here's another collection of guilt by assocation fallacies by yourself.

Not that I anticipate the listing a fraction of your guilt by association fallacies will get through to you, but the ugly reality here is that you use this a lot, and these logical fallacies you use support false ideas which do indeed have logical consequences.  You can deny them, and I know you have done so repeatedly, but that doesn't change the fact that your arguments have logical consequences.

And engage with you long enough to persuade you of what you're doing?  My goodness, you're the guy who argued over 200 comments over whether bird songs are displeasing to God with Kevin, and used a throwaway line from Gene Simmons on a "ordinary  people with mediocre voices singing pop" show to assail rock & roll in general for several pages here.  You're as impervious to evidence as anyone I've ever met.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

So Bert Perry now thinks that he has provided numerous examples of guilt-by-association argumentation that I have made. Is his pronouncement that it is so the final word? Who made him the final judge?

You are going to have to do a lot more than just make claims.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, there is no false argument about you using guilt by association fallacies liberally.  Your linking to Brennan's pen contains a number of them, linking the unsuitability of rock & roll (in your view at least) to the Yoruba, voodoo, and the like.  Here, you argue that a connection of music to pagans makes it unusable by believers.  You do the same liberally in the forum discussions of the "Golden Calf incident".  Here, you make the argument that since Jubal was the son of Lamech, that his music was tainted--this violates not only guilt by association but also the clear meaning of Ezekiel 18 and other passages that clarify that the son is not guilty for the sins of his father.  Here's where you assailed rock & roll based on a throwaway line from Chaim Witz, and an association with the same.  Here's another collection of guilt by assocation fallacies by yourself.

Not that I anticipate the listing a fraction of your guilt by association fallacies will get through to you, but the ugly reality here is that you use this a lot, and these logical fallacies you use support false ideas which do indeed have logical consequences.  You can deny them, and I know you have done so repeatedly, but that doesn't change the fact that your arguments have logical consequences.

And engage with you long enough to persuade you of what you're doing?  My goodness, you're the guy who argued over 200 comments over whether bird songs are displeasing to God with Kevin, and used a throwaway line from Gene Simmons on a "ordinary  people with mediocre voices singing pop" show to assail rock & roll in general for several pages here.  You're as impervious to evidence as anyone I've ever met.

Sure, Bert, whatever you say.

I have already refuted your false claims about what you say Tom Brennan believes and what I believe.

About the other so-called examples, you think that your making a summary, flawed judgment of very detailed argumentation in many threads is sufficient to show that your claim is valid? Not a chance.

Kevin Miller's picture

Rajesh, didn't you use this same fallacy against Bert in the "Does God love all kinds of music . . " thread? You responded to him in one post with the following paragraph:

"Because Scripture teaches us that there is instrumental music that God rejects, you have the burden of proving that in violation of divine prohibitions you can still righteously go to wicked people like occultists and take their wicked music and use it acceptably to worship God. Those of us who reject that wicked music do not have to prove that it is evil--you have to prove that it is acceptable to God."

Where has Bert said that "you can still righteously go to wicked people like occultists and take their wicked music and use it acceptably to worship God."? I don't recall Bert ever saying that. You are using assailment by entailment when you say Bert has to prove that when he never even said that.

 

Bert Perry's picture

You're more impervious to evidence than anyone else I've met, Rajesh.  Regarding "do I get to be the final judge", of course not, and that's why I provided links to my examples.  Like the application of the laws of formal and informal logic, it's part and parcel of actual academic work.  

And no, no false claims about Brennan's work.  If you don't differentiate between rock, classical, jazz, country, and other percussive styles, and neither of you try, Brennan's reckless comment connecting percussion to the occult becomes a broad condemnation.  

Again, just because you don't like where your arguments lead doesn't mean they don't go there.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

So Bert Perry now thinks that he has provided numerous examples of guilt-by-association argumentation that I have made. Is his pronouncement that it is so the final word? Who made him the final judge?

You are going to have to do a lot more than just make claims.

So what more does Bert have to do? You asked for evidence. He provided it. What more do you need? Do you need some "final" arbiter to declare his evidence to actually be valid evidence? Are you looking for us to make some sort of yes or no poll as to whether he actually provided evidence that you use guilt by association arguments?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

So Bert Perry now thinks that he has provided numerous examples of guilt-by-association argumentation that I have made. Is his pronouncement that it is so the final word? Who made him the final judge?

You are going to have to do a lot more than just make claims.

 

So what more does Bert have to do? You asked for evidence. He provided it. What more do you need? Do you need some "final" arbiter to declare his evidence to actually be valid evidence? Are you looking for us to make some sort of yes or no poll as to whether he actually provided evidence that you use guilt by association arguments?

Obviously, I reject his assertions about that evidence as manifesting the guilt by association fallacy. Just because he says that they do does not prove that they do. 

Notice, that he makes broad, sweeping generalizations about threads where I provide numerous Bible passages to back up my position. Anyone can make such sweeping generalizations and claim that they have proved something when they have not.

No, I am not looking for some poll, etc.

As I said in my initial comment, I intend to document with actual statements that he and others have falsely characterized my work as riddled with fallacious argumentation and done so with mere assertions and not with actual, valid logical reasoning.

 

Bert Perry's picture

Let's be honest here; if we are going to argue that a particular kind of music is or is not acceptable to use by Christians, especially in congregational praise, there are a limited number of arguments that can be made.

First would be clear, unequivocal statements from Scripture telling us that we should, or should not, use particular keys, time signatures, vocal techniques, instruments, crescendos & descrescendos, cadences, melodies, harmonies, and the like.  The fact of the matter is that apart from the final two Psalms, which tell us that God commanded at least some music to be percussive and danceable, we really do not have this.  The best we can say is that if the music is loud and percussive enough for thousands of worshippers to dance to at the Temple, it probably had a lot more in common with rock & roll than musical conservatives would like to admit.

Failing this, we have either an argument from general revelation like Frank Garlock's infamous plant experiment, or we have guilt by association.  Rajesh really doesn't attempt the former, and hence what is left?

Guilt by association, and that's what Rajesh's "Biblical analysis" of places like Exodus 32 boils down to.  There's no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well.  In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it.  Although we have no clue what it was.

If that's what you call Biblical proof, Rajesh, may I suggest a refresher course like this?  Honestly, you break so many rules of basic logic and exegesis in your writing, it's not even funny.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Guilt by association, and that's what Rajesh's "Biblical analysis" of places like Exodus 32 boils down to.  There's no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well.  In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it.  Although we have no clue what it was.

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.  

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Guilt by association, and that's what Rajesh's "Biblical analysis" of places like Exodus 32 boils down to.  There's no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well.  In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it.  Although we have no clue what it was.

 

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.  

How is this a wrong assessment? Are you saying there IS an analysis of the musical style in the passage? Are you saying we DO have a clue as to what the music was?

Bert did not deny, in his statement, the demonic character of the event. He mentioned that an idol was involved, so he's not denying the idolatry, which carries with it a demonic character. He simply states that YOU assume that, since an idol was involved, the music must have been different from what the Israelites normally used. That IS your position, after all, isn't it, that the music was somehow different? So that statement isn't even a wrong assessment.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Guilt by association, and that's what Rajesh's "Biblical analysis" of places like Exodus 32 boils down to.  There's no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well.  In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it.  Although we have no clue what it was.

 

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.  

 

How is this a wrong assessment? Are you saying there IS an analysis of the musical style in the passage? Are you saying we DO have a clue as to what the music was?

 

Bert did not deny, in his statement, the demonic character of the event. He mentioned that an idol was involved, so he's not denying the idolatry, which carries with it a demonic character. He simply states that YOU assume that, since an idol was involved, the music must have been different from what the Israelites normally used. That IS your position, after all, isn't it, that the music was somehow different? So that statement isn't even a wrong assessment.


 

No, I did not assume anything; I argued for it biblically. There is a huge difference in what I did and what he claims that I did.

Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Guilt by association, and that's what Rajesh's "Biblical analysis" of places like Exodus 32 boils down to.  There's no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well.  In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it.  Although we have no clue what it was.

 

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.  

 

How is this a wrong assessment? Are you saying there IS an analysis of the musical style in the passage? Are you saying we DO have a clue as to what the music was?

 

Bert did not deny, in his statement, the demonic character of the event. He mentioned that an idol was involved, so he's not denying the idolatry, which carries with it a demonic character. He simply states that YOU assume that, since an idol was involved, the music must have been different from what the Israelites normally used. That IS your position, after all, isn't it, that the music was somehow different? So that statement isn't even a wrong assessment.

 

 

 

No, I did not assume anything; I argued for it biblically. There is a huge difference in what I did and what he claims that I did.

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren't taken from Bible passages.

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

I'm not seeing as how music was the "direct result" of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren't taken from Bible passages.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

 

 

I'm not seeing as how music was the "direct result" of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

Bert Perry's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

And no, no false claims about Brennan's work. 

 

 

You most certainly made a false claim about Brennan to the effect that he holds/argues that "all drums are out of line." You also made statements that at least implied that I hold that same false position.

I proved from both his statements and my own that neither of us holds that false position that you falsely claimed we hold.

Alrighty then, you reject the logical conclusion, as does the source you endorse, of the very comment "rock music is a door to the occult world via percussion".  Now, I'd argue that if you don't differentiate rock & roll percussion from other percussion, you've effectively proscribed all percussion.  

To illustrate why, let's imagine the statement is "auto mechanics is a door to the occult through screwdrivers."  If I believed that, I'd stop using my screwdrivers until I figured out, with high confidence, why use of a screwdriver for auto mechanics is different from repairing doorknobs, attaching computer cables, bicycle repairs, and the like. I would have, after all, linked screwdrivers with demon possession, and I don't want that.

So given that neither you nor your source have attempted to differentiate rock & roll from other genre (and keep in mind Brennan proscribes jazz and ragtime in the same article), you have, whether you like it or not, proscribed all percussion until such time as you actually figure out what's different.  Since you won't be actually, say, listening to any rock & roll to figure it out--or not even to ragtime to figure out most of it doesn't use drums at all--I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh, I'm going back into that source you endorsed, and I'm going to hold you to the fire a bit more.  This quote from the drummer for the Grateful Dead:

To all those who feel the power of the drum and don't know why.

-The most distinctive damarus are made from human skulls.

-"I hope you have been most careful, Mickey Hart. This is a drum of great, great power. It wakes the dead you know."

-It takes commitment and apprenticeship to learn how to find a drum's sweet spot. But once you do, the potential arises for contacting the drum's second voice – one I have come to think of as the spirit side of the drum. Exploring the spirit side of the drum has been the major adventure of my adulthood, if not my whole life.

-I would disappear into the studio for hours, for days, burning deeper and deeper into those perceptual states where the magical can happen.

-For almost as long as I can remember, playing the drum has stimulated certain changes in my consciousness.

-These instruments are capable of releasing certain energies that you contact only when you play.

Now, reading this, note that Brennan is taking Mickey Hart at his word, and Hart clearly speaks of mystic, occult properties of the drums he owns.  

Now if I truly believe that--and Brennan is certainly taking him seriously--would I allow drums at all?  The article goes on to describe not just drums in the land of the Yoruba, but also in Morocco, South Africa (the kraal reference), India, among the American Indians...this would implicate musical forms well beyond rock & roll, and it really comes darned close to saying all drums are bad.

Well, at least if one listens to the evidence Brennan presents.  You can deny that you reject percussion altogether all you want, but that is clearly where the evidence Brennan presents points.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren't taken from Bible passages.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

 

 

I'm not seeing as how music was the "direct result" of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

 

 

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

It's too bad there's not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, I'm going back into that source you endorsed, and I'm going to hold you to the fire a bit more.  This quote from the drummer for the Grateful Dead:

To all those who feel the power of the drum and don't know why.

-The most distinctive damarus are made from human skulls.

-"I hope you have been most careful, Mickey Hart. This is a drum of great, great power. It wakes the dead you know."

-It takes commitment and apprenticeship to learn how to find a drum's sweet spot. But once you do, the potential arises for contacting the drum's second voice – one I have come to think of as the spirit side of the drum. Exploring the spirit side of the drum has been the major adventure of my adulthood, if not my whole life.

-I would disappear into the studio for hours, for days, burning deeper and deeper into those perceptual states where the magical can happen.

-For almost as long as I can remember, playing the drum has stimulated certain changes in my consciousness.

-These instruments are capable of releasing certain energies that you contact only when you play.

Now, reading this, note that Brennan is taking Mickey Hart at his word, and Hart clearly speaks of mystic, occult properties of the drums he owns.  

Now if I truly believe that--and Brennan is certainly taking him seriously--would I allow drums at all?  The article goes on to describe not just drums in the land of the Yoruba, but also in Morocco, South Africa (the kraal reference), India, among the American Indians...this would implicate musical forms well beyond rock & roll, and it really comes darned close to saying all drums are bad.

Well, at least if one listens to the evidence Brennan presents.  You can deny that you reject percussion altogether all you want, but that is clearly where the evidence Brennan presents points.

Wrong. Both Tom Brennan and I regard what God says in the Bible as the supreme authority in all matters. Both of us know and fully believe that the Bible does not teach that all percussion is wrong.

Brennan makes clear that his posts are addressing occult drumming--he knows and says in his series that he is not against all percussion. I quoted his exact statements to prove that fact so anyone who claims otherwise misrepresents what he says and believes.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren't taken from Bible passages.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

 

 

I'm not seeing as how music was the "direct result" of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

 

 

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

 

It's too bad there's not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

Have you now joined the ranks of those who are intellectually dishonest? You know very well that there are fully legitimate ways that people can argue biblically without having to have direct statements that explicitly say what they are arguing for. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren't taken from Bible passages.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely "associated" with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

 

 

I'm not seeing as how music was the "direct result" of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

 

 

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

 

It's too bad there's not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

 

 

Have you now joined the ranks of those who are intellectually dishonest? You know very well that there are fully legitimate ways that people can argue biblically without having to have direct statements that explicitly say what they are arguing for.

Please elaborate. What are these "many ways" that people can argue Biblically without providing Bible verses that say what they assert?

You mentioned that you have argued Biblically that the music of the GCI must have been different from the Israelites normal worship music to God, but i remember those conversations and how frustrated I got by your lack of support for that assertion. It's your opinion, and I can understand why you would hold that opinion, but it's not something you have actually "argued Biblically."

Pages