AntiChristian:
Logical Fallacies Employed in Trinitarian Theology By Biblical Unitarian

Preface
"Logic," from the Greek word logos, is the science of correct reasoning, and provides tools for analyzing the form and content of arguments. Logic addresses the relationship of premises (or evidence) to conclusions, and helps us determine whether our reasoning is straight or crooked. That is, does our conclusion necessarily follow from the premises, or have we "jumped" to conclusions. The disciplines of logical reasoning are fast becoming a thing of the past, an artifact of a classical education. Feelings, emotions and rhetoric (persuasive speech) are most often the basis of what passes for "reasoning" today. But, if we are ever to "correctly handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), we are going to have to learn to think correctly.

One of the best ways to understand and apply the basics of logic is by becoming familiar with logical fallacies, that is, examples of faulty reasoning. What follows are the main types of fallacious reasoning that we have encountered in the course of researching our book, One God & One Lord. Though the systems of classifying fallacies vary from author to author, we find that there is general agreement among teachers of logic that fallacies come in two general forms: formal and informal. The "formal" fallacies revolve around the syllogism form, which involves a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. "Formally" fallacious logic involves some transgression of the proper form of syllogistic reasoning. "Informal" fallacies are those employed in everyday speech, and for the most part involve different ways of slanting or avoiding evidence en route to a conclusion.

Accent
The fallacy of accent is employed whenever an emphasis is placed on a written or spoken communication in a way that materially alters its original or intended meaning. To interpret any piece of literature logically, one must be sensitive to the context and original meaning intended by the author and not alter that meaning by misplaced emphasis. This misplaced emphasis can occur quite subtly. Without changing a word, a piece of written material can be made to say something entirely different from what was intended by the author. A common form of this fallacy is the altering of punctuation, which is particularly significant for biblical research because the original text of Scripture contained no punctuation marks.
For instance, the addition of a comma can dramatically alter the simple sentence, "God made man," (as in God created man) to "God, made man" (as in God became man). What a big difference!

Likewise, "Woman without her man would be lost" is a seemingly straightforward sentence, but watch how the meaning can be dramatically changed by the addition of a period and a comma: "Woman. Without her, man would be lost."

Luke 23:43 (NASB) says, "And he said to him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise,'" indicating that Jesus will be with the malefactor in Paradise later that same day. But if the comma is moved to the other side of "today," an entirely different emphasis results: "Truly I say to you today, you shall (in the future) be with me in Paradise." This is, in fact the correct rendering.

"Proof texting" is a common way that the fallacy of accent is employed. By isolating verses that appear to support a particular theological or doctrinal position, but by weighting them too heavily, contradictions are created with other verses on the same subject. For instance, with the exception of a few "proof texts," the idea that "Jesus is God" is not consistent with the New Testament when considered as a whole. Not a Christian theologian, but a professor of logic, made the following astute statement regarding what is required for the logical interpretation of the Bible:
Selecting texts to give a one-sided presentation of the truth is a widespread method of propagating erroneous views. Out of the Bible can be drawn phrases or verses that justify everything under the sun, including contradictories. Read in context, the Bible may be a liberal document, but it is not that liberal. What we need to know is if the Bible as a whole [emphasis ours] supports a given position.[1]

It is a well-established hermeneutical principle among biblical interpreters that the difficult verse or passage must be interpreted in light of the clear and simple parallel verses or passages. The difficult or unusual must not be elevated and established as an altogether higher and better view than the rest of Scripture, as has been done with the Gospel of John, for example. Because it apparently presents a Jesus most compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy, the Gospel of John is the one that is translated and distributed to potential converts more than any other. But has this been done honestly and logically, or by employing the fallacy of accent?


Footnotes
1. A.J. Moulds, Thinking Straighter (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975), p. 46.

hupernikao:


Good write up and display of hermeneutical prowess. Yet this fails in attending to the OP and the question raised.

It fails to address what it promised to address. That makes the write up a little poor and irrelevant to the topic of trinity.

AntiChristian:
Logical Fallacies Employed in Trinitarian Theology By Biblical Unitarian

Preface
"Logic," from the Greek word logos, is the science of correct reasoning, and provides tools for analyzing the form and content of arguments. Logic addresses the relationship of premises (or evidence) to conclusions, and helps us determine whether our reasoning is straight or crooked. That is, does our conclusion necessarily follow from the premises, or have we "jumped" to conclusions. The disciplines of logical reasoning are fast becoming a thing of the past, an artifact of a classical education. Feelings, emotions and rhetoric (persuasive speech) are most often the basis of what passes for "reasoning" today. But, if we are ever to "correctly handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), we are going to have to learn to think correctly.

One of the best ways to understand and apply the basics of logic is by becoming familiar with logical fallacies, that is, examples of faulty reasoning. What follows are the main types of fallacious reasoning that we have encountered in the course of researching our book, One God & One Lord. Though the systems of classifying fallacies vary from author to author, we find that there is general agreement among teachers of logic that fallacies come in two general forms: formal and informal. The "formal" fallacies revolve around the syllogism form, which involves a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. "Formally" fallacious logic involves some transgression of the proper form of syllogistic reasoning. "Informal" fallacies are those employed in everyday speech, and for the most part involve different ways of slanting or avoiding evidence en route to a conclusion.

Accent
The fallacy of accent is employed whenever an emphasis is placed on a written or spoken communication in a way that materially alters its original or intended meaning. To interpret any piece of literature logically, one must be sensitive to the context and original meaning intended by the author and not alter that meaning by misplaced emphasis. This misplaced emphasis can occur quite subtly. Without changing a word, a piece of written material can be made to say something entirely different from what was intended by the author. A common form of this fallacy is the altering of punctuation, which is particularly significant for biblical research because the original text of Scripture contained no punctuation marks.
For instance, the addition of a comma can dramatically alter the simple sentence, "God made man," (as in God created man) to "God, made man" (as in God became man). What a big difference!

Likewise, "Woman without her man would be lost" is a seemingly straightforward sentence, but watch how the meaning can be dramatically changed by the addition of a period and a comma: "Woman. Without her, man would be lost."

Luke 23:43 (NASB) says, "And he said to him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise,'" indicating that Jesus will be with the malefactor in Paradise later that same day. But if the comma is moved to the other side of "today," an entirely different emphasis results: "Truly I say to you today, you shall (in the future) be with me in Paradise." This is, in fact the correct rendering.

"Proof texting" is a common way that the fallacy of accent is employed. By isolating verses that appear to support a particular theological or doctrinal position, but by weighting them too heavily, contradictions are created with other verses on the same subject. For instance, with the exception of a few "proof texts," the idea that "Jesus is God" is not consistent with the New Testament when considered as a whole. Not a Christian theologian, but a professor of logic, made the following astute statement regarding what is required for the logical interpretation of the Bible:
Selecting texts to give a one-sided presentation of the truth is a widespread method of propagating erroneous views. Out of the Bible can be drawn phrases or verses that justify everything under the sun, including contradictories. Read in context, the Bible may be a liberal document, but it is not that liberal. What we need to know is if the Bible as a whole [emphasis ours] supports a given position.[1]

It is a well-established hermeneutical principle among biblical interpreters that the difficult verse or passage must be interpreted in light of the clear and simple parallel verses or passages. The difficult or unusual must not be elevated and established as an altogether higher and better view than the rest of Scripture, as has been done with the Gospel of John, for example. Because it apparently presents a Jesus most compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy, the Gospel of John is the one that is translated and distributed to potential converts more than any other. But has this been done honestly and logically, or by employing the fallacy of accent?

Continued here

Footnotes
1. A.J. Moulds, Thinking Straighter (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975), p. 46.

AntiChristian:


Continued here

TenQ:

Just some quick scientific questions
1. Can an electromagnetic wave have a mass?
2. Can particles produce interference on collision with each other?
3. Is wave-particle duality of matter a fallacy or a contradiction?

A truthful answer to the above lies your answer

AntiChristian:


How does this relate with the OP?

hupernikao:


I don't do serious Bible theological discussion by link sharing.

Are you speaking on what you have sound knowledge about or just link sharing and hear say.

Complete your hermeneutics on trinity here then we can discuss.

AntiChristian:


The link is domiciled on nairaland too.

I just don't want a long post at once hence I divided it in to three on nairaland.

hupernikao:


Present your own work, you are the defendant of the writer here, so do it well or just stop having to copy what you can't defend.

AntiChristian:


Did you ask a question that I didn't defend?

That's an example of a Straw man from the OP.

hupernikao:


Ask you question from incomplete explanation? Or false or incoherent write up you put up?

Don't derail your thread, you started with an intelligent but in complete hermeneutics. It's bad that you now portray yourself as copy and paste Master.

Conclude your hermeneutics, and then discussion can start. At it is now, there is nothing to discuss.

AntiChristian:




The post is completed in Parts 1, 2 and 3. And this is only 1.

If you can't read abeg leave me alone.

MightySparrow:
Antichristian is an antichrist. A form Al - Dajjal of Islamic eschatology.
His write - ups show more of ignorance than knowledge he intends to display. I advise him to stay on Islamic campaign by joining his brethren in Taliban or Boko Haram than making mockery of himself.

The other time I wrote about false claim of Ishmael over Jacob. He said all of the Bible writings are not trustworthy.
I put to you antichristian: give one verse from the Quran to support your claim. Just one verse that rejects the Torah and Injil even the writings of Paul. These were present in the time of prophethood of Mohammad (SAW)

AntiChristian:


In logic, you maintain the discussion and not divert or deflect. You started with an attack on me while not commenting on the OP at all.

This is a massive blunder from you. Retype your comment on the OP as i haven't done anything from what your biblical antichrist will do.

hupernikao:


I should read another man's work that you don't even know but submitted to me, and then come back and start arguing and discussing it with you? You aren't thinking what that means? Can't you write by yourself?

I think I will surely have to leave you alone as you advised.

MightySparrow:


The whole write - up does really make sense. No religion believer puts his / faith in logic. What if there are no personalities like Mohammad or Jesus? How would Mohammad have risen a horse to heaven. Where is heaven?
All religions believe in one mystery or the other.

Mysteries are not answerable to logical reasoning.

I still insist, give one verse of the Quran that condemns the Bible.
All your posts will begin to have meaning to me.

AntiChristian:


I don't think you'll ever learn. This is one stubborn attitude i so much dislike particularly from Christians who'll say they believe one holy spirit is guiding them. Where's the faith you profess in the holy spirit if you're error filled this way?

Create your thread so that you can control it. But no, you'll come to another thread and derail it to according to your whims!

MightySparrow:


You are not a Christian, you are just a senarist, whatever you type or want to get out of it, I am afraid, you cannot get. Become a Christian first, you will know how Christians think and reason. The same way I cannot make any sense in kissing a kaaba's black stone or store the effigy of Satan,( an imagery of never being seeing by any human including Mohammad (SAW) himself) whom you put in Mecca.

Leave logic to philosophers and trinity to Christians.

AntiChristian:


Yeah i am not a Christian and also not a scenarist as such! Why would anyone want to be a Christian? How do you think and reason when everything is just for you to accept in faith? Even your concept of Godship is dubious and we never reach your mode of worship.

I think you have nothing to type for or against the OP. You are already overwhelmed! Holy Spirit sef don leave you.

The concept of your Lordship should be logical!

MightySparrow:


What is your own concept for godship? If someone doesn't share your concept, is that a crime?

AntiChristian:


Open your thread and ask your questions.
Where did I throw a chain on your neck for you to accept anything?

Wake up from your delusions!

MightySparrow:



You are talking about logic. I think thinking things out. What is your concept of godship?

AntiChristian:


My concept of God is a Supreme being that is free of wants. He is one, indivisible into parts, without partners/sons in His rulership/dominion of anything....

MightySparrow:


Since Christian God has all you mentioned, it clearly shows we don't serve the same God. Allah =/= Yaweh.
Serve your Allah while I serve my own jehovah. Tell your people to stop killing those of us that don't share your own concept of godship.

AntiChristian:


Yeah I agree! My God no dey divisible in to three and yet is one! Sorry!
Please where are my people killing in Lagos na Lasgidi I dey?