<< Hays has chimed in, completely missing the point, as usual. This guy is amazingly obtuse, or else he is purposely provocative (probably a little of both).
Pray for him. Someone who has to continually rely on lies about other belief-systems in his apologetic. >>
I challenge Armstrong to document my “lies” about other belief-systems. Let’s see if he has the guts to back up his charge.
<< not to mention, pejorative terminology. >>
<< Undaunted by either common courtesy >>
In this thread alone, here are a few choice examples of Armstrong’s customary courtesy:
“Asinine ,” “downright idiotic,” “amazingly obtuse.”
Sounds pretty pejorative to me.
Why does Armstrong resort to pejorative usage if he disapproves of it himself?
<< The fallacies in Hays' pseudo-linguistic defense are obvious (I wouldn't even trouble myself to point them out, except for the fact that he doesn't get it) >>
Translation: whenever Armstrong is beaten at his own game, he changes the rules or moves the goal-post.
<< If the Bible is to Protestantism what the pope is to Catholicism (infallible authority), then if Catholicism is "popish", Protestantism must be "Biblish," right? But of course no one uses such an idiotic title. It's left to our anti-Catholic Protestrant brethren to come up with "Popish."
If following the pope as an authority is "popery", then following the Bible as an authority (i.e., within the sola Scriptura paradigm, etc. -- Catholics, too, accept the Bible as an inspired authority) must be "Biblery." >>
Once again, Armstrong is struggling with rudimentary English grammar. We already have linguistic forms to express these relations:
It’s simply that in forming adjectives from nouns, different sorts of words take different suffixes.
<< Baptists believe in the authority of local congregations only (strictly speaking). So again, if Catholicism amounts to "popery" and "popish" religion, then congregationalism must be "elderish" or "pastorish" or "elder-ery" or "pastor-ery" religion. If one is a Presbyterian, by this "logic" they are both "Biblish" and "presbyterish" or practice a faith which should be called "Presbyter-ery" or "Presbyterish Christianity".
Hey, Lutherans refer to themselves by use of their founder's name. So it stands to reason that they ought to also legitimately be called "Lutherish" or "Luther-ery" or "Lutherist" or "Lutheranist".
This is not about “logic,” this is about linguistic conventions for forming adjectives from nouns. Another word-group is formed from the “-an” suffix, viz., Anglican, Arian, Aristotelian, Augustinian, Bavarian, Calvinian, Colossian, Corinthian, Darwinian, Dominican, Ephesian, Franciscan, Gregorian, Iranian, latitudinarian, Marian, millenarian, Mohammaedan, Philippian, predestinarian, Roman, Sabbatarian, Sabellian, seminarian, supralapsarian, Thessalonian, Trinitarian, ubiquitarian, Unitarian, &c.
I didn’t invent the English language. English grammar doesn’t follow the laws of logic. This is simply a matter of historical usage, with its own sociolinguistic principles of morphology.
Words like “Romanist,” “popery,” and “papist,” as well as variations thereon, represent established historical English usage, with exactly the same etymological pedigree as other proper adjectives formed from proper nouns, including place names and proper names, according to whichever suffix linguistic convention assigns to the morphology of that particular word-group.
It's time to come out of the jungle, Dave. We won, Japan lost.