Da champ is trying to make a comeback:
Let’s see how he does this time around:
“It appears that embarrassing Steve Hays (Trialblogue)…”
I don’t yield to emotional coercion.
“And his bad analogy was not enough to get him to go and compose a real argument against the papacy.”
i) I’ve composed many “real” arguments against the papacy.
ii) However, in this case I was responding to a popular argument for the papacy. If my counterargument is not a “real” argument, then that’s because the Catholic argument I was rebutting was not a real argument.
“He used an analogy of the Church being likened to a flock of birds or a school of fish, which could operate without a visible head.”
Actually, I didn’t compare the church to a flock of birds or school of fish. Rather, I compared the author’s analogies to another analogies.
“I responded to his first post, but now his feelings are hurt and he had to respond with a justification of his bad analogy.”
So da champ thinks that if you respond to someone, that’s cuz your feelings were hurt? By that yardstick, da champ is responding to me cuz his feelings were hurt. Should I send him a box of Kleenex?
“Yes, we know this from his bad analogy. We should all question whether he has ever even read the Scriptures.”
I agree with him that the Catholic author I cited uses bad analogies. I also agree with him that we should all question whether the Catholic author I cited has even ever read the Scriptures.
“Yes, we know that you came up with your bad analogy from the Discovery Channel. Try comparing apples to apples in your analogies.”
Fine. One apple doesn’t need another apple to lead it. How’s them apples?
“This fallacy is called the, 'Fallacious Comparison, or False Analogy.'”
Calling something a fallacy does not a fallacy make. You have to actually demonstrate that something is a fallacy.
“No it not sufficient. You can't appeal to something in which its very nature is different from human nature. Humans need leaders…”
Actually, Scripture admonishes the reader to emulate the spontaneous teamwork of the ant:
6 Go to the ant, O sluggard;
consider her ways, and be wise.
7 Without having any chief,
officer, or ruler,
8she prepares her bread in summer
and gathers her food in harvest.
“The natural argument for the papacy involves human beings, not birds or fish. Next time think before you pontificate.”
If the natural argument for the papacy involves human beings, then Christians don’t need a shepherd–since sheep aren’t human beings.
“Catholics understand that human beings need leadership.”
i) Of course, that bald statement generates an infinite regress. If human beings need leadership, then human leaders need other leaders. And the human leaders of the human leaders need other leaders, ad infinitum.
The only way to terminate the regress is to say that while human beings need leadership, they don’t necessarily need human leadership. But that undercuts the argument for the papacy.
ii) I’d add that if you regard leadership as a mark of the true church, then the absence of leadership is a mark of a false church. So if you apply Jn 21:15-17 to the papacy, then why didn’t the pope protect the lambs from wolfish sodomites in the priesthood?
“We don't really care how birds are able to navigate from one place to another. Next time use comparable analogies instead of comparing human beings to birds and fish.”
I guess Jesus didn’t get the memo:
19And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
16 "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
47"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. 48When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad.
37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!